Prepared for: 11/23/2020 Document dates - City of Palo Alto

701-32

DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:

LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL

RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS

ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES

ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES

Prepared for: 11/23/2020 Document dates: 11/4/2020 – 11/11/2020

Set 1

Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet

reproduction in a given week.

1

Baumb, Nelly

From: Kat Wortham <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11:03 AMTo: Council, City; Clerk, City; City MgrCc: Vince RochaSubject: SVLG Support Letter: 788 San Antonio RoadAttachments: SVLG Support Letter, 788 San Antonio.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Honorable Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka, On behalf of the 350 member companies of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I would like to express our support for the 788 San Antonio development as proposed by 788 SAPA Land LLC. Please find attached our letter of support. If you have any questions about our letter please do not hesitate to reach out to myself or my colleague Vince Rocha, Snr. Director of Housing & Community Development (copied), with your questions. Thank you for your service. Warm regards, Kat ‐‐ Kat Wortham Senior Associate, Health & Housing Policy O: 408.501.7854 | C: 209.323.0525 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook Silicon Valley: Better Together

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

November 11, 2020

Mayor Adrian Fine and Honorable Councilmembers

Palo Alto City Hall

250 Hamilton Avenue,

Palo Alto, CA 94301

RE: Support for 788 San Antonio, 788-796 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto

Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Honorable Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth,

Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,

On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, we express our support for the 788 San

Antonio development proposed by the 788 SAPA Land, LLC. We are excited by the

opportunity to bring new homes at a variety of income levels to the city of Palo Alto.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group was founded in 1978 by David Packard, Co-Founder

of Hewlett Packard. Today, the Leadership Group is driven by more than 350 CEOs/Senior

Executives to proactively tackle issues to improve our communities and strengthen our

economy, with a focus on education, energy, the environment, health care, housing, tax

policy, tech & innovation policy, and transportation. Collectively, Leadership Group

members provide nearly one out of every three private sector jobs in Silicon Valley. One of

the top concerns of the members we represent in the Silicon Valley is a need for high

quality and affordable housing here in the Bay Area.

The housing shortage in our region deeply threatens the longevity of our innovation

economy. It is prudent to construct more homes in cities like Palo Alto that are

economically diverse and boast a large number of jobs already within the city limits. The

Silicon Valley Leadership Group sees this proposal, with 102 homes proposed, as an

opportunity to do just that. The location is within a mile of Caltrain and near multiple VTA

bus lines, connecting future residents with downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, and

multiple job centers around the region.

Further, this development proposal provides an opportunity for the City of Palo Alto to

provide 16 below market-rate homes. The inclusion of on-site affordable homes will help

Palo Alto to reach its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals as well as provide

much needed homes for those who make under the area median income of $157,120 a

year.

We applaud Palo Alto doing its part to provide much needed homes to alleviate the

housing crisis for our region’s families and workers. We look forward to seeing this

development move forward.

Sincerely,

Kat Wortham

Senior Associate, Housing & Health Policy

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, California 95110

(408)501-7864 svlg.org

CARL GUARDINO President & CEO

Board Officers:

STEVE MILLIGAN, Chair Western Digital Corporation

JAMES GUTIERREZ, Vice Chair Insikt

RAQUEL GONZALEZ, Treasurer Bank of America

GREG BECKER, Former Chair SVB Financial Group

STEVE BERGLUND, Former Chair Trimble Inc.

AART DE GEUS, Former Chair Synopsys

TOM WERNER, Former Chair SunPower

Board Members:

BOBBY BELL KLA-Tencor

DAWNET BEVERLEY Donnelley Financial Solutions

GEORGE BLUMENTHAL University of California, Santa Cruz

JOHN BOLAND KQED

CARLA BORAGNO Genentech

CHRIS BOYD Kaiser Permanente

JOE BURTON Plantronics

RAMI BRANITZKY Sapphire Ventures

GARY BRIGGS Facebook

KEVIN COLLINS Accenture

LISA DANIELS KPMG

CHRISTOPHER DAWES Lucile Packard

Children’s Hospital Stanford JENNY DEARBORN

SAP MICHAEL ENGH, S.J. Santa Clara University

TOM FALLON Infinera

JOHN GAUDER Comcast

KEN GOLDMAN Hillspire

DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Martin

LAURA GUIO IBM

STEFAN HECK Nauto

ERIC HOUSER Wells Fargo Bank AIDAN HUGHES

ARUP JEFFREY JOHNSON

San Francisco Chronicle TOM KEMP

Centrify AARIF KHAKOO

AMGEN ERIC KUTCHER

McKinsey & Company JOHN LEDEK

BD Biosciences ENRIQUE LORES

HP Inc. MATT MAHAN

Brigade TARKAN MANER

Nexenta KEN MCNEELY

AT&T BEN MINICUCCI

Alaska Airlines KEVIN MURAI

Synnex MARY PAPAZIAN

San Jose State University JES PEDERSEN Webcor Builders ANDY PIERCE

Stryker Endoscopy KIM POLESE

ClearStreet RYAN POPPLE

Proterra RUDY REYES

Verizon BILL RUH

GE SHARON RYAN

Bay Area News Group RON SEGE

Echelon DARREN SNELLGROVE

Johnson & Johnson JEFF THOMAS

Nasdaq JED YORK

San Francisco 49ers

Established in 1978 by David Packard

2

Baumb, Nelly

From: Bay Area Italian Events <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:54 AMTo: Bay Area Italian EventsSubject: Press Release - Virtual tour of Tuscany Attachments: Press Release Virtual Tour Pienza.pdf; Pienza.jpg


Bay Area Italian Events presents “A Day in Pienza”, a virtual tour of Tuscany San Jose, November 11th 2020: Bay Area Italian Events, in partnership with Tuscan Travel Group LLC, present “Tuscany Virtual Tour ‐ A Day in Pienza”.

This Sunday, November 15th, from 8 to 9.30am PDT (5‐6.30pm Italian time) we will virtually travel to Pienza, aRenaissance town surrounded by the Tuscan hills of Val d'Orcia included by UNESCO among the World HeritageSites. During this trip on Zoom, we'll walk through the old town with our professional guide Ilaria Bichi Ruspoli, visitthe main square, Piazza Pio II, and some of the must‐see artisan shops: Marusco e Maria, a family‐ownedcheese shop famous for its traditional pecorino cheese, Ceramiche d'Arte with the ceramic pieces of art by LindaBai, and Ferro Battuto Biagiotti, the wrought iron atelier by the Biagiotti family. We will also virtually tour the historic and stylish hotel La Bandita Townhouse with the owner and generalmanager John Voigtmann’s and watch live an astonishing sunset over the valley.

The event is free and registrations are still open on: https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/events/tuscany‐virtual‐tour‐a‐day‐in‐pienza

Not being able to physically travel to Italy this year doesn't prevent us from doing it virtually! Bay Area Italian Events is an Italian female startup committed to organizing the most authentic events in the Bay Area, promoting Italian culture and Italian food: http://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/

3

Tuscan Travel Group is a travel company based in Portola Valley (CA). Founded by Brandy Stroh and Laura Kavanaugh, the company is focused on custom‐design Tuscan experiences that include luxury villa rentals, large group accommodations for weddings and other special events, itinerary planning, and much more. Contact us: E‐MAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/bayareaitalianevent INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/bayareaitalianevents/

Carlotta Addante Events Coordinator

M (669) 2780978 E [email protected] Website www.bayareaitalianevents.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/bayareaitalianevents Instagram: @bayareaitalianevents

Bay Area Italian Events presents “A Day in Pienza”, a virtual tour of Tuscany San Jose, November 11th: Bay Area Italian Events, in partnership with Tuscan Travel Group LLC, present “Tuscany Virtual Tour - A Day in Pienza”. This Sunday, November 15th, from 8 to 9.30am PDT (5-6.30pm Italian time) we will virtually travel to Pienza, a Renaissance town surrounded by the Tuscan hills of Val d'Orcia included by UNESCO among the World Heritage Sites. During this trip on Zoom, we'll walk through the old town with our professional guide Ilaria Bichi Ruspoli, visit the main square, Piazza Pio II, and some of the must-see artisan shops: Marusco e Maria, a family-owned cheese shop famous for its traditional pecorino cheese, Ceramiche d'Arte with the ceramic pieces of art by Linda Bai, and Ferro Battuto Biagiotti, the wrought iron atelier by the Biagiotti family. We will also virtually tour the historic and stylish hotel La Bandita Townhouse with the owner and general manager John Voigtmann’s and watch live an astonishing sunset over the valley. The event is free and registrations are still open on:

https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/events/tuscany-virtual-tour-a-day-in-pienza

Not being able to physically travel to Italy this year doesn't prevent us from doing it virtually! Bay Area Italian Events is an Italian female startup committed to organizing the most authentic events in the Bay Area, promoting Italian culture and Italian food: http://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/ Tuscan Travel Group is a travel company based in Portola Valley (CA). Founded by Brandy Stroh and Laura

Kavanaugh, the company is focused on custom-design Tuscan experiences that include luxury villa rentals,

large group accommodations for weddings and other special events, itinerary planning, and much more.

Contact us:

E-MAIL: [email protected]

WEBSITE: https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/

FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/bayareaitalianevent

INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/bayareaitalianevents/

https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/events/tuscany-virtual-tour-a-day-in-pienza

http://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/?fbclid=IwAR2fG6yFp8xSNxkVLhRbj2TxWEmyujkCfpWGprhx-iqqjOd3P92TeCJsRAs

https://tuscantravel.com/

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.bayareaitalianevents.com/

https://www.facebook.com/bayareaitalianevent

https://www.instagram.com/bayareaitalianevents/

4

Baumb, Nelly

From: Ingrid Mallory <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:16 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: RE: Road Rage November 7, 2020 8:30 am - Alma Street by Greenmeadow Neighborhood


Dear City Council Members:

On Saturday morning about 8:30 am on Alma Street heading toward Mountain View, my husband and I were victims of a road rage incident. We were hit five times from behind by a very large white Diesel Pickup truck with a chrome grill and were pushed about a 150 feet almost up the San Antonio on ramps. Our crime going 35 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour zone in the slow lane with no other cars around. It all happened very fast and we were unable to get a license plate number, we gave a description of the truck to the 911 operator and the Mountain View officer who showed up told us there was a description of the truck out, but guess what no cameras, no one will be caught. We were in Palo Alto and eventually the police showed up. The Officer made the assumption I was driving, no I was not. It was the attitude I did not appreciate. I’m sorry I’m in Palo Alto I guess I’m hoping no one wants to kill me, but I guess that’s wrong and the attitude that this person who was driving the truck will never be caught, but he will still be out there terrorizing people and no one cares.

I am grateful to the two Palo Alto employees who happened to be going by and decided to help, they blocked the lane and tried to offer some protection.

There is a synagogue right where part of the assault/road rage incident occurred it never occurred to your officer to call. The synagogue called and they were unable to see anything in there security there camera is not pointed in the right direction at least they looked and they cared. At least they tried image my surprise when I was told the cameras at the Alma and Charleston don’t work, in fact none of the traffic cameras in our fair city do not work. Thank you so much for all that you don’t do for the citizens of this city. Let’s see did you tell anyone that those cameras do not work, no. Maybe you should that way we know we are on own as residents of the city.

The man who did this is a coward, he tried to kill us and drove away. I fear what he might do to other people his being on the road. I guess I am still trying to process this and I feel my city has let me down. I never see any police patrolling Alma my guess they have been told not to. I guess we don’t give out tickets to people who speed, run through red lights and try to kill people. I see it all the time and I see no one doing anything.

You are asking why I am e-mailing you I guess I wanted you to know that two of the citizens from your city could have been killed on Saturday, since that was actually his intent as he kept hitting our car. I guess your police response was lacking and I wanted you to know that. I don’t completely blame the police, I mean let’s face no one wants to know that our city does not care about its citizen’s. I guess we should just have white large pickup trucks driving down Alma attacking cars with no police intervene. I mean maybe this person can kill someone maybe then he will get the attention he deserves.

Sincerely,

5

Ingrid Mallory

Resident of Palo Alto

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

To help protect you r privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented au tomatic download of this pictu re from the Internet.Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

6

Baumb, Nelly

From: Cherrill Spencer <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:45 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Attention: Policy & Services Committee. Here is text of my remarks to the 10 Nov mtg of P&SeeAttachments: SpencerRemarksToPolicy&ServicesComm10Nov2020.docx


Dear Policy and Services Committee Here is what I said to your committee this evening at your 10th November meeting, regarding agenda item #2: Discussion and Recommendations Regarding the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as a Component of Citywide Diversity and Inclusion Efforts. (My remarks are also attached as a WORD file). &&&

REMARKS TO POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING ON 10 NOVEMBER 2020

I am Cherrill Spencer, a member of the Palo Alto branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), and of the coalition called Cities for CEDAW. Our coalition is glad to read the staff status report your committee is discussing tonight and urge you to accept it.

We see the three recommendations the City Manager is proposing to the whole City Council and heartily agree with them as parts of a process to bring the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to bear in the City of Palo Alto.

There are several organizations in our Cities for CEDAW coalition and we stand ready to help you design and organize the community summit described in item 1. We urge that this be an open to all summit, not a by invitation only meeting. I will provide to your appropriate City staff some names and email addresses of experts who can help you (at no cost) organize the summit.

We are glad to read that city staff are following the CEDAW work of various cities and our county, those CEDAW committees have lots of expertise in how to make cities more gender equal in all aspects of life, not just in the city’s workforce. Nevertheless we support the second recommendation which will create some baseline data on the city’s workforce which we hope will include pay rates and actual salaries, although we realize pay data should not be identifiable to particular workers.

Including the issue of gender equity in the City’s ongoing Diversity and Inclusion Initiative is a fine idea which we hope will happen.

In the report it says ” prior Human Rights Commission Committee work has included studies of gender and related discrimination in Palo Alto." I am not aware of these studies and as the HRC has said it will not be working on CEDAW I think it would be useful for staff to distribute any reports they have on these past HRC studies.

Thank-you Councilors for your continuing attention to this important issue.

7

Cherrill Spencer, Palo Alto resident, Barron Park. P.S. WILPF draws particular attention to the issue of affordable housing and low-income housing in Palo Alto, which impacts women strongly; we wish that topics to be covered by the community summit include truly affordable and low-income housing. &&&&

Yours sincerely Cherrill Spencer

REMARKS TO POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING ON 10 NOVEMBER 2020

I am Cherrill Spencer, a member of the Palo Alto branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), and of the coalition called Cities for CEDAW. Our coalition is glad to read the staff status report your committee is discussing tonight and urge you to accept it.

We see the three recommendations the City Manager is proposing to the whole City Council and heartily agree with them as parts of a process to bring the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to bear in the City of Palo Alto.

There are several organizations in our Cities for CEDAW coalition and we stand ready to help you design and organize the community summit described in item 1. We urge that this be an open to all summit, not a by invitation only meeting. I will provide to your appropriate City staff some names and email addresses of experts who can help you (at no cost) organize the summit.

We are glad to read that city staff are following the CEDAW work of various cities and our county, those CEDAW committees have lots of expertise in how to make cities more gender equal in all aspects of life, not just in the city’s workforce. Nevertheless we support the second recommendation which will create some baseline data on the city’s workforce which we hope will include pay rates and actual salaries, although we realize pay data should not be identifiable to particular workers.

Including the issue of gender equity in the City’s ongoing Diversity and Inclusion Initiative is a fine idea which we hope will happen.

In the report it says ” prior Human Rights Commission Committee work has included studies of gender and related discrimination in Palo Alto." I am not aware of these studies and as the HRC has said it will not be working on CEDAW I think it would be useful for staff to distribute any reports they have on these past HRC studies.

Thank-you Councilors for your continuing attention to this important issue.

Cherrill Spencer, Palo Alto resident, Barron Park. P.S. WILPF draws particular attention to the issue of affordable housing and low-income housing in Palo Alto, which impacts women strongly; we wish that topics to be covered by the community summit include truly affordable and low-income housing.

8

Baumb, Nelly

From: Helen Young <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:55 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Policy and Services Committee


I would like to attend the zoom meeting of the Policy and Services Committee tonight and speak before the item on the agenda tonight dealing with CEDAW is discussed. I am enclosing my remarks. Thank you. Helen Young Remarks:

My name is Helen Young. I am a long time resident of Palo Alto and a member of the UNA-USA (United Nations Association), AAUW (Association of American University Women) and WIN (Women’s Intercultural Network) and of the Palo Alto Coalition of Cities for CEDAW.

I urge City Council members and City staff, as you begin the first steps for implementing the long-overdue gender equity plan for Palo Alto to always think about the gender implications of your city decisions, especially those related to the budget. I encourage you to read widely about how other cities have implemented the principles of CEDAW, learn what steps they have taken to ensure gender equity in their cities and think deeply about what Palo Alto can do to move beyond the negative gender image of Silicon Valley. A first step might be to read the article, “Integrating Gender into Government Budgets: A New Perspective” by Marilyn Marks Rubin and John R. Bartle, which is available on the web. And please consider asking for help from a women’s center in a nearby university or college. The Clayman Institute at Stanford is a good place to begin. They have done some remarkable work with helping Silicon Vally companies recognize gender bias and alleviate it.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Helen P Young

9

3387 Kipling Street

Palo Alto, CA 94306

650-493-6541

650-380-4923

[email protected]

Get Outlook for iOS

10

Baumb, Nelly

From: Filseth, Eric (Internal)Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:09 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: RE: Hang-Tag Permits Redux

Sorry, did not mean to cc Council on this.

From: Filseth, Eric (Internal) Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:08 PM To: Baird, Nathan <[email protected]>; Hur, Mark <[email protected]>; Kamhi, Philip <[email protected]> Cc: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: Hang‐Tag Permits Redux I keep getting these “discontinuing hang tag” emails too … I assume that’s not correct because I asked it awhile ago. So any idea why this meme is floating around? Eric

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:35 PM To: Baird, Nathan <[email protected]>; Hur, Mark <[email protected]> Cc: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: Keep physical visitor hang tags in RPP zones Importance: High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

November 10, 2020 Dear Mr. Hur, Mr. Baird and city council members: I concur with other letters I have seen: the Palo Alto RPP should retain the physical hangtags for visitor parking, both for long-term and daily parking.

11

The online system to order hangtags is simple enough (although it has a few glitches). One the hangtags are obtained, using them is the simplest way for residents to enable visitors to park, as well as being very flexible, with almost no points of failure. From what I understand, a digital system would require the resident to log in every day to initiate or renew a single-day visitor parking permit for a particular vehicle. This would be more complex - logging in, going through online forms, etc. would take some minutes, compared with literally seconds to hand someone a hangtag. This also would introduce multiple possible points of failure: 1) computer or network glitches on the resident's or city's side; 2) mistyping a license plate number; 3) simply forgetting to do this every evening or morning for a multi-day visitor; and 4) the permit information getting being recorded in time for the parking monitor to access it. Also, some residents might not have computer access or computer knowledge - with the help of friends or family members, this can be overcome once a year, but not daily. I was unable to determine exactly what problem was intended to be solved by changing from hangtags to daily digital online requests. I was able to pretty quickly find residents' letters at the city website, but not the staff recommendation that led to the discussion that led to the letters. So far, I see little benefit for this much more complex approach. Often, the simplest procedure is best. That is the situation in this case - a hangtag system is simple and nearly failure-proof. A daily online digital request system has many points where it could fail. Keep the simple system. Mike Forster Senior Manager, System & Software Engineering (retired) Systems Procedures IT Consultant (retired) Evergreen Park, Palo Alto 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425

12

Baumb, Nelly

From: cathy williams <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2:49 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Support Castilleja plan


Dear City Council: I am a neighbor on Bryant Street who wants to support Castilleja. Castilleja is a thoughtful and considerate neighbor. I appreciate their success in reducing traffic by up to 31% so far. As other people have noticed, no one else in Palo Alto has been able to achieve these results. I also appreciate how much Castilleja has worked to gather and listen to neighbor and community input. With over 50 meetings and eight years of revising the proposal, they now have a project that is better than the one they started with. The underground parking, which was added to the project in response to neighbor feedback, is now as small as it can be and still meet city parking requirements. This change has saved trees and homes. It also moves cars below ground, which I appreciate. I am impressed with the significant compromises Castilleja has made in response to neighbors, including:

Changes to the building on Kellogg to reduce the massing Preserving trees and increasing the number of trees overall Protecting two homes Reducing the number of events Reducing the number of deliveries and moving them below grade Building a sound wall around the pool Making sure drops off mirror current patterns Ensuring and increasing safety along the Bike Boulevard Reducing the above-ground square footage Adding gentle landscaping and increased setbacks

Honestly, the list goes on and on. Castilleja has improved this project in all areas, and the new campus will be more beautiful, more suited to the neighborhood and more environmentally sound. I realize there are a few very vocal neighbors who oppose this project, even after these significant improvements. It is beginning to seem that no matter what, they will never be satisfied unless Castilleja vacates Palo Alto. How sad and disappointing that would be for our city to allow these few voices to drive away an excellent school and a thoughtful neighbor. Please listen to the supporting voices too and approve this reasonable plan. Thank you. Cathy Williams

13

Baumb, Nelly

From: Baird, NathanSent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2:18 PMTo: Susan C; Hur, MarkCc: Council, CitySubject: RE: Keep physical long-term hang tags in RPP zones

Hello Susan C, Thank you for contacting us about possible changes to the RPP program. An online permit portal has been rolled out in the College Terrace and Crescent Park districts, and is planned for the remaining districts for the next sales cycle in the Spring. You are correct that this will involve a change to how guest permits work. We certainly take note of how useful the physical guest hang tags have been for you. We will investigate whether there are any ways to replicate, match, or better that experience. There will be additional opportunities for feedback in the near future, but we also appreciate your sending us an email. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking Manager

From: Susan C <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:40 PM To: Baird, Nathan <[email protected]>; Hur, Mark <[email protected]> Cc: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: Keep physical long‐term hang tags in RPP zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mr. Hur, Mr. Baird and city council members,

I am a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood. I join what I believe is the majority of affected residents of all RPP

neighborhoods in asking that Palo Alto retain a system of physical, transferable, visitor hang tags in areas that are part of

the Residential Parking Permit program.

Requiring a daily digital permit purchase for visitors will be time‐consuming, potentially very expensive, intrusive (if

specific vehicle information must be entered), and prone to forgetfulness and error. It will also be very burdensome to

those who have no easy way to go online and if required, to print a permit. In short, there are no benefits to the primary

stakeholders – the residents at whose request the RPP was originally established.

Purchasing an annual or semi‐annual hang tag, as we have been doing, gives residents the flexibility to provide

temporary parking access to guests and contractors on an as‐needed basis in a way that is convenient and non‐intrusive.

This being the case, it was troubling to read from Mr. Hur’s correspondence with one neighbor that “regulations have

been finalized” and that “the new permitting system's transition comes at the request of many stakeholders.” It’s not

clear what is meant by “many stakeholders,” but decisions that affect all residents should not be in the hands of an

activist few. The main stakeholders, residents of the affected neighborhoods, were not consulted or canvassed in any

meaningful way prior to the making of this premature decision.

14

Again I ask the Office of Transportation, and if necessary to city council, to reverse this decision and retain the system of

long‐term, transferable hang tags for guest parking in RPP areas.

Sincerely,

Susan Cole

420 Stanford Avenue

,

15

Baumb, Nelly

From: Susan C <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:40 PMTo: Baird, Nathan; Hur, MarkCc: Council, CitySubject: Keep physical long-term hang tags in RPP zones


Dear Mr. Hur, Mr. Baird and city council members,

I am a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood. I join what I believe is the majority of affected residents of all RPP

neighborhoods in asking that Palo Alto retain a system of physical, transferable, visitor hang tags in areas that are part of

the Residential Parking Permit program.

Requiring a daily digital permit purchase for visitors will be time‐consuming, potentially very expensive, intrusive (if

specific vehicle information must be entered), and prone to forgetfulness and error. It will also be very burdensome to

those who have no easy way to go online and if required, to print a permit. In short, there are no benefits to the primary

stakeholders – the residents at whose request the RPP was originally established.

Purchasing an annual or semi‐annual hang tag, as we have been doing, gives residents the flexibility to provide

temporary parking access to guests and contractors on an as‐needed basis in a way that is convenient and non‐intrusive.

This being the case, it was troubling to read from Mr. Hur’s correspondence with one neighbor that “regulations have

been finalized” and that “the new permitting system's transition comes at the request of many stakeholders.” It’s not

clear what is meant by “many stakeholders,” but decisions that affect all residents should not be in the hands of an

activist few. The main stakeholders, residents of the affected neighborhoods, were not consulted or canvassed in any

meaningful way prior to the making of this premature decision.

Again I ask the Office of Transportation, and if necessary to city council, to reverse this decision and retain the system of

long‐term, transferable hang tags for guest parking in RPP areas.

Sincerely,

Susan Cole

420 Stanford Avenue

,

16

Baumb, Nelly

From: Tom Kemp <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:37 PMTo: Council, City; Planning CommissionSubject: Letter in support of Castilleja project


Hi Councilmembers of the City and the PTC -- I am a 20+ year resident of / voter in Palo Alto who supports preserving neighborhoods. I also support healthy schools as an essential element in healthy neighborhoods. I first and foremost want to express my support for the Castilleja project. They have jumped through every hoop over the last 8 years and have provided a world-class plan that met the requirements of the city's ARB. As you know otherPalo Alto schools, businesses, churches, etc. have been able to enhance their facilities, and I am not sure why Castilleja should not be afforded the same opportunity in light of the massive amount of effort to address community concerns. I also want to discuss exaggeration and misrepresentation I hear about events at Castilleja. Under its Conditional Use Permit Castilleja may hold five large events each year, far fewer than many neighborhood schools host. Since neighbors have voiced concerns, Castilleja has been scaling back. Many residents of Palo Alto ask why Castilleja does not open its facilities to the public. As a former board member of the Palo Alto Girls Softball (PAGS) and softball coach of Palo Alto girls fastpitch teams for 8 years, I would have loved to be able to use the Castilleja softball field, but it is not available. This is because the terms of the Conditional Use Permit do not allow it. I’m sure the school would want to find a way to invite neighbors to hear speakers or attend open forums if their CUP allowed it. Meanwhile, the word “event” is a misnomer for most of the activity that takes place on campus. These aren’t events, they are just meetings with counselors or teachers or class deans. These are named and counted as events—and they are cited by some neighbors as excessive—but really they are just the regular programming of a school. Truthfully many of these meetings include fewer than 10 people, the equivalent of PTA sub committees. Not something that could accurately be called an “event” at all. In the end, these PTA meetings have been quietly taking place on this campus for generations and should be allowed to continue to do so. This activity does not harm a residential neighborhood. It strengthens it. I urge you to vote in support of the Castilleja project. Yours truly Tom Kemp Resident of Midtown Palo Alto

17

Baumb, Nelly

From: Pc User <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:22 AMTo: [email protected]: TRAITOROUS POS's

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ To those KOMMIEKRATS who partook in the massive vote fraud. We will hunt you down, give you your fair trial, and if and when you are found guilty, you will be given a proper tar & feathering, and then a rail ride down to the hanging tree. This ain't over yet and we are not going to align and "heal" with crooks like you. Everything will be videotaped and broadcast worldwide so that the world will see what happens to scum who attempt to defraud the American public. Hurry Up And Drop Dead, Because You Will Be Wishing You Would.

18

Baumb, Nelly

From: Hamilton Hitchings <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:26 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Today's Agenda Item 12 Input


Dear Council, The Cal Ave garage was designed to offset the parking that will be lost by the new public safety building, pull employee parking out of the residential neighborhoods and add area parking capacity to support local retail and restaurants. Thus the plan to move RPP permits to the garage is great. However, the proposal to use 200 of the spots for in-lieu of parking sounds potentially problematic. As long as it was for moving from one type of retail to another, e.g. from a store to restaurant, ice cream shop, etc… that would be fine, but for moving to office, even customer serving medical, law, real-estate or tax offices would be very counter productive. Hamilton Hitchings

19

Baumb, Nelly

From: leConge Ziesenhenne, MoniqueSent: Monday, November 9, 2020 9:03 PMTo: chuck jagoda; Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; [email protected]; Aram James;

Roberta Ahlquist; Cherrill Spencer; Gail Thompson; Blanca Bosquez; Gregorio, Rose; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Charisse Domingo; Eileen Richardson - DST

Subject: Re: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Confirmation

Hello, Chuck Jagoda, Thank you for your comments. They will be relayed to the Policy and Services Committee. The Policy & Services Committee meets on Tuesday, Nov. 10, 7 pm. Please join the meeting tomorrow. Sincerely,

MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, PhD Assistant City Manager

(650) 329‐2403 | [email protected] www.cityofpaloalto.org

From: chuck jagoda <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:58 PM To: Council, City <[email protected]>; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Aram James <[email protected]>; Roberta Ahlquist <[email protected]>; Cherrill Spencer <[email protected]>; Gail Thompson <[email protected]>; Blanca Bosquez <[email protected]>; Gregorio, Rose <[email protected]>; Silicon Valley De‐Bug <[email protected]>; Charisse Domingo <[email protected]>; Eileen Richardson ‐ DST <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Confirmation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Tonight (11/9/20 7 p.m.) you held a meeting of the P&S Committee about the CEDAW proposition that you treat like molten metal. I tried and tried but Zoom wouldn't let me in to the meeting.

20

So I'll just write you my thoughts. Forgive me, maybe I just don't spend enough time with municipal documents and proposals but a few things seem very "off" to me. Reading the five page report I'd never get any idea that CEDAW has as at least PART of its history-- an effort to end one of the oldest injustices practiced by humans EVER. I refer, of course, to the lack of restriction on the boundaries of female beatings. I don't mean beatings BY females, I mean beatings OF females. For as long as humans have existed there have been few if any restrictions on a man's unbridled right to hit, punish, torture women. There have been cases where men have killed women, raped women, and certainly beaten women-- with total impunity, especially if she were his chattel, wife, or property or all three. The purpose a lot of the backers of CEDAW got involved with it was to stop this long, long standing right of men. The five page document gives no hint of that history. Nor do any of the long list of procrastinations, past and proposed--- and a monument to procrastination that document is-- in any way suggest to me anything other than putting it off. In all the Byzantine buzz words: job of this committee but not now, job of that study group, more study needed-- one gets the picture. You can't say, "No man is allowed to beat any woman," without Stanford and the school district and outside evaluators and LOTS more time? It seems to me the report builds a perfect interlocking system, especially when it puts in the parts about "within available budgetary limitations." So, you all have put this off (rather obviously and clumsily) for four years. Each time it's come up, it was only to be put off with unanimous votes. I think the better word would be "pusillanimous" votes. Reading over the five page report of the four year can kicking and buck passing shouts loudly to me that you all DON'T want to do ANYthing about CEDAW except put it off and avoid any discussion of one of the main points of it: stopping the wanton beating of women. The idea would be to make beating women LESS likely than white men's obviously innate right to shoot unarmed Blacks with impunity, not an imitation of it. Female Lives Matter. Get busy or admit you favor the status quo and let's just move on to something you DO feel like making an improvement on and declare your dedication to the status quo: men can beat women, whenever, wherever, with impunity. Chuck Jagoda Anti-violence advocate On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:00 PM City Clerk <no‐[email protected]> wrote:

21

Hi Chuck Jagoda, Thank you for registering for "Policy and Services Committee Meeting". Please submit any questions to: [email protected] Date Time: Nov 10, 2020 07:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Every month on the Second Tue, 2 occurrence(s) Nov 10, 2020 07:00 PM Dec 8, 2020 07:00 PM Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system. Monthly: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/webinar/tJArduGvqj8sGNXdFGi‐5xdaGVX7wwOS7ddk/ics?user_id=FmfekYKJRhWS0VMZEegcNw Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Click Here to Join Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or iPhone one‐tap : US: +16699006833,,94618744621# or +13462487799,,94618744621# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 946 1874 4621 International numbers available: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/u/aCl2ueVgq You can cancel your registration at any time.

‐‐ Chuck

22

Baumb, Nelly

From: Barbara Gross <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:10 PMTo: City ClerkCc: Council, City; City MgrSubject: Re: City Council Meeting Confirmation


The audio of this meeting was poor with overlapping conversations ‐ I support staff proposals ‐ we need to evolve our retail with the economy and times. Staff should be directed to back with an expanded list of uses that will preserve out retail environment. I have been engaged and invested in downtown vitality as an essential aspect of our economy ‐ our overlapping interests of hospitality and retail support services is the basis of our vitality. People must not be scared of the future ‐ anchoring of the past is not smart. University Ave. must be re‐opened to threw traffic as a way back to normalcy . Thank you, Barbara Gross

On Nov 9, 2020, at 7:44 PM, City Clerk <no‐[email protected]> wrote:

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InWebinar b

Hi Barbara Gross, Thank you for registering for "City Council Meeting". Please submit any questions to: [email protected] Date Time: Nov 9, 2020 05:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Nov 9, 2020 05:00 PM Nov 16, 2020 05:00 PM Dec 7, 2020 05:00 PM Dec 14, 2020 05:00 PM Dec 21, 2020 05:00 PM Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system. Weekly: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/webinar/vpIvd-uvrDgiAc_MIHAmbgUYV8xkwU82dA/ics?user_id=yVIScUO_Su2CKCfbkvwXtA

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:

23

Click Here to Join Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar

Description: City Council Meeting Zoom Webinar Or iPhone one-tap :

US: +16699006833,,362027238# or +12532158782,,362027238# Or Telephone:

Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 Webinar ID: 362 027 238 International numbers available: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/u/a44PSyfDZ

You can cancel your registration at any time.

24

Baumb, Nelly

From: Pc User <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:43 PMTo: David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; [email protected]; Dennis Tiernan; Steve Kormondy;

Lou Basile; Philip Hussa; [email protected]; Andres Lorraine; Carol Macannico; Rachel Joy Simmons; Perla Simmons; Joanne Casey; Nancy Brais; Camille Lachica; [email protected]; [email protected]; NJ Electrician; Richard Gage; Rachel Simmons; Haydee Bill Mooney; Ed Durfee; Ken Mandile; Craig Simmons; janet darcey; Tom & Beth Simmons; Messina Mary; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; Dot Cook-Simmons; Jackie Andres Schnell; Patty LaPlaca; Bobot Ocampo; David Gahary; Coast Star; Mark Schleck; Abiyan Makonnen; Aaron Trinidad; Linda Schleck; Andres Lorraine; Aunt Mary Babbitt; Aunt Putsy Cadmus; Pat Schleck; Aunt Putsy Cadmus; Mark Schleck; [email protected]; Biotica; A Son Of RevWar; Agnes Gibboney; Ammo Land; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Linda BURROUGHS; Martine Schroeter; Apple & Anthony Jaraza; Kupniewski Arlene; Activist Post; Advance Media; Advance Media; Coast Star; Coast Star

Cc: BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY

Subject: Election Treason –This Is A Coup, to Overthrow the USA !!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Alex Newman & Greg Hunter lay out exactly what is going on with the coup to overthrow America. Listen to this interview and everything will make sense and all the pieces will fall in place. We need to hang some of these people from the highest trees. !!!!! https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/election‐treason/ Best Regards, & Stay Healthy ! RJS

25

Baumb, Nelly

From: Margaret Heath <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:36 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov 9; Item 11; Retail/Recovery Strategies".


Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members, Don't do it! What traditional retail needs more than anything is proximity. Our shops need council protection. It seems to me it would be the height of hypocrisy to promote walkable, bikeable, sustainable communities and at the same time take an action to make it harder, if not impossible, for shops to exist in Palo Alto. Owners of properties zoned retail know what they are investing in and it is not up to council members to give these property owners a permanent financial windfall at the expense of our traditional retail business community. Last time council voted to expand the definition of retail, council member Kniss urged her fellow council members to include personal training. As a result retail on California Avenue was hollowed out with personal training studios quickly replacing shops and destroying the proximity real retail needs. Instead, please consider reducing the list of allowable retail on the main shopping streets from "retail‐like" to exclusively "traditional" retail to give shops the proximity they need and designate the adjacent streets for use by those businesses that sell their services to the public. Sincerely, Margaret Heath Cornell Street

26

Baumb, Nelly

From: Phil Schwartau <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:09 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Zoning change from retail to office??? - NO


Hello, Please do not change city zoning to allow conversion of retail to office space on the ground floor. Once a space has been converted from retail to office, even temporarily, supposedly, it does not get converted back again to retail status later on. We do not need more banks or more office space. There is plenty of that available. I strongly oppose a change in zoning that allows for office space instead of retail on the ground floor. We need to preserve our City as we know it, for a bright future for us all. Retail has suffered so much from COVID-19; we desperately need to support the future of retail in our town. Sincerely, Phil Schwartau

27

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jorel Mee <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:05 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Fwd: Evergreen Park/Mayfield (EPM) permit street parking proposal


Subject: Evergreen Park/Mayfield (EPM) permit street parking proposal

Dear City Council, My name is Jorel Mee and I rent a chair at a salon on Cambridge Ave., in the small downtown area. I have just heard that there is a possibility that the City of Palo Alto is planning to decrease the number of parking permits allotted to downtown workers. Having a parking permit is necessary for me to work in Palo Alto. I am a hair color specialist. I do not have the ability to move my car every two or three hours to a new parking space. Public transportation is not a possibility for me as I am always laden with bag upon bag of color and supplies. It is a health and safety risk for me to apply color to a client and then step out of the salon to go and move my car. It is a financial hardship to have to schedule 2‐3 blocks of time a day to move my car. I followed the rules and waited on the wait list for over a year to get my permit. I have had it for at least 10 years now, happily paying for the permit to do my part to contribute to the city. Hair dressers play an important role to the downtown area. We send other businesses our clients as we are big promoters of other stores and restaurants in the local area. We bring so much business to the local area, it feels like a slap in the face to deprive us of the ability to park near our work. I also want to note that the city of Palo Alto has Stanford to thank for a lot of the residential parking problems. Stanford charges exorbitant parking permit fees for their students and employees. To avoid paying those fees, many cross El Camino and park in residential areas or in the downtown area. Perhaps a better way to come up with more parking availability would be to work with Stanford. They can afford to lower their permit rates for their campuses, they own all the land. The people of Palo Alto should not be forced to continue utilizing tax dollars to create new parking spaces because of Stanford’s greed. Many thanks for considering my letter, Jorel Mee Sent from my iPhone

28

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:57 PMTo: HonkySubject: FORMER MICHIGAN STATE SENATOR EXPOSES ELECTION DAY FRAUD


WOWSER EXCLUSIVE: Former Michigan state senator exposes Election Day fraud

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In EXCLUSIVE: Former Michigan state senator

exposes Election Day fraud

30

Baumb, Nelly

From: Teresa Zepeda Kelleher <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:50 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Support for Castilleja's expansion project


Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am a Castilleja parent and a close neighbor to the school. Castilleja is vital to Palo Alto. I know that opponents focus on the fact that only 25-30% of students reside in Palo Alto, but they do not add that among the different communities Castilleja draws from, Palo Alto students far outnumber those coming from any other place. The school directory has page after page of names of students who live in the 94303, 94301, and 94306 zip codes. Still, I’m sure many of you know girls from Palo Alto who were disappointed because they were not admitted. With the high school at about 60 students per grade, it’s incredibly hard to get in; maybe 10 or 12 students are admitted each year. Deserving and talented girls are turned away because there isn’t enough space. Meanwhile, the Environmental Impact Report proves that we can make space for these students without negatively impacting the neighborhood. It completely mystifies me that anyone is struggling over this choice. Allow more girls to benefit from this education without impacting the neighborhood. This should not be a politicized issue, and one very small school is not to blame for the traffic on Embarcadero and the growth in Palo Alto. Castilleja places Palo Alto on the map of cutting-edge learning for girls because Castilleja is frequently ranked as the #1 girls’ school in the country. This force within our community only serves to elevate the women’s issues and drive for educational equity and professional parity that our entire city cares deeply about. Castilleja is a mission-driven not-for-profit that furthers the ideals of our City and works to amplify women’s voices in all corners of our community. Thanks for your consideration, Teresa Kelleher 512 Coleridge Ave. Palo Alto

31

Baumb, Nelly

From: Karen Holman <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:45 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Minor, BethSubject: Agenda Item 11 comments


November 9, 2020 Item #11: COVID 19 recovery and Retail City council members, Times such as these present challenges and well as opportunities. Indeed that is the case with what Palo Alto is experiencing with COVID 19. However, the proposals before you this evening do not offer solutions to problems from a City or community basis and would benefit from a purpose statement. The proposals before you this evening, and by staff acknowledgment, while indicated as short term have long‐lasting effects. If the purpose is to support retail and services, then allowing uses that can pay still higher rents such as lawyers and financial institutions in retail corridors is counter productive. Predictable is that leases that will not be extended or renewed because property owners will vie for the higher rent tenants and that afford them the greatest flexibility in potential tenants. This is good for property owners but not good for the City in terms of sales tax dollars, retail retention or attraction of new retail. While zoning changes may be temporary, the use/tenant changes will likely be permanent, as staff acknowledges. And will literally be impossible to recover from/reverse. Restoration Hardware is building a new multi‐story retail store (brick and mortar is not dead or even dying) and thus will be leaving University Avenue. Imagine an attorney’s office on that prominent corner with likely minimal if any street presence and across the street from Keen Shoes. Hard to argue that is good for retail. If the purpose is to demonstrate to existing retail and services that the City cares about them and appreciates their struggle in these times, then invest in their future here by hiring a contract Economic Development Planner (while doing a search for a full time position) with a proven and successful track record whose job it will be to take actions to retain and attract retail and supporting services. Shopping Centers, which obviously have the advantage of single ownership, know what mix of businesses create a healthy environment for retail success. That is the job of a true Economic Development professional for cities, and Palo Alto continues to stand out due its lack of such a professional employed by almost all other towns. In speaking with commercial property rental companies and property owners, they agree Palo Alto needs an Economic Development Planner/Manager. Note: A visit to Stanford Shopping Center quickly demonstrates there are shoppers out there as an

32

open parking space is hard to come by. If the purpose is to address a high vacancy rate with empty storefronts, then where is the data? And to what end will those spaces be filled? Increased sales tax? Creation of a more “vibrant” retail environment? Attraction of new businesses, cultural spaces to support existing? And, from a retailer perspective, what is the difference between an empty storefront and one that is painted over or whited out? They are disruptive to the retail to retail connectivity relationship. Recall the Council was poised to outlaw them some 4 years ago when the Council reversed direction and since then they have proliferated all over town to the detriment of our retail presence. Recommend eliminating them on an urgency basis to support our retail, service corridors. If the purpose is to demonstrate the impacts of online shopping on brick and mortar, then include the data and sources. The staff report makes statements without reference while even a quick look turns up studies that counter the argument that brick and mortar is losing its niche. One such recent study https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/there‐future‐brick‐and‐mortar‐retail, a national marketing research firm, and but two quotes from the report, emphasis added: “….consumers continue to have a stronger desire and need to browse and shop in stores rather than online. When analyzing the impact of e‐commerce sales, it is important to note that while the percentage of online retail sales growth is impressive at 16% and dwarfs total in‐store retail sales growth at 3.4%, the total revenue of e‐commerce activity is $62.5 billion compared to $152.7 billion for in‐store retail. Additionally, our research has found that some sectors are immune to e‐commerce inroads, ensuring both in‐store shopping vitality as well as the need to support and maintain the physical presence of the business.” Where We Expect Online Shopping to Grow Overall, shoppers in each category appear to have established behavior and don’t expect to change how they shop in‐store or online. As it stands, 58%–82% of shoppers across all categories report no change in their shopping behaviors since last year.” Suggestions: Research what other cities are doing to support retail and tax base. None I have identified are relying on zoning changes that detrimentally impact their sales tax dollars or marginalize their ability to create/recreate a retail presence. From another city in response to COVID 19: Work with property owners that have vacant storefronts and match spaces with retailers that are looking for opportunities to create displays to promote their business. This will provide retailers that lost their space or do not have brick and mortar presence to have a window presence while at the same time provide an opportunity to activate dark spaces. Palo Alto benefits from very creative art professionals both thru its own Arts program and at the Art Center. Such talent conceived of the alleys installations a few years ago that brought people to downtown (in that case). Art and other cultural venues are proven mutual support for both retail and the art venue. Consider reducing on a temporary basis Palo Alto’s TOT, giving our hotels a competitive advantage without harming their base. Expedite sign review and permitting. Its lengthy as detrimental to business. Survey the community to ask what it wants and will support to ask what it wants in terms of retail and services it sees as desirable and lacking.

33

Do events (think creatively with the aid of an Economic Development Planner) that support retail in addition to restaurants. I note that some restaurants outdoor areas are intruding in front of retail spaces and surely not helpful to their retail businesses. City could begin a scrip program to support local PA businesses. Make is graphically attractive and fun and easy for businesses to redeem thru PayPal, Zelle, Square, etc. Members of the community can buy scrip from the City as gifts for the holidays or whatever. It has been successful before and is being utilized successfully in communities elsewhere. I spoke with a prominent downtown property owner, and he is willing to “sponsor” some scrip money to help launch such a program. Other members of the community would surely do likewise in addition to the City “printing” scrip to support PA businesses. And lastly, the parking proposal: If the purpose is to attract new businesses, what kind of businesses are would not the relaxation just be trading one “problem” for another long‐term problem? And how could a new business that can’t afford current rents be able to pay in lieu parking fees in the Cal Ave area? What kinds of businesses are asking for parking relief? Are they beneficial to a healthy mix of uses in retail areas? Respectfully submitted, Karen Holman

34

Baumb, Nelly

From: Exford, Tamiko <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:30 PMTo: Exford, TamikoSubject: FW: DR-4558-CA - EMBARGO - NR037 (Wildfire Survivors Must Apply To Extend Time For FEMA

Rental Assistance)Attachments: DR-4558-CA NR037 - Wildfire Survivors Must Apply To Extend Time For FEMA Rental

Assistance.docx; DR-4558-CA NR037 - Wildfire Survivors Must Apply To Extend Time For FEMA Rental Assistance.pdf


Nov. 9, 2020DR-4558-CA NR 037

Cal OES News Desk: 916-800-3943FEMA News Desk: 916-718-8540

SBA: 916-847-2638

News Release

Wildfire Survivors Must Apply To Extend Time For FEMA Rental Assistance SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Wildfire survivors who received an initial rental assistance award may be eligible for an extension of that after two months but must request it. Many individuals and households who had to move after their homes were damaged or lost due to August/September wildfires in 13 counties have been receiving help from FEMA paying rent on temporary alternative housing. The counties are Butte, Lake, Lassen, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Trinity, Tulare and Yolo. Two weeks after a household initially receives rental assistance, FEMA mails them a letter or an application for an extension. Anyone currently receiving temporary housing assistance who has not received a letter or an application and needs to continue that support may request an application for continuation by calling the FEMA Helpline at 800‐621‐3362 (TTY 800‐462‐7585) between 7 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. PST. Those who use a relay service such as a videophone, Innocaption or CapTel, should provide FEMA with the specific number assigned to that service when they register. To be eligible for an extension of temporary housing assistance, survivors must demonstrate that they need it by submitting documentation to FEMA that includes:

A completed FEMA application for continuing rental assistance.

A copy of the applicant’s lease.

Receipts showing that rental aid already received was properly used to pay for disaster housing.

Report of the household’s income.

Report of the household’s financial obligations.

35

FEMA will evaluate the request to determine if the applicant is eligible for an extension. There is no guarantee of rental assistance beyond the first two months. FEMA rental assistance may be used for a house, apartment, hotel, motel, manufactured home, recreational vehicle (RV), houseboat or other kind of living space that is available for rent. Rental assistance extensions must be applied for every three months with the total period of assistance for eligible survivors not to exceed 18 months from Aug. 22, 2020, the date of the major disaster declaration. If you have questions about the process or the required documents, you may call the FEMA helpline. FEMA cannot provide rental assistance unless survivors keep their addresses and telephone numbers up to date so they can be contacted. If your contact information changes, you can update it online at DisasterAssistance.gov or by calling the FEMA helpline.

Nov. 21 is the deadline for residents of the 13 counties included in the Aug. 22 disaster declaration to register for FEMA assistance. For the latest information on wildfire recovery, visit https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4558 and follow the FEMA Region 9 Twitter account at https://twitter.com/femaregion9 .

### All FEMA disaster assistance will be provided without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex (including sexual harassment), religion, national origin, age, disability, limited English proficiency, economic status, or retaliation. If you believe your civil rights are being violated, call 800-621-3362 or 800-462-7585(TTY/TDD). FEMA’s mission: Helping people before, during, and after disasters. The U.S. Small Business Administration is the federal government’s primary source of money for the long-term rebuilding of disaster-damaged private property. SBA helps businesses of all sizes, private nonprofit organizations, homeowners and renters fund repairs or rebuilding efforts and cover the cost of replacing lost or disaster-damaged personal property. For more information, applicants may contact SBA’s Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center at 800-659-2955. TTY users may also call 800-877-8339. Applicants may also email [email protected] or visit SBA at SBA.gov/disaster. Tamiko Terry Exford Intergovernmental Affairs Specialist | Office of External Affairs DR4558-CA Mobile: (202) 805-6531 [email protected] Federal Emergency Management Agency fema.gov

Nov. 9, 2020

DR-4558-CA NR 037

Cal OES News Desk: 916-800-3943

FEMA News Desk: 916-718-8540

SBA: 916-847-2638

News Release

Wildfire Survivors Must Apply To Extend Time For FEMA Rental Assistance

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Wildfire survivors who received an initial rental assistance award may be

eligible for an extension of that after two months but must request it.

Many individuals and households who had to move after their homes were damaged or lost due to

August/September wildfires in 13 counties have been receiving help from FEMA paying rent on

temporary alternative housing. The counties are Butte, Lake, Lassen, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Trinity, Tulare and Yolo.

Two weeks after a household initially receives rental assistance, FEMA mails them a letter or an

application for an extension. Anyone currently receiving temporary housing assistance who has not

received a letter or an application and needs to continue that support may request an application for

continuation by calling the FEMA Helpline at 800-621-3362 (TTY 800-462-7585) between 7 a.m. and

10:30 p.m. PST. Those who use a relay service such as a videophone, Innocaption or CapTel, should

provide FEMA with the specific number assigned to that service when they register.

To be eligible for an extension of temporary housing assistance, survivors must demonstrate that they

need it by submitting documentation to FEMA that includes:

• A completed FEMA application for continuing rental assistance.

• A copy of the applicant’s lease.

• Receipts showing that rental aid already received was properly used to pay for disaster housing.

• Report of the household’s income.

• Report of the household’s financial obligations.

FEMA will evaluate the request to determine if the applicant is eligible for an extension. There is no

guarantee of rental assistance beyond the first two months.

FEMA rental assistance may be used for a house, apartment, hotel, motel, manufactured home,

recreational vehicle (RV), houseboat or other kind of living space that is available for rent.

Rental assistance extensions must be applied for every three months with the total period of assistance

for eligible survivors not to exceed 18 months from Aug. 22, 2020, the date of the major disaster

declaration.

If you have questions about the process or the required documents, you may call the FEMA helpline.

FEMA cannot provide rental assistance unless survivors keep their addresses and telephone numbers up

to date so they can be contacted. If your contact information changes, you can update it online at

DisasterAssistance.gov or by calling the FEMA helpline.

Nov. 21 is the deadline for residents of the 13 counties included in the Aug. 22 disaster declaration to

register for FEMA assistance.

For the latest information on wildfire recovery, visit https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4558 and follow the

FEMA Region 9 Twitter account at https://twitter.com/femaregion9 .

###

All FEMA disaster assistance will be provided without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex

(including sexual harassment), religion, national origin, age, disability, limited English proficiency,

economic status, or retaliation. If you believe your civil rights are being violated, call 800-621-3362 or

800-462-7585(TTY/TDD).

FEMA’s mission: Helping people before, during, and after disasters.

The U.S. Small Business Administration is the federal government’s primary source of money for the

long-term rebuilding of disaster-damaged private property. SBA helps businesses of all sizes, private

nonprofit organizations, homeowners and renters fund repairs or rebuilding efforts and cover the cost of

replacing lost or disaster-damaged personal property.

For more information, applicants may contact SBA’s Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center at

800-659-2955. TTY users may also call 800-877-8339. Applicants may also email

[email protected] or visit SBA at SBA.gov/disaster.

https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/disasterassistance.gov__;!!BClRuOV5cvtbuNI!SV45w9Uir_vOCNiMXGHJ-0aNGbc-8gocsoV0iTuE4yluHp0atUYYOQsiwlytDiwjba3byQ$

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4558

https://twitter.com/femaregion9

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.sba.gov/disaster

37

Baumb, Nelly

From: Holly Rubinstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 2:01 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Changing retail to office usage in downtown

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Council Members: I urge you NOT to adopt the proposed change of retail to office space in first floor areas downtown. Over the past 30 years downtown Palo Alto has suffered from the reduction of good retail shopping. I prefer to go to Menlo Park or Los Altos to shop because of the wide selection of shops whereas I almost never go to downtown Palo Alto. Why cannot Palo Alto foster a thriving downtown? Shady Lane was a great shop that had to move due to rent increases. Please use your power and persuasive efforts to make Palo Alto a place that encourages retail and restaurants. Even before Covid downtown was failing as a thriving area for the community. Now that University Ave. is partially blocked, it would be a great time to re‐invent downtown but NOT as a business park! Please think creatively! The landlords have profited from many years of high rents. Now it is the time for them to make some concessions for the good of the community. Holly Rubinstein

38

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jeff Deaton <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 1:45 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: RE: California Avenue Parking Garage -- Stop the Allocation of Parking Spaces to former RPP

Employee Parking Holders!


Dear City Council, I have just learned about a parking change in the California Avenue District that will restrict the use of the new parking garage off Sherman Avenue. I believe that the promises made by the city in the past concerning the new garage was to provide customer parking along with parking for the new public safety building/headquarters. To take on/force the load of residential parking permits currently used by employees that work near the Cal Ave Business District and restrict their use to the new parking garage is simply kicking the can down the road. Where will the public safety building employees park each day if the neighborhood permit plan is shifted to the new garage? This scheme resembles a classic bait and switch maneuver. Send the plan back to staff to find a plan somewhere in between…but ideally adhering to the original plan. Respectfully, Jeff Deaton Chief Executive Officer Lic.#01521031

(o) 650‐857‐1792 (c) 650‐269‐9161

230 California Avenue‚ Suite 212 Palo Alto‚California 94306

39

Baumb, Nelly

From: Linda Anderson <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 1:18 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: New California Avenue Garage


I support the request from the Evergreen Park community as outlined in a letter to the Council and encourage you to adjust plans accordingly. Linda Anderson Downtown

40

Baumb, Nelly

From: Annette Glanckopf <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 1:07 PMTo: Council, City; Clerk, CitySubject: Item 11 on tonight's agenda


Dear Council Members I wanted to weigh in on tonight agenda 11 on retail - retail overlay and changing definitions of retail. Any decision on this is premature and needs more analysis as well as feedback from neighborhoods - especially for the neighborhood . commercial areas. Before any broader action, the city needs to have in place a strategic business plan for retail. What retail variety does the City need by location - downtown, Cal Ave, Midtown, Charleston, Edgewood etc ? Then the city needs to aggressively recruit those businesses to the appropriate location. I do not support broadening the definition of retail . I particularity oppose including medical offices and small professional offices But in many areas, I oppose including Financial services and Educational services. As I look at my neighborhood center - Midtown - we worked hard to create the retail overlay to allow only community serving businesses. Yet we have medical - masquerading as retail, a surplus of personal services (nail and hair salons) and even 2 drug stores. We have several educational service businesses that are only for limited hours per week, destroying the vitality of a once thriving center. Offices and closed educational have led to a ghost center. Residents (especially near neighborhood commercial) need more true retail, with local merchants, so that they can walk or bike there, rather than driving out of town to shop for what they need. Maybe my comments are covered in the following paragraph, although I perceive this as an optimistic philosophy. For years "we" have trying to make sure that Midtown was vibrant. One step the city could take would be to make sure the merchants at Midtown had a pleasant clean shopping center without trash and weeds. Any help in eliminating the homemade signage by replacing it with a professional montage of businesses would be most appreciated. By requiring retail preservation in core retail areas of Downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, and neighborhood shopping areas along Middlefield, the City would ensure these areas remain vibrant, pedestrian-focused retail areas that provide a sense of place and identity in Palo Alto. Even if parcels here become redeveloped, the ground floors will remain reserved for retail uses. Trends indicate that retail has been and increasingly will be centered around the “experience.” By creating pedestrian-friendly retail corrdiors full of active storefronts, Palo Alto can help create retail experiences that draw residents, students, and visitors. In contrast, requiring retail preservation across Palo Alto—including car oriented areas—may dilute the vibrancy and

41

viability of retail areas and ultimately harm the overall retail environment. So I recommend that before council take action, treat Neighborhood Commercial areas separately and get neighborhood input, NOT JUST THE LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS mentioned in the staff report, before changing ANY definitions or relaxing ground floor retail. Thanks for listening. Annette

42

Baumb, Nelly

From: Noah Fiedel <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:37 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Ventura resident in support of groundfloor retail, opposing staff's recommendation on item #11


Dear City Council Members, I'm a Ventura resident, and long time Palo Alto resident. I'm writing to express my strong support for ground floor retail. Specifically, I oppose any recommendation that would weaken ground floor protection in favor of offices (e.g. staff's recommendation on item #11). Our neighborhood is growing and thriving. With recently approved BMI housing and more housing developments (e.g. Fry's site and ECR), the number of residents is rising in this neighborhood. We visit and shop at our local retail regularly, walking to many shops on El Camino Real. If you weaken the retail protection, developers will create office space that is a net‐negative for the community with extra traffic and cars. Local retail supports the neighborhood, walking, small businesses, and reduces traffic. Thank you for your consideration, Noah Fiedel Wilton Ave / Ventura Neighborhood

43

Baumb, Nelly

From: Rita Vrhel <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:21 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: agenda items


Hello: I urge you to not make "lame duck" appointments but leave this task to the next City Council as previously agreed. Obviously you are shocked at the election results and unprepared for the results. Mr. Tanaka: you are likley the swing vote. Please show us that you work for Palo Alto residents and not special interests as many claim. Your vote could set a new tone in Palo Alto. I hope the new City Council will take steps to curb these abuses. I also urge you to not make zoning changes which will eliminate or severely curtail community serving retail. Landlords can consider other options like lowering rent to combat downturns such as being seen now. This will not last forever but zoning changes will. Our down towns will be filled with specialty Botox or medical procedure shops rather than community serving retail. Once these shops move in they will never leave as the start up costs are too great. I instead urge you to hire a Retail Planning Consultant to discuss a long term plan to assist in revitalizing and recovering our Univ. and Calif. Ave areas. 4th St in Berkeley is a prime example of what Palo Alto could be but isn't. Please take a step back, and plan for the future. I also urge you to resist and say NO to the RHNA numbers. These are impossible, and unlike to occur over a 9 year period. So much is not known post COVID regarding working and commuting patterns. I urge you to join other Cities and say NO; and sue to stop this insanity. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298

44

Baumb, Nelly

From: Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:20 PMTo: Council, CityCc: [email protected]: Novemer 9, Item 11 - Please save our retail


Dear Council Members: Did you know that many Venturans still walk over to El Camino Real to get a haircut, pick up a few groceries, mail a package? My family even bought a small area rug at the rug shop there recently. We can also pick up a bottle of wine and patronize a variety of restaurants. We can still walk to get our phones and computers fixed. Yes, Covid has hit us all hard, but these shops are still open for business, finding innovative ways to serve their clientele. Please don't use Covid as an angle for pushing through the City Staff's long running goal, since the tech boom, to bag ground floor retail protections so owners can rent these spaces out at the more lucrative office rate. There is no way Staff can claim that this move will support small businesses. For one thing, there is no data to support this move. Plus we all know that in places where there is a lot of retail there are more customers, more foot traffic, more strollers, like any mall, or an area like downtown Los Altos. Lots of stores grouped together brings more services. Downtown Palo Alto used to have many lovely shops, but we don't go there any more. It's mostly restaurants as well as some murky spaces now. If the city had a code enforcement department with teeth in it, we would not have all these sham retail spots over here on South ECR in the first place. Winter Dellenbach and I have been asking for years for the City to do something about the Coupa Cafe warehouse which pretends to be a restaurant supply store a block away from me, except they won't let anyone in. I'm supposed to believe that their stacks of drinks, paper goods and flats of shrink-wrapped coffee are for sale to the public? All this gadding and prancing about on the part of City staff is quite galling and a slap to the intelligence of the people. The City is going all out to help small business by taking our retail away? My eye! Please tell me you are not deceived for a minute. There is no data, this is just an amenity grab. Amenities that benefit the public are not in alignment with big profits for land owners. But who's in charge the people or the property owners? Please tell the truth and quash item 11. Thank you. Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood

45

Baumb, Nelly

From: Susan Kemp <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:05 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov 9; Item 11; Retail/Recovery Strategies


Dear City Council, I am a long‐time resident of Ventura. I am writing to urge you to reject City staff's recommendation to allow ground floor retail to be converted to offices. We need to protect and preserve local retail, not push it away. Making a permanent decision on this matter during the pandemic is short‐sighted. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Kemp

46

Baumb, Nelly

From: Larry Alton <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:33 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: the proposed allocation of parking spaces in the new California Avenue garage on Sherman Ave.


Dear Council Members, I respectfully request that the current Staff Report be sent back to for revision to: 1) move all non-employee parking permits in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area to the new garage as was anticipated at the time that we supported the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense and as is consistent with other RPPs adjacent to California Ave and Evergreen Park/Mayfield, and 2) propose actions necessary to allow low-wage workers to buy discounted parking permits in the new garage. Failure to provide space for these low-wage workers is also inconsistent with the motivation for building the garage and guarantees that the new garage will simply be another free gift to commercial office space workers who should be incentivized to commute to the area via public transportation to reduce both traffic and demand for parking in the area. Thank you for your consideration. Larry Alton

47

Baumb, Nelly

From: Pat Burt <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:20 AMTo: Council, CityCc: Minor, BethSubject: Item #11: Economic Recovery Strategies


November 8, 2020 Item #11: Economic Recovery Strategies

Councilmembers,

Our valued retailers, restaurants, and local service providers are currently in jeopardy. They need the city and residents to step up to support them through the recovery if we want them to survive. That’s why the staff proposal is so bewildering. It would allow office uses in groundfloor retail/service zones which would HARM retailers and service providers while providing a financial bonus, now and after the recovery, for large and small commercial property owners who have collectively made hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall profits during the boom of the last decade. As stated in the staff report, “while changes of use may be allowed only during a 24-month period, the entitlement would persist for the duration of the use and perhaps, beyond.”

In recent years, many of our most valued local serving businesses have been driven out of town by overwhelming rent increases. Our retail lease rates are much lower than offices, although much higher in Palo Alto than elsewhere. That’s why changing our zoning to allow office uses to compete with retail will further drive away retailers and local service businesses that can’t afford to pay what office tenants could pay.

Also, the argument is baseless that these long-term zoning changes are needed to support our office-based businesses. Vacancies are currently high in our many office zoned areas, yet average office rents in Palo Alto (for Classes A, B, and C offices) are currently $8.65 per square foot per month. That’s double the 2011 average in Palo Alto and more than twice the current average rate of $4.00 in San Jose, just 10 miles away and even higher than rates in San Francisco. We do not now need to EXPAND office zoning to create space for office-based businesses.

We have seen changes to retail patterns in recent years that are being compounded by the pandemic. Many of our valued retailers, service businesses, and local serving non-profits were driven out of town over the past decade by big rent increases, far exceeding rates of inflation. Service-oriented businesses (restaurants, exercise businesses, personal care, etc.) have replaced many retailers selling goods and that trend will likely continue. That’s why we should be open to a thoughtful, balanced approach of loosening the permitted (rather than Conditional Uses) services in certain retail oriented areas outside of our core retail zones. zoned for offices.

So what should we do?

48

1. Retain the current ground floor retail zoning in our core retail areas: the two downtowns, Town and Country, and neighborhood shopping centers, etc..

2. Evaluate loosening the definition of permitted retail/services in selected areas outside of our retail cores to allow as permitted uses (rather than current Conditional Uses) of other local service businesses such as local medical providers, and local serving non-profits. But not offices for law firms, accountants, and other uses that belong in office zones.

3. Act aggressively to assist businesses in transitioning to “Healthy Buildings” that can drastically reduce risks of COVID in the near term and other pathogens in the long term.

4. Reduce the city’s notoriously over bureaucratic delays and hurdles for retailers on signage, awnings, etc., as well as temporary accommodations and improvements in response to COVID.

5. Rationalize retail/service parking requirements for similar uses. 6. Promptly resurrect the Economic Development Manager position (or a contract position in

the near term) to focus on local serving and smaller businesses. 7. Invigorate the Business Directory to provide timely information on our currently very fluid

business environment.

Changing retail zoning will be semi-permanent. We should not let the current crisis be used as a backdoor excuse for expanding offices to the near and long-term detriment of local services. It should be done expeditiously, but not rashly and should be based on data. It must be designed for outcomes that will help, rather than harm, the businesses that make up a healthy community in the near term and long term. We don’t need to turn our retail areas into quasi office parks to do that.

Sincerely,

Pat Burt

49

Baumb, Nelly

From: Shikada, EdSent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:04 AMTo: Larry AltonCc: Council, CitySubject: RE: new garage parking

Hello Mr. Alton – It appears your letter was not attached, if you intended there to be an attachment. If so, please resend. Thank you, ‐‐Ed

Ed Shikada City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329‐2280 [email protected]

From: Larry Alton <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:53 AM To: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: new garage parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Council Members, Attached please find a letter from residents of several Palo Alto neighborhoods regarding the proposed allocation of parking spaces in the new California Avenue garage on Sherman Ave. We respectfully request that the current Staff Report be sent back to for revision to: 1) move all non-employee parking permits in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area to the new garage as was anticipated at the time that we supported the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense and as is consistent with other RPPs adjacent to California Ave and Evergreen Park/Mayfield, and 2) propose actions necessary to allow low-wage workers to buy discounted parking permits in the new garage. Failure to provide space for these low-wage workers is also inconsistent with the motivation for building the garage and guarantees that the new garage will simply be another free gift to commercial office space workers who should be incentivized to commute to the area via public transportation to reduce both traffic and demand for parking in the area.

50

Thank you for your consideration. Larry Alton

51

Baumb, Nelly

From: Bill Burch <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 11:01 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: My comments shared during last week's PTC virtual meeting on Nov 4, 2020


Dear PA Council members, Last week I participated in the PTC virtual meeting and was able to speak in support for Castilleja’s proposal for campus improvement. I wanted to share with you my thoughts and comments. Thank you, Bill Burch 777 Marion Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

My name is Bill Burch and I have been a Midtown resident of Palo Alto since we bought our home in 1983.

Tonight I want to call the Commission’s attention to the issue of Floor Area Ratio and Castilleja’s request for a variance. As you are aware, the school has been located at 1310 Bryant Street since 1910. This was long before any of the surrounding homes were built and prior to the introduction of residential zoning codes. The Chapel Theater and the Gunn Administration Building were built in the early 1900’s and to this day they are included in the “above‐ground floor area” on the Campus. In the 1960’s, Castilleja applied for and received zoning permission to build additional academic buildings. The permission to add those buildings predates the current codes for “Floor Area Ratios”

Now, fast forward to 2020 and Castilleja’s need to rebuild those buildings. In order to do so, they have to apply for a zoning variance simply to replace existing buildings. But here’s the kicker…Castilleja’s variance request is to actually reduce the above‐ground square footage from current conditions.

Yes, that’s right. The variance will grant Castilleja the ability to make the above‐ground square footage of their campus buildings SMALLER than it is right now.

To me it would seem that this is a WIN‐WIN and should be easy to approve. And the cries by PNQL’s “Stop Castilleja Expansion Campaign” seem alarmist and dishonest when held up against the realities of the project and this Floor Area Ratio variance request.

The Floor Area Ratio is reducing, and the above ground square footage will be smaller. That is not an “expansion” at all.

I hope that you will use this example of how the facts undo the rhetoric to explore other ways that opponents have distorted the facts.

52

There will be 50% more trees on the new campus than there are now. There will be no more additional cartrips. And the list goes on. I ask that you please carefully attend to the facts and approve this project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

53

Baumb, Nelly

From: Larry Alton <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:53 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: new garage parking


Dear Council Members, Attached please find a letter from residents of several Palo Alto neighborhoods regarding the proposed allocation of parking spaces in the new California Avenue garage on Sherman Ave. We respectfully request that the current Staff Report be sent back to for revision to: 1) move all non-employee parking permits in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area to the new garage as was anticipated at the time that we supported the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense and as is consistent with other RPPs adjacent to California Ave and Evergreen Park/Mayfield, and 2) propose actions necessary to allow low-wage workers to buy discounted parking permits in the new garage. Failure to provide space for these low-wage workers is also inconsistent with the motivation for building the garage and guarantees that the new garage will simply be another free gift to commercial office space workers who should be incentivized to commute to the area via public transportation to reduce both traffic and demand for parking in the area. Thank you for your consideration. Larry Alton

54

Baumb, Nelly

From: Mike Meffert <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:34 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: California Avenue Parking Garage -- Stop the Allocation of Parking Spaces to former RPP Employee

Parking Holders!


Dear City Council, The California Avenue District recently discovered that the new parking garage will allocate almost all new parking spaces to employees that previously could park in the neighborhood under the RPP program, thereby effectively reducing parking to 10 new spaces. This is completely contrary to the stated intent of the new garage, and gives the merchants and property owners next to no advance notice to object. I own commercial property in the California Avenue District and work there. While Covid‐19 has gutted the California Avenue District, once employees and customers return to the area this parking allocation will be like putting a knee on the throat of the business district and it will suffocate. Customers will go elsewhere to shop. Businesses will choose to go elsewhere for their office needs. This action must stop!

Sincerely, Mike Meffert│Commercial Real Estate Salesperson│DRE# 01361294 230 South California Avenue, #212 │Palo Alto │California 94306

(c) 650‐207‐4754│(f) 650‐852‐0361 www.alhousedeaton.com

55

Baumb, Nelly

From: Opus Arcade <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:31 AMTo: Council, CityCc: Kleinberg, JudySubject: Evergreen Park/Mayfield (EPM) permit street parking proposal


Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council, I'm writing on behalf of myself, MyLan Biermann, and the stylists that work at Opus Arcade at 460 Cambridge Ave. We have great concern about this proposal. We do not see how this would benefit the neighborhood and business community. From what we understand, the idea is to cancel permits and move them to the new parking garage. However, there doesn't seem to be a clear plan for that and the idea of canceling permits with a proposed transfer to the new parking structure, even with a clear timeline, doesn't suit the needs of the business community that is not adjacent to the new parking structure. That structure seems to best suit the high traffic area of visitors and customers that support businesses along Cal Ave and the intersecting streets that are full of restaurants and other businesses. Making the working/permitted community park in the structure would crowd availability for visitors and would seem to have been built primarily for permit parking holders. We believe this would create convenience issues and hardships that are already heightened through this pandemic, and would lower the morale of all to have to adjust to an unnecessary shift that ultimately does not serve the visiting customer's needs most, who we would like to continue to attract and accommodate, in addition to whomever is still able to find work here in the area. There has been a lot of wonderful effort by the City of Palo Alto that we appreciate and are very appreciative of. You have responded to the needs of the community in a very timely manner through these times. We appreciate the idea, but upon further discussion, it doesn't seem clear and, even a best case scenario with timelines, doesn't serve the needs of visiting customers who want to support our working business community as well as the workers and businesses who are already struggling to make it through these times. We appreciate the thoughtful effort you put in to serve our community. We hope you continue to think of this through a variety of lenses and appreciate being able to share our view and the potential negative impact this would have on many of us. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of us all. Best Regards, MyLan Biermann Opus Arcade, Inc 460 Cambridge Ave

56

Baumb, Nelly

From: Carol Scott <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:04 AMTo: [email protected]; Fine, Adrian; Greg Tanaka; Filseth, Eric (external);

[email protected]; Kou, Lydia; Tom DuBoisCc: Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Neilson Buchanan;

Wolfgang Dueregger; Paul Machado; John GuislinSubject: Staff Report on the New California Ave GarageAttachments: Revised Letter to Council 11-9-2020.docx


Dear Council Members, Attached please find a letter from residents of several Palo Alto neighborhoods regarding the proposed allocation of parking spaces in the new California Aven garage on Sherman Ave. We respectfully request that the current Staff Report be sent back to for revision to: 1) move all non‐employee parking permits in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP area to the new garage as was anticipated at the time that we supported the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense and as is consistent with other RPPs adjacent to California Ave and Evergreen Park/Mayfield, and 2) propose actions necessary to allow low‐wage workers to buy discounted parking permits in the new garage. Failure to provide space for these low‐wage workers is also inconsistent with the motivation for building the garage and guarantees that the new garage will simply be another free gift to commercial office space workers who should be incentivized to commute to the area via public transportation to reduce both traffic and demand for parking in the area. Thank you for your consideration. Carol ‐‐ Carol Scott

1

To: Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto City Manager, Philip Kahmi, Nathan Baird Cc: Council Members- Elect Pat Burt, Greer Stone RE: Item 12, City Council Meeting, Monday, November 9, 2020: California Avenue Garage Dear Council Members, City Manager, and City Staff, City Staff is recommending that 120 of the 250 available non-resident (employee) permits sold in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP residential zones1 be moved to the new garage. The remaining 130 all-day non-resident permits in the residential areas are targeted to be eliminated at some point in the future. We, residents of multiple Palo Alto neighborhoods urge the Council to reject this recommendation and instead, direct the Staff to move all of the non-resident permits from the Evergreen Park/Mayfield (EPM) RPP into the new California Ave garage as soon as it is opened. This request to use the opening of the California Avenue garage to eliminate all non-resident parking permits in our RPP is supported by the following:

1. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that City policies should be guided by the goal to “promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods.” This implies that commercial parking, which comes at the expense of the quality of life in residential neighborhoods, should be eliminated. The new California Avenue garage was built to provide sufficient parking for community-serving small businesses including restaurants and personal service offices, and therefore follows through on this stated policy.

2. At the time City Council considered the construction of the garage, residents of Evergreen Park and Mayfield who had been working with local businesses and medical and dental offices in the area argued in support of building the garage at taxpayer expense with the expectation that all employee parking permits would then be accommodated within the new garage. You will recall that the impetus for constructing the garage was that local business and medical and dental office employees were being squeezed out of parking due to the increased number of commercial office workers – especially those working for software companies. Residents did not support the construction of the garage at taxpayer expense in order to provide additional parking to commercial office workers, many of whom work in under-parked office buildings that should have TDM agreements that promised to

1 There are six parking zones in the Evergreen Park /Mayfield (EPM) residential areas, i.e., zones A, B, C, and D in the Evergreen Park neighborhood, and zones E and F in Mayfield. In addition there is one zone, “G” that was created along El Camino with permission from the State who controls that area. In the Staff recommendations, the 40 non-resident permits in Zone G along El Camino Real will continue to be sold as they are now. Only the 250 total permits currently sold in Evergreen Park and Mayfield are discussed as targets of change in the Staff Report and this email.

2

eliminate the need for workers to use public parking in the California Ave Business District (CABD) or residential areas.

3. In fact, the proposal by the Staff actually excludes the very employees, i.e., the lower-income employees of locally serving retailers, restaurants, and medical and dental offices, for which the new garage was intended. These employees are not currently allowed to purchase employee permits in City-owned garages and lots (p. 5), apparently including the new garage. The only permits that lower-income employees can purchase at a discounted price are in the residential zones of the EPM RPP. Thus, the garage is, de facto, being allocated to commercial office space workers that were not intended to be gifted with additional taxpayer-paid parking. This practice of excluding lower-income employees from purchasing low cost permits in City lots and garages will continue unless it is changed by a proposal to the Finance Committee and ultimately approved by the City Council “at some future date” (Staff Report, p. 5). Council should direct that such a proposal be submitted now.

4. Although the Staff report states that employee permits in EPM will be phased out over

the next two years, the current Staff report contains many hedges on this promise such that it is no promise at all. Staff already has concerns about moving 250 employee permits out of EPM2 because of a stated need to accommodate employees on a so-called waiting list and the proposed in-lieu permit program (p. 5). However, for the past eight months many of these office workers have been working from home because of COVID-19, and no one can be sure how many will ever come back. “Reserving” parking spots in the new garage and in residential neighborhoods for them is the wrong thing at the wrong time. If those workers ever come back, they should be incentivized to commute in and out using Cal Train or other public transportation.

5. The City and the California Avenue Business District businesses – with no input from or

consideration given to residents of EPM – recently elected to eliminate approximately 60+ parking spaces along California Avenue and the side streets due to the Summer Streets/Uplift Local programs. EPM should not be asked to absorb those lost parking spaces. If the businesses felt they did not need these parking spaces now, then presumably they will not need to replace them once the new garage is opened. It is time to insist that businesses in the CABD live within their parking space means, especially now that they are being given, at no cost to them, a large new garage.

6. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, removing all of the employee permits in EPM is

simply a matter of equity for the taxpaying residents that live in this area with respect to their neighbors in two adjacent RPPs. Neither the oldest RPP (College Terrace), nor the newest RPP (Old Palo Alto) accept any employee parking permits.3 On what basis has the City decided that some taxpayers are entitled to protection from commercial encroachment and some are not? EPM should not be asked to carry a burden that other

2 There is no need to move the 40 permits from El Camino Real to the new garage. 3 In fact, several streets in EPM are farther away from California Avenue that some streets in Old Palo Alto and College Terrace.

3

neighborhoods are not. EPM residents deserve to be treated equally as a matter of principle, and perhaps even a matter of law.

Give the above, the undersigned ask that City Council direct the Staff to move all employee-permits now allocated to the residential zones of the EPM RPP (i.e., zones A, B, C, D, E, and F) to the new California Avenue garage upon its opening. Thank you. Wolfgang Dueregger, Evergreen Park John Guislin, Crescent Park Paul Machado, Evergreen Park Neilson Buchanan, Downtown Carol Scott, Evergreen Park

57

Baumb, Nelly

From: Neilson Buchanan <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:24 AMTo: Council, City; Clerk, CityCc: Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan; Carol Scott; Wolfgang Dueregger; Paul Machado; Chris

Robell; Allen Akin; Holzemer/hernandez; Mary Gallagher; Mary Dimit; Rebecca Sanders; Christian Pease; Sallyann Rudd; Malcolm Roy Beasley

Subject: Evergreen Park RPP and equity to retail employees and employers


I hope you can clearly see this injustice to low-wage workers. Tonight's staff report reveals two long-time, serious policy failures to protect residential neighborhoods and lower wage workers. #1 A low wage worker can only buy a low-cost, non-resident permits in the adjacent neighborhoods. Low wage workers are explicitly excluded by pricing from competition for public parking in both California and University Avenue commercial cores. #2 During the past ten years residents have pointed this class inequity out repeatedly to staff and Council, but there has been little willingness of staff to acknowledge the situation. Tonight city staff is proposing to reduce the number of non-resident permits to be sold in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP districts; however, these low-wage workers do not have ANY opportunity to buy permits in public parking lots and garages. Please do not let this form of discrimination continue. I urge the Council to direct staff to return to Council in a week with a option and fee so that low-wage workers can buy permits in public parking lots and garages. These workers and their employers deserve reasonable access to public parking. This is essential if the Council truly want to boost viability of "retail" within California and University Avenue commercial cores. Finally, the higher paid office workers who do not have on-site parking deserve the opportunity to walk a bit further to the neighborhoods, only if the Council determines there is a shortage of public parking.

There is no shortage of public parking* in California Avenue with the new parking garage. There is no shortage of public parking* in the University Avenue commercial core. The

Cowper/Webster public parking garage has never been fully utilized.

* informal surveys reveal that private parking capacity is under-utilized Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street

58

Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell [email protected]

59

Baumb, Nelly

From: Parag Patel <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:07 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: In support of Castilleja's CUP


Dear PTC: I live in Palo Alto and writing in support of Castilleja’s application for a variance to maintain their current Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R). This variance will not increase the F.A.R., instead it allows the school to retain its current F.A.R. In addition, the plans the school had submitted actually reduce the above-ground square footage of the structures on campus.

This variance request is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and would not allow an increase in Castilleja’s square footage compared to what exists today, thus not causing a significant environmental impact. Due to the large size of Castilleja's lot compared to other residential lots in the surrounding zone, the F.A.R. for the school is in proportion to the size and scale of the surrounding residences. Not allowing Castilelja to maintain its F.A.R. would be a hardship to the school as it would treat them differently than the other lots on a relative basis. Castilleja had been on this site since 1907, since long before this neighborhood could be classified as residential because there was no zoning code then. This establishes precedent - the City has historically issued Castilleja its CUPs to operate as a school and build to support school use. Castilleja can make these improvements and maintain the integrity of this historic neighborhood. This will not add density to the City because the F.A.R. is being maintained. WIth a Final Environmental Impact Report with no significant impacts and established precedent, this decision to approve the variance for the current F.A.R. seems straightforward. On a different but related note, I want to highlight that over the past two PTC public meetings, something like 60 members of the public spoke about Castilelja's plans, with >40 speaking in favor. I also counted approximately 18-20 people who live within 1-2 blocks of Catilleja's campus speaking in favor of the school's plans. This reinforces comments I have made earlier to the PTC that there is a very significant majority of Palo Altans for Castillja, who have traditionally been silent, but very supportive. thank you, Parag Patel

60

Baumb, Nelly

From: Melanie Grondel <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:32 AMTo: Council, CityCc: Melanie GrondelSubject: Temporary suspension of Retail Preservation Act. No.11 on the Calendar, Palo Alto City Council.

Nov.11, 2020


Dear City Council, I am writing to you to express my serious concern about conversion of retail space to office space on the ground floor. The Retail Preservation Act protects retail to preserve the fabric and character of Palo Alto. It makes it a City I want to live and so do so many others that Palo Alto has become iconic for its atmosphere. For that reason rental prices for retail and office space have gone up accordingly over the years, which has served landlords and developers well. There is an upper limit that retail can handle. The Covid19 pandemic with its restrictions on customer traffic has added a serious problem of a temporary nature until the covid 19 pandemic can be mitigated by the availability of a vaccine in 6 to 9 months. Landlords and developers need to see this as a temporary issue and accept flexibility in dealing with temporary retail weakness as an investment in the iconic brand of Palo Alto that hinges on the liveless that retail brings to the benefit of surrounding business endeavors. Adding in a considerable amount of office space on the ground floor, kills that liveliness and atmosphere that is at the heart of the iconic brand. Once the expense of converting retail to office space has been made, the space is never converted back to retail again, no matter whether the intention was to keep the conversion of a temporary nature; leases have multi‐year durations. We do not need more banks or more office space. There is plenty of that available.

Retail spaces converted to office spaces become inaccessible to the general public. In the sense of generating consumer traffic and foot traffic, they become dead spaces. Such dead spaces break up the flow in a block and in a street. Pretty soon more retail spaces begin to suffer under diminished attention from customers as the lively atmosphere, which characterizes our Palo Alto, starts to flag. And so the dangerous drift begins to loss of the clusters of the shops we love and depend on.

Flagging retail spaces can be augmented by retail that is in an upswing such as food specialty stores and markets or pop-up stores of many kinds. Landlords and developers can make efforts to attract new businesses and offer favorable conditions to start. That replaces or adds liveliness to the shopping eco system.

Retail has made exemplary efforts, investments and sacrifices to keep us safe during this covid19 period. Let's think of the parklets and the like, which retail has opened for us, the public, with minimal business traffic allowed. Let's honor these efforts that will save the retail and the atmosphere in our city.

As a City we need to support our retail not threaten it.

I strongly oppose a change in zoning that allows for office space instead of retail on the ground floor.

We need to preserve our City as we know it, for a bright future for us all.

61

Melanie Grondel

2139 Yale Street

Palo Alto, Ca 94306

62

Baumb, Nelly

From: Bob Moss <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 9:50 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov. 9 Meeting Agenda Item 11, Recovery


Item 11, COVID-19 Recovery

Palo Alto City Council

The staff report recommending a number of changes in retail uses and activities omits a number of adverse impacts that will occur if retail zoning is converted to non-retail uses.

Allowing retail sites to convert to schools or offices will have major negative impacts. It would reduce the number of retail-only sites in all the CN and CS zoned retail sites. Allowing retail uses to convert to non-retail uses will cause shopping area patronage to drop at the remaining retail sites. This has been verified in a number of studies and actual experience at nearby shopping sites. This proposal must be rejected.

Office uses in retail zones have many very negative impacts. In addition to cutting the number of retail shoppers that visit the location, it will increase traffic and parking impacts. Staff recognized the increase in traffic and parking needs and likely spill-over parking into nearby residential areas, but brushed them off as not serious. In fact there will be serious negative impacts if traffic and parking needs increase. Remember that two of the major problems cited by residents are traffic and parking. Why make them worse? Another major impact would be added jobs from more offices, increasing the jobs-housing imbalance which have ABAG requiring local construction of even more housing. That also will have long-term negative impacts on the community.

Finances are another issue raised by offices. Retail generates significant sales tax revenue. Offices generate no such tax revenue, but consume city resources for services.

The statement that allowing schools or educational uses in retail zones will have no impact is false. When students are dropped off or picked us at Keys School, 3981 El Camino, cars to access Keys back up on El Camino Way to Meadow and beyond.

Since office rentals bring higher income than retail, property owners prefer office uses, and will keep sites vacant hoping for office rentals rather than rent to retail uses.

To be successful retail areas require a number and range of retail occupants to attract a variety of shoppers, plus to generate more business as shoppers find it convenient to shop in one place for a variety of items and services. Offices detract from this interaction.

Offices must be prohibited on ground floors in all CN and CS zones. In fact the El Camino Design Guidelines do exactly that. This prohibition must be applied and enforced.

63

Reduction in required parking also is a very bad idea. As noted by staff that will cause parking on nearby streets, almost always residential. Have they forgotten the resident outrage in College Terrace and Evergreen Park from spillover commercial parking?

Please do not reduce the requirement for ground floor retail only in CN and CS sites. Do not allow ANY more office locations or uses, particularly in retail zones.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Moss

Nov. 9 Meeting

64

Baumb, Nelly

From: Glenn Fisher <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 9:24 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov 9; Item 11; Retail/Recovery Strategies

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I strongly urge you to not replace retail with office space. As time has shown, office space is rarely replaced with retail, and interspersing retail with office space reduces foot traffic for retail. Glenn Fisher Palo Alto

65

Baumb, Nelly

From: Annette Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 9:02 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov. 9 Agenda Item #11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Bad as the economic impact of Covid is, this is temporary. Business will improve and we should plan for the long term. Covid should not be used as an opportunity to further an agenda that pre‐existed the pandemic and was not supported by the community. If retail is sacrificed or forfeited now, it will be very difficult to get it back. That results in more car trips (either personally or via a delivery service) and that’s contrary to the City’s environmental goals. What’s the point of transit‐oriented districts if our retail areas have little to offer? Retail is a challenge, but having it adds interest to University Ave and California Avenue and value to the community. I urge Council to not take any action now that locks in a use that cannot be easily reversed or that diminishes quality of life in Palo Alto. Regards, Annette Ross Palo Alto

66

Baumb, Nelly

From: Suzanne Keehn <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 8:25 PMTo: Council, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, EdSubject: Castilleja


Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: I am reading about Castilleja's project being shoved through the City boards and commissions at a very fast pace, and without time for any of the deliberating bodies to understand and digest the very complicated issues. Particularly when you consider the Conditions that will make up the Conditional Use Permit that the neighbors will have to live with for 20 years. I hope with this continuance to 11/18 that the Commissioners have time to read all the information supplied by the neighbors and make sure and answer their questions, particularly about the garage. The fact that the school gets all their parents and others who work there to speak and say what a wonderful neighbor the school is; how do they know? They don't live there. They are all reading the same points provided by the school. You can easily tell the difference between school supporters claiming to be neighbors and the real neighbors. Citizens should get heard, not parents. Don't let this be another President Hotel mess; stop it now. Reduce the enrollment increase and then the school won't need the underground garage. What school in Palo Alto has an underground garage in an R-1 neighborhood? None. Why this exception? Thank you, Suzanne Keehn 94306

67

Baumb, Nelly

From: Meredith Martin <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 8:07 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Change to Retail zoning


Dear City Council Members

I strongly oppose a change in zoning that allows for office space instead of retail on the ground floor in Palo Alto. We need to preserve our City as we know it, for a bright future for us all.

Please respect the wishes of your constituents.

Thanks

Meredith Martin

1440 California Ave Palo Alto

68

Baumb, Nelly

From: Maryjane Marcus <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 6:20 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: #11 - vacancies are primarily because landlords won't reduce rent


Dear City Council, I am writing in response to Item #11 ‐‐ it has many elements so I hope you get the SPIRIT of what I am saying. I am focused on 3) and 5). As someone who has tried to rent a space for a cultural/community event space in Palo Alto for the past 3 years, I know the retail market extremely well and I can promise you that landlords are not renting retail spaces primarily because they will not lower the rent enough to get tenants. Now is the first time in many years we have a CHANCE for rents to come down and open some creative retail/community spaces, but only if you don't give landlords an out with a change in zoning. In Palo Alto, RENTS are rarely below $4SF (normally $4‐$6 + NNN), and many amazing things could happen if rents were $1‐2 SF. Ask landlords HOW LOW they have offered rent before believing that they cannot rent it. They know City Council may accommodate them if they don't rent it so this ordinance alone could give less incentive to reduce rent. Landlords must demonstrate they are offering $1‐2 SF (including NNN) before you allow them to make any changes. Look at Cubberly for an idea of what's possible creatively when rents are low. Lower rents could also help current restaurants and retailers who may be able to negotiate lower rents because of COVID. I don't blame them, but do not believe they cannot rent. VACANCIES are a pathway to creativity....if it enables rents to come down. Yes, we need to change the parking requirement on Cal Ave (or eliminate it) and allow ANY retail/restaurant use on Cal Ave and Yes, we need to EXPAND retail USE CONCEPTS, but not to Office‐related uses (Medical/Financial/Professional). No ‐ do not change the retail preservation zone (except for allowing housing in places like North Face that could be housing). Do not allow any change at Town & Country which charges the highest rents in all of Palo Alto ($6/sf). EXPANDING RETAIL USES ‐ YES (but not the "office" uses) Retail definitions do need to be expanded and modified: ADD Cultural Uses Allow for community/cultural spaces that have public offerings (not private clubs). ADD Non‐Profit Uses if they are significantly public serving.

69

Nonprofits are losing their space in Palo Alto and deserve a zoning inclusion if they demonstrate they are truly public accessible. Institute for the Future got into downtown under some obscure ruling, but if they did a lot more public events and you could drop in, I would support them being there. ADD CITY RENTALS/EVENT SPACES It's so hard to find community space for any meetings, and the City charges very high rates for rentals. Low cost rentals of space for meetings, talks could be very helpful too, with some sort of public information and access. We could develop a sort of public space program, especially now that we are losing part of Cubberly too. Food Prep/Food Manufacturing: ‐ MAYBE Starbucks next to Grocery Outlet has already done this, and it really has no public use at all. Maybe you can pick up outside but i"m not sure. I would require some way people can sit outside or hang out there and order in person (not just online) if you do this. Medical Offices ‐ NO I would oppose this for Cal Ave, University and nearby and Town & Country and Midtown, but not sure about other outlying areas. Educational Uses ‐ YES Financial Services ‐ NO In main retail areas, banks are really empty spaces (Chase at Town and Country) who are able to pay high rents. Along El Camino is a good place for banks. Professional Offices ‐ NO What's happened in College Terrace is 'neighborhood serving businesses" have basically become tech offices. Gyms ‐ LIMIT Cal Ave has too many gyms and are for private use only (not public) so I would urge limiting these. PARKING: I do support ‐ ‐ allowing any retail‐like use at Cal Ave without parking requirements (#4) because a space should be allowed to be restaurant that was once a nail salon and not find parking that is not available to find. SUMMARY: COVID relief should center on 1) expanding CREATIVE public benefit uses of retail spaces. (not medical offices, professional offices, financial services) and 2) NOT reducing retail preservation except for housing, esp. not for Town & Country. In fact, it could be expanded to "corner store' type options across neighborhoods. If there is a strange RETAIL spot, (like North Face), allow it to be redeveloped as senior housing or some other type of housing, not office. Create a COMMUNITY SPACE TASK FORCE, focused on how to build more vibrant community spaces given changes in the economy and market. Warmly, Mary Jane Marcus 4152699079 EXAMPLES: Baron Barista space (Baron Park mini‐mall) has been vacant for 1.5 years now. I approached them in March 2019 to rent the space and offered a lower rate, which they did not accept, and I just inquired in August 2020 and they said they "are holding firm to 4‐4.25SF"

70

Town and Country is renowned for having the highest rents in Palo Alto, even more than University and Cal Ave ‐‐ like $6+ SF. They dont' want to lose that advantage or have to renegotiate with tenants who will also request lower rents if they have to lower new spaces coming on the market. I tried to get one space (Oren's Hummus now) and was astouded by the rents. I have one friend who left her retail space there for Menlo Park because of the exorbitant rates. OTHER WAYS TO HELP LANDLORDS: If landlords are really hurting, then the City could advocate for a mortgage forebearance program or they have the option to sell their asset. But I would hope renters and restaurants could get help with rent as well if you want to do that. With scarce land, landlords are in a power position relative to most of us. ‐‐

“The heart is a

The thousand-stringed instrument

That can only be tuned with

Love.”

Khwāja Šams ud-Dīn Muhammad Hāfez-e Šīrāzī, The Gift / شمس الدين محمد حافظ ―

71

Baumb, Nelly

From: Julian Galindo <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 6:19 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Baylands Golf links - junior rate


Hello City council members, My name is Julian Galindo. I am a 15 year old junior golf player that attends Baylands golf links almost every day. As I am privileged to attend such a beautiful public golf course that is runned by the city of Palo Alto, I am sad to witness many young golfers vanish due to the removal of the junior rate. Prior to COVID, to play a round of 18 holes at Baylands Golf links charged 15 dollars per junior during the week and 20 dollars per junior Friday, Saturday and Sunday. After the pandemic shutdown, Baylands has stripped the opportunities of juniors to play at a challenging golf course by taking away the junior rate which only allows those juniors to play that are able to pay the very costly adult fee. It is unfair for those junior players that do not have the monetary resources. The removal of the junior rate from Baylands Golf links makes Baylands one of the only golf courses in the bay area that does not have a junior rate. The current adult fee during the weekend is 141 dollars for public walking, 127 dollars for bay area resident walking and 112 for Palo alto resident walking. As you may know, many families cannot afford to pay such an outrageous rate for one round of golf. This rate is diminishing the amount of juniors that can try out the game of golf and is only letting the privileged families enjoy the game. I urge the city council to make this small change in the golf rates, which will make a big change and impact in the lives and opportunities of many juniors that put in a lot of time practicing at a golf course they can not offer due to the lack of a teen rate. Please let me know if any board members would like to meet over zoom to discuss this possible change. Thanks for you time Julian

72

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jo Ann Mandinach <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 5:44 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: "Nov 9; Item 11; Retail/Recovery Strategies".


Hello. Do what you can to preserve and support retail and the residents retail serves. Don't destroy it by turning retail space into more offices when we're normally over-run 4:1 with workers. Why the rush to convert retail to offices when there are currently so many offices up for lease or rent? All the articles say workers won't return to the same degree they were here previously and that people are leaving the area. Why not wait and see how the pandemic pans out, especially since we're embarking on another wave of infections? The office landlords will still be there; the workers won't. That raises the question of what you ARE doing to preserve and support retail. No more lame duck moves, please. Enough already. By working to destroy Palo Alto retail, you're forcing us to drive more to accomplish our tasks since not everything can be done online. Numerous studies have shown that "retail loves retail" and I'm already shopping and dining more in Los Altos and Menlo Park than in Palo Alto thus depriving the city of sales tax revenue. That's pretty sad when I'm closer to Town & Country than Menlo Park yet it takes me a shorter time to get to Trader Joe's in Menlo Park because of the STILL problematic traffic patterns. Jo Ann Mandinach

73

1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301

74

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jennifer Landesmann <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 5:09 PMTo: Council, City; Shikada, EdSubject: Noise Maps


Greetings Council, and City Manager, I just learned about a housing project near Dulles airport, and I should say that I am among those who favor dense or any type of housing for people and families to thrive in. I spend a considerable time in Vienna Austria, a city that I admire for taking remarkable care to build housing, prioritizing access to parks for health and well being. Clean air, clean water, parks are a fundamental source of pride for the Viennese. In painful contrast to responsible planning, with a 9‐3 vote, a planning commission approved dense housing to be built inside the 65 DNL contour near Dulles airport where people will get hurt. A gut punch that even the FAA and airport tried to stop (obviously too late and ineffectually). Based on flawed analysis, and inadequate public information. the housing project Stockbridge and another called Westfields are meant for multi‐family use. The future residents, children and vulnerable people who by no choice of their own will be subjected to deleterious impacts in these developments can't know what's ahead, and despite modern tools and methods readily available to produce noise maps that could better inform plans. Those who are being walked into a hazardous situation are totally helpless. Officials who are imperiling these families should have known that ‐

FAA can supplement noise estimates with a variety of metrics - all it takes is literally pushing of an extra button to output metrics beyond dnl (See the list of supplemental noise metrics that FAA supports here) BUT regrettably no airport or US community has a good record if any of being forthcoming with the public about what is possible in 2020 much less producing decent noise maps.

Our tax dollars have paid for special software (AEDT) and other data systems to produce noise maps to communicate about and manage environmental matters, but the public is getting cheated with a set up that makes us beg to benefit from something that we funded already.

The "noise" described by FAA to dissuade construction inside 65 DNL at Dulles is likely much more than 65 dnl - or 60 dnl as the developers purport. It all depends on the data sets used to make the noise maps - you can do noise maps using traffic data for one day, peak dates, annual averages, etc. Side note: Recall that the PIRAT that first replaced the Oceanic Pacific 2 Tailored Approach ATO used only ONE day's traffic information which is insufficient to make informed decisions.

If decision makers had current noise maps with supplemental noise metrics, and using appropriate data sets, they could be better informed to protect people from getting cheated into buying "inside 65 dnl", or could give people a chance to protect themselves from deceptive practices.

Noise is not just felt in the ears! ‐ there is a spectrum of noise that goes through walls and bones that cannot be insulated (so the offer from the developers to make the noise inside buildings 45 is useless).

In 2018 the World Health Organization recommended reducing exposure to below 45 and 40 for night. WHO also recommended using the "DALY" (Disability Adjusted Life Years) metric to quantify the deterioration of populations' health due to disease or by exposure to environmental factors.

The dirty air that comes from arrival patterns is really bad with lasting consequences.

75

Per experts at the US Department of Transportation's VOLPE center (a couple of years ago already) it takes days to one week to do a noise map for a single flight path.

But then again ‐ many of you know all or most of this, and yet as the City of Palo Alto keeps negotiating in regional bodies on behalf of citizens on intricate airspace procedures, these discussions don't have ANY noise maps! Below is a recent public comment I submitted to the SCSC about supplemental metrics and noise maps for public outreach. Please consider getting the City to take some substantive steps to get noise maps with supplemental metrics. Ahead of GBAS and the various SFO, OAK, SJC procedures that are about to be branded Palo Alto, that can cause real harm to the city, residential dwellings, schools and parks that you are elected to care about. Also, we can't forget that delays and the collective failure to lead on responsible airport noise management eventually has real impacts on people around the country as well. Thank you, Jennifer ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jennifer Landesmann <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 Subject: 10/28 meeting ITEM 4 Noise maps ‐ Supplemental Metrics for public outreach To: [email protected]

Dear Members of the SCSC, Thank you for your September 22 letter to Administrator Dickson which lists as a top priority the issue of metrics. As you are aware noise maps employing metrics to supplement DNL are possible to produce (and encouraged by FAA) for effective public outreach. I am pleased to share the attached Recommendation to ensure that adequate information about aircraft noise and exposure is made available to the public with the list of the supplemental metrics that the FAA's AEDT 3C (noise mapping) tool currently supports. This recommendation was drafted by members of the Quiet Skies Conference made up of diverse grassroots groups affected by Nextgen. As you pursue FAA follow up on airspace procedures affecting SCSC communities (PIRAT, BDEGA,and issues regarding CATEX and the IFP Gateway) I urge the SCSC to develop a similar recommendation about supplemental metrics or feel free to use this recommendation to please ensure that noisemaps are soon made available for community discussions and public outreach about impending procedures or modifications. I am especially concerned about how GBAS is being planned, with no updates given to the SCSC or requested by the SCSC. My understanding is that "overlays" are planned using CATEX, so procedures like PIRAT will be overlayed when nobody has ever seen a map with environmental information for these procedures.

76

It would take less time (and provide more meaningful information) to produce noise maps for the procedures the public is concerned about. Thank you, Jennifer

77

Baumb, Nelly

From: Elan Music <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 4:17 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Pushing housing goals onto EPA


(statement for the council meeting) As a Palo Alto resident, I am angered that we are shirking our duty and not taking our housing goals seriously. As a teacher, I am worried about my ability to continue living in the area. I have lived here since I was 7 years old and I may have to leave because of the housing crisis. This is not someone else's problem, this is our problem. Don't push this onto EPA and create issues of gentrification for them. Thank you, Elan loeb

78

Baumb, Nelly

From: Larry Jones <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:58 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Retail/Recovery Strategies


Please do NOT allow non-retail uses to move into vacant retail spaces. Experience shows that it is incredibly difficult to ever convert those spaces back to retail.

Most retailers, especially the smaller ones that aren’t grocery stores or “big box” stores, depend upon"foot traffic", that is, being part of a collection of other retailers. This could be a downtown, a shopping center or a mall. Or it could be a strip of retailers and restaurants that are convenient to the nearby residential neighborhoods. In other words,“retail loves retail.”

Studies have repeatedly found that small gaps in a series of stores or restaurants reduces business for nearby stores, sometimes for a surprising distance and to a surprising degree. This will have the effect of further decimating the number of retail stores that keep our town unique, an attraction for many and a great place to live.

Please, please do NOT allow non‐retail uses to move into vacant retail spaces. Thank you. Larry Jones 1407 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

79

Baumb, Nelly

From: Annette Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:32 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Board and Commission appointments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Rather than take a page out of the McConnell playbook and pushing through the appointment of new Board and Commission members this year, please postpone that until the new Council is convened. Doing so would demonstrate the Council’s commitment to good government. And fairness. After all, it is the new Council that will be working with the appointees. Regards, Annette Ross Palo Alto

80

Baumb, Nelly

From: [email protected]: Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:19 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Shikada, EdSubject: RHNA agenda item on MondayAttachments: ABAGRHNA-Final060920(r).pdf


Use this one, I forgot to attach the HCD letter and corrected two typos.

Dear Mayor Fine and council members,

I would tread very carefully in terms of any additional protest letters as the case outlined is poor, unlikely to succeed on the major points (as noted in the staff report) and if successful unlikely to result in significant reductions. The main result is more likely to alert all parties that Palo Alto does not intend to comply with state law and is protesting before even trying to develop a compliant housing element.

The allocation process given the regional total is a zero sum exercise and I see no case given the allocation criteria of priorities to high opportunity areas and access to large job pools (criteria not contested in the staff report) and in my view uncontestable after listening to all the committee meetings. The staff report alludes to but does not and cannot identify better places.

If the council does decide to pursue more protests, I have some suggestions at the end of this letter.

Background

I attached the HCD regional RHNA determination letter. Staff reports accurately portray the ABAG allocation methodology committee criteria and findings.

The HCD determination letter shows

1) half of the units to be added address existing conditions and not projected growth

2) the regional determination was not in any way based on ABAG projected job growth. Rather, the DOF population projections were used. They show a projected county growth rate for the 2020-2030 period of slightly over 0.5% per year, far lower than recent growth.

If HCD had used the ABAG growth forecast to 2030, the regional housing determination would have roughly 150,000 units higher.

3) Nearly 60% of the units to be planned for are for low and moderate income residents and reflect legislative direction to reduce existing overcrowding and cost burdens and havge a vacancy rate as described in the determination letter:

"Vacancy Adjustment: HCD applies a vacancy adjustment (standard 5% maximum to total projected housing stock) and adjusts the percentage based on the region’s current vacancy percentage to provide healthy market vacancies to facilitate housing availability and resident mobility"

81

Note that a) the vacancy rate is a blended rate covering all types of housing and reflects state policy to move toward a more healthy market where shortages do not result in punishing annual price and rent increases.

The ABAG allocation criteria are clear. If the city has a complaint I have not heard or seen it.

Palo Alto is a high opportunity city with good schools and amenities. We have a large job base even if no more few jobs are added. We have Caltrain stations with high use, VTA service on el Camino, are at the foot of the Dumbarton access from the East Bay and freeway access.

These are the criteria for priority siting of low and moderate income housing and part of the criteria for more expensive housing.

There is no case that there are better places. Do not embarrass us and hang a "please sue us first" sign out by arguing an unarguable case.

Please acknowledge the legitimacy of the allocation policy criteria.

If the council wishes to protest small procedural issues, please at least acknowledge our approval of the high opportunity area and access to jobs criteria. That would make any appeal less embarrassing and self serving.

The allocation process versus the regional total.

I have watched the council campaign, the online comments on Town Square and the Embarcadero Institute "report".

I wonder if some community members and council members are confusing the HCD determination and the ABAG committee allocation.

One suggestion I have is to delete the EI report from any letter send on.

!) Since the agenda item discusses a response to the allocation of the regional total and the EI report does not discuss the allocation, including it is irrelevant and gratuitous.

2) The EI report is wrong in both of its major claims.

The first claim is that the HCD vacancy assumption is too high because it does not use the recent vacancy trend for owner occupied housing. One, as pointed out in the HCD letter, the 5% is their normal assumption for the total housing stock not all parts of it.

Two, as the HCD letter points out the 5% rate reflects important state housing policy priorities in light of very large price and rent increases in recent years.

Would the council favor using the recent historical college attendance %s of Latino residents (and call them "normal") in designing state educational policy for this decade?

The second claim is that DOF already accounts for mitigating existing housing shortages. Their "evidence" for this is a quote from an ABAG staff member in 2006.

The claim is false. DOF has published their housing projection methodology this year and notes a) that it does not reflect pent up demand and starts with recent household headship rates (that reflect doubling up and overcrowding as a result of growing housing unaffordability for many residents).

82

On a personal note I was on the advisory committee for the HCD regional methodology, have had extensive conversations over decades with the relevant HCD and DOF staff and no one ever mentioned that the HCD criteria involved double counting.

In fact the opposite is true. The HCD overcrowding criterion is more than 1 person per room and their measure omits young adults moving back with their parents and all of the doubling up where there are fewer than 1 person per total room.

So delete any reference to the EI "report" if a letter is sent AND

these issues and the potential legal jeopardy the city might face with frivolous actions can be clarified by talking with HCD staff.

Stephen Levy

Director

Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov

June 9, 2020

Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments 375 Beale Street. Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Therese W. McMillan,

RE: Final Regional Housing Need Determination

This letter provides the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) its final Regional Housing Need Determination. Pursuant to state housing element law (Government Code section 65584, et seq.), the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to provide the determination of ABAG’s existing and projected housing need.

In assessing ABAG’s regional housing need, HCD and ABAG staff completed an extensive consultation process from March 2019 through May 2020 covering the methodology, data sources, and timeline for HCD’s determination of the Regional Housing Need. HCD also consulted with Walter Schwarm with the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit.

Attachment 1 displays the minimum regional housing need determination of 441,176 total units among four income categories for ABAG to distribute among its local governments. Attachment 2 explains the methodology applied pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.01. In determining ABAG’s housing need, HCD considered all the information specified in state housing law (Gov. Code section 65584.01(c)).

As you know, ABAG is responsible for adopting a methodology for RHNA allocation and RHNA Plan for the projection period beginning June 30, 2022 and ending December 31, 2030. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584(d), the methodology to prepare ABAG’s RHNA plan must further the following objectives:

(1) Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental

and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patters(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing(4) Balancing disproportionate household income distributions(5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing

Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(d), to the extent data is available, ABAG shall include the factors listed in Gov. Code section 65584.04(d)(1-13) to develop its RHNA

Therese W. McMillan Director Page 2

plan, and pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(f), ABAG must explain in writing how each of these factors was incorporated into the RHNA plan methodology and how the methodology furthers the statutory objectives described above. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(h), ABAG must submit its draft methodology to HCD for review.

Increasing the availability of affordable homes, ending homelessness, and meeting other housing goals continues to be a priority for the State of California. To support these goals the 2019-20 Budget Act allocated $250 million for all regions and jurisdictions for planning activities through the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) and Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant programs. ABAG has $ 23,966,861 available through the REAP program and HCD applauds ABAG’s efforts to engage early on how best to utilize these funds and HCD looks forward to continuing this collaboration. All ABAG jurisdictions are also eligible for LEAP grants and are encouraged to apply to support meeting and exceeding sixth cycle housing element goals. While the SB 2 Planning Grant deadline has passed, ongoing regionally tailored technical assistance is still available through that program.

In addition to these planning resources HCD encourages local governments to consider the many other affordable housing and community development resources available to local governments that can be found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/nofas.shtml

HCD commends ABAG and its leadership in fulfilling its important role in advancing the state’s housing, transportation, and environmental goals. ABAG is also recognized for its actions in proactively educating and engaging its board and committees on the RHNA process and the regional housing need, as well as creating tools to aid the public understanding in the process. HCD especially thanks Paul Fassinger, Gillian Adams, Aksel Olsen, Dave Vautin, Bobby Lu, Matt Maloney, and Elizabeth Bulgarin for their significant efforts and assistance. HCD looks forward to its continued partnership with ABAG and its member jurisdictions and assisting ABAG in its planning efforts to accommodate the region’s share of housing need.

If HCD can provide any additional assistance, or if you, or your staff, have any questions, please contact Megan Kirkeby, Acting Deputy Director, at [email protected] or Tom Brinkhuis, Housing Policy Specialist at (916) 263-6651 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Megan Kirkeby Acting Deputy Director

Enclosures

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/nofas.shtml

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/nofas.shtml

ATTACHMENT 1

HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION ABAG: June 30, 2022 through December 31, 2030

Income Category Percent Housing Unit Need

Very-Low* 25.9% 114,442

Low 14.9% 65,892

Moderate 16.5% 72,712

Above-Moderate 42.6% 188,130

Total 100.0% 441,176 * Extremely-Low 15.5% Included in Very-Low Category Notes: Income Distribution: Income categories are prescribed by California Health and Safety Code (Section 50093, et. seq.). Percents are derived based on Census/ACS reported household income brackets and county median income, then adjusted based on the percent of cost-burdened households in the region compared with the percent of cost burdened households nationally.

ATTACHMENT 2

HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION: ABAG June 30, 2021 through December 31, 2030

Methodology ABAG: PROJECTION PERIOD (8.5 years)

HCD Determined Population, Households, & Housing Unit Need Reference No.

Step Taken to Calculate Regional Housing Need Amount

1. Population: December 31 2030 (DOF June 30 2030 projection adjusted + 6 months to December 31 2030)

8,273,975

2. - Group Quarters Population: December 31 2030 (DOF June30 2030 projection adjusted + 6 months to December 31 2030)

-169,755

3. Household (HH) Population 8,159,280 4. Projected Households 3,023,735 5. + Vacancy Adjustment (3.27%) +98,7996. + Overcrowding Adjustment (3.13%) +94,6057. + Replacement Adjustment (.50%) +15,1208. - Occupied Units (HHs) estimated June 30, 2022 -2,800,1859. + Cost-burden Adjustment +9,102Total 6th Cycle Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) 441,176

Detailed background data for this chart is available upon request.

Explanation and Data Sources 1-4. Population, Group Quarters, Household Population, & Projected Households: Pursuant

to Gov. Code Section 65584.01, projections were extrapolated from DOF projections. Population reflects total persons. Group Quarter Population reflects persons in a dormitory, group home, institute, military, etc. that do not require residential housing. Household Population reflects persons requiring residential housing. Projected Households reflect the propensity of persons within the Household Population to form households at different rates based on American Community Survey (ACS) trends.

5. Vacancy Adjustment: HCD applies a vacancy adjustment (standard 5% maximum tototal projected housing stock) and adjusts the percentage based on the region’s currentvacancy percentage to provide healthy market vacancies to facilitate housingavailability and resident mobility. The adjustment is the difference between standard5% vacancy rate and regions current vacancy rate based (1.73%) on the 2014-2018ACS data. For ABAG that difference is 3.27%.

6. Overcrowding Adjustment: In regions where overcrowding is greater than thecomparable region’s overcrowding rate, or in the absence of comparable region thenational overcrowding rate. HCD applies an adjustment based on the amount theregions overcrowding rate (6.73%) exceeds the comparable region’s rate (3.60%). ForABAG that difference is 3.13%. Data is from the 2014-2018 ACS.

7. Replacement Adjustment: HCD applies a replacement adjustment between .5% and5% to the total housing stock based on the current 10-year annual average percent ofdemolitions the region’s local government annual reports to Department of Finance(DOF). For ABAG the 10-year annual average multiplied by the length of the projectionperiod is .40%, and the minimum .50% adjustment is applied.

8. Occupied Units: This figure reflects DOF’s estimate of occupied units at the start of the projection period (June 30, 2022).

9. Cost Burden Adjustment: HCD applies an adjustment to the projected need by comparing the difference in cost-burden by income group for the region to the cost-burden by income group for the comparable regions, as determined by ABAG. The very-low and low income RHNA is increased by the percent difference (66.64%-66.00%=.64%) between the region and the comparable region cost burden rate for households earning 80% of area median income and below, then this difference is applied to very low- and low-income RHNA proportionate to the share of the population these groups currently represent. The moderate and above-moderate income RHNA is increased by the percent difference (16.25%-13.10%=3.15%) between the region and the comparable region cost burden rate for households earning above 80% Area Median Income, then this difference is applied to moderate and above moderate income RHNA proportionate to the share of the population these groups currently represent. Data is from 2012-2016 CHAS.

83

Baumb, Nelly

From: [email protected]: Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:13 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Shikada, EdSubject: RHNA agenda item on Monday



I would tread very carefully in terms of any additional protest letters as the case outline is poor, unlikely to succeed on the major points (as noted in the staff report) and if successful unlikely to result in significant reductions. The main result is more likely to alert all parties that Palo Alto does not intend to comply with state law and is protesting before even trying to develop a complaint housing element.

The allocation process given the regional total is a zero sum exercise and I see no case given the allocation criteria of priorities to high opportunity areas and access to large job pools (criteria not contested in the staff report) and in my view uncontestable after listening to all the committee meetings. The staff report alludes to but does not and cannot identify better places.

If the council does decide to pursue more protests, I have some suggestions at the end of thiis letter.

Background

I attached the HCD regional RHNA determination letter. Staff reports accurately portray the ABAG allocation methodology committee criteria and findings.

The HCD determination letter shows

1) half of the units to be added address existing conditions and not projected growth

2) the regional determination was not in any way based on ABAG projected job growth. Rather, the DOF population projections were used. They show a projected county growth rate for the 2020-2030 period of slightly over 0.5% per year, far lower than recent growth.

If HCD had used the ABAG growth forecast to 2030, the regional housing determination would have roughly 150,000 units higher.

3) Nearly 60% of the units to be planned for are for low and moderate income residents and reflect legislative direction to reduce existing overcrowding and cost burdens and havge a vacancy rate as described in the determination letter:

"Vacancy Adjustment: HCD applies a vacancy adjustment (standard 5% maximum to total projected housing stock) and adjusts the percentage based on the region’s current vacancy percentage to provide healthy market vacancies to facilitate housing availability and resident mobility"

Note that a) the vacancy rate is a blended rate covering all types of housing and reflects state policy to move toward a more healthy market where shortages do not result in punishing annual price and rent increases.

klunt

Doc Letter Stamp

86

Baumb, Nelly

From: rob levitsky <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 2:28 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov 2 oral communications - tree ordinance threatened


city council members Many thanks to those of you who helped me get a response from the Planning Department regarding the Protected Oaks and Redwoods at Castilleja school. Unfortunately, the response from Jonathan Lait raises some serious questions about the protection provided by the Tree Ordinance going forward. Mr Lait asserts that any protected tree on a residential lot can be removed if its in the "building Area" of the lot, and a building is Proposed for the location where the tree stands. This is a stark reversal of the intention of the Tree Ordinance when it was passed over 20 years ago, and how it was administered by Dave Dockter from 1997 to 2017. If the City Council - and the citizens of Palo Alto let this interpretation stand - call it the "Castilleja Precedent" then the only protected trees in an R1 Neighborhood would be...... the street trees. How did this come about? Yes, there is an exception in the code to allow removal of a protected tree if it takes up so much of a lot that a house cant be built. Most lots are between 5000SF and 15000 SF, and a protected tree in the center of a lot could be a problem. The issue here is, that Castilleja is zoned R1 Residential, and their 6 acre, 250,000SF lot is not a normal residential lot, and none of the Protected trees that they want to remove are preventing construction of a building somewhere on the lot. Thus the interpretation by the Planning Director, for a 6 acre lot, is not credible. So something has to be done, or the Tree Ordinance will be gutted by this short sighted interpretation by the Planning Director. I believe the tree ordinance needs to specify an upper R1 lot size restriction for this exception, perhaps at 15,000SF. Another more complicated option would be to rezone castilleja school to something other than R1, since Castilleja phased out their boarding school students over 20 years ago, and no longer provides any residential housing. Castilleja is using its current R1 zoning to remove otherwise protected trees, at the same time it cries hardship regarding the FAR rules in R1. thanks for your time, .

88

Baumb, Nelly

From: Patricia Jones <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:52 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov 9; Item 11; Retail/Recovery Strategies


Please do NOT allow non-retail uses to move into vacant retail spaces. Experience shows that it is incredibly difficult to ever convert those spaces back to retail.

Most retailers, especially the smaller ones that aren’t grocery stores or “big box” stores, depend upon"foot traffic", that is, being part of a collection of other retailers. This could be a downtown, a shopping center or a mall. Or it could be a strip of retailers and restaurants that are convenient to the nearby residential neighborhoods. In other words,“retail loves retail.”

Studies have repeatedly found that small gaps in a series of stores or restaurants reduces business for nearby stores, sometimes for a surprising distance and to a surprising degree. This will have the effect of further decimating the number of retail stores that keep our town unique, an attraction for many and a great place to live.

Please, please do NOT allow non‐retail uses to move into vacant retail spaces. Thank you. Patricia Jones 1407 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com [email protected]

89

Baumb, Nelly

From: [email protected]: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:29 AMTo: Council, CityCc: Shikada, EdSubject: Agenda item 11



I support the staff recommendation on items 3 (expanding allowable uses) and item 5 (suspending the retail preservation ordinance) as well as extending the current street closures.

Background

The staff report correctly describes current in store retail trends;

"The viability of brick-and-mortar local retail continues to be threatened by changes in how shoppers acquire goods and receive services. The changes began long before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic, however, has accelerated adoption of online shoppinll as enhanced the proliferation of alternative sales methods. Some experts in the retail area estimate the amount of retail square footage in the United States will shrink as in-person shopping and purchasing decreases as the primary mode of consumption. Even as some excess retail space becomes dominated by successful brick-and-mortar uses such as dining, drinking, entertainment, recreation, or luxury shopping, an excess amount of retail space will remain."

All over the country, not just in Palo Alto, traditional retail outlets are being closed. This is a long-term trend, accelerated by consumers learning the ease of online shopping from the pandemic necessities.

Large shopping centers, including Stanford and T&C, have followed national trends to survive by welcoming non traditional uses in higher demand by today's consumers.

Areas that live in denial of these trends and do not adapt will lose market share to areas that move with changing consumer preferences.

Flexibility and listening to the market is the key here.

Please accept the staff recommendations.

We could help struggling retail stores more by planning for and welcoming customer growth through new housing and jobs though that is an issue for another day.

With regard to the street closures we support local restaurants regularly and find eating out on University an enjoyable experience. To go backwards would lose business to other cities and hurt both the businesses we are trying to help.

Stephen Levy

Director

90

Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy

and a 50+ year resident

91

Baumb, Nelly

From: Cherry LeBrun <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 10:49 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Message from the City Council Home Page

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor Adrian Fine, Vice Mayor Tom Dubois and City Council Members Alison Cormack, Eric Filseth, Liz Kniss, Lydia You, and Greg Tanaka, I own De Novo Fine Contemporary Jewelry at 250 University Avenue (entrance on Ramona Street). The closure of half of Ramona Street on the block where my business is located, and the closure of University Avenue continue to have a detrimental impact on my business. Traffic is not able to flow freely through the downtown and customers are not able to access my business easily. I know that I am not alone as a retailer with the opinion that the street closures are detrimental to downtown retail businesses. I ask you to end the street closures as soon as possible and definitley do not extend them past December 31st. To allow retailers in downtown to survive you must open the streets to allow customers easier access to the businesses that they want to support. Sincerely, Cherry LeBrun De Novo Fine Contemporary Jewelry 250 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 327‐1256 [email protected]

92

Baumb, Nelly

From: jeannie duisenberg <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 10:35 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov. 9 Council Meeting, Item 11


To Members of the Palo Alto City Council Re: Nov 9 agenda item 11. "Discussion and Potential Direction on Community and Economic Recovery Strategies” I am tremendously concerned about preserving retail space for retail in our downtown areas. If the street level retail spaces are allowed to become a series of real estate, law, VC and other office‐type businesses, it will kill our downtown. Such businesses do not generate the foot traffic necessary for a thriving community, What is the CIty's marketing plan to attract and encourage new retail businesses to Palo Alto? Is there such a plan? If not, why not? The notion that relaxing the retail preservation policy to allow office tenants would be temporary is simply unrealistic. This pivot is not really an economic strategy as it would likely cause long term damage to the vitality of our downtown. There is a lot of creativity in our City Staff and Council. Please come up with a creative plan to assist landlords to retain downtown retail space for retail business. Please keep the retail ordinance intact. Thank you for your service to the City of Palo Alto. Jeannie Duisenberg Palo Alto

93

Baumb, Nelly

From: Gregory Turnbull <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 6:11 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Lame-Duck Commission Appointments


November 8, 2020

To: Members of the Palo Alto City Council

Re: Action to Permit Lame‐Duck Appointment of City Commissioners

The Council’s recent action enabling the appointment of Commissioners prior to the impending departure of two Council

members, with those two members participating in the vote to do so, is a classic example of a very shoddy governance

practice. Palo Alto citizens expect much higher standards of integrity and character from their elected representatives.

To enable Adrian Fine and Liz Kniss the opportunity to importantly influence future Commission activities only days away

from their exits is permitting sleazy and cheap political practices akin to some recent national political moves. I can only

guess at the motivations of these two Council members, but I sincerely doubt it will be in the best interests of our city to

permit them a parting shot at imposing their personal schemes on the ongoing Commissions and Council. Regarding the

support for this lame‐duck enablement from Greg Tanaka and Alison Cormack, calling out their failure to adhere to

responsible governance standards seems an inadequate response.

Gregory Turnbull

50‐year resident

94

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 1:16 AMTo: HonkySubject: THE SWAMP THICKENS AND THE REASON THOSE TRUMP EXPOSES? MUST GET HIM OUT NOW


WE THE PEOPLE (OR BUST) https://www.larryhannigan.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Insurrection-Act-Treason.mp4?_=2 Larry Hannigan – Truth: The Mortal Enemy of the Lie

Larry Hannigan – Truth: The Mortal Enemy of the Lie

1

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 8:01 PMTo: HonkySubject: Lt. Gen Thomas Mcinerney exposes CIA software Hammer Scorecard, warned it will change votes by

3%!


Lt. Gen Thomas Mcinerney exposes CIA software Hammer Scorecard, warned it will change votes by 3%!

Lt. Gen Thomas Mcinerney exposes CIA software

Hammer Scorecard, warned i...

HUGE BREAKING NEWS: Lieutenant General Thomas Mcinerney blows the lid off the counting system used for election ...

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]> To: Honky <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020, 09:58:49 PM EST Subject: Lots more on 2020 election fraud & irregularities: ballots were ordered backdated, recounts, Elect ion Software DID NOT MATCH Printed Tabulator Tapes! ? Voter FRAUD liken said to TRUMP supporters "Why don't you just be a gracious LOSER?" There are MANY of these CLAIMS that MUST be DEALT WITH in the COURTS but the MSM says Biden / Harris is the WINNER? AND if TRUMP doesn't CONCEDE? Americans BEST WAKE UP Time to Settle the Scorecard with a Hammer to the DeepState! AZ and NV still hang in the balance

2

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Time to Settle the Scorecard with a Hammer to

the DeepState! AZ and NV s...



Time to Settle the Scorecard with a Hammer to the DeepState! AZ and NV still hang in the balance duh duh, duh duh dahts all folks LOL must have had a STROKE Joe, ya think he didn't mean WHAT HE SAID? LOL https://youtu.be/gHuzXoQMilM ? These probably labelled "FAKE NEWS" but I care NOT for ANY government goons AND IT MAKES ME WONDER LOL

3

* * * For those interested in considering all possibilities.....

Blind belief or callous rejection are not our allies but critical thinking and open-mindedness are. Detroit city worker blows whistle, claims ballots were ordered backdated, FBI probing | Just The News BREAKING: Intelligence expert Steve Pieczenik claims 2020 election was a \"sophisticated sting operation\" that has trapped the Democrats in the most massive criminal election fraud in history... details DHS cyber agency invests in election auditing tool to secure 2020 elections | TheHill Surveillance Video Shows Penn Voter Counters Filling In Ballots Themselves - Videos - VidMax.com 1 min. video Ballot Count Watcher Describes At Least 130,000 Ballots ALL FOR BIDEN Arriving in Three Vehicles in Detroit in Dead of Night | Thought Crime Radio GOP Claims Software Error Switched 6,000 Republican Votes to Democrat, Used in 47 Michigan Counties Georgia secretary of state says 'there will be a recount' due to the razor-thin margin in election count | Fox News CHRISTINA BOBB: DAY 3. THE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD CNN CAN’T FIND - YouTube 3 min. video BREAKING: Initial Supreme Court order to segregate ballots received after Election Day ignored by Pennsylvania counties, Justice Alito issues SECOND order to segregate and separately count these disputed ballots! Incredible corruption! Michigan County Clerk Discovers Total Votes Counted by"Elect ion Software" DID NOT MATCH Printed Tabulator Tapes! People working at a ballot center throwing away ballots while the news is broadcasting on 11/3 https://twitter.com/anon_fa_mous/status/1324479859565961218 __._,_.___

5

Baumb, Nelly

From: Michael Eager <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 7:08 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: No on Conversion of Retail to Office

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council members ‐‐ I urge you not to make changes to allow conversion of current retail space into office space. This will harm our shopping and retail areas. The pandemic has caused financial hardships for retail businesses that may not be able to stay in operation. This in turn causes a hardship for the property owner. It's natural that they would want to convert their property to other uses. The pandemic will be a temporary hardship. Everyone anticipates that this will fade over time as a vaccine is developed and people are vaccinated. Converting existing retail space to office space will not be temporary. Offices will remain offices; it is unlikely that they would ever be converted to coffee shops, stores, restaurants, etc. Retail business areas which previously attracted foot traffic will become a relative desert. Instead of being a magnet for pedestrians, California Avenue could become a scattered collection of offices with a few interspersed shops, all struggling to recover. The remaining shops will suffer, as will the neighborhood. Palo Alto currently has more than enough office space. It may seem like a good idea for a landlord who has a vacant retail property to convert but this only increases the number of landlords chasing tenants. More offices increases the burden on parking and traffic. Instead, landlords can look for the kind of retail businesses which have survived the pandemic and are likely to thrive when it is past. Again I oppose making a decade‐long change to address a short term problem. ‐‐ Michael Eager

6

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 6:59 PMTo: HonkySubject: Lots more on 2020 election fraud & irregularities: ballots were ordered backdated, recounts, Elect ion

Software DID NOT MATCH Printed Tabulator Tapes!


? Voter FRAUD liken said to TRUMP supporters "Why don't you just be a gracious LOSER?" There are MANY of these CLAIMS that MUST be DEALT WITH in the COURTS but the MSM says Biden / Harris is the WINNER? AND if TRUMP doesn't CONCEDE? Americans BEST WAKE UP Time to Settle the Scorecard with a Hammer to the DeepState! AZ and NV still hang in the balance



Time to Settle the Scorecard with a Hammer to the DeepState! AZ and NV still hang in the balance duh duh, duh duh dahts all folks LOL must have had a STROKE Joe, ya think he didn't mean WHAT HE SAID? LOL https://youtu.be/gHuzXoQMilM

7

? These probably labelled "FAKE NEWS" but I care NOT for ANY government goons AND IT MAKES ME WONDER LOL

* * * For those interested in considering all possibilities.....

Blind belief or callous rejection are not our allies but critical thinking and open-mindedness are. Detroit city worker blows whistle, claims ballots were ordered backdated, FBI probing | Just The News BREAKING: Intelligence expert Steve Pieczenik claims 2020 election was a \"sophisticated sting operation\" that has trapped the Democrats in the most massive criminal election fraud in history... details DHS cyber agency invests in election auditing tool to secure 2020 elections | TheHill Surveillance Video Shows Penn Voter Counters Filling In Ballots Themselves - Videos - VidMax.com 1 min. video Ballot Count Watcher Describes At Least 130,000 Ballots ALL FOR BIDEN Arriving in Three Vehicles in Detroit in Dead of Night | Thought Crime Radio GOP Claims Software Error Switched 6,000 Republican Votes to Democrat, Used in 47 Michigan Counties Georgia secretary of state says 'there will be a recount' due to the razor-thin margin in election count | Fox News CHRISTINA BOBB: DAY 3. THE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD CNN CAN’T FIND - YouTube 3 min. video BREAKING: Initial Supreme Court order to segregate ballots received after Election Day ignored by Pennsylvania counties, Justice Alito issues SECOND order to segregate and separately count these disputed ballots! Incredible corruption! Michigan County Clerk Discovers Total Votes Counted by"Elect ion Software" DID NOT MATCH Printed Tabulator Tapes!

8

People working at a ballot center throwing away ballots while the news is broadcasting on 11/3 https://twitter.com/anon_fa_mous/status/1324479859565961218 __._,_.___

__,_._,___

9

Baumb, Nelly

From: Charles Ryan <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:17 PMTo: [email protected]: I have a new email address - Please use for all new correspondence


All, Please note that I have switched email addresses and ask moving ahead as of today (11/7) to please use: [email protected] many thanks in advance, best, charlie

10

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 12:52 AMTo: HonkySubject: This drone don't smell like a ROSE and neither does the Joe Biden one


"Slaughterbot" Autonomous Killer Drones | Technology

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In "Slaughterbot" Autonomous Killer Drones |

Technology

Trump PROBABLY WON'T make it good BUT WE? WILL

As for Pedo Joe? duh duh, duh duh dahts all folks LOL must have had a STROKE Joe, ya think he didn't mean WHAT HE SAID? LOL Biden: We Have 'The Most Extensive and Inclusive Voter Fraud Organization'

11

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Biden: We Have 'The Most Extensive and

Inclusive Voter Fraud Organization'

To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Biden: We Have 'The Most Extensive and

Inclusive Voter Fraud Organization'

12

Baumb, Nelly

From: Gary Lindgren <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 4:41 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Shikada, EdSubject: Natural Gas Carbon Offsets


Dear City Council, Last week I viewed the video from the October’s UAC meeting on the topic of carbon offsets. While watching I had 2 questions in mind.

1. What is a typical project for carbon offsets?

2. Why are we doing this?

No one asked the second question. Do we do this for bragging rights with other cities? I can’t imagine myself talking to friends or relatives and saying, “look, Palo Alto has carbon‐neutral natural gas.” Palo Alto spends $1.3 million per year on the so‐called carbon capture program. I suggest that instead of sending this money outside of the city and state, that we use the money here and phase out city hall’s gas fired equipment and convert them to heat‐pump versions. This should also include the city’s other buildings around town. Also suggest starting incentive programs for residents to replace gas‐fired clothes dryers with heat‐pump versions and replace gas cooktops and stoves with induction versions. Then keep track of dryers, stoves, water heaters upgraded. Then we can brag! Also, there should be a program to convert wood‐burning fireplaces to gas fireplace inserts or free‐standing gas stoves (for heating). This would reduce smoke in the winter months. One more thing, Palo Alto likes to promote that its electricity is ‘Carbon Neutral’. This is not so, California uses natural gas to generate ½ of its electricity and since Palo Alto is connected to the grid, this means Palo Alto gets ½ of its electricity from natural gas. Palo Alto Utilities has done a great job in securing renewable sources of electricity, but that is how we buy energy. When we use electricity that is different and because we don’t have a direct connection to these renewable sources, we must connect through the grid. Thank You and Take Care, Gary Lindgren

Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto CA 94301 650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren Listen to Radio Around the World

Be Like Costco... do something in a different way

13

Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything 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

14

Baumb, Nelly

From: Vania Fang <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 4:27 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: my comments at the 11/5 ARB meeting regarding Castilleja's modernization project


I am joining the hearing again today because I live directly across from Castilleja School on Kellogg, and therefore, I am very invested in this process. The last tim e I spoke, I shared m y gratitude to Castilleja for the thoughtful design plans for the new cam pus. I look forward to the new building, and as I m entioned before, I especially appreciate the gentle entry on Kellogg, because it is subtle and beautifully landscaped. The current drop-off patterns do not negatively im pact us as direct neighbors, and I want to reiterate that I am happy those will be the sam e on the new cam pus. Castilleja has been a good neighbor to us in so m any ways—with excellent traffic m onitoring, no school parking outside m y hom e, and quiet students who we are happy to see again now that cam pus has reopened to sm all groups. During the past ARB and PTC m eetings I attended, traffic and noise were often raised as concerns about Castilleja's m odernization project. As a direct neighbor, I honestly have never experienced any traffic or noise issues from Castilleja. W e used to live near a neighborhood school prior to relocating to our current house, every m orning going to work we would be stuck behind a long queue of cars doing drop-offs as well as yielding to heavy pedestrian traffic. None of that happened at Castilleja. Traffic was always well m anaged, and never overflowed onto the neighborhood streets. In fact, we experience m uch m ore traffic problem s as we approach the nearby Palo Alto High School, but we accept the fact because we bought our hom e knowing it is close to schools. W hile I understand that public schools go through a different traffic regulation process, to m e as a neighbor, Palo Alto High and Castilleja are both schools. Castilleja is not the source of traffic issues in this neighborhood now and I believe this fact will rem ain unchanged with the new cam pus. Regarding noise, we rarely hear any sound from Castilleja, and rem em ber we are alm ost directly across from Castilleja's pool. O n the rare occasion that we do hear som ething, it hardly qualifies as noise. It is a school after all and schools should not be silenced. I know at the last hearing, as a board you had suggested further adjustm ent to reduce the m assing on Kellogg, and now that I see the changes the architects have m ade, I understand why that was im portant. I appreciate the new setbacks along the second story roofline, and I think these increm ental changes from the past two hearings now add up to a very different and m uch-im proved result. I think this m odernized building will be a new way that Castilleja will im prove as a neighbor to m e, creating a space that is beautiful and warm and scaled to m atch the textures and variety of our neighborhood. I am excited for this project to m ove forward, and I thank you for your guidance and expertise in this process. I urge you to support this with a final vote today, because I want to see this process start, and I also want our neighborhood to be able to m ove forward.

15

Baumb, Nelly

From: Roger Mccarthy <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:56 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Castilleja's Expansion Approval


My name is Roger McCarthy and I live a few blocks from Castilleja School at 650 Waverley Street. I have had no connection to Castilleja, past or present. I have never set foot in the place. I strongly feel that it is time to approve this project. In fact, it is well beyond time. If these poor Castilleja folks weren’t so dedicated, they would have given up a long time ago. The fact is Silicon Valley is dominated by men—from entry-level positions to the highest leadership roles. I have worked my entire career in the tech industry and have recently been the Membership Committee Chair of the National Academy of Engineering. At the national level, in technology, we suffer the same huge gender imbalance. So what are you going to do? Wait for someone else to solve this problem? Again???? Palo Alto has an incredible opportunity to address this problem. We desperately need women in Engineering and Technology to make our products, our culture, and our world better. And we need to STOP talking about the problem and START doing something about it. A key part of our national solution to this problem is the all-girls school. Study after study proves that graduates from all-girls schools are more SIX times more likely to pursue careers in STEM, and THREE TIMES more likely to pursue a career in engineering. We have the SECOND BEST all-girls school in the entire NATION, and the only nonsectarian one in California, right down my street. Co-ed schools will not solve our huge STEM gender imbalance, which stands in mute testimony to their long term ineffectiveness. Our huge gender imbalance is NOT going to improve without change, and what are doing now in our nation, including in Palo Alto is not enough. We need to do MORE. We need to do MORE NOW. This problem is NOT going to solve itself. We need to allow Castilleja to admit more girls now because we can’t sit back and wait for change. We have to make choices to actively promote change. We certainly can’t wait for the red states to do it. And we simply can’t allow NIMBY to obstruct the futures of our daughters. You have a chance to make a difference here. The world needs girls and young women to see themselves as computer programmers, scientists, and engineers. You know we are facing steep challenges. We need all the nation’s talents! We need all of the brightest, most creative, most resilient, and most insightful people in the room. Many of those people are women. You are the people who can open this door to more girls in STEM. It is well beyond time. Solving the gender imbalance in tech is far more important to all of us than tree roots and traffic. Dr. Roger L. McCarthy https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/how-a-single-gender-environment-can-leads-girls-to-choose-a-stem-career/article26498295/ (accessed 6 November 2020) https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Sax_FINAL%20REPORT_Sing_1F02B4.pdf (accessed 6 November 2020) https://www.niche.com/k12/castilleja-school-palo-alto-ca/ (accessed 6 November 2020)

16

Baumb, Nelly

From: Geraldine Hraban <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:42 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: NO OFFICE ZONES ON GROUND FLOOR RETAIL


Council, I am writing to OPPOSE changing any zones designated for retail to office zoning, and particularly NO office zones on ground floor. It is extremely important to keep our retail spaces and not let the City Council change the zoning to allow office space instead of retail on the ground floor. Once a space has been converted from retail to office, even temporarily, supposedly, it does not get converted back again to retail status later on. We have seen a number of examples of that. We do not need more banks or more office space. There is plenty of that available. Retail spaces converted to office spaces become inaccessible to the general public. In the sense of generating consumer traffic and foot traffic, they become dead spaces. Such dead spaces break up the flow in a block and in a street. Pretty soon more retail spaces begin to suffer under diminished attention from customers as the lively atmosphere, which characterizes our Palo Alto, starts to flag. And so the dangerous drift begins to a loss of the clusters of the shops we love and depend on. Retail has been good in Palo Alto for many years, good to landlords too. The good times will return, even though we are going through a difficult period for the moment, brought on by an exceptional circumstance. Landlords need to accept a temporary downturn as an investment in future prosperity and profit. There always is an ebb and flow in business for one reason or another. There certainly is a track record how the Palo Alto retail has flourished. Landlords need to look for signs of returning liveliness in the retail picture. On El Camino and Oxford a new Market is opening up, the usual covid regulation signs by the Health Department are on the doors. Markets are one of the businesses that have done well recently as people cook at home more frequently. Landlords can attract retail tenants that are in a sector that is doing okay and give them a favorable start. Meanwhile pop up stores, especially popular in the Holiday season, can provide temporary income to landlords and will provide much liveliness that enhances our entire shopping eco- system. After the Holidays, a recovery will not be far off, as covid 19 will start to come under control in the months following a vaccine offering countywide. I strongly oppose a change in zoning that allows for office space instead of retail on the ground floor. We need to preserve our City as we know it, for a bright future for us all. Landlords are profiting from the Palo Alto charm in spades all around. Office space is favored in a lively town rather than a dull office Park, which will be Palo Alto's future if we lose our retail. I want to tell the City Council, support retail, don't threaten it! Retail has made exemplary efforts, investments and sacrifices to keep us safe during this covid period. Let's think of the parklets and the like, retail open for us, the public, with minimal business traffic allowed. Let's honor those efforts that will save the retail and the atmosphere in our City. Our future depends on this. Citizens do NOT want more offices, especially on the ground floor! Geraldine Hraban

17

Baumb, Nelly

From: Amy Keohane <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:11 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Retail to Office space


Hi I believe this is a slippery slope. We need to bring back retail when we can. Maybe this is the time for all the money hungry owners of buildings will bring the rent down. Time to level the costs. The building owners want us to think they cant fill space but if they lower the cost they will come. Bringing office space to the bottom floors does not increase foot traffic or bring people to restaurants. Please put the offices in all the office buildings that are going up all over the area. Lets help out the dt folks. I plead that we don't allow big companies to take over the DT. You allowed Palantir to take over many buildings of downtown and now they are picking up and leaving, That is crushing. Please leave DT to retail and restaurants!!!! amy Amy Keohane 650‐346‐5306

18

Baumb, Nelly

From: Greg Schmid <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:03 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Note on Agenda itemAttachments: PASZ Request to PA City Council Nov 6 2020.pdf


This is a note from PASZ for Agenda Item 13 on the November 9 Council Meeting. Thank you, Greg Schmid 3428 Janice Way [email protected]

Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning PO Box 305, Palo Alto, CA 94302

http://sensiblezoning.org

November 6, 2020

[email protected]

THE RHNA ALLOCATION: WE NEED LEGAL INTERVENTION

Action Step

Ask the City Attorney to formally request that ABAG stop the RHNA process and follow the California Government Code.

The Issue

ABAG has just announced that Palo Alto’s RHNA Housing requirement for the next eight years be raised from a current goal of two thousand new housing units to over ten thousand. Where does this astounding number come from? From an in-house process of a non-elected regional body –ABAG--that uses their own model of very aggressive job growth in a single already jobs-rich area that completely ignores California Government Code. This would dramatically change the character of our city, Palo Alto.

Over the last fourteen months, ABAG’s Executive Committee and their Housing Mandate Committee have been repeatedly asked to follow the wording of the key California Government Code that describes the RHNA process (Government Code 65584). This Code specifically calls for the Regional Planning process to pay special attention to local jobs-housing imbalances and to explore incentives that would “promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing” (Code Section 65584 (d) (3)).

The most obvious way of accomplishing this goal would be to explore concrete incentives for the dispersion of jobs throughout the Bay Area. In fact, there were formal requests made to the ABAG Executive Committee by 85 signatories in August 2019, by ten speakers at an Executive Meeting in September 2019 and again by petition from the West Bay Citizens Coalition in February of 2020.

The ABAG Executive Committee did not respond to any to the formal requests and did not discuss any such options in public sessions. Instead, the Committee gradually released to the public the results of their in-house decision process:

--in October 2019 they stated that they would not look at jobs caps in already jobs-rich cities;

--in May 2020 they announced that the COVID crisis would not affect their longer-term job growth forecasts in jobs-rich areas;

--in July 2020 they released the results of their jobs-driven housing model that projected an extraordinary growth in both jobs and housing in a newly defined “Silicon Valley Super District” that focused future Bay Area job growth in a very limited segment of the South Bay (while reducing projected job growth in San Francisco, Oakland and other East Bay cities). These focused job growth projections were the sole basis of the RHNA housing growth forecasts that followed.

ABAG has not followed the California Government Code that calls for them to openly explore publicly alternative policies that could dampen the concentration of jobs in a small part of the Bay Area. Instead they have pushed ahead their internal modeling process without any effective public discussion of the consequences of a model that reflects the wishes of big businesses to concentrate employment in a narrow already jobs-rich section of the Bay Area. This would involve requirements of up to a billion dollars in subsidies in Palo Alto, loss of control of local zoning in the city, and possible decline in the share of family households.

The Request

We request that the City Attorney demand that ABAG and RHNA follow the state Code that requires an open public discussion of alternative ways of achieving intraregional jobs-housing balances.

(signed) Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning

For further information, contact: [email protected]

19

Baumb, Nelly

From: Sylvia Gartner <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 2:54 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Conversion of Retail Space to Office Space


I am very opposed to any such action. It seems an odd time to be doing this when our recent election favored candidates in favor of slower growth and more attention to listening to residents. I acknowledge that these are tough times for property owners, but that is the risk they run when they decide to be property owners. I believe the tide will turn and we will want those spaces available for future resident‐serving retail outlets. Sylvia Gartner 824 Moreno Avenue

20

Baumb, Nelly

From: Pria Graves <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 2:09 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Propose changes to retail requirements


Dear Council Members, I’m very concerned by the proposed extension of allowed uses in our primary retail areas as well as the proposal to suspend retail preservation across wider areas of the City. While allowing expansion of food preparation/manufacturing (with a retail component!) seems to make sense, allowing additional non‐retail uses such as professional and medical offices on the ground floor does not increase the vibrancy of our shopping areas. Already the growing preponderance of so‐called “retail‐like” uses such as fitness centers, hair and nail salons, spas, and the like has eroded the once‐delightful shopping experience along California Avenue. No longer do we have bookstores, stationary and art supplies, hardware, florist, bakery, pharmacy, pet store, music stores, appliance store, thrift store, etc. Already locals can no longer walk or bike to fulfill these shopping needs. Instead, we must drive elsewhere or resort to online purchases. Instead if these inviting store‐front spaces, we have the unappealing vista of fitness machines or folks having their hair tended! And office fronts are even less inviting. Office space is a good use upstairs, above retail but not on the ground floor. Please don’t be fooled ‐ folks coming to an office for an appointment are not typically going to go “shopping” along an uninviting street afterwards. Even apart from our core retail areas, residents of other parts of the City have long been able to “shop locally”. We need to continue to protect Charleston Plaza, Summerwinds Nursery, retail along El Camino, Edgewood Plaza and the like. But I see no such protections discussed in the staff report. Palo Alto already has plenty of empty office space. Let’s not provide an incentive for property owners to further erode our town. We talk a lot about making Palo Alto a “walkable” community. Let’s do it! Let’s KEEP retail on the ground floor! Regards, Pria Graves 2130 Yale Street 650.493.2153

21

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jeannine Marston <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:10 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Letter re: Castilleja ProjectAttachments: Letter to City Council 11_4 - Google Docs.pdf


Thank you, and see attached.

/

To: City Council, City of Palo Alto 11/4/20 From: Jeannine Marston, 1921 Waverley Street Re: Castilleja School Project

I have lived for forty-four years in the neighborhood of Castilleja. My family members have attended both public and private schools here. I am a former teacher, and currently volunteer for an organization that supports under resourced students in East Palo Alto. When I talk to my neighbors and friends, they state their clear support for the Castilleja--a school featured in the city’s own Centennial history book--- a school that represents a legacy, a pillar value of Palo Alto: education. I listened carefully last week to the PTC’s intelligent questions about enrollment. Increasing the high school enrollment aligns perfectly with other Palo Alto goals to democratize housing opportunities, our parks and other areas of city life. Allowing more upper school students grants spaces for girls from different backgrounds, including more first generation college students, a category Castilleja has tripled the past four years. Students of color represent over 50% of the enrollment. Diversification efforts can help address old city-wide disparities. Recently, two African American Castilleja alums, one a local physician and one an engineer, spoke about their education as empowering. Palo Alto has an opportunity to increase equity and inclusion by supporting Castilleja’s plan. Increasing the size also makes for a much stronger program - and having a better program is better for Palo Alto. Castilleja is the only high school in the region - public or private - that doesn’t increase its size between middle and high school. Especially at upper level classes, you need a critical mass of students to support collaboration and inspire dialogue. More students will allow a greater breadth of class offerings. And outside the classroom, Castilleja needs more students to support its athletics, music, and theater programs.

The Final Environmental Impact Report assures us there are no significant negative impacts AND a great benefit: to maximize the utilization of a key

/

resource--an excellent education for women. Let’s believe the science and the data in a report you have judged complete. I pass Bryant and Kellogg every day, and I personally look forward to a new, beautiful, green campus that enhances the neighborhood, and yes, enhances the values of local homes.

The school is committed to doing this project carefully. For eight years they committed precious resources to meeting the neighbor’s and city’s requirements. Other schools in Palo Alto have grown and modernized. Castilleja is asking to do both responsibly. And when the question arises what Castilleja graduates do for the community? My answer includes that they make Palo Alto proud---just the way Paly and Gunn graduates do--- and carry the Palo Alto name and its hundred year plus core commitment to education excellence where they go, work and live. Thank you for your service to our community. --------Jeannine Marston

22

Baumb, Nelly

From: James Smith <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:22 AMTo: Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja ExpansionSubject: Please Support Castilleja

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor Filseth and members of City Council, My name is James Smith and I live in Los Angeles, CA. I am writing to express my support for Castilleja School’s new Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit application. I am very happy that the DEIR found Castilleja’s proposal to be 100% compliant with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. The school and the City predate all of us and have a rich history together. Through this proposal, we hope to create the best possible future for the school, the neighborhood, and the City. The DEIR supports Castilleja’s project in many important and exciting ways, including a new campus design that is more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood; LEED Platinum Environmental measures that surpass Palo Alto’s sustainability goals; a Traffic Demand Management Program that could allow for increased enrollment without increasing daily trips to campus; and an underground garage that is preferred over surface parking. Castilleja was founded 112 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. I support Castilleja because Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?. I hope you will support Castilleja as it seeks to modernize its campus and gradually increase high school enrollment while minimizing its impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, James

23

Baumb, Nelly

From: [email protected]: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: Council, CitySubject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color


Dear Caltrain Board,

The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford campus.

Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green? Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here.

Please look in to it, and let me know some options.

Thank you,

Martin

-- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality."

On 2020-09-30 12:05, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Martin, Thank you for contacting Caltrain Electrification. The selection of the beige color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and is a common color for poles located near stations. Most poles are a neutral chrome color along the project area but in some cases, such as near stations, Caltrain staff worked with local cities to identify pole colors that aligned with certain station areas. Once the poles have been procured and placed, we are not able to change the colors of those poles. Thank you again for reaching out to us. Best, The Caltrain Team

24

On 2020-09-25T10:17:50-07:00, Martin J Sommer <[email protected]> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached picture, of a beige pole placed last night. This creates a real eye sore!! Questions: 1) Why are you using a beige color vs the std forest green (that blends with the trees), and 2) can these beige poles please be painted forest green, before electrification occurs? I know that this is a "big ask". Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer <http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer> "Turn technical vision into reality."

25

Baumb, Nelly

From: Sue Purdy Pelosi <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 8:23 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Please don’t convert retail to business


Dear city council members In this time of economic upheaval please don’t make it even harder for stores to stay on our streets. Stores and restaurants mixed with office space provides a flow of people and business and community that will continue to make Palo Alto a pleasant place to walk and visit. Our economy needs be supported AND support a variety of businesses and services. Thank you Sue

Sue Purdy Pelosi Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama https://www.linkedin.com/in/suepurdypelosi/

26

Baumb, Nelly

From: Loran Harding <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:08 PMTo: Loran Harding; [email protected]; [email protected]; beachrides; David

Balakian; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; [email protected]; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steven Feinstein; [email protected]; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; [email protected]; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mark Standriff; Mayor; Mark Waldrep; newsdesk; nick yovino; [email protected]; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; [email protected]

Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:17 PM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>



‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM

27

Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:09 AM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:45 PM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>



Mark‐ I'll infringe our "no bulk mailings" deal to send you this. It is an eye‐opener. See the link in the mail below where I say "Don't miss this". AND, I tout your AIX Records in this mail. When you look at the new Sony player on Amazon it doesn't even say that it plays DVD‐As. The link I provide to the Sony website about it does say. I've added quite a bit to this mail in a couple of days. Wear a mask. Stay home as much as possible. We now have the most dangerous phase of the pandemic to date.

28

This morning KCBS SF had Dr. Agus (?) on for "Ask and Expert" for 20 minutes. He's an MD and engineer at USC that KCBS uses for info. Today he discussed much re masks, face shields, social distancing. KCBS puts these up on their website and I'll forward it out when it is up. Information that could merely save your life. Loran W. Harding Fresno

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:39 AM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:11 PM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, beachrides <[email protected]>, David Balakian <[email protected]>, bballpod <[email protected]>, Leodies Buchanan <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, boardmembers <[email protected]>, paul.caprioglio <[email protected]>, Cathy Lewis <[email protected]>, city.council <[email protected]>, Chris Field <[email protected]>, Doug Vagim <[email protected]>, dennisbalakian <[email protected]>, Dan Richard <[email protected]>, Daniel Zack <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Steven Feinstein <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, huidentalsanmateo <[email protected]>, hennessy <[email protected]>, steve.hogg <[email protected]>, Irv Weissman <[email protected]>, jerry ruopoli <[email protected]>, Joel Stiner <[email protected]>, kfsndesk <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Pam Kelly <[email protected]>, Mark Kreutzer <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <margaret‐[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Mayor <[email protected]>, Mark Standriff <[email protected]>, newsdesk <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Steve Wayte <[email protected]>, tsheehan <[email protected]>, terry <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, nick yovino <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:21 PM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:45 PM

29

Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:35 AM Subject: Fwd: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:11 AM Subject: OneWeb v. Google SpaceX, with Amazon coming on. Brdband from orbit. To: Loran Harding <[email protected]>

Thursday, Nov. 5, 2020 To all‐ The third internet service by satellite constellation is called Amazon Blue Origin. There goes affordable high speed broadband. "You'll access the satellite internet service through A LOCAL TELECOM". Hang on to you wallet. Has your local telecom ever gladly accepted LESS revenue from you? ATT hounds me to pay not $51 per month for 3 megs via DSL but $60, going to $65 after one year, they finally admitted, for 50 mgs. I tell them I have what I need at 3 megs. "Yes, but this would be faster!! they yell, assuming all of their customers are morons. You'd need more than 3 megs for sure for Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, Disney, all the music and movie streamers, all at $10 or $15 or $19 per month each, on top of the higher ATT DSL charge. We're all stupid about birth control, we all have six kids in the house, and we all have 6 phones, computers, I‐pads, tvs, games, music and movie streamers going all the time, so we need gig size broadband. Some of us went to Stanford and, well, we're not typical. Dave Packard at his Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto www.stanfordtheatre.org says that the movies he shows from the 30's, 40's and 50's represent Hollywood's golden age. He never says that current movies are trash, but you can read between the lines. And I need to pay up to hear rap music? I have loads of music and movies on CDs, hi‐rez DVD‐As from Aix Records, DVDs, LPs, Barkley‐Crocker classical tapes. "Oh no! You need a streaming service, or several of them". When you dig into this, it turns out they are all compressed, with CD audio quality at best. And your modem and your DAC all add noise. For $19.99 a month, one of them claims to be hi‐rez. There are lots of vids on YouTube touting DACs for $2,000 to $10,000 to get a cleaner signal into your system while streaming. The DAC sits in your music system receiving the signal from streaming that you broadcast from your (expensive per month) router‐modem. The guys making the vids about DACs delight in slinging double‐talk. Makes them feel intelligent, I guess.

30

By not laying out money for streaming, I can buy the best movies of the year on BluRay in 4K, or buy some more hi‐rez Aix Records DVD‐As or BluRays from company founder Mark Waldrep. BTW, you need a special player to play DVD‐As and SACDs. The Oppo players at $499 to $1,099 could do it but the cheap $150 BluRay players that could not drove them out of business. There is a new Sony BluRay 4K player that says it can play hi res DVD‐As and SACDs, the Sony UBP‐X1100 ES. It costs $499. https://www.sony.com/electronics/blu‐ray‐disc‐players/ubp‐x1100es/specifications#features Good reviews, but a few bugs are reported by some users, like freezing. It comes loaded with only three streaming services, and you cannot add more. That bugs people, but various streaming services may come loaded on your new big screen TV. Very few other BlueRay players, if any, can play SACD AND DVD‐Audio discs. You do see used Oppos on EBay and they CAN play them. Sony saw a way to get a competitive edge with consumers who have a collection of DVD‐A and SACD discs in designing the UBP‐X1100ES. . Discussion of DVD‐Audio, DVD‐A: BTW, the standard for DVD‐Audio is 24‐ bit, with a sampling rate of 96 kHz. The standard for CDs is 16‐bit, and a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. DVD‐Audio takes advantage of the huge increase in storage space the DVD provided over the CD. https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/DVD‐Audio#:~:text=DVD%2DAudio%20is%2024%2Dbit,sampling%20rate%20of%2044.1%20kHz. I can hear a real difference between most CDs and a DVD‐A disc. I bought some DVD‐As from www.aixrecords.com. See the website. Founder Mark Waldrep shows a catalog of 75 albums. I was using a Panasonic S‐97 DVD player which also played DVD‐As. (But not SACDs). Still have it. (But it won't play BlueRays and 4K BRs). At the website, click on "About" to learn about Dr. Waldrep and his technologies. When he produces a BluRay or DVD‐Audio, he records live on hard‐drives. No tape. The disc you buy is "bit for bit identical to the studio master", I think I have read in his comments. His discs are 5.1 surround sound. A 2 ch. stereo presentation and two 5.1 track presentations, one of which puts you in the audience and the other of which puts you in among the musicians. I see some other DVD‐As on Ebay. You cannot take a Ricky Nelson tape, e.g., and produce a DVD‐A from it. The format won't improve on the information available in the original recording. His website says that he keeps producing DVD‐As and BlueRays. I'll keep buying his discs but his streaming service will have to rely on better‐heeled customers than me. The DAC in your BlueRay player may be able to receive the signals (from streaming services) you broadcast out to it from your modem‐router. The DAC in various Oppos could, I am told. (DAC‐ Digital, Analog Converter). You'd have to research this. You broadcast out from your computer modem to the DAC in your sound sytem or to your TV. You control what is coming off of the internet and being broadcast out to your greatroom by using a smart phone or maybe an I‐Pad which is communicating with your computer. OTW you'd be running in to your computer all of the time to change what you were pulling off of the internet and sending out to the great room. The vids re DACs on YouTube show people sitting at a laptop to control what is being streamed. I suppose there the material is being streamed from the laptop to the DAC. Probably the best way to do this. I was actually thinking of getting into the streaming thing until I saw the vids on YouTube about $2,000 DACS, and up. (You can get by for a lot less). And I found out that I'd pay plenty, every month, to get the megs from ATT to permit streaming, as well as paying plenty, every month, to have the streaming services running on my computer. And the final straw was the realization that I don't need several million songs at my fingertips and hundreds of thousands of movies. Remember what Dave Packard said about the movies. One commenter on one of the DAC vids on YouTube said that "Streaming is snake oil". BTW, click on "schedule" on the Stanford Theatre website and see, by year, what movies were shown when at that theatre. Packard bought the theatre in 1987, ran a Fred and Ginger Rogers festival, got a good turn out, so he spent ~$6 million restoring it, and runs the great movies from the thirties through ~1959. I've only been there ~450 times. Let's see, what would the better part of a city block in downtown Palo Alto be worth by now? He'll get his investment back when he folds his tent. He is the son of David Packard of HP fame. He doesn't run the theatre to put food on the table. The Stanford Theatre is a great gift to Palo Alto and the people of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, and beyond.

31

The satellite broadband will be probably be at least $50 or $75/ mo. to rent the antenna and associated electronics to get signals from the satellites, then a lot more to have the service, and more each month for any streaming service you take, every month, on and on, no doubt. Those prices will be increased whenever they want more money. They say in the vid. below that people in Africa will pay less for broadband from satellite than people in Germany will‐ or people in the U.S. will. We need to subsidize the poor people in Asia, Africa and Latin America who don't have broadband now, and we are supposed to subsidize them gladly. Gladly. Don't miss this: This is the eye‐opener re constellations of low‐earth orbit satellites to provide internet service, all to enrich the three companies about to do it, and to drain your bank account to receive it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsqSwMsI_mc This is interesting, but I don't see how it is good for us. I have hi speed internet via DSL for $51/mo. 3 megs. That's all I need for full motion video on my computer. I don't stream anything out to my TV or sound system. (One commenter after a vid about streaming said "Buy the discs!") But this new satellite deal won't be $51 a month, I am sure. The point is that this is here NOW. Not some dream of "someday". This is right around the corner, you'll see if you watch the above vid. Note that SpaceX launched 60 satellites in one go the other day. You can be sure that the telecoms are on Capitol Hill now "explaining" the need for a big new internet rate structure for consumers of internet from satellites. So get ready to pay way up when your broadband is coming down from the satellites. I don't trust this at all. It looks like a scam to dig more money out of us. Oh, Trump's FCC will probably protect us from the Telecoms, right? We'll know next June when the Supreme Court puts him in power for four more years. Now I see a need for an outcry and for a movement! Let us keep our affordable 3 meg DSL if that is all we need. DO NOT cancel DSL and force us to buy expensive internet service via satellites. If they do force us to do that, it is just a scam and the FCC should prevent it. Contact Congress about your telecom halting DSL and other internet service and robbing you blind by providing your internet service via satellites. That will be a royal screwing if they do it to us. It would be appropriate to start writing now. Now to go watch the returns. I'm watching them some more on Thursday. Perfectly understandable with the mail‐in voting to protect against the virus. I think we'll know the outcome on Friday, but all of the litigation may delay that. L. William Harding Fresno

32

Baumb, Nelly

From: Yahoo Mail.® <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:39 PMTo: HonkySubject: * Max Igan AT HIS BEST


October Surprise 2020

October Surprise 2020

http://thecrowhouse.com TheCrowhouse YouTube Archive on AltCensored: https://www.altcensored.com/channel/UCegO...

34

Baumb, Nelly

From: CeCi Kettendorf <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 7:47 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Ground floor retail


Please preserve Palo Alto's charm and livability by preserving and expanding our retail space. We have enough office space. There is no need to change zoning to allow first floor office space to replace retail space. I already head to Los Altos for services and products I can no longer find in Palo Alto. We have lost so much in this city! Thank you, CeCi Kettendorf

35

Baumb, Nelly

From: Cindy Chen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 7:16 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Supporting Castilleja's Master Plan


I have lived in Old Palo Alto for over 10 years, just 5 blocks away from Castilleja, and I appreciate the incredible work that the school has done listening to neighbor concerns and modifying their plans accordingly. I have followed this project closely for years, including the fact that neighbors asked for an underground garage to accompany any campus modernization. As I look at the plans now—with a smaller underground parking, improved aesthetics, preserved redwoods, fewer events, outstanding traffic management—I firmly believe it’s time for this process to draw to a close and for Castilleja’s Master Plan to be approved. The FEIR finds no impacts. The proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I truly don’t understand this resentment and hostility around a school. The school has modified and modified, and now it’s time to recognize the plan for what it is: one that gives more opportunity to students with no negative impacts. I am a strong proponent of increasing the size of the upper school as long as car trips do not increase. This will increase access for young women, something Palo Alto should be proud of. In terms of noises from Castijella events, I don’t hear anything and have any concerns. Periodically, in fall months, from PALY football games, I would hear enthusiastic cheers from fans and music from the marching band. To be honest, during these months of Covid-19 sheltering-in-place, I miss these sounds. To me, the cheers and music represent a vibrant community. The immediate neighbors knew they’d be living in a home adjacent to a school with drop-off and pick-up, events, and the joyful sounds of students in the neighborhood. I urge you to recognize the responsiveness of the school; approve plans to modernize campus and increase enrollment, and put forth the mitigations necessary so that the community can move forward. Best, Cindy Chen

36

Baumb, Nelly

From: Jo Ann Mandinach <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:48 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Protect our retail districts! Don''t destroy our community with more offices.


Please stop turning Palo Alto into an office park. We're already over-run by commuters 4:1 and now you want to make things worse on California Avenue? Shame on you! Have you missed the fact that many OFFICE buildings are for lease? What makes you think we need more offices and less sales tax revenue?? How many more long-term small businesses do you want to destroy? We've already got "fake retail" downtown aka offices where I'm tempted to go in and order a "pound of multi-client studies." Please act to protect -- not harm -- resident-serving retail and professional services. In the Cal Avenue business district, my poor cleaner/seamstress is working out of the back of the cobblers because she can't afford $5,000 a month rent when no one's getting dressed to go to work! How about helping HER instead of the greedy landlords. I've also lost my framer from the Cal Ave district, My new framer in Menlo Park has seen their business drastically increase because of the closure of most Palo Alto framers. Remember we're a residential community, not an office park, as the recent City Council election showed. Stop rushing through lame-duck moves to destroy our community further. Most sincerely,

37

Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301

38

Baumb, Nelly

From: Arlene Goetze <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:13 PMTo: Council AnswerPointSubject: Great New Book to make you Smile


New book to lift spirits. . . by Arlene Goetze, MA

Writer/editor/poet/photographer since 1956. Author of 10 books with women's spirituality newspaper and 2 books now in SCU Archives. Bio below. * * * * *

Title: Exploring Spirituality in Photo and Verse * * * * *

An Uplifting Holiday Gift for All Ages! A jiggle of joy! Unexpected insights! A spiritual smile! This book contains 65 photos with Reflections in verse, nine Meditations, prose and poems illustrating how spirituality is a growth stage in almost every action we have. Each can be a step in a spirituality which moves us to authenticity. What virtue is found in a baby in a crib or Auras of children dancing? What values are in eating an apple or simple act of holding hands? 5 Sections discuss these photos of humans and animals in action: *Innocence where children learn courage, trust, and respect *Ordinary actions of shopping, planting, or graduating *Basic Necessities of Hands and Feet explain the value of Holding Hands or Palming, Sculpting, Painting, and Dancing. * Pray-ers touch on history of water and earth, rocks and music * Spiritual Memories include photos of spiritual events along with making spiritual Boxes, Quilts, Blessings, and Healing Laughter. The verses make you smile and the prose moves you "On the Way" of your own unique and authentic spirituality. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Arlene Goetze, Writer/editor/poet/photographer since 1956. Founder of newspaper Catholic Women's Network (now in Archives of Santa Clara Univ. and libraries of U of Notre Dame and Harvard for women's spirituality.) First Dir. of Communication for Diocese of San Jose and author of 9 books for non-profit groups. She is reiki practitioner, leader of retreats and Drumming for Health for elders, educator of EFT, spiritual writing, and No Toxins for Children. She ives with her husband and

39

has 7 children, 18 grandchildren. A resident of Silicon Valley. BA from U. of Portland, MA from Santa Clara University. ______________________________________________________________

Order books now...get Xmas gifts early. Buy in store at --- East West Bookstore, 324 Castro St, Mt. View, CA or order Online: Shop.EastWestBooks.org -- lowest price -- $14.71 Just put the name of book -- Exploring Spirituality in Photo and Verse -- in the SEARCH box at top of website. 30% of sale goes to East West. (Part of Castro St closed for a block during virus. Park/walk 1/2 block to store) (This book is available online by Amazon, Google, other sites for a higher price.) East West Bookstore is an uplifting visit with books, singing drums, scents, flowing fountain, gifts of Crystal, etc for every Faith or those just seeking spiritual relaxation. (Or try your own small local bookstore for online site.) ***.Book is printed by IngramSpark printer. Books today are only printed when orders are placed online; no stacks in storerooms as with traditional printers! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please share this email . . . or buy a book for those on your email list . . . especially those needing a smile or moment of spiritual thought in today's confusing world. (Nothing political, financial, or negative in it)

Blessings to you all Arlene Goetze, [email protected]

40

Baumb, Nelly

From: Diane <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:01 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: changing zoning

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council, Please do not rush into a zoning change which will eliminate retail spaces in the City. Like much in our public lives now, patience is required rather than jumping in to “fix” a COVID slowdown in the retail sector. We will live to regret it. Diane Finkelstein 2049 Dartmouth Street Sent from my iPad

41

Baumb, Nelly

From: Hank Sousa <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 12:23 PMTo: Architectural Review Board; Council, CitySubject: Castilleja expansion


Here are my comments from the ARB meeting, Nov. 5, 2020

Dear Board Members:

I noticed with interest that you have listened to the public and, along with your input, have influenced the school’s

architects to submit new drawings for the proposed Kellogg Ave. building.

My hope is you will also hear the neighbors of the school who do not want the proposed underground parking garage. It

is unhealthy in several ways including its excavation and construction. If it is allowed to be constructed it will continue

to pollute and would likely be in place for a great many years.

If it is built the net gain is 22 parking spaces. All the thousands of dump truck loads of dirt to be removed and the

hundreds of cement mixers lined up to pour the concrete. Plus the dismay among many of the close by neighbors who

will witness the commercialization of the neighborhood for 22 additional parking spaces. We don’t think it is worth it.

Shuttling in the students, who currently arrive singly by car, is a greener technology.

It is unlikely you board members would welcome construction like this next door or across the street from your house.

We feel the same way.

The campus already has 86 parking spaces at grade and they can continue to be used with the new buildings being

slightly reconfigured. The 86 spaces allow for an enrollment of 450 which is an 8 percent increase over the current cap.

That is the percent increase that was given when the current CUP went into effect in 2000.

Please see your way to recommending the plan go forward without an underground garage. Help preserve our

neighborhood quality of life.

Thank you,

Hank Sousa

Melville Ave.

530‐401‐3808

42

Baumb, Nelly

From: Trisha Suvari <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:09 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Nov. 5 ARB comments regarding Castilleja


Dear City Council Members, Please find my comments below regarding the ARB meeting on November 5, 2020 in support of Castilleja. I attended your hearing for Castilleja’s project in August, in October, and I am here again today. As an observer, I appreciate the quality of the deliberation you have fostered in this process. As a board, you have made thoughtful observations and asked excellent questions, and your guidance has improved the project. Today, we are reviewing the culmination of years of work from the school taking in feedback from neighbors, consultants, and other city leaders. This process has continued with input from all of you. I am impressed with how specific and reflective all of you have been in these recent hearings. And as a result, I am also impressed with how responsive Castilleja has been, making small and large adjustments to create an updated campus that will make the neighborhood more beautiful. The changes and feedback I have noted include:

Clarity around the smaller circle to increase setbacks, which offers up more space along the surrounding streets.

Two rounds of changes to the Kellogg facade to break up the massing, vary the roof lines, and modify the external materials

Adjustments to the Bryant entry to include historical elements Thoughtful assessment of sustainability elements, such as solar panels Review of the best ways to enter campus and allow the school to relate to and interact with the

surrounding streets This has been a fruitful process, and I sincerely hope that you will vote to approve these plans as they are today. I remember that at a recent hearing, as a board, you discussed the fact that you wanted to do more than just improve upon the current buildings, which I think we can all agree are dated and need to be replaced. But you talked about wanting to do the best you can to reach beyond that low-hanging fruit to a bigger goal of creating a new campus that is beautiful on its own merits. I think you have done that here. The work that you have put into the process has made a difference. Now I hope we can now shift into concrete steps the school can take to begin making these plans a reality. Sincerely, Trisha Suvari

43

Baumb, Nelly

From: YANTING ZHANG <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:07 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Castilleja school extension project


Hello, My Name is Yanting Zhang, and I am one of the many neighbors of Castilleja who supports this project. I live nearby on Bryant Street. I have watched the school make changes to improve the plans in response to city and neighbor feedback, and this new project alternative number 4 is a positive plan that brings together the very best of the school’s hopes and their neighbors’ input. The project alternative reduces the size of the underground parking significantly. Since underground parking is preferred by the Final Environmental Impact Report and the City Plan, I am happy that Castilleja could meet city parking requirements in that way. The smaller structure preserves homes, conserves trees and still moves cars away from neighborhood streets. I am particularly happy that the redwoods on Spieker Field have been preserved and that the plan carefully outlines steps to keep them safe during the construction process. I can also attest that Castilleja will be able to manage traffic beautifully, as they have done already for the past seven years. Please take their proven track record to heart. They have also proven that they can comply with enrollment guidelines because they have followed every single scheduled enrollment reduction that the city has outlined. They should be granted an enrollment of 540 to support their programming and continue to thrive. Most of all, I am excited for the new building. I have looked at the external renderings and I love the way the facades and setbacks are varied to blend in with the residential scale of my neighborhood. The old buildings are outdated and not very appealing visually, so the new ones will be a welcome improvement and beautiful update. Yanting zhang

44

Baumb, Nelly

From: Cath Garber <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:04 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Castilleja


Dear City Council Members, I would like to submit what I shared with the ARB this morning, Nov. 5th. 2020. My name is Catharine Garber and I often present projects to the city as an architect representing clients in Palo Alto. Today, I am speaking as a Palo Alto resident who also cares deeply about how our city continues to evolve architecturally and become stronger as a community. With that perspective in mind, I want to voice my support for Castilleja’s designs and modifications. I am pleased to see refinements that have been made along the Kellogg side of campus. The new breaks in the Kellogg facade parallel the look and scale of that new porch on Bryant. These changes addressed the goal to reduce the massing and to break up the eave. I feel it does so in a way that creates coherence along the different street views. The sections of the building along Kellogg feel more distinct from each other, while also connecting visually with the facade on Bryant in new ways. The last time I reviewed these plans, I was pleased to see that the porch that had been added on Bryant integrated elements from the historic Gunn Building. Specifically it was nice to see the option to bring the green carved doors on the current Bryant entry over to the new porch. And new for this presentation green tiles have been added to the outside of the building at the breaks on Kellogg. I think this is a lovely new addition to the project, as are the touches of having the belly band to break the two floors and the added vertical battens on the second floor. With the input from your commission I feel the Castilleja team has brought an attention to detail that serves to tie together the historic structures to the handsome new sustainable spaces. This has been a long process for the city and for the school, but I truly believe we have arrived at the end of this productive road. The evolution of this project has brought important changes, Now, it is time to approve these plans. Modernization is desperately needed for Castelleja. The current structures are aging and do not enhance the neighborhood in the least. The new buildings and the

45

thoughtful landscaping around them will settle in gently and create a beautiful backdrop for residential life in this corner of Palo Alto. -- Catharine Fergus Garber, Partner Fergus Garber Architects www.fg-arch.com 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.459.3700 m 650.245.9680 ‐‐ Catharine Fergus Garber, Partner Fergus Garber Architects www.fg-arch.com 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.459.3700 m 650.245.9680

46

Baumb, Nelly

From: Trisha Suvari <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:02 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Castilleja's Modernization Plans


Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto, and I am impressed by Castilleja’s proposal. I would like to focus on how much the school has modified their plans in response to community feedback. Significantly, Castilleja significantly reduced the size of the parking structure. These changes preserve two houses, protect mature redwoods, and mitigate all significant traffic impacts. In the most recent ARB hearing, Castilleja presented plans that also significantly reduced the massing of the building on Kellogg and changed the facade to respond to specific neighbor concerns. The plans also included thoughtful changes to the entry on Bryant. I applaud that Castilleja is addressing both the large and the smaller comments from neighbors. Now, the final proposal they have is better for the neighborhood, the school, and the City of Palo Alto. In the spirit of cooperation that the school has established with positive and meaningful responses to feedback - including many, many meetings with neighbors over the past eight years, it is time to approve the project you have before you. As Members of the PTC, I urge you to recognize all that Castilleja has done to make big and small changes to address neighbors’ concerns. After 8 long years, it’s time for this project to be approved. The goalposts keep moving, and it begins to feel that this vocal group of opponents cannot be satisfied. At some point, the never-ending “do this, no do that” nature of the process is also unreasonable. Please support this project and allow positive progress. Sincerely, Trisha Suvari

47

Baumb, Nelly

From: Ann Balin <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:17 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Please retain current zoning for retail

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor Fine & City Council Members, I respectfully ask that you think of what is best for our community when considering changing retail zoning to office. Palo Altans want you to represent them and retain the retail zoning code and not let the very character of our town be altered by a give away to landlords. Constituents have seen earlier changes to the ground floor retail definition and do not want more changes to the code. There are landlords who have cultivated good business relationships with their tenants. I know of one who has cut the rent in half for the retail tenants in a Northern California town. The building is a gem dating from 1865. The rent was cut in half beginning April 1st. Hopefully in Palo Alto there are some landlords who have shown goodwill and negotiated with their tenants who are feeling the pain. I do wonder about Town & Country where we lost the Mayfield Bakery and restaurant. Did the landlord really try to negotiate with the tenant? My sense is he did not make a reasonable offer. Right now we have an abundance of vacancies for office space in Palo Alto. Therefore it is not logical to implement a change in retail zoning to allow offices on the ground floor. There is a disconnect when those, who are pushing this change, advocate that the pandemic has made it necessary to change ground floor zoning to include offices. That argument is a false dilemma. Please support your neighbors and fellow Palo Atans who want the city to support retail and not have the fabric our town diminished with offices on the ground floor. Once you allow for a change to offices on the ground floor we will NEVER see retail again. Why would this council want to be associated with a decision that would hurt the very people who live here? Sincerely, Ann Lafargue Balin

48

Baumb, Nelly

From: Fine, AdrianSent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 5:45 PMTo: Barry HartCc: Council, CitySubject: Re: What was Councilwoman Kou accused of by our Mayor? specifics?

Hi Barry, Thanks for the message. My point was hardly vague. It was that CM Kou had revealed purported details of a confidential closed session of the council, which violates 1) the city charter, 2) state law, 3) council procedures and protocol rules, and 4) attorney‐client privilege (in this case the client being the council). State law and our city charter expressly prohibit sharing *anything* from a confidential session unless a majority of the body votes to “report out”, which means sharing publicly what was discussed or decided privately. CM Kou, in a campaign email, shared a purported council decision with the general public. Quoting her email: “On October 19, the City Council voted in closed (confidential) session to settle the lawsuit with the public vote coming on November 2.” Whatever your beliefs about the contentious Foothills Park issue, or whether closed sessions are necessary/justified/useful... this communication clearly violates the city municipal code and our council procedures and protocols. Palo Alto Muni Code section 2.04.040: "No person in attendance at a lawful closed session conducted by the council or any other city board or commission shall disclose the substance or effect of any matter discussed during the closed session, or any written material distributed in connection with the closed session, until such time as the council or such other board or commission determines by formal action that confidentiality is no longer necessary or appropriate." Page 47 of the Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook: "Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests." On top of this instance, on the night of Oct 19 ‐ when the closed session was held, CM Kou sent an email to members of the public, and cc'd the city council, indicating which council members would be attending the closed session. We are not allowed to reveal _anything_ about a closed session, including attendees, unless the majority of council votes on it. I'll forward you that email as well. Finally ‐ and this is circumstantial but I can't miss the link ‐ CM Kou refers to a number of PA Online blogs by Doug Moran, an honorary chair of her campaign. In those blogs, Mr. Moran describes details and items which are not in the public record.

49

Look ‐ CM Kou and I have serious disagreements about Palo Alto and our town's future. But that is not what this is about. As the Mayor, and as chair of our meetings and proceedings, I feel that it falls on me to enforce the rules we as a body have adopted (all 7 council members voted for the procedures and protocols in February, and all 7 of us have taken an oath to defend the city's charter). If any other council member had done something similar, I would have rebuked them in the same way. ...Happy to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Adrian Begin forwarded message:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Lydia Kou <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Subject: New Survey: Foothills Preserve Lawsuit To:

Dear Palo Altans,

We invite you to respond to our new survey on the Foothills Preserve

PURPOSE: The results of this survey will be used to inform me of resident's opinions and will be made public before theaction on the Foothills Preserve lawsuit will be decided. SUMMARY: On August 3, 2020 the Palo Alto City Council voted 5‐2 to:

50

1. approve renaming Foothills Park to be a Nature Preserve, 2. approve a revenue‐neutral pilot program to allow a limited number of non‐residents to enter the Preserve with

resident, and 3. encourage the next City Council to hold a referendum on the access rules in 2022.

Fifty days later, a small group of individuals filed a lawsuit against Palo Alto to force the immediate removal of the residbacked by local chapters of the NAACP and ACLU and a high‐power law firm doing pro bono work for the ACLU. On Oct(confidential) session to settle the lawsuit with the public vote coming on November 2. RESOURCES: The text of the lawsuit and a blog critiquing it. There is also a blog about settling this lawsuit.

To continue to represent you and speak out for balanced growth and resident’s rights, I need to win re‐election. And to

Please help me win re‐election

The future of Palo Alto may be decided in November; will PA remain a suburban city or become a highly densified area?

The choice and vote are yours.

Thank you. Be well; my best.

Lydia Kou http://www.lydiakou.com/

Paid for by Re‐elect Lydia Kou for Palo Alto City Council 2020 ‐ FPPC ID# 1426144 Lydia Kou ∙ 3428 Janice Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, United States You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Facebook.

Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.

‐‐ Adrian Fine [email protected] | 650‐468‐6331 https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/

From: Barry Hart <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:41 PM

51

To: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: What was Councilwoman Kou accused of by our Mayor? specifics? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor - At the city council meeting you made some vague accusations that Councilwoman Kou violated some rules and was out of line. Councilwoman Kou asked that you make the specifics of the accusations public. I am interested in understanding this issue - If it was an issue important enough to raise to the public, the details should be shared with the public. Mr. Mayor, can you please respond to this email with the details. Thank you Barry Hart

52

Baumb, Nelly

From: Cecilia Willer <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:44 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Cecilia WillerSubject: An observation


PA City Council Members, I want to express my concern regarding the decision on FootHills Park. You have now set a precedent that if someone wants to force an issue, they can push to sue and use the race card. It is unfortunate that you allowed them to use the race card. This has increased racism versus decrease it. There is nothing racist around Palo Alto owning Foothills Park. It is a money issue only, nothing to do with. race. The home owners pay for the maintenance of Foothills Park. Other neighboring cities were ask to be part of the park and refused since they did not want to fund the park. Now, they want free access to the park with Palo Alto footing the bill. It is a money issue. You cannot turn back time. Hopefully you have learned from this decision/experience and will think about what precedents you are setting for the future of our wonderful city. Now, your next step is to turn over the park/preserve to the County so they can pay for it versus the Palo Alto home owners. Thanks for taking the next steps around the park ownership. Regards, Cecilia Willer 1270 Byron Street

53

Baumb, Nelly

From: Johnny Roper <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:10 PMTo: Stretch Brian (USACAN); [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council, City; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Be Judged; Jeremy Schmidt; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE #11Attachments: Screenshot_2020-11-04 Facebook.png


Rosanna is on the loose again... On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 2:55:41 PM PST, Johnny Roper <[email protected]> wrote: And now after all of this; Biden is being portrayed as the good guy who wants to unite the people by CNN hahahaha...The usual pile of stinking bullshit the democrats want us all to ingest on a daily basis...All I can say is good luck to Biden in uniting the American people who have been so PURPOSEFULLY made to despise each other and so carefully divided by the liberal media hate-violence-riot-machine on a race; class; and gender etc etc etc basis...Rip the shit out of the American people and make them almost want to kill each other; then pretend Biden is the good guy here to unite us all?!?...Absofuckinglutely incredible...I'm done here... On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 2:33:06 PM PST, Johnny Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

54

And this was exactly what the entire impeachment procedure was all about; it was actually all about Hunter Biden; which is the usual democratic gas lighting like I have been dealing with for so fucking long...Gas lighting that has lit my fuse and made me DETERMINED to finally seek justice and fair compensation... Bottom line is democrats want to let criminals out of prison so badly because they are largely a bunch of criminals themselves as well; wanting to let other criminals than themselves off the hook all the time to clear their way and/or legitimize their own illegitimate and conspiratorial criminal activities... On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 2:22:16 PM PST, Johnny Roper <[email protected]> wrote: The last email thread apparently seized up perhaps due to the extreme thought contained within it...Adding to this; the important information about Hunter Biden that was so carefully covered up by the liberal media to help sway the election was also called "Spam" by Yahoo mail...Therefore; even though it is too late now since the liberal media swayed the election like they accused the Russians of doing; I have sent the links without hyperlinks... "SEE ALSO: Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money-laundering probe @ https://nypost.com/2020/10/21/hunter-biden-laptop-linked-to-fbi-money-laundering-probe-report/ + Tucker Carlson: Media, intel agencies collude to spread real 'disinformation' about Hunter Biden story @ https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-media-hunter-biden-deep-state QUESTIONS: Why didn't the Obiden Administration have us all wearing masks during the H1N2 Swine Flu epidemic? And why did the Obiden Administration give $3.7 million dollars to the Chinese lab who created the Covid virus before backing out on the deal; leaving a virulent virus in the hands of the enemy? It doesn't add up... GO TO: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION = GROSS NEGLIGENCE? @ https://lreblogger.blogspot.com/2020/05/obama-administration-gross-negligence.html + SEE ALSO: EPOCH TIMES – CCP VIRUS: How the Chinese Communist Party's coverup led to a global pandemic @ https://issuu.com/epochtimesny/docs/eet_magazine_nr3_ccpvirus_2020 + https://plandemicvideo.com/ YOU'VE GOTTA BE BAT SHIT CRAZY TO THINK COVID ONLY CAME FROM BATS!..." GO TO: https://lreblogger.blogspot.com/2020/10/janitorial-misconduct-16-oct-2020.html

A Rosanna Magnisi "1111 3h. 0

0 See the latest updates on the 2020 US Election. See Election Updates

00~·~· Aaron F. lukianow and 29 others

rb like 0 Comment

View 7 more comments

Rosanna Magnisi

FRAUD BEING EXPOSED EVERYWHERE -

•••

x

10 Comments 45 Shares

p Share

55

Baumb, Nelly

From: Tom Shannon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:28 PMTo: Planning CommissionCc: Council, City; Architectural Review Board; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Tom Shannon; carlab@cb-

pr.com; [email protected]; [email protected]: Castilleja School's CUP - Comment Memorandum from NeighborsAttachments: Castilleja Neighbors' comments on draft COAs - Final sent to PTC.pdf


Dear Commissioners, For your consideration, I am attaching a detailed PDF memorandum titled: "Castilleja Neighbors' Comments on draft CO This comprehensive compilation of comments was composed by the following four neighbors of Castilleja: Carla Befera – 1404 Bryant St. - 50+ years at this address Bruce McLeod – 1404 Bryant St. - 18 years at this address Alan Cooper – 270 Kellogg Ave. – 35 years at this address Tom Shannon – 256 Kellogg Ave. - 31 years at this address In the memo, the BLACK text represents excerpts from the City’s draft CUP while the RED text represents comments fromfour neighbors listed above. Given there has been no dialogue exchange between neighbors and staff in drafting or editing these conditions, this memoonly way to communicate with the PTC and City Council on this important matter. Please recognize we only just received these COAs when you did - 12 days ago. We have made a huge effort to prepare tmemorandum while at the same time trying to participate and stay abreast of our country's most important general election. I hope you find this memo helpful and worthwhile. Thank you

Page 1

November 4, 2020 To: Planning and Transportation Committee cc: City Council Architectural Review Board Jonathan Lait Amy French Below is a compilation of comments on the draft CUP from four neighbors that live across the street from Castilleja on Kellogg Ave and Bryant St. The four are: Carla Befera – 1404 Bryant St. - 50+ years at this address Bruce McLeod – 1404 Bryant St. - 18 years at this address Alan Cooper – 270 Kellogg Ave. – 35 years at this address Tom Shannon – 256 Kellogg Ave. - 31 years at this address The BLACK text represents excerpts from the draft CUP while the RED text represents comments from the four neighbors listed above. Given there has been no dialogue exchange with neighbors in drafting or editing these conditions, these memos are our only way to fully communicate with the PTC and City Council. Please recognize we only just received these COAs when you did (12 days ago). We have made a huge effort to prepare this memorandum while at the same time trying to participate and stay abreast of this most important general election. I hope you find this memo helpful and worthwhile. 1. (Packet page 18): Staff notes “the requested 90 events over roughly 185 school year day is considerable,

and this does not include a small number of academic competitions.” This constitutes an event every 2 days. Other private schools, such as Garland, are allowed 10 per school year. We understand Commissioner Alcheck’s comparison during the last meeting with Menlo School’s unlimited number of events, unfettered by neighbor concerns. The commission should note that Menlo School is located on 30+ acres and adjacent to an additional 30+ acres available to the school from Menlo College. All parking is on site and there are many acres of parking lots and woods between it and neighbors. Events cause cars driving into Palo Alto from all over, parking on neighbor streets, and causing general disruption as the attendees often do not have a direct relationship with the school. Neighbors request the PTC consider even fewer events per year than the 70 staff recommends.

2. (Packet page 20): Staff notes “A more aggressive performance metric would place the starting ADT at 1,137, which is the prorated target for 415 students and reflects the school’s previously allowed enrollment cap.” We agree that the school should be required to base its impact on enrollment cap it has currently earned. We question the later statement “there is insufficient empirical data to conclude the lowered ADT target is achievable.” If the school is required to reduce its traffic impact, it may need to explore off-site drop offs and shuttles, things it has been unwilling to consider to truly reduce ingress/egress into and out of the city.

3. (Packet page 21): “Moreover, some in the community may consider the financial penalty established in the

fee schedule as an insufficient deterrent to remedy violations.” We very much agree that a $500 fine, in exchange for not hiring traffic monitors for a large event – surely a much higher expense - hardly seems a deterrent.

Page 2

4. (Packet Page 22): “Staff recommends that during the construction phase (three years) of the project that the City stay enforcement of the ADT and AM peak trip performance metrics.” We strenuously object and indeed, ask that the CUP require students arrive via shuttle ONLY during the entire construction phase. Just to remove the estimated 4,500 tons (3,000 cubic yards) of dirt to build the garage and excavate the campus basement will require approx. 450 heavy duty dump truck trips to traverse the residential streets in the area. As other construction projects in Palo Alto have shown, construction vehicles and equipment block traffic lanes and reduce street and sidewalk access throughout the area. To concurrently allow the school to bring hundreds of students to the area, with drop offs, pick-ups, and free parking on adjacent streets, will severely exacerbate what neighbors see as an excruciating process of noise, disruption, etc. The idea of allowing unmonitored access and parking during this process defies logic. Can the PTC name another instance where a parcel holder demolished over 100,000 sf of existing buildings and yet continued to occupy and conduct school (in this case) on the site – all in an R-1 residential area?

5. Page 25 item 1 – How can Castilleja’s impacts not be considered at a minimum to be “detrimental” to the “vicinity” and general welfare of the neighborhood?

6. Page 26 item D (l) – evidently a typo, this item reads “toads (sic) only 114 net new daily trips (after

implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a), which does not represent a significant, adverse environmental impact.” Assuming this is meant to read: “Adds only 114 net new daily trips (after implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a)….” How does the PTC reconcile this with Palo Alto’s adamant requirement that Stanford adhere to a No Net New Commute Trips model, while allowing Castilleja to increase its impact? According to the City’s website: “… Stanford affiliates will have to use Caltrain and other mass transit services.” It also quotes the City Manager, “Stanford should be ‘required’ to work with lead agencies and contribute to increasing the accessibility, capacity, and efficiency of local access for Stanford affiliates to Caltrain and other local and regional mass transit services.”

7. Page 27 - 3rd bullet – Performance Standards –Will point of contact be available for a minimum of 18 hours

per day given Castilleja’s activities in the surrounding neighborhood can begin at 6 AM and run until 11 PM. 8. Page 28 – item 1 – “strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title

substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the “vicinity” and in the same zoning district.” Can the city cite the so called “other property in the vicinity” by name? Neighbors are wondering where they are located in the vicinity of our single family zoned neighborhood”. We understand “historic use” but the major impacts from the school have only materialized over the last 25 years after Castilleja changed the historic nature of the school by closing its dormitory and turning the dormitory entrance into a major staff/student ingress/egress, drop off and pick-up point in the neighborhood. Essentially there was little traffic in the neighborhood with the dormitory. Traffic trips exploded onto our streets post 1995 once the dormitory was closed. We all were living here. To the best of our recall, no EIR was prepared to measure the dormitory’s closing impact.

9. Page 28 item 2 – “The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations

or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.” This CUP is substantially different from the one granted to Stratford at Garland in the same neighborhood.

10. Page 30 – Enrollment: Also need a new section to put limits on staff size. Establish a cap on size of staff. 11. Page 31 item 6 (g) notes: “The School shall minimize the number of special events occurring on consecutive

days and, for larger events, occurring on consecutive weekends.” This is exactly the undefined language which the school has exploited over its CUP history. How does the PTC define “minimize”? What constitutes

about:blank

Page 3

a violation of this provision? We urge more specific language such as: “The school shall NOT schedule special events on consecutive days and shall NOT schedule large events on consecutive weekends.”

12. Page 31 item 6(d) Events: No “special” events are permitted on Sunday. However, Castilleja can hold an

unlimited number of “regular events” of 50 or fewer persons on Sunday. The neighborhood would like to enjoy one quiet day / week. We request that the PTC amend these conditions not to permit any meetings on Sunday. We have no problem with small student study groups of 5 or less holding a meeting on Sundays.

13. Page 31 item 6(i) EVENTS: The number of onsite “special” events is far too large at 70+5 and should be reduced. Special events (more than 50 guests) are regulated herein (subsections a. to j.) via MM 4a, but Regular events (5-50 guests) are not mentioned. All events create traffic, parking and noise issues, hence ALL events need to be regulated otherwise there will be event traffic every day and night at any time including on Sundays.

Here is what is proposed in the current draft CUP Conditions of Approval:

• 70 special events (i.e. 5 may exceed 500 people; 32 may be 100-500 people; and 33 with 50-100 people),

• 5 PAUSD events (unspecified number of people). • This totals 75 event days or 2.5 months of events during the school year of allowed major and

special events with related traffic. • Regular events with 50 or fewer people are not currently regulated or limited, so Castilleja can have

as many as they wish and, as the current draft CUP reads, these events be scheduled on Sunday. See related comment in Point # 12 above

Thus, the current draft CUP would allow regular event traffic every day of the week, in addition to 75 days of special events. Neighbors have long requested a quiet residential neighborhood without the constant historic heavy traffic, crowded parking and loud noises associated with Castilleja’s events of all sizes. How will parking be managed when an event occurs yet the school staff and students have all the on-campus parking occupied? Please consider the following EVENTS COMPROMISE as a realistic, fair and viable solution to long-standing and thorny problems of excessive traffic, parking and noise associated with events at Castilleja. a. No more than one evening event on a weekend – either on Friday night or Saturday night with no

events or any activities on Sundays (except small student study groups of 5 or less) b. Adopt a policy of having Castilleja schedule as many virtual/digital events of any size to properly

educate their girls and operate the school. c. For in-person or on campus events, allow the following:

• 5 major special events/year exceeding 500 people which will require on-street parking everywhere.

• 10 special events/year with 100-500 people • 10 special events/year with 50-100 people • 20 regular events/year with 5-50 people a year. If staff and students occupy all the on-campus

parking spots, even these smaller events will require on-street parking. • Parking would be accommodated on campus and the street sides adjacent to Castilleja.

Page 31 item 6 (i) A list of for the upcoming academic year will be provided to the Director of Planning before school begins and posted on the school’s website. However, this list of special events does NOT include sporting events, intramural tournaments, etc. Among other enhancements, the school seeks a larger pool in order to host full swimming meets. Elsewhere in this document it is mentioned that the gym cannot hold events with more than 500 persons. In the current draft CUP, these events are not

Page 4

included in the total number of events per year. Given these events bring large numbers of cars, traffic and noise to the area, neighbors recommend and request that the CUP make clear that ALL events which attract large groups fall into the above noted special event categories and included in the event totals noted above for each school year.

Related Note to EVENTS – see Page 33, item 15 (a): Activities are not permitted in the lower basement level of the Physical Arts Building that would cause the number of occupants to exceed 500. No mention is made of whether these activities are considered special events. All Gym and lower basement events including those numbering up to 500 occupants need to be limited and defined as special events and included in the totals with stipulated attendance rules. ALL other events needed by the school would/could be:

• Held virtually • Held at an offsite location or • Held onsite IF (and only if) ALL participants come to the event in shuttle buses, and these shuttle

buses park on campus (i.e., no cars come to campus and/or park on surrounding streets for these events)

14. Page 32: OPERATIONS-RELATED: Summer school should NOT be permitted unless it is directly related to

full-time students’ educational program. Neighbors have sought a break from the frenetic academic activities of the school year, but have found their summers equally disturbed by campers, busses, and non-stop activities.

15. Page 32: Operations: There is no mention of the operating times/conditions for the garage exhaust ventilation system.

16. Page 32 item 8: Standard school hours are M – F, 7AM to 6PM. CUP needs to clearly define what happens

outside of these “Standard hours.” In the draft CUP, it also states that co-curricular programming involving fewer than 50 students and confined to indoor spaces may occur outside of these hours. What are the limitations on these co-curricular programs? Can they operate at 1 am? Does this condition mean that this programming can begin before 7:00 am? Please consider changing the school’s start time to 7:30 with deliveries not starting until 8AM. Semis & big rig trucks should be prohibited from using residential streets. Castilleja can direct a vendor to use smaller trucks for deliveries at no charge to Castilleja. Immediate neighbors have windows opening on the surrounding streets for ventilation and are awakened daily with Castilleja activity starting as early at 5:30 AM (deliveries and trash pick-ups), staff arriving before 7 AM and very early morning parking on Kellogg given it is the closest and easiest entrance to get on to the campus.

17. Page 32 item 10: “accessed from the driveway from Kellogg Ave.” Do the standard hours apply to all

deliveries and trash pick-ups which in the past have started as early as 5:30AM? This entrance on Kellogg is worrisome. Kellogg Ave. will be overwhelmed with trucks and buses traveling on the surrounding residential streets to get to the Kellogg entrance point. By using Kellogg Ave., a huge noise impact is created on the neighbors. Currently semis and tractor trailer trucks (Sysco and US Foods) and Green Waste dumpster pick-ups occur 5 – 6 days a week very early in the morning before the 7AM start time. The Green Waste trucks coming before 6 AM and are especially irksome. Neighbors would like to work with the City and Green Waste to have our residential trash day be changed to Fridays to coincide with the same day that the rest of the "Old Palo Alto" area is picked up. It's only about 30 homes surrounding Castilleja in Old Palo Alto that Green Waste picks up on Mondays so Green Waste navigates our neighborhood streets 5-6 days / week for Castilleja and 2 days/week for the residential service. We believe this situation can easily be improved.

18. Page 33 – item 15: Same as in Item #14 above under “Note.” Gym activities exceeding 500 occupants needs limitation and should be considered a special event. For these large events, on-street parking is completely monopolized – similar to what we experience for a Stanford football game.

Page 5

19. Page 33 - COMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - The website should also give the contact information of key people at

Castilleja and the City to report campus problems and violations. 20. Page 34 item 17: RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS – The school is to establish a dedicated phone number to a

school representative to respond immediately to complaints. There should be a log kept of these complaints with a link available on the school’s website to the table that shows who called the school, what the problem was, what was done to resolve the problem and done by whom. If conditions substantially deteriorated, the City should spell out some form of arbitration or resolution process that could include penalties if complaints are not timely resolved. The community should be able to call a hearing in front of the PTC or City Council (every year if desired) to review Castilleja’s performance and neighbors’ complaints that remain unresolved. This meeting could also be a time to revise the CUP in the event some action arises that needs to be defined in the CUP.

21. Pages 34 - 39 – TDM – Sixty (60) days following the effective date of the Council’s action on this application,

the School shall prepare a complete transportation demand management (TDM) plan that compiles all applicable transportation-related requirements of this Record of Land Use Action into a cohesive, well-organized and indexed document. Recommend that the city hold a public hearing on the TDM with time for public comment. Ideally, it would be helpful to meet with staff before the public hearing to have a dialogue to better understand the TDM and to garner input and feedback from staff on the TDM.

Tying TDM parameters to Enrollment Growth: We would urge the PTC to consider Alan Cooper’s reward approach to traffic and enrollment growth as follows: Change the strategic view of the proposed CUP from a “penalty” approach to a “reward” approach:

• “Penalty” approach: As now proposed, Castilleja is effectively allowed to grow from its present enrollment of 426 students to 540 students simply over time at a rate of 25-27 students/year. They are penalized if they do not meet their TDM. This approach helps Castilleja get more students but does NOT benefit neighbors with less traffic (i.e., win-lose).

• “Reward” approach: Alternatively, reward Castilleja with students up to a maximum of 540 (or other number) as they improve their TDM. After Covid and garage completion, for each 1% improvement to their current TDM (i.e. 1198 ADT and 383 AM-PT) reward them with 2 more students the following year. Over the next several years, as shown in the attached table, Castilleja will reach 540 students, while over the same period the neighborhood will gradually see a 50% reduction of school traffic (and parking and related noise) (i.e., win-win).

Please see the comparative table on the next Page 6 which shows the “reward” approach could realistically work and benefit both Castilleja and neighbors. The approach would provide Castilleja with challenges (i.e., finding creative ways to reduce ADT) and with strong incentives (e.g., grow faster, regain trust). Note that in the future, both approaches will give Castilleja the students allocated by the CUP.

With the “reward” approach, please preserve the tactical conditions now outlined in the proposed CUP for monitoring, reporting and enforcement. These conditions will help further in rebuilding trust between neighbors and Castilleja, and assure that all parties respect and honor CUP guidelines. See next page for Comparative Table on this reward approach.

11/3/2020 Example comparison of options for Castilleja enrollment increases and improvement of neighborhood traffic (ADT)

City Staff Option New proposed "Reward" Option (i.e. decrease ADT = increase enrollment)

Start of

Year ADT Students* Comment ADT Students** Comment (some examples for ADT reductions)

2021 1198+ 426 Garage construction 1198+ 426 Decreasing ADT (bikes, fewer drivers)

2022 1198 426 Garage construction 1198 426 Decreasing ADT (bikes, fewer drivers)

2023 1198 426 Education Bldg cons. 1078 446 achieved 10% ADT decrease = 20 student increase

2024 1215 451 Educ.Bldg; 25 max 1018 456 another 5% ADT decrease = 10 student increase (shuttle program)

2025 1232 476 Educ.Bldg; 25 max 898 476 another 10% decrease = 20 student increase (shuttle program)

2026 1249 476 Educ.Bldg wrap up 823 488 another 6% decrease = 12 student increase (off campus events)

2027 1266 501 25/yr max growth 748 501 another 6.5% decrease = 13 student increase (off campus events)

2028 1283 526 25/yr max growth 678 513 another 6% decrease = 12 student increase (mixed virtual/onsite)

2029 1296+ 540 Reach maximum 598 526 another 6.5% decrease = 13 student increase (mixed virtual/onsite)

2030 1296+ 540 Reach maximum 598 540 Bonus reward when ADT is dimished by 50% (ie by 600 trips)

* enrollment allowable per EIR; ** does not exceed number per year allowed by EIR (ie 25 students/year); +ADT allowed by TDM

The proposed "Reward" option provides a way for Castilleja to be rewarded with students while the neighborhood is rewarded with

a large 50% reduction in traffic (and related parking and noise issues) -- this is a WIN-WIN option.

Table created by Alan Cooper

Refers to Point #21 in text of this memoradum

Page 6

Page 7

22. Page 36 item 22h: This condition states that school shall install temporary traffic counters in the public right of way as determined by the Director of Planning. The counters are to remain in place for 7 days. We ask that at least three counters be installed with one on each surrounding street: Bryant, Kellogg and Emerson as directed by the Director of Planning. The TDM should specify how many times/year these counters will be installed to monitor on-street traffic counts. The counters will need to be installed before school begins to establish a before school traffic count and remain in place until after school is fully underway to establish an after school start count on each of the surrounding streets. These counters are different from the ones installed on the driveway entrances to the school per Point #26 below.

23. Page 39 item 25 (A.vi) Castilleja students, faculty, staff, and parents shall be instructed to park exclusively either on campus, at designated off-site lots made available for School use, or on the School side of adjacent streets where parking is permitted. Daily monitoring of parking shall be conducted, and offenders shall be instructed where to park. What happens if parking occurs outside these boundaries?

On Street Parking: On – street parking has been a significant problem for the neighborhood. What should the neighborhood do when on-street parking gets abused? This item prohibits on-street parking except for the school side of adjacent streets. How does on-street parking policy get enforced? What are the penalties for violations? We request that the city place 2 hour limitation signs for on-street parking even on the Castilleja side of the street given these parking spaces are typically parked for 8 – 9 hours every day? Castilleja representatives did propose to participate in an RPP program if the parking garage was approved. If the garage is approved, can the city fast track an RPP for the neighborhood?

24. Page 39 item 25 (A. viii) includes: “A log shall be kept of all communication (i.e. email, telephone calls) and the expressed concerns which are received. School staff shall review the log for trends and respond to remedy any problems. If any neighbor feels their concern was not properly responded to, they should contact the number the School publishes for complaints (condition #19).” After many years of having concerns brought to the school’s attention and ignored, neighbors ask that this log be posted publicly on a website so that neighbors can be assured that concerns are being addressed, and be able to show the City a specific accounting of when they are and are not. Can the telephone line be monitored 24 hours? Driveways have been blocked by Castilleja parents or visitors leaving no way for the resident to get out of a driveway. This incident can be extremely frustrating especially when it needs immediate attention.

25. Page 41 – item 29: Increases in student enrollment: Upon written notice from the City of Palo Alto,

increases to student enrollment may be suspended when the School is found to be in violation of any conditions of approval, including but not limited to the approved transportation demand management plan, anticipated student drop off distribution, or environmental mitigation measures.

May be impossible to enforce an enrollment reduction. The city would be better off to structure an incentive program that permits more students earned by reducing traffic as proposed by Alan Cooper in a separate memo noted in Point #21 above with a descriptive table attached to the end of this memo. If the current draft condition remains in place, here are questions:

• What triggers a written notice from the City? • Dir. Of Planning & Development decides? • Decision may be appealed. There’s no timeline given for appeal period or appeal filing deadline.

Appeal can be dragged out beyond March 1 and thus give Castilleja a pass for upcoming year and more time to resolve the violation.

26. Page 43 item 32: Installation of traffic counter devices. It states: Before the start of each academic year, the School shall fund the City’s installation of temporary vehicle traffic counter devices, for each TDM plan

Page 8

monitoring report required by these conditions for the corresponding academic year as per MM7a. MM7a states that these are the counters to be installed in the driveway entrances. This will only count drop offs and pick-ups entering the driveways. Point #22 above is related to counting street traffic.

27. Page 43 item 35 (a.iii. Construction trips shall be excluded from the trip counts for AM Peak and ADT. Construction traffic will have a major impact on the surrounding residential streets especially with Castilleja’s temporary campus on Spieker Field. The interface of the temporary campus and the construction of the new campus needs more study and the residents and students will need substantial protections from accidents. Many of us don’t understand how Castilleja can completely rebuild its campus and run a school of 426 students on a temporary campus adjacent to the construction site.

End of the neighbors’ review comments for the draft COAs from the city. The following are some additional conditions possibly not included in the City’s COAs but maybe should be considered for possible insertion.

1. Safety: Make the neighborhood safer for walkers and bikers and autos. a. Add crossing guards at the intersection of Kellogg & Bryant during school drop-off hours; possibly also at

Embarcadero & Bryant. b. Install No Left Turn signs at the intersection of Kellogg & Alma and Melville & Alma from 7:45 – 8:30AM to

reduce delay time getting on to Alma due to Castilleja and Paly students and parents and staff trying to make a left turn to get onto Churchill. From 7:45 – 8:30 AM, a driver at the Churchill/Alma intersection is not permitted to go straight across Alma given all the cyclists headed for Paly HS. All cars have to turn right or left on Alma. To get around this regulation, cars come over to Kellogg and Melville and make left turns onto Alma and then right turns onto Churchill from Alma. This causes traffic to back up on Kellogg waiting to make a left turn on Alma (which is not easy to do)

2. CUP compliance: guarantees and penalties: Hold a biennial CUP hearing be held in front of the planning director

or PTC to review compliance with the CUP.

3. How will construction conflicts with the neighborhood, the contractor and the temporary campus buildings including construction traffic get handled and resolved?

4. Unforeseen impacts: Over the last 25 years, Castilleja’s impacts have increased dramatically on our neighborhood. In the proposed conditions to this latest CUP amendment, there needs to be a condition that allows for neighbors and the City to get resolution on future negative impacts that are unforeseen in the proposed conditions.

5. Major entrances on Kellogg and Emerson – How do busses, trucks, deliveries, vans etc all roll through the neighborhood on a daily basis to get to these entrances. Can the city stipulate a travel route? Waverley, Churchill, Bryant, Emerson, Kellogg, and Melville could all be impacted.

6. Place limitations of number of busses and semi/big rig truck deliveries.

7. Measure traffic trips for the large special events (i.e. the number of trips being generated to the neighborhood given most parents arrive in individual cars?)

8. Architecture: Please be careful not to install outdoor high intensity lighting that shines or crosses into neighbors’ yards. "Eye brows" may be needed on selected exterior lighting to limit its reach and not have it intrude onto neighbors' properties.

56

Baumb, Nelly

From: Bruce McLeod <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:11 PMTo: Planning CommissionCc: Council, City; French, Amy; Tom Shannon; Alan Cooper; Carla; Andie ReedSubject: Castilleja delays?Attachments: PTC letter 110420.docx


November 4, 2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Traffic Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1310 Bryant Street; Castilleja Expansion Project Castilleja’s supporters and even some Commissioners have referenced a “lengthy “process for this application and claim that Castilleja has spent 8 years waiting for a determination. Yes, this started seven (7) years ago in the summer of 2013 when Castilleja head of school Nanci Kauffman admitted that their enrollment at the time was 448 students and the school had been in violation of their CUP since its inception in 2000. Since then, most of the “delays” that Castilleja supporters are complaining about have been self‐inflicted. Following the school’s announced intention to create a master plan and ask for an amended CUP, no document of any substance was made until three (3) years later in June 2016. This was the first time neighbors saw the extent of the proposed campus reconstruction and including a proposed garage that exited onto Emerson street. Despite the immediate concerns expressed by the small working group about the garage and its traffic patterns, these documents were immediately submitted to the City with an application for a new CUP. This initial rushed submittal was deemed incomplete by the City. Sometime during the ensuing two years, Castilleja replaced local architect Steinberg and Associates with WRNS. This resulted in a completely new plan which was shown to neighbors in March of 2019. For those of you not keeping track, that’s nearly 6 years from the first announcement until a set of plans was submitted and deemed complete by the City so the required Environmental Review process could begin. Given the scope and complexity of the project, the final EIR, which included major plan alterations, took 18 months and was released in August 2020. In the following 75 days the City has held 11 public meetings, a breakneck pace for the interested public to keep up with and prepare for. Tonight, the PTC will meet and probably go late into the night followed by an ARB meeting at 8:30 the following morning. To recap, since this first became public in summer 2013, Castilleja has been solely in control of 5.5 years of “delays,” the EIR process took 18 months, and the public has had a scant to digest, assess and comment on three different plans. Despite all of this time, the ARB commented that the plans did not include adequate information to fully assess the architectural and landscaping impacts. Thank you for your service, Bruce McLeod 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto CA Bruce McLeod 650‐465‐2908

57

“Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.” Albert Camus

City of Palo Alto November 4, 2020 Planning & Traffic Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1310 Bryant Street; Castilleja Expansion Project

Castilleja’s supporters and even some Commissioners have referenced a “lengthy “process for this application and claim that Castilleja has spent 8 years waiting for a determination.

Yes, this started seven (7) years ago in the summer of 2013 when Castilleja head of school Nanci Kauffman admitted that their enrollment at the time was 448 students and the school had been in violation of their CUP since its inception in 2000. Since then, most of the “delays” that Castilleja supporters are complaining about have been self-inflicted.

Following the school’s announced intention to create a master plan and ask for an amended CUP, no document of any substance was made until three (3) years later in June 2016. This was the first time neighbors saw the extent of the proposed campus reconstruction and including a proposed garage that exited onto Emerson street. Despite the immediate concerns expressed by the small working group about the garage and its traffic patterns, these documents were immediately submitted to the City with an application for a new CUP.

This submittal was deemed incomplete by the City.

Sometime during the ensuing two years, Castilleja replaced local architect Steinberg and Associates with WRNS. This resulted in a completely new plan which was shown to neighbors in March of 2019. For those of you not keeping track, that’s nearly 6 years from the first announcement until a set of plans was submitted and deemed complete by the City so the required Environmental Review process could begin.

Given the scope and complexity of the project, the final EIR, which included major plan alterations, took 18 months and was released in August 2020. In the following 75 days the City has held 11 public meetings, a breakneck pace for the interested public to keep up with and prepare for. Tonight, the PTC will meet and probably go late into the night followed by an ARB meeting at 8:30 the following morning.

To recap, since this first became public in summer 2013, Castilleja has been solely in control of 5.5 years of “delays,” the EIR process took 18 months, and the public has had a scant 2 months to digest, asses and comment on three different plans. Despite all of this time, the ARB commented that the plans did not include adequate information to fully assess the architectural and landscaping impacts.

Thanks for your service,

Bruce McLeod 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto CA