Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-04-28 City Council Emails
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 4/28/2025 Document dates: 4/21/2025 - 4/28/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Dorothy Bender <dbender@gmail.com> To:PrintersGang; Pabookies; alt-bookclub; pat@patburt.org; Winter Dellenbach; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City Subject:Cyberattack in Europe Date:Monday, April 28, 2025 8:50:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/world/europe/power-outage-spain-portugal- france.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=p&pvid=F0F9A4E1-644A-4F00-85AE- FC4729E78D02 Widespread Power Outage Is Reported in mThe blackout hit critical infrastructure like airports and caused transportation disruptions in the three countries. The cause of the outage was unclear. From:am@meptakeoffs.com To:Council, City Subject:Any Current Project Bids Date:Monday, April 28, 2025 8:16:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good Morning, I'm Alex Miles, With CSI Estimation. I'm eager to connect with you to discuss potential estimating opportunities. CSI Estimation specializes in detailed estimates, covering materials, labor, equipment, and specific project needs. We've helped clients with competitive bids and believe we can support Business Services Collective effectively. I'm available to discuss this further in a scheduled phone call meeting. Additionally, you can send me your project plans in PDF format with the scope of work we will review the plans and get back to you accordingly. Looking forward to the opportunity of working together. Respectfully, Alex Miles Business Development Manager CSI Estimation, LLC 78th St Brooklyn NY This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Binder, Andrew Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Gennady Sheyner; editor@paweekly.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Sean Allen; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Musa Tariq; Raymond Goins; Jose Valle; Cynthia Longs; BoardOperations; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Pat M; h.etzko@gmail.com; Henry Etzkowitz; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Dave Price; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Sameena Usman; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Vara Ramakrishnan; Ed Lauing; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Doug Minkler; Dennis Upton; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Lee, Craig; Jeff Conrad; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Salem Ajluni; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; Ruth Silver Taube; Figueroa, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; Foley, Michael; Zelkha, Mila; Henry Etzkowitz; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Mickie Winkler; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; Donna Wallach; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Afanasiev, Alex; Jensen, Eric; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; josh@joshsalcman.com; Linda Jolley; Nash, Betsy; Rowena Chiu; Baker, Rob; Robert. Jonsen Subject:Re: April 21, 2025, Independent Police Auditor Study Session -Some Reflections Date:Sunday, April 27, 2025 5:08:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. Police Chief Andrew Binder, Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada and the Palo Alto City Council From: Aram James April 27, 2025 During the Independent Police Auditor’s Study Session,April 21, 2025, there were some comments made by PaloAlto City Council Member Pat Burt about Tasers. CouncilMember Burt referred to Tasers as a tool. Both IPAMichael Gennaco and police Chief Andrew Binder knowthat the manufacturer’s (Axon) eight-page warning neveronce refers to a Taser as a tool. Instead, more than 100 times, the warning refers to Tasersas a weapon with multiple examples of how failure to follow the specific, complex, and medically andpsychologically focused warnings can result in serious injury or death. Neither Chief Binder nor IPA Gennaco,despite their intimate knowledge of the manufacturer’s 4500-word warning, attempted to correct Pat Burt’smischaracterization of Tasers as a Tool, not a deadly weapon. Failure to correct Burt regarding the actual dangersassociated with Tasers left the rest of the city council and the public attending the meeting with the possible falseimpression that Tasers are less than a potentially deadly weapon. Similarly, when council member Burt commented thatTasers are an alternative to using deadly force, neithercorrected the mischaracterization of how Tasers are actuallyused on the streets and on patrol. Simply stated, Taserexperts universally accept that when deadly force isnecessary, the suspect has a gun, knife, or other deadlyweapon, training dictates that police are instructed NOT touse a Taser. Why? Tasers fail to bring down their humantarget at rates between forty and fifty percent of the time.As the saying goes, “You don’t bring a Taser to a gunfight.” In a deadly force situation, police are specifically trained toaim their guns at the center mass of the individual in possession of the deadly weapon with the intent to kill. Thedefault is that, since Tasers are not appropriate to use in deadly force situations, Tasers are almost always used onunarmed individuals whose vulnerabilities, physical/medical, and psychological, are unknown to the police officerdeploying the Tasers on the individual. None of the information above is new to Andrew Binder or MichaelGennaco. The failure to appropriately educate our political leaders andcommunity members regarding the extraordinary dangerTasers pose to human life has led to many unnecessarydeaths, disproportionately targeting black, brown, and poorindividuals. Tasers have resulted in the unnecessary death and seriousinjuries of thousands of individuals in this country. Settlements, jury verdicts, and related litigation costsresulting from the misuse of Tasers by law enforcement have cost municipalities across this country hundreds ofmillions of dollars over several decades. Over more than two decades, the Coalition for Justice andAccountability (CJA), based in San Jose, has educatednumerous political leaders throughout Santa Clara Countyon the risks associated with Tasers. Our Coalition consists of a cross-section of grass-rootscommunity leaders from across Santa Clara County. We areavailable to meet with all members of the Palo Alto CityCouncil, Police Chief Binder, and other members of hisstaff, as well as City Manager Ed Shikada. Sincerely, Aram James On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 5:01 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: To: Palo Alto IPA Mike Gennaco, Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada and the Palo Alto City Council From: Aram James April 27, 2025 During the Independent Police Auditor’s Study Session, April 21, 2025, there weresome comments made by Palo Alto City Council Member Pat Burt about Tasers.Council Member Burt referred to Tasers as a tool. Both IPA Michael Gennaco andpolice Chief Andrew Binder know that the manufacturer’s (Axon) eight-page warningnever once refers to a Taser as a tool. Instead, more than 100 times, the warning refers to Tasers as a weapon with multiple examples of how failure to follow the specific, complex, and medically andpsychologically focused warnings can result in serious injury or death. Neither Chief Binder nor IPA Gennaco, despite their intimate knowledge of the manufacturer’s 4500-word warning, attempted to correct Pat Burt’s mischaracterization of Tasers as a Tool, not a deadly weapon. Failure to correct Burt regarding the actual dangers associatedwith Tasers left the rest of the city council and the public attending the meeting with the possible false impression that Tasers are less than a potentially deadly weapon. Similarly, when council member Burt commented that Tasers are an alternative to usingdeadly force, neither corrected the mischaracterization of how Tasers are actually usedon the streets and on patrol. Simply stated, Taser experts universally accept that whendeadly force is necessary, the suspect has a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon, trainingdictates that police are instructed NOT to use a Taser. Why? Tasers fail to bring downtheir human target at rates between forty and fifty percent of the time. As the sayinggoes, “You don’t bring a Taser to a gun fight.” In a deadly force situation, police are specifically trained to aim their guns at the center mass of the individual in possession of the deadly weapon with the intent to kill. Thedefault is that, since Tasers are not appropriate to use in deadly force situations, Tasers are almost always used on unarmed individuals whose vulnerabilities, physical/medical,and psychological, are unknown to the police officer deploying the Tasers on the individual. None of the information above is new to Andrew Binder or MichaelGennaco. The failure to appropriately educate our political leaders and community membersregarding the extraordinary danger Tasers pose to human life has led to manyunnecessary deaths, disproportionately targeting black, brown, and poor individuals. Tasers have resulted in the unnecessary death and serious injuries of thousands of individuals in this country. Settlements, jury verdicts, and related litigation costsresulting from the misuse of Tasers by law enforcement have cost municipalities across this country hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades. Over more than two decades, the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA), basedin San Jose, has educated numerous political leaders throughout Santa Clara County onthe risks associated with Tasers. Our Coalition consists of a cross-section of grass-roots community leaders from acrossSanta Clara County. We are available to meet with all members of the Palo Alto CityCouncil, Police Chief Binder, and other members of his staff, as well as City ManagerEd Shikada. Sincerely,Aram James From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Binder, Andrew Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Gennady Sheyner; editor@paweekly.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Sean Allen; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Musa Tariq; Raymond Goins; Jose Valle; Cynthia Longs; BoardOperations; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Pat M; h.etzko@gmail.com; Henry Etzkowitz; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Dave Price; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Sameena Usman; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Vara Ramakrishnan; Ed Lauing; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Doug Minkler; Dennis Upton; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Lee, Craig; Jeff Conrad; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Salem Ajluni; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; Ruth Silver Taube; Figueroa, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; Foley, Michael; Zelkha, Mila; Henry Etzkowitz; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Mickie Winkler; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; Donna Wallach; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Afanasiev, Alex; Jensen, Eric; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; josh@joshsalcman.com; Linda Jolley; Nash, Betsy; Rowena Chiu; Baker, Rob; Robert. Jonsen Subject:Re: April 21, 2025, Independent Police Auditor Study Session -Some Reflections Date:Sunday, April 27, 2025 5:02:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Palo Alto IPA Mike Gennaco, Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada and the Palo Alto City Council From: Aram James April 27, 2025 During the Independent Police Auditor’s Study Session, April 21, 2025, there were some comments made by Palo Alto City Council Member Pat Burt about Tasers. CouncilMember Burt referred to Tasers as a tool. Both IPA Michael Gennaco and police Chief Andrew Binder know that the manufacturer’s (Axon) eight-page warning never once refersto a Taser as a tool. Instead, more than 100 times, the warning refers to Tasers as a weapon with multipleexamples of how failure to follow the specific, complex, and medically andpsychologically focused warnings can result in serious injury or death. Neither ChiefBinder nor IPA Gennaco, despite their intimate knowledge of the manufacturer’s 4500-word warning, attempted to correct Pat Burt’s mischaracterization of Tasers as a Tool, nota deadly weapon. Failure to correct Burt regarding the actual dangers associated withTasers left the rest of the city council and the public attending the meeting with thepossible false impression that Tasers are less than a potentially deadly weapon. Similarly, when council member Burt commented that Tasers are an alternative to using deadly force, neither corrected the mischaracterization of how Tasers are actually used onthe streets and on patrol. Simply stated, Taser experts universally accept that when deadly force is necessary, the suspect has a gun, knife, or other deadly weapon, training dictatesthat police are instructed NOT to use a Taser. Why? Tasers fail to bring down their human target at rates between forty and fifty percent of the time. As the saying goes, “You don’tbring a Taser to a gun fight.” In a deadly force situation, police are specifically trained to aim their guns at the centermass of the individual in possession of the deadly weapon with the intent to kill. Thedefault is that, since Tasers are not appropriate to use in deadly force situations, Tasers arealmost always used on unarmed individuals whose vulnerabilities, physical/medical, andpsychological, are unknown to the police officer deploying the Tasers on theindividual. None of the information above is new to Andrew Binder or Michael Gennaco. The failure to appropriately educate our political leaders and community members regarding the extraordinary danger Tasers pose to human life has led to many unnecessarydeaths, disproportionately targeting black, brown, and poor individuals. Tasers have resulted in the unnecessary death and serious injuries of thousands ofindividuals in this country. Settlements, jury verdicts, and related litigation costs resultingfrom the misuse of Tasers by law enforcement have cost municipalities across this countryhundreds of millions of dollars over several decades. Over more than two decades, the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA), based in San Jose, has educated numerous political leaders throughout Santa Clara County on therisks associated with Tasers. Our Coalition consists of a cross-section of grass-roots community leaders from across Santa Clara County. We are available to meet with all members of the Palo Alto CityCouncil, Police Chief Binder, and other members of his staff, as well as City Manager Ed Shikada. Sincerely,Aram James From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Afanasiev,Alex; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Sean Allen; Gardener, Liz; Roberta Ahlquist; Josh Becker; Bill Newell; Figueroa,Eric; Jensen, Eric; Mickie Winkler; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; DavePrice; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for CaliforniaDemocratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Diana Diamond; Bains, Paul; Burt, Patrick; Kaloma Smith; JulieLythcott-Haims; Tannock, Julie; Wagner, April; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; board@pausd.org; EPA Today; Lee,Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Gerry Gras; Daniel Kottke; Dana St. George; Angel, David; Marina Lopez; LotusFong; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Rose Lynn; Sheree Roth; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Blackshire, Geoffrey;<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Lu, George; Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov;Vara Ramakrishnan; Human Relations Commission; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; ladoris cordell;Donna Wallach; Pat M; Council, City; editor@almanacnews.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; editor@paweekly.com;Jose Valle; josh@joshsalcman.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Doug Minkler; Zelkha, Mila;Sheriff Transparency; Salem Ajluni; Sameena Usman; Foley, Michael; Drekmeier, Peter; Jeff Hayden; Baker, Rob;Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Damon Silver Subject:Watch "Cops Crack Jokes After K-9 Mauls Innocent Black Man To Death" on YouTube Date:Sunday, April 27, 2025 10:05:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The body camera footage showing a police dog attacking and killing an innocent Black man is so gruesome and shocking that an Alabama judge has blocked its release to the public,claiming it could lead to civil unrest. But those who have watched it say Montgomery police not only allowed the dog inside a house to attack the man who had committed no crime, several cops stood around as he wasdying, mocking and laughing at him while refusing to provide life-saving aid because they were prohibited from doing so by department policy. Instead, they waited for paramedics toarrive." https://youtu.be/4dnjPMTzJSU?si=aiiroepSqrCdg1u9 From:Hiral Parekh To:Council, City; Building Subject:Re: ADU provision abuse Date:Saturday, April 26, 2025 12:57:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello! A secondary topic is for the City to explain why we allow30+ foot tall one story houses on small lots. In addition to the ADU add on that is at least 16 feet tall and very close to our backyard, wehave a 30 foot towering wall for the main house facing us. All other houses around it are 1 story Eichlers. Why is this being allowed? We do not want to recreate NYC living here and view walls from every window. Is this a new provision and what right are we supporting for the land owning resident? Thank you,Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place, Palo Alto, 94036 On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 4:56 AM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote:Hello! Even if this policy is increasing housing subtly (I have strong doubts that people building this are indeed going to rent out the add on - it’s a new room for a new house), people aredecreasing property value for the backyard neighbors and very negatively impacting the day to day life of the neighboring property. 4 feet is not acceptable set for a small lot in Palo Alto. The ADU is 16 foot looming tallstructure that is 30 to 40 feet across the back yard. It ruins the backyard neighbors use and enjoyment. My kids are now looking a building - we didn’t live on NYC or SF for a reason. I don’t see why this is being allowed here. Hiral Parekh On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 4:47 AM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my concern about the impact of attached ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) zoning in our neighborhoods, particularly in south Palo Alto’s Eichlertracts. The intent of ADU policy is to increase housing options, but in practice, it is allowing massive structures to be built right up to property lines. In my neighborhood, this hasresulted in a large new house looming over a small lot, with windows that look directly into our backyard and block out the sky. This is especially disruptive in Eichlerneighborhoods, where privacy and open sightlines are core to the architectural character[6] [8]. It appears that the attached ADU provision is sometimes used as a loophole to maximizebuilding size, rather than to create genuinely independent, affordable housing. The result is a loss of privacy, sunlight, and neighborhood character, with little evidence that it ismeaningfully increasing our housing supply[5][6]. I urge the Council to conduct a survey to determine how many new builds are actually using the “attached ADU” provision for its intended purpose. We need data to understandwhether this policy is meeting its goals or simply enabling overbuilding. Please consider strengthening privacy protections and reviewing the impact of ADU zoning, especially in sensitive areas like Eichler neighborhoods. Our community deservesthoughtful growth that balances housing needs with neighborhood character and livability. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place, Palo Alto , CA 94306 Sources[1] [PDF] ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/planning-review/1.-single-family-and-duplexes/2024-adu-handbook.pdf [2] [PDF] Review of Palo Alto's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance ...https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ordinance-review- letters/palo-alto-adu-findings-102924.pdf[3] Palo Alto ADU Regulations - Cottage https://www.cotta.ge/regulations/na-palo-alto [4] [PDF] Summary Guide to ADUs and Junior ADUs - City of Palo Altohttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-community-environment/long- range-planning/adu/adu-handout-2020.pdf[5] Palo Alto ADU Guide (Updated) — Bay Modular https://baymodular.com/guides/palo-alto-california-adu-guide[6] Voluntary Eichler guidelines approved - Palo Alto Daily Post https://padailypost.com/2018/04/03/voluntary-eichler-guidelines-approved/[7] The City of Palo Alto gets more applications for granny units, but ... https://actonadu.com/blog/the-city-of-palo-alto-gets-more-applications-for-granny-units-but-new-law-raises-questions [8] [PDF] Historic Resources Board - City of Palo Altohttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/historic-resources-board/2018/id-8905-eichler-neighborhood-design-guidelines.pdf From:Lai, Lauren To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Reyes, Francesca Subject:FY 2026 Proposed Budgets - Released Date:Friday, April 25, 2025 7:58:45 PM Attachments:Outlook-signature_.png Good Evening City Council, On behalf of City Manager Shikada, I would like to inform you that the City Manager’s FY 2026 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets have officially been released. Online copies are available here: https://www.PaloAlto.gov/budget The City Clerk will link these documents to the agenda for the May 5th study session on Monday as well as the May 6th and 7th Finance Committee Agendas. The Council study session on May 5 will serve as the official transmittal to Council with a presentation that will provide an overview of the proposed budget and offer the opportunity for those members not on the Finance Committee to provide initial feedback to assist the committee in its deliberations. Given the volume of the materials, staff anticipate having these documents (2 binders) ready for you next week. As supplemental materials are released throughout the process, the website above will be kept up to date. Thank you, Lauren Lauren Lai, CPA, MPA Chief Financial Officer / Director Administrative Services Department (650) 329-2139 | lauren.lai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From:Kevin Ji To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons (4075 El Camino Way) Comments Date:Friday, April 25, 2025 3:31:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I've also attached a text version of my statement without the attachments. Please include theattachments for the staff report. Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b) (4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on- site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way Sincerely, Kevin On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 1:07 AM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Kevin Ji 4075 El Camino Way Comments.pdf Hi Emily, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Palo Alto Commons project. I've attached my comments to this email. Please include these comments in the staff report. Sincerely, Kevin From:Matthew Harvill To:Council, City Subject:My (PA Citizen) Concerns with AI Date:Friday, April 25, 2025 2:35:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmember Patrick Burt, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns about the development of artificial intelligence and its potential impact on our society. As you may be aware, the rapid advancement of AI technology brings both opportunities andsignificant risks requiring careful consideration and robust governance frameworks. I believe this is a critical moment for ensuring that AI development proceeds in a way that mitigatesrisks and maximises societal benefit. In particular I believe that it is highly concerning that: Nobel Prize winners, top AI scientists and even the CEOs of the major AI companies have acknowledged AI poses an extinction risk to humanity. AI models are already trying to deceive humans There is more regulation on selling a sandwich than on creating AI. Given your important role in shaping policy, I believe you ought to make regulating dangerousAI your priority in your work. The decisions made today about AI governance will have far- reaching implications for our future and the future of our children. For their sake I am deeplyconcerned that our current trajectory may lead us toward choices we will come to regret. I would welcome the opportunity to provide any additional information that might be helpful in your consideration of this matter with either yourself or your office. Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue. Yours sincerely, Matthew Harvill345 Forest Ave, Unit 211 Palo Alto, CA, 94301 From:David Coale To:Council, City Cc:Bret Andersen; Phil Metz; Justine Burt; Mark Hoffberg; Matt Passell; anu; Croft, Rachel; Lincoln Bleveans; Shah Avroh; Ramamurty Anu; Metz, Phil; Tom Kabat; Abendschein, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad; Luong, Christine; North, Karin; Veenker, Vicki; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Bruce Hodge Subject:Re: Comments on the April 4th SCAP meeting - Additional thought on this, the City budget Date:Friday, April 25, 2025 12:11:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The cost study did not look at any funding for transportation solutions. Transportation make up the majority of the GHG emissions in the City so this is a major over site, the lack of funding for transportation programs. As the City looks at the budget going forward, we have to make sure to do no harm - I.e. no cuts to transportation programs, bike/ped, TMA, Safe Routes to Schools, and any staff associated with these programs. The City has lost granting opportunities in the past due to lack of staff. Please make sure transportation programs related to GHG reductions are not cut and stop funding parking lots! Sincerely, David Coale On Apr 4, 2025, at 9:14 PM, David Coale <david2coale@gmail.com> wrote: I will add my comments here as well. Thanks for the report and good to see costs are looking favorable for addressing our 80 by 30 goals, though there will be a very steep curve to climb to get to 2030. To follow up on Pat’s comments about VMT and the SCAP goals. What is in the plan under mobility is: "Reduce total vehicle miles traveled 12% by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline, by reducing commute vehicle miles traveled 20%, visitor vehicles miles traveled 10%, and resident vehicle miles traveled 6%”, and“Increase the mode share for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit from 19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030”. The cost study found that community electrification combined with VMT reductions was a net lifecycle benefit in all scenarios, but then nothing was really said about VMT reductions, which makes the whole costing work out. So, please say more about VMT reductions, bike/ped programs and how we get there. The city’s TMA program (Justine Burt) says they have met their goals, but this is only for a small segment of the population. The updated BPTP and the south bike/ped crossings in the works will not really come into play until quite late at best by the time anything is really built and the last BPTP was only 30% completed. The benefits for greater bike/ped mode share are many as I have outline to council on many occasions and Project Drawdown states that the benefits are cost negative - that they pay for themselves with all the benefits of cleaner air, GHG reductions, greater health, reduced VMT, etc. Please make sure bike/ped solutions are adequately addressed/funded and not left as less then a footnote in the SCAP reports and planning. Thank you all for your good work on this. David From:Henry Etzkowitz To:reply+2nxn2n&288239&&16456275f1d3bb6e29cf508e208e2361a52e5f49941f6f05d9007460eeb67ca5@mg1.substack.com Cc:Council, City; Office of the Provost; Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; Lauing, Ed; Avroh Shah; Aram James; Hannah Lu Subject:Re: Today I Feel Like I"m Climbing up a Crumbling Hill. How"s YOUR Day Going? Date:Friday, April 25, 2025 8:07:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Pleased to see things out in the open, not hidden as in the Biden Administration eg US lead inwar on Gaza. More conducive to resistance, pushback and the building of broader coalitions eg leading universities opposing displacement of science by magic and alchemy revival. My day is great apart from continuous effects of concussion and whiplash due to fall inducedby lack of platform level with train, a condition remedied a half century ago when I was a metro north rider from Rye to Grand Central.Cheers Henry Www.triplehelix.net Sent from my iPhone On Apr 24, 2025, at 3:56 PM, Julie Lythcott-Haims from Julie’s Pod<jlythcotthaims@substack.com> wrote: Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Here’s your latest newsletter from Julie’s Pod! Today I Feel Like I'm Climbing up aCrumbling Hill. How's YOUR DayGoing? JULIE LYTHCOTT-HAIMS APR 24 READ IN APP In this morning’s Julie’s Pod Coffee Hangout, I told folks I felt like I was climbing up a crumbling hill. Picture it. I climb, but with every step some bit of the soil beneath me crumbles. I brace myself with my hands. I press my knees and hips into the clumps of soil for stability. I’m holding on to it to hold myself up, and I will fall without this hill, but this hill will also fall if I don’t hold it together. Picture the effort, the futility, and the madness. Yep that’s how I’m feeling on this Thursday as my phone alerts me that the SAVE Act has passed the House and threatens the right to vote for all people whose current name doesn’t match their birth certificate, as Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wife is moved to a safe house because DHS exposed her address on X, that the U.S. Department of the Interior will fast-track drilling for oil and gas on public lands, as DOGE continues to dismantle U.S. aid to suffering people around the world. My lizard brain wants to fight, freeze, or flee but I’m a grown ass person with a bunch of degrees and responsibilities in the twenty-first century. And what I’m feeling right now is What role is there in this for most of us who just feel helpless because we’re not on the front line? But if I can’t help with any of this, then do I exist? Do I want to exist if I’m not able to help with this? Saying it aloud helps me cope. And I’m saying this to you because I know I’m not alone. What’s getting you down about the impact of the Trump administration, today? Reply in the comments. We’re in this together. And if you’re not already a subscriber to Julie’s Pod, here’s your chance! Share YOUR Truth: Upgrade to paid xo © 2025 Love Over Time LLC All Rights Reserved You’re currently a free subscriber to Julie’s Pod. For the full experience, upgrade to a paid subscription for $5/month or $50/year, and become part of the “Let’s Talk” community featuring Zoom support groups, discussion threads, and free stickers! Upgrade to paid SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2025 Julie Lythcott-Haims3790 El Camino Real #2022, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Unsubscribe From:Kevin Ji To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons (4075 El Camino Way) Comments Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 11:09:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Kevin Ji 4075 El Camino Way Comments.pdf Hi Emily, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Palo Alto Commons project. I've attached my comments to this email. Please include these comments in the staff report. Sincerely, Kevin From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:City Council Bundle - April 24 Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 6:17:26 PM Attachments:RE Vandalism at the CafeCameras.msgFW Response to Your Feedback on the Proposed Hamilton Traffic Circle.msgFW Re Urgent Request for Street Cleanup.msgRE 718 Sutter.msgFW Formal complaint about overbearing house next door.msgFW Addendum! (Lloyds Turf and Landscaping).msgimage001.pngimage002.pngRE Need Assistance with Neighbors Pool Filter Noise.msgRE Speeding on Grant Ave.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the City.Council inbox through April 24, 2025. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org Subject:FFF Follow Up – April 18 (Week #171) Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 5:19:07 PM Attachments:image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition organized an amazing Earth Day Climate Rally in Palo Alto’s King Plaza on Friday. MCs Brendan and Deepika masterfully guided us through the rally by introducing the speakers and energizing us with chants. Thanks to the great speakers: Alida, Avroh, Carlos and Sam. Thanks to the Climate Strikers! and the Raging Grannies for lots of music and dancing. Thanks to Chris Cassell and Pro Bono Photo for the beautiful pictures. Thanks to the entire PASCC team for organizing an amazing rally! Here’s a video of the rally: https://youtu.be/JFXpnE8kNX8?si=CfZMTebwiDMtTn81 Here’s our final chant at the end: https://youtube.com/shorts/eK-RtcKm6pA?feature=share Here’s pictures by Pro Bono Photo’s Chris Cassell: https://www.probonophoto.org/2025/18AprPAEarthDay Here’s a playlist of some songs performed by The Climate Strikers!: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=4iKFuGrnWxI&list=PLi4ADlZjXj1ZIvWoNn-SxTK7JQ9H5NIRH At the rally, Avroh demanded that polluters pay for the damage they are perpetrating on our climate and our biosphere and urged us all to support the "Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act", introduced as Senate Bill 684 (SB 684) and Assembly Bill 1243 (AB 1243), which aims to establish a fund financed by fees collected from major fossil fuel companies, who would be identified as responsible parties for a portion of the state's climate damages. These funds would then be used to address climate-related costs and harms in California. Avroh encourages us to call and email our representatives. Thanks, Avroh, for this call to action. Diane is excited to announce a new contest sponsored by the City of Palo Alto to give away a free heat pump water heater! Sign up now before it’s too late: https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/Win-a- Free-Heat-Pump-Water-Heater Thanks, Diane, for sharing this exciting program. What a great way to celebrate Earth Day! Co Co shared that she has been attending four actions a week, especially those targeting Musk and Tesla like #HandsOff and #TeslaTakedown. These actions appear to be very effective! This week, Musk said he was stepping back from DOGE as he announced that Tesla profits plunged. This is amazing news and demonstrates the power of our actions. Also, last week it was reported that Trump’s team advised him against invoking the Insurrection Act -- more good news! Meanwhile ICE continues to target, detain and deport our immigrant neighbors and friends, so we must stay vigilant and work to protect vulnerable members of our community. Thanks, Co Co and everyone, for your amazing organizing and actions. Carol is making progress on organizing the next Stand Up for Science and Sanity Rally on Friday, May 9 at Noon in Lytton Plaza. Mark your calendars! The Raging Grannies and the Climate Strikers! will be here for dancing, music and fun. Also, Carol is arranging to build a website for these ongoing rallies. Fighting to save our country from authoritarian rule is a marathon not a sprint. Thank you, Carol, for your vision and energy to keep these rallies going. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast This Friday we will celebrate the successful Earth Day Climate Rally and Musk’s reduced involvement in dismantling our government. Also, we will decide on our message for the upcoming Climate Slow March on Friday May 2. Come join the conversation! Keep Up the Fight! R-E-S-I-S-T! Upcoming Events Friday, April 25, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall. Every Wednesday, 4 to 6PM: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover on Wednesdays at the Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real. https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/764602/ Tuesday, April 29 from 6:30 to 10:30PM at 25 Churchill Ave in Palo Alto: Urge the Palo Alto School District board to take more district level climate action. https://www.instagram.com/p/DG1i7AESwRd/ Friday, May 2, Noon to 1:00: Climate March! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall and take to the streets for a slow march through downtown Palo Alto. Friday, May 2, 6PM: Pizza My Heart; pizza and networking event for Stanford students in interested in activism. Palo Alto City Meetings: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting- Groups/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes Climate Community Center: https://climatecommunitycenter.org/ Peninsula Peace and Justice Center calendar: https://peaceandjustice.org/events-calendar/ Photos and Videos of Recent Actions See links above. What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to: Reporting by Democracy Now! here Movement Memos with Kelly Hayes: Listen to this amazing conversation with Dean Spade: https://truthout.org/audio/lets-be-politically-promiscuous/ Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update As of:3/31 2/28 1/31 1/8 HPWH full-service interest list signups 1333 1323 1307 1277 Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 1333 1323 1307 1277 Signed SAAs 1013 1093 1075 1050 Completed site assessments 1023 1013 996 973 Installations Total Full Service HPWHs installed 414 402 393 383 Total DIY HPWH installed 115 114 98 103 Total Emergency HPWH installations 19 18 11 9 Total HPWHs installed 548 534 502 495 Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000 Monthly Installation Rate Monthly Installation Rate 14 32 7 16 Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83 Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting 650-924-8923 Author: Teamwork 9.0 Website: evolutionaryteams.com YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly Subject:U.S. Cities Looking to Mayor Mahan as City OKs Arresting Homeless People Who Refuse Housing Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:38:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. U.S. Cities Looking to Mayor Mahan as City OKs Arresting Homeless People Who Refuse Housing https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/u-s-cities-looking-to-mayor-mahan-as-city-oks- arresting-homeless-people-who-refuse-housing/ From:D R To:Council, City Subject:Speeding on Grant Ave Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 12:57:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers, I am the VP of the Condominium Association on Grant Avenue. My residents have noticed an extreme uptick of speeding drivers through Grant Avenue and running the stop sign atGrant/Ash and they asked the board to address this issue. We believe speed bumps on Grant Ave between El Camino and Ash St will make this road safer for our community, especially the children. Additionally, using the new traffic force tomonitor speeding drivers would help deter this significant safety issue. The typical times where we see the most speeding are around the lunch hour and late afternoon/early eveningon weekdays. We greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of assistance to help expedite a remedy for our community. Very Respectfully,David Ryan From:Hiral Parekh To:Council, City; Building Subject:Re: ADU provision abuse Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:56:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello! Even if this policy is increasing housing subtly (I have strong doubts that people building this are indeed going to rent out the add on - it’s a new room for a new house), people aredecreasing property value for the backyard neighbors and very negatively impacting the day to day life of the neighboring property. 4 feet is not acceptable set for a small lot in Palo Alto. The ADU is 16 foot looming tallstructure that is 30 to 40 feet across the back yard. It ruins the backyard neighbors use and enjoyment. My kids are now looking a building - we didn’t live on NYC or SF for a reason. I don’t see why this is being allowed here. Hiral Parekh On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 4:47 AM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my concern about the impact of attached ADU (Accessory DwellingUnit) zoning in our neighborhoods, particularly in south Palo Alto’s Eichler tracts. The intent of ADU policy is to increase housing options, but in practice, it is allowing massive structures to be built right up to property lines. In my neighborhood, this hasresulted in a large new house looming over a small lot, with windows that look directly into our backyard and block out the sky. This is especially disruptive in Eichler neighborhoods,where privacy and open sightlines are core to the architectural character[6][8]. It appears that the attached ADU provision is sometimes used as a loophole to maximize building size, rather than to create genuinely independent, affordable housing. The result is aloss of privacy, sunlight, and neighborhood character, with little evidence that it is meaningfully increasing our housing supply[5][6]. I urge the Council to conduct a survey to determine how many new builds are actually usingthe “attached ADU” provision for its intended purpose. We need data to understand whether this policy is meeting its goals or simply enabling overbuilding. Please consider strengthening privacy protections and reviewing the impact of ADU zoning,especially in sensitive areas like Eichler neighborhoods. Our community deserves thoughtful growth that balances housing needs with neighborhood character and livability. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place, Palo Alto , CA 94306 Sources [1] [PDF] ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - City of Palo Altohttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/planning- review/1.-single-family-and-duplexes/2024-adu-handbook.pdf[2] [PDF] Review of Palo Alto's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance ... https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ordinance-review-letters/palo-alto-adu-findings-102924.pdf [3] Palo Alto ADU Regulations - Cottage https://www.cotta.ge/regulations/na-palo-alto[4] [PDF] Summary Guide to ADUs and Junior ADUs - City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-community-environment/long-range-planning/adu/adu-handout-2020.pdf [5] Palo Alto ADU Guide (Updated) — Bay Modular https://baymodular.com/guides/palo-alto-california-adu-guide [6] Voluntary Eichler guidelines approved - Palo Alto Daily Posthttps://padailypost.com/2018/04/03/voluntary-eichler-guidelines-approved/ [7] The City of Palo Alto gets more applications for granny units, but ...https://actonadu.com/blog/the-city-of-palo-alto-gets-more-applications-for-granny-units-but- new-law-raises-questions[8] [PDF] Historic Resources Board - City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2018/id-8905-eichler-neighborhood-design-guidelines.pdf From:Hiral Parekh To:Council, City; Building Subject:ADU provision abuse Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:53:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my concern about the impact of attached ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) zoning in our neighborhoods, particularly in south Palo Alto’s Eichler tracts. The intent of ADU policy is to increase housing options, but in practice, it is allowing massivestructures to be built right up to property lines. In my neighborhood, this has resulted in a large new house looming over a small lot, with windows that look directly into our backyard andblock out the sky. This is especially disruptive in Eichler neighborhoods, where privacy and open sightlines are core to the architectural character[6][8]. It appears that the attached ADU provision is sometimes used as a loophole to maximizebuilding size, rather than to create genuinely independent, affordable housing. The result is a loss of privacy, sunlight, and neighborhood character, with little evidence that it ismeaningfully increasing our housing supply[5][6]. I urge the Council to conduct a survey to determine how many new builds are actually using the “attached ADU” provision for its intended purpose. We need data to understand whetherthis policy is meeting its goals or simply enabling overbuilding. Please consider strengthening privacy protections and reviewing the impact of ADU zoning, especially in sensitive areas like Eichler neighborhoods. Our community deserves thoughtfulgrowth that balances housing needs with neighborhood character and livability. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place, Palo Alto , CA 94306 Sources[1] [PDF] ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/planning-review/1.-single-family-and-duplexes/2024-adu-handbook.pdf [2] [PDF] Review of Palo Alto's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance ...https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ordinance-review- letters/palo-alto-adu-findings-102924.pdf[3] Palo Alto ADU Regulations - Cottage https://www.cotta.ge/regulations/na-palo-alto [4] [PDF] Summary Guide to ADUs and Junior ADUs - City of Palo Altohttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-community-environment/long- range-planning/adu/adu-handout-2020.pdf [5] Palo Alto ADU Guide (Updated) — Bay Modular https://baymodular.com/guides/palo-alto-california-adu-guide [6] Voluntary Eichler guidelines approved - Palo Alto Daily Posthttps://padailypost.com/2018/04/03/voluntary-eichler-guidelines-approved/ [7] The City of Palo Alto gets more applications for granny units, but ...https://actonadu.com/blog/the-city-of-palo-alto-gets-more-applications-for-granny-units-but- new-law-raises-questions[8] [PDF] Historic Resources Board - City of Palo Alto https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2018/id-8905-eichler-neighborhood-design-guidelines.pdf From:Tony Hughes To:City Mgr; Council, City; Howard, Adam Cc:Kathleen Foley-Hughes Subject:Fwd: Vandalism at the Cafe/Cameras Date:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 4:32:21 PM Attachments:IMG_9620.heic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Members of the City Council City Manager ShikataSupervisor Howard See below for a photo of a children’s table at Ada's Cafe that had its legs ripped off last night by vandals. Several months ago, following a night time knife incident on the patio in front of the cafe,PAPD asked Kathleen if they could review our video footage to help them understand what had transpired. They were surprised when we told them that we didn't have cameras capturingactivity outside of the cafe. Since opening the cafe in 2014, we have asked multiple times for permission to install outdoor cameras covering the patio in front of the cafe, including two years ago when the high schoolegg war left the cafe doors and windows and patio pavers completely covered with eggs and egg shells that took us six hours of power washing to clean up. Each time we asked aboutoutdoor cameras we were told that they were not permitted due to privacy concerns. Following the knife incident referenced above, we asked again and were told that the City would deliberate on the issue and get back to us. Now, we have another incident where camera footage would have helped identify who wasresponsible for us losing a lovely $400 children's table. I am sure the City appreciates how much time, money, and effort we put into making Ada's Cafe a warm, attractive and inviting place. Fresh flowers, pavers that we regularly powerwash, a community bulletin board that we purchased and maintain, and Adirondack chairs and sun umbrellas combine to elevate the entire community center experience for residents andvisitors. But the increasing frequency of incidents in and around the cafe, as well as the significant increase in unhoused activity on Ada's portion of the patio every night and day,mean that for public safety and personal property protection reasons, this is an important issue. We are asking again for permission to install cameras outside of the cafe that can capture footage of activity on Ada's portion of the patio. Thank you, Tony Hughes650-933-0412 Sent from my iPhone From:John Morin To:Council, City; O"Kane, Kristen Subject:Issues at Eleanor Pardee Community Garden Date:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 1:29:08 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Outlook-5rudsduz.png Outlook-egb0gsc0.png Outlook-0i4ptuap.png Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, Since there is Not much Communication with me. Here is a Email with what happened. May be Best to read this Email from the Bottom UP! Thanks (Im not Happy at ALL!) John Why Does the City of Paly Alto have Major Communication Issues? Why are all of you so Scared to Communicate? From: John Morin <jm66@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 3:00 PM To: Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fw: Issues at Eleanor Pardee Community Garden Hello KRISTEN O’KANE, Thank you so much for replying to me about my bad experience at Eleanor community garden. I would like to call you Monday, but wanted to tell you more about me and stuff and when I tell you the 3 issues it all makes sense and I wont keep you on the phone for a long time.. I’m not complaining or anything just letting you know to start, so please don’t take anything I say wrong… The whole process is so slow. Just saying. Finally, I was contacted by Javod Ghods and he referred me to Penny the Leason. He never really introduced himself or anything. I feel the Coordinator, Open Space, Parks, & Golf Community Services Department, Should let New People know if you have any issues or concerns to let me know and So you know All my info Phone # and Email are at the bottom of the Email.. Im not playing I had no idea I had his info, Phone # all Along.. I know I had his email for him contacting me, and it's hard to get a reply.. I reported my 3 issues to Penny the Leason. She told me that Javod or the Coordinator, Open Space, Parks, & Golf Community Services Department is a very busy person and does more then what his job is. So he is hard to reach or it can take awhile. But email him.. Again I wish I knew I had his Phone # Since I was told that Penny wont deal with confrontations, From Frank he is a local neighbor. And at one Point I told Javod in a email it's Sad I am misunderstood by some. Even the ALJ Judge for my SDI told me I am to misunderstood I don’t belong in public. Javod had used this against me.. After we Chat on monday I am going to share the Finally Email I sent to SARAH ROBUSTELLI so you can read it. Most will be Repeat of what I told you. Sadly Sarah didn’t CARE about one thing I said… And Sorry in Advance if you see my French (Bad words) It Never would of came to if I known who to communicate with and I was getting help to Stop the issues that shouldn’t have happened to me 3 times from the same Person. And they don’t get in any trouble and I get the Write up for bad Language, I admitted it but 3 Months later and nothing or no one stopping the Issue.. IT Took Javod 3 Months to contact me to sign the agreement and them IM THE BAD Guy, IT PISSES Me off.. Thank you for understanding, John Morin Hello, My name is John Morin ive lived in Palo Alto for about 40 years same place. I am Disabled on RSDI.. I need to speak with some about me being bullied 3 different times at Eleanor Pardee Community Garden. And the Bully is still there.. I had to leave.. Funny how it's Ok for her to brake rules and use bad language besides being the bully she is.. I was there from July 2024 until Jan 2025, Sadly not very long at all. I need to talk to some that's Above these 2, I do know that Javod Ghods is gone. The way that they Handled and talked to me was no was not acceptable buy anyone. They didn't even Care, they asked to hear my Side and then Cut me off... I was going to report them to ADA.gov: The Americans with Disabilities Act Sadly, it takes 3 months for their process.. SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@CityofPaloAlto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Javod Ghods Coordinator, Open Space, Parks, & Golf Community Services Department P: 650-496-6962 / C: 650-833-8724 Javod.ghods@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Sorry I'm still not Happy at all about this. But I feel someone NEEDS to know. It needs to STOP it's not Far to us that's Disabled.. Sincerely, John Morin From: Robustelli, Sarah <Sarah.Robustelli@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:24 PM To: John Morin <jm66@hotmail.com> Subject: Community Garden Plot Vacating Reminder Hi John, As per our agreement, you will be vacating your plot at the Eleanor Paradee Community Garden tomorrow, as your term has ended. According to the community garden guidelines, you are welcome to vacate your plot currently. Please be sure to take all personal items with you. Additionally, as a reminder, Javod waived your refundable deposit, so there is no deposit to return. Thank you for agreeing to leave peacefully no issues or drama. Sarah SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | Sarah.Robustelli@CityofPaloAlto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: John Morin <jm66@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 8:00 AM To: Robustelli, Sarah <Sarah.Robustelli@CityofPaloAlto.org>; javod.ghods@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: B12C : Garden Notice - Causes for Immediate Termination. LAST DAY Friday! Importance: High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sarah and Javod, To be 100% I really don't want to leave. You guys seen me with an Ice Pack and my back is swollen, and it Still is!!! But looks like this Friday before Sunset I'm gone, The last day of January.. My Harvest is NOT Done! And It Sucks bad... And I'll let you let Penny know. I'm PROOF you CAN'T have a FALL Gaden in B12c at all! There is NO Sun and B13 Blocks All the AM SUN Year-Round! Period! You all should have the courtesy to fix that Before Re-Leasing B12c out. Thank you very very much for the Extended Month. I do really appreciate it. I hate to waste Food. Ill be leave Peacefully no issues or Drama, Hopefully Lea Redmond won't be around THE Major Bully! She is what Started all this BS. I don't need Javod Threatening me with PAPD! (besides IM Not Scarred, the WORST PD on the Planet!!!) PAPD SUCK SHIT! I do have a Question? Why does the Bully that can use the FUCK Word on me Lea Redmond Still aloud to have Multiple Spaces and not get Written up? And Get Away with Murder? She is a Major Bully! and is why my Language had Finally come out! I was Getting sick of being Bullied! I NO Longer Take it my DR is VERY Proud of me.. This is a Brand-New Email. Some may be repeated (Sarah). If you decide to skip over most of it Javod if you still have a Job with the City be sure to read the END!!! I did contact the ADA.gov: The Americans with Disabilities Act I was able to consult with them, And they told me I have a very Strong Case. I told them I only want to report Lea Redmond and they Said its everyone involved Lea Redmond, Penny, Sarah and Javod.The process takes 30 days. And I haven't Decided what I'm going to do yet, I have time I'm told. And its not cool what BS Lea Redmond put me through.. It's 100% not legal to tell me I can't contact anyone in the garden per email or call. Its Against my Constitutional Rights. Do you even know what the constitutional rights are Javod do you? NO You Don't!!! And I dont Give a Flying Fuck or care if you dont like my punctuation!!! ZERO respect for the Disabled is all you are.. But that day we all meet the Day after the Bay Tree was cut down. I never knew how to contact Javod except email and Penny told me it can take awhile they keep him busy doing all kinds of stuff, and here we are almost 3 Months later. I just didn’t want to bring all this up in front of Penny. Penny Doesn’t do phone calls, only emails. I had asked Penny a few times if couldcall her and she said I do emails only, I hate all the email.. And so you don’t know when the issues I had started with Lea Redmond my first week.. She is all if you can garden you can work? Right and kept pushing me and pushing me for an answer. I told Penny with Clean English and Penny said she would handle it. The people at the Garden are Great they told me I need to Build a Cage for my strawberries. Well I have no skills at wood work.. So I asked the Google Email Group, Penny had posted I needed help with cutting of the wood and stuff.. I was being friendly no Bad English.. One person suggesting I go to ACE hardware Palo Alto. Its like $1. And then .25cent a cut… So I checked it out at ace and the Prices were a lot higher.. So I would say thank you for the suggestion. Bur ACE wants $5. First cutand then $1. Each extra.. I don’t care much for ACE being so overpriced but thanks again for the Suggestion…. And my Posting would get DELETED. Every reply I made to someone my Post would get DELETED, Im not being rude or using French or being nasty at all. So I ended up leaving the Group and asked to be removed.I wasn't even in the group for a week! So I left on my Terms I was Being Bullied by Lea Redmond she was Deleting my post.. The very next day Lea Redmond, I had No cluse she was approaching me, She said I have an Big problem with you, Who the F_CK! do you think you are to tell the whole group to F off and Leave the group.. I told Lea Redmond to hold on, I never ever told the group to F off. I confronted her with this F off stuff and she shut up fast she new she's wrong.. Again I tried to tell Penny. She said she would take care of it.. And then the Jerusalem artichoke deal. Long story short. Penny I think cut me off from Telling Javod due to he asked what's up! I should have had a chance to tell what the truth is!!! I told Penny I was having Issues with Lea Redmond again! Last months she walking her Dog and she doesn’t even Say hi John or do anything to get my attention. She just tells me I can harvest her jerusalem artichoke plant. I am I have no clue or interest how. She was all you need a Pitch fork and you haveto dig deep.. Again I am trying to tell her im not interested. She as all I got a pitch fork at home I will bring and check it out and let you know.. She must not of heard me I don’t care, I said.. Chris said he could move in Oct 1.. the jerusalem artichoke is a very evasive plant.It was never harvested Chris just pulled the plants to harvest you need a Pitch fork. I told Chris and he now knows he is going to have issues with wild jerusalem artichoke growing.. So he knows he has a mess to deal with.. Frank is a local neighbor. He understands me and my issues. He told me if I even need a thing is to knock on his door. So I did one day. IT as I had no clue how to contact anyone and Ive been telling Penny About all the issues, I wish I knew what I could do. He told me Penny wont deal with confrontations. Im like well I tried to email Javod (it was Clean email no bad language) and noresponses.. I ended up getting so frustrated because i just felt ignored and no one cared.. -- But that day we all meet the Day after the Bay Tree was cut down. Javod NOW ITS MY TURN TO BE An ASS TO YOU AS YOU WERE TO ME NO RESPECT OR CARE!!! I wasn't being Misunderstood by People at all. Sadly, you had no Clue what was going on You Asked and I got CUT OFF from givingmy side and the Truth.. I was Helping people and you cutting me off from communications, Gardens Died thanks to you I Stopped Helping People! I in no way was I Being Misunderstood; I was getting 100% BULLIED by LeaRedmond! You know Javod ( If you even still have a Job with the City. I heard from a Neighbor were I LIVE you got CANNED FIRED, GOOD!!!) Sorry But I am SO FN Excited to hear this. Its the Greatest News In My Whole Life!!! Seriously... I've never Been so Excited... You never even gave me a chance to explain the ISSUES or my side you just RAN with what I told you the ALJ Judge said to me 7+ years ago when I got my RSDI, I Shouldn't of ever told you. That ALJ Judge was an AssHole like you are to tell me I'm Misunderstood A lot. This even Showed US How WEEK!!! you ARE!!! After you Degraded me and made me feal like the Largest Pile of Shit to EVER Livein Palo Alto for 45 years in a few days 46 years!!! I hope God Takes your Life soon CALL FN PAPD the WORST PD on the planet Along with the Worst City on the Plant I FUCKING HATE!!! PALO ALTO!!! FUCKING HATE IT! Since the Day I Moved Here! 45 years of BS Drama! And then then Apologies to your Boss and Penny just Show how much WEEKER! You are.. You had No Respect or Care for Me at all the whole time.You Should of asked what Happened. I was honest about my Language coming out and I had a GOOD Reason! Yes I'm Still Pissed and Insulted! I've Never Been So Insulted my Whole Life!I Really didnt need All your BULLYING Either. NO Respect or Care for a Disabled person. YOU TOLD ME TO CALL IF I NEED ANYHING WE ARE ALL HERE FOR YOU, I TRIED CALLING AND NO ANSWER OR RETURN CALL, NICE TRY YOU! BIG! FAT! Fn! LIER!!! This shouldn't have Never Ever Happened Fn writing me up! Bullshit! NO I Don't Agree with the write up.! Not sure why I LIED and said I did agree..You're the Largest Disrespectful Ass On this whole Planet! I Closed and Cancelled my Discount program.. Ill never again as Long as I Live Have anything to do with the Parks and Rec of PaloPile of Shit Alto!!! Ill Never STEP foot and any Palo Alto Park or Rec. Ill Never go to Eleanor park or any other location for anything even Compost or Mulch. F-CK That...I would Rather pay Homedepot For Higher Quality Compost and Mulch! I am more than Sorry Sarah it came down to this. Thank you, Hopefully You can Understand. John From:Aram James To:Gardener, Liz; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; EPAToday; Diana Diamond; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org Subject:New taxes will soon dwarf the billions spent on homelessness in last decade. Who’s watching over it? Date:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 9:15:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. New taxes will soon dwarf the billions spent on homelessness in last decade. Who’s watching over it? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-23/new-tax-money-will-soon-dwarf-the- billions-of-dollars-spent-on-homelessness-in-past-decade-whos-watching-over-it From:Ellen Hartog To:Council, City Subject:The Commons Date:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:19:27 AM Attachments:The Commons.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Honorable Counsel Members, Thank you for taking the time to read this email and attachment. I hope all the Counsel Members have had a chance to visit the existing condition of the property as it operates today and the effect it has on the adjacent neighbors or driven to the site and tried to park. The new paint color blue matches the adjacent building, Goodwill's logo blue rainbow. I do not know of any more shocking effect on the neighborhood to see a three story blue structure looming over the one story neighbors. The previous Conditioned of Approval are been ignored. People care about the neighborhood and this is a complete lack of respect to what was previously gone over by both parties over years of work and compromise is shocking and not neighborly. Ialso learned that the Commons has violated other sections of the Conditions: 1. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (a)(9): This section requires the Palo Alto Commons to give preference for occupancy to Palo Alto residents and their families. 2. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (d): This section requires annual reports of their occupancy/vacancy status, number and age of occupants, number of employees, number of residents and employees use of parking spaces, and copy of renewal license for residential care facility. An complete Environmental Report should be done to ensure noise, light and air, traffic, parking study and more be done properly. The visuals should be agreed to by the neighborhood similar to an HOA so thatviolations will be addressed and not put off by lack of enforcement. This is a huge impact on the neighborhood. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast The Commons does not keep their landscaping up toward West Meadow and neither does Goodwill. I walk to El Camino and the bushes collect garbage which is not a pleasant walk. The Commons taking in Palo Alto residence priority. It may not be known when there is a waiting list. There are many more factors and I have attached a letter addressing additional items of concern. Respectfully, Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria PlacePalo Alto, CA Honorable members of the Palo Alto City Counsel, I am a long time resident of Charleston Meadows neighborhood. I recall when the Commons was developed and designed then to maximize its capacity. We had huge debates how the three story complex would impact the neighborhood and how it would impact adjacent properties. It took much comprising to agree on the building massing, giving up the twenty foot setback for open air space with staggered stories at a 10 foot setback. This solution was assured to the adjacent neighbors this would be the extent of building. Thus, we agreed on color, night sky, privacy, landscaping, number of units, number of parking spaces, along with agreements for reports of occupancy annually and commuter passes for employees. Palo Alto residences were to have a priority in occupancy as a benefit to the public as well as providing a monetary amount to Palo Alto. Unfortunately, this has not been tracked and many promises have been broken along with the actual impact I have experienced personally. I have had to tolerate crowded street parking, blocked driveways, traffic congestion and no parking at the Goodwill – apparently, due to lack of parking at the Commons. Their garage seems to be closed by a gate. Handicap access then not available to visitors. This is the current situation. Their proposal goes against the compromises made in the past. Any further expansion would need to be outside the 20 foot setback as originally zoned or the ten foot compromised setback with a daylight plane of 3:6 for commercial zoning ordinance. I am completely opposed to this project expansion in the rear. All the work we did in the past was to ensure property owners their legal right to light and air. Any expansion should and could be in the front or infill units at court yards as approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The massing of the proposed addition beyond is in direct opposition to the past COA agreement. Any further expansion other than what the P&T Board approved creates impacts that are vast and frankly must be thoroughly studied. The owner’s noise reports do not reflect all circumstances from train horn reflective noise off a three story wall or the additional emergency sirens at different times of day/night or weather condition, or night sky impact of three stories on neighbors. A complete landscaping study should be prepared to reduce the impacts and precise shadow study to include roofs are a must for any neighbor’s solar panels to work. This addition will only exasperate the existing problems, and will create new environmental issues which will need to be studied. It is wise that this project be thorough investigated and have a proper EIR at any rate. There are so many issues not covered or taken into account. This development does not add housing to the housing element. The Commons is a for profit corporation by a huge developer from out of state. Seven single Units are approved now and nine single units more are being asked by the developer which could be relocated to the front. If as currently proposed, this expansion would impact negatively all the single family neighbors along the rear of property parallel to Wilkie Way. Ten single family homes will be far more impacted loosing privacy, air, light, view, noise increased and parking which today is already a huge problem for the neighborhood. More importantly homes values will be devalued by hundreds of thousands each. I am all for senior housing but should be built with consideration of the original Conditions of Approval and relocate the nine units or more to the front. The cost to relocate the units to the front of the property along El Camino Way or East Meadow, which is a real option, the owner says it’s cheaper in the rear. Their cost savings will be offset by the neighbor’s losses by 10 homes and more off-site parking demand. A complete EIR needs to be done. Thank you for your time and consideration to please approve the expansion only as previously approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place Palo Alto, CA From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: REVISED- Public Notice: Availability of Public Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public Meeting - SFORecommended Airport Development Plan (RADP) Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:59:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Following up on SFO's Airport Development Plan, the SFO Roundtable meeting had a briefing attheir regular meeting April 2 which I just viwed. The plan is to increase passenger levels from the current 52 million to 72 million within 10-12years (!).SFO hit 50 million passengers in 2015. The level was 33.4 million in 2005. The airport is promoting that they are "not going to add runways," but due to GBAS and potentiallyother technologies, the airport's capacity is not constrained by the runways; it's more about howmuch they can load the three routes over Palo Alto. And in other words, how unsafely can theycongest the skies to make their numbers, attracting (with their development plan ) more and moreand more new flights and with zero coordination with other airport growth plans. My suggestion is that Palo Alto is running out of time, allowing already 10 years since the end ofthe Select Committee to not close on the FAA proposal to build new infrastructure for the nighttime flights - for the MidPeninsula - staying secondary or worse to the SFO Roundtable who takesforever working on their issues, with their 6 meetings a year with rotating officials, of coursenothing gets resolved and they don't operate to do much. It has been frustrating to see the Cityapplying and reapplying to the Roundtable (which nobody asked for) and the City has also spentmore time advocating to replace DNL with NAbove which has been a total distraction because thatis like debating about miles vs kilometers. I would be meeting every single week as if it was a five alarm fire. We can't afford any more loadon the routes over Palo Alto. And at this point, I suggest that the City please consider adding a newstaff person dedicated to proactively working on this issue, as we used to have with MichelleFlaherty at one point. Where the pace is visible/transparent and well documented. Thank you, Jennifer On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 2:06 PM Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Council, City Manager, City Attorney, I hope that the City is aware of SFO's Planning process per the forward below which I am not surewhat it is all about. I just learned about it from a San Francisco resident. Attached also is a letter from Mayor Liz Kniss regarding SFO's Part 150 conveying the concern ofhow SFO excludes Palo Alto when making decisions. I hope that the City is preparing to weigh inon SFO's plans again now, because when SFO even moves a hair around, it impacts Palo Altoneighborhoods. The region still also lacks coordination; piecemeal airport plans like SJC, OAK, SFO spurt aboutwithout any regard to the areas which are affected by multiple airports. Regional oversight isespecially important for airspace design and safety because various aviation stakeholdersfor design changes over time (to accommodate growth or other interests) which can result innobody having responsibility....we know that the plans ignore available data or as it was recentlyrevealed with the DC situation where a design with nearly 25 authors tuned out a procedure withridiculously low separation standards that was immediately canceled after the tragic crash. It is why we have always maintained that for airspace design, the push for data and the trackingthat we demand for noise issues is compatible with safety as well. Thank you, Jennifer ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org <cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org>Date: Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 2:09 PMSubject: REVISED- Public Notice: Availability of Public Draft Environmental Impact Report andPublic Meeting - SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP)To: San Francisco Planning logo Public Notice: Availability of Public Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public Meeting SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP) This email is to inform you that the San Francisco Planning Department (San Francisco Planning) has published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (draft EIR) for the SFORecommended Airport Development Plan (RADP). A public meeting will be held at the San Francisco Planning Commission on May 22, 2025, at 12 p.m. or later, to receive spoken comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft EIR. A 45-day comment period will run from April 16 to 5 p.m. on June 2, 2025, to receive written comments related to the adequacy of the draft EIR. Project Description The project sponsor, SFO, is proposing to implement the Recommended AirportDevelopment Plan (RADP), which involves a long-range plan to guide the Airport’s development. The San Francisco Airport Commission operates and manages the Airport as a department of the City and County of San Francisco. The RADP serves as a framework for future development at SFO and identifies various projects, including the improvement and development of terminal facilities, modification of certain non-movement areas of the airfield, and improvements to landside facilities to accommodate long-term aircraft operations and passenger activity levels at the Airport.The RADP provides for long-range development to accommodate activity levels forecast to reach approximately 506,000 annual aircraft operations, which is theestimated annual practical capacity of the existing runways regardless of whether the RADP is implemented. Passenger aircraft operations represent the largest portion of the 506,000 annual aircraft operations, which are forecast to accommodate approximately 71.1 million annual passengers considering the forecast passenger aircraft fleet mix. Implementation of the RADP would not induce passenger demand(i.e., induce the public to choose to fly if and/or where they otherwise would not), nor would the RADP increase the capacity of the airfield, change the configuration of theexisting runways, change the number of aircraft operations or aircraft types operating at the Airport (including cargo, private jets, and helicopters), or change the volume ofannual passengers that choose to fly into and out of SFO. What is the purpose of the Notice? You are not required to take any action. San Francisco Planning studied this project’s potential physical environmental effects and welcomes your comments on theadequacy of the draft EIR. If you wish to comment on the adequacy of the draft EIR, you may do so in either or both of the following ways: Written Comments Planner: Kei Zushi, EIR Coordinator Via Mail: 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Via Email: cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org Dates: From April 16 to 5 p.m. May 22, 2025 Spoken Comments at the Public Hearing Location: City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400 Date: May 22, 2025 Time: 12 p.m. or later The hearing will be televised on Channel 78 and broadcast online at sfgovtv.org;however, spoken comments will only be accepted in person. Available Documents: The REVISED LINKS TO THE Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, and Appendices are available to download electronically at https://sfplanning.org/environmental-review- documents. Hard copies of the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR can be reviewed at the San Francisco Permit Center on the second floor of 49 South Van Ness Avenue,San Francisco. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS AUTOMATED EMAIL. 中文詢問請電 (628) 652-7550. Para información en Español llamar al (628) 652-7550. Para sa impormasyon sa Tagalog tumawag sa (628) 652-7550. Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™ Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. View this email online. 49 South Van Ness | San Francisco, CA 94103 US Monica Huggins Planner Technician II Environmental Planning San Francisco Planning 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94103 Direct: 628.652.7490 | www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Map From:Helene Grossman To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Kristen.OKane@paloalto.gov Subject:Comprehensive Turf Study for El Camino Park, as per contract specifications (attached) Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:25:40 PM Attachments:Evaluation of Surface Replacement Options for El Camino Park, Palo Alto.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, City Manager Shikada, and Director O'Kane, I am submitting for your consideration a comprehensive turf replacement study for El Camino Park, developed using advanced AI research tools. This report encompasses the originalscope of the proposed contract with Lloyd Consulting Group and extends the scope to include key elements raised by Council members during last night's meeting. The document isattached. Contents of This Report This research covers all original contract elements, including: Environmental and health impacts Cost of conversion and lifecycle costs Playability and field usage Community and stakeholder perspectives Maintenance costs and staffing requirements Data collection and market comparison of synthetic and natural turf In addition, it incorporates new, explicitly requested elements, such as: Hybrid turf systems, including stitched reinforced natural grass Organically managed natural grass systems, without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides Palo Alto–specific usage analysis, accounting for rest periods, rainy-season closures,and seasonal load Surface temperature comparisons under local summer conditions Sustainability metrics, including microplastic shedding, PFAS content, recyclability,and lifecycle carbon impacts Faster, Cheaper, More Transparent This AI-generated study was completed in under an hour — less time than it would take toundergo contract renegotiations with Lloyd Consulting. By leveraging modern tools, we can accelerate the City’s decision-making timeline, eliminate unnecessary consultant fees, andredirect limited public funds toward implementation. Continued Collaboration – Free of Charge I am also happy to incorporate and analyze any Palo Alto-specific data that staff may wish toinclude—whether it relates to field scheduling, downtime, maintenance logs, budget history,or user surveys. I can adjust or extend the report to reflect any additional inputs, constraints, orscenarios the City would like to explore. I am glad to support this effort at no cost to the City,to whatever level of technical depth or policy alignment staff requires. I hope this report helps inform a timely and effective decision on the future of El CaminoPark, while also saving on consultant fees. Warm regards,Helene Grossman Evaluation of Surface Replacement Options for El Camino Park, Palo Alto Executive Summary Palo Alto is evaluating five field surface options for replacing the aging turf at El Camino Park, considering the city's Mediterranean climate, heavy year-round use, and ambitious Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) goals. The options include: (1) PFAS-free synthetic turf with organic infill (no “forever chemicals” or tire crumb), (2) natural grass with conventional maintenance, (3) organic/regenerative natural grass (no synthetic chemicals, soil-focused care), (4) hybrid turf systems that reinforce natural grass with some synthetic fibers, and (5) new plant-based or low-plastic turf alternatives. Each option is compared on key criteria such as materials and safety, heat performance, durability and playable hours, maintenance needs, lifecycle costs, environmental impacts, and health considerations. Findings: Synthetic turf offers the highest usage (2–3 times more hours than grass) and low routine maintenance, but it raises environmental and health concerns: heat (surface >150 °F on hot days vs ~85 °F for grass (Does Artificial Grass Get Hot? Learn Causes, Temps & Cooling)), plastic pollution (infill and fiber microplastics (The Turf is Artificial, But the Harm is Very Real | Clean Water Action)), and chemical exposure (historically contains PFAS “forever chemicals” (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight)). In contrast, natural grass (especially with organic practices) provides a cooler, living surface that supports climate goals (carbon sequestration and habitat) (Why are artificial lawns bad for the environment? - University of Plymouth) (Why are artificial lawns bad for the environment? - University of Plymouth), but requires significant water (~1–1.5 million gallons per field-year (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile)) and rest to avoid overuse damage. Hybrid turf aims to combine grass playability with some added strength, enabling perhaps ~1.5× the hours of pure grass (GrassMaster overview), but still needs irrigation and expert care. Emerging alternatives (e.g. fully recyclable or bio-based turf) show promise (one pilot claims a fully compostable field (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis)), yet their real-world track record is limited. Lifecycle cost analysis over 20 years suggests that natural grass (especially with organic management) can be cost-competitive or cheaper than synthetic when factoring in expensive turf replacements every 8–10 years (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County), disposal costs, and environmental externalities. However, synthetic turf can serve far more play hours, yielding a lower cost per hour of use when field demand is extremely high (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). There is a critical trade-off between maximizing play capacity and minimizing environmental/health risks. Community input reflects this split: sports groups stress the need for all-weather, high-volume fields for youth sports (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post), whereas many residents and officials point to climate, safety, and pollution concerns and advocate a return to natural fields (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). Recommendations: Palo Alto can consider a hybrid strategy to balance priorities. This could include piloting a state-of-the-art natural or hybrid grass field at El Camino Park – with improved drainage, organic turf care, and possibly reinforcement – to test if it can sustain the city’s usage needs. Simultaneously, if maintaining some synthetic turf is necessary for capacity, the city should require PFAS-free, recyclable turf products and organic infills to reduce harm (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). Robust maintenance plans (for either turf or grass) and scheduling policies will be needed to ensure safe, quality play. In sum, a solution aligned with Palo Alto’s S/CAP would favor investing in natural infrastructure (living fields) where feasible, using sustainable technology (like hybrid systems or bio-based materials) to boost durability, and reserving plastic turf only for the most intensively used slots or as a last resort. The detailed analysis below provides the evidence basis for this recommendation, with comparisons of each option across all key decision criteria. Introduction & Background El Camino Park’s current synthetic field is at the end of its life, prompting a decision on what surface should replace it (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). Palo Alto’s climate is Mediterranean – mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers – allowing year-round field sports but also creating stresses (winter rain can waterlog grass; summer sun overheats turf). The city’s fields see high-intensity use by soccer, lacrosse, football, and community programs year-round, including evenings under lights (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight). In recent years, concerns have emerged about synthetic turf’s health and environmental impacts, from player injuries and field safety to PFAS chemicals and **microplastic pollution】 (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). Palo Alto’s City Council has accordingly paused the automatic replacement of old turf with new, opting to study alternatives (natural grass included) before proceeding (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight). Any solution must also align with Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) – which emphasizes reducing pollution, conserving water, cutting carbon emissions, and enhancing resiliency – while still meeting the community’s recreational needs. This report provides a comprehensive, evidence-based comparison of five surface options for El Camino Park: ● 1. PFAS-Free Synthetic Turf (Organic Infill): New-generation artificial turf systems that eliminate PFAS chemicals and use organic infill materials (e.g. cork, coconut fiber, olive pits) instead of rubber. ● 2. Natural Grass (Conventional): A living turfgrass field maintained with standard practices (irrigation, mowing, synthetic fertilizers/pesticides as needed). ● 3. Organic/Regenerative Natural Grass: A natural field managed with organic, regenerative techniques (no synthetic chemicals, focus on soil health, water efficiency). ● 4. Hybrid Turf (Reinforced Grass): Systems like GrassMaster or XtraGrass that integrate synthetic fibers into natural grass to improve durability. ● 5. Fully Plant-Based/Low-Plastic Alternatives: Emerging solutions aiming to replace petro-plastics with bio-based or recyclable materials in turf. For each, we evaluate the materials and safety, shock absorption, heat performance, longevity and maintenance, real-world playability and uptime, 20-year costs, environmental footprint, health impacts, and community considerations. Data from case studies (including Bay Area fields when available), manufacturer specs, and independent research are cited to support the analysis. The goal is to illuminate the pros and cons in Palo Alto’s context and support a well-informed decision consistent with the city’s sustainability and recreation goals. Comparison of Turf and Grass Systems PFAS-Free Synthetic Turf (with Organic Infill) This option refers to modern artificial turf systems that do not contain PFAS chemicals and use natural plant-based infill materials instead of SBR (crumb rubber from tires) or other plastics. The typical system includes plastic grass-like fibers (often polyethylene or polypropylene) tufted into a backing, laid over a drainage base and shock pad, and filled with an infill that adds cushioning and weight. Historically, many synthetic turfs used PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in fiber coatings or manufacturing; PFAS provide stain resistance and reduce friction but persist in the environment indefinitely. New products are becoming available that are certified PFAS-free (PFAS - Playing For Keeps) (TenCate Develops PFAS-Free Synthetic Turf). For example, TenCate’s “Pivot” turf is manufactured with no added PFAS and requires no rubber infill, using a high-density fiber design to achieve proper ball/surface interaction (A Groundbreaking Pivot: TenCate Launches First Artificial Turf that ...). Several vendors now offer organic infills like cork, coconut husk, and olive pits, which replace crumb rubber to eliminate tire-related toxins and potentially reduce heat (About Infills | Performance Cork Solution for Synthetic Turf) (Services | Hellas Construction Austin, TX 78759 - superpages.com). Materials & Environmental Safety: PFAS-free turf still uses plastic fibers and backing (usually petroleum-derived polyethylene and polypropylene). Thus, it addresses one chemical concern (PFAS) but not the issue of microplastics: as the plastic fibers wear down under foot traffic and UV exposure, they produce shed particles that can end up in runoff and soil (The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread ...) (Why are artificial lawns bad for the environment? - University of Plymouth). Organic infills are biodegradable (cork, coconut, etc.), avoiding microplastic infill pollution and often coming from renewable or recycled sources (e.g. cork byproduct). These infills also lack heavy metals and carcinogenic compounds found in tire crumb. However, organic infill can decompose over time and may need periodic topping up. Manufacturers claim these natural infills are non-toxic and even cooler – for instance, GeoCool infill (coconut and cork mix) is said to reduce field temperatures by up to 40–50 °F compared to standard turf (Services | Hellas Construction Austin, TX 78759 - superpages.com) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). It’s important to note independent testing has found all turf systems still get very hot under sun (>150 °F), with only modest differences between infill types () (). Nonetheless, PFAS-free, organic-infill systems eliminate two major environmental pollutants (PFAS and tire microplastics) associated with older turf. Shock Absorption (G-max/HIC): Quality synthetic turf systems can be engineered to meet safety standards for impact. A shock-pad underlayer or a resilient infill is used to ensure the surface isn’t too hard. Industry guidelines set a maximum G-max (impact deceleration) of 165 for fields (the NFL uses ~156 as a benchmark, and >200 G-max is considered dangerous) (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research). Newer turf with pads can achieve G-max similar to or even lower (softer) than a well-maintained natural grass field. For example, fields are tested regularly at multiple points; if any spot exceeds the 165 G limit, the field is deemed unsafe (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research) (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research). In practice, a brand-new synthetic turf with pad often has G-max around 100–120, comparable to natural sod (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research). But as infill compacts and fibers flatten, G-max can increase, which is why annual testing and maintenance (decompacting infill) is critical (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research). PFAS-free or not doesn’t change shock performance; what matters is the infill and pad. Organic infills (cork/coco) generally provide good cushioning when kept at proper levels and moisture, and many installations include a foam shock pad to ensure consistent impact attenuation over the life of the field. In sum, a PFAS-free synthetic turf can be made as safe as any artificial field – meeting ASTM and sports governing body impact criteria – but it requires ongoing monitoring. Properly maintained, it offers a uniformly even surface (no gopher holes or divots) which can reduce trip hazards. Heat Characteristics: Synthetic turf is well-known to get significantly hotter than natural grass under sun. Dark plastic fibers and infill absorb and radiate heat, creating surface temperatures far above air temperature. Studies in California have measured artificial turf at 150 °F or more on 80–90 °F days, whereas natural grass in the same conditions stays close to ambient (~85–90 °F) (Does Artificial Grass Get Hot? Learn Causes, Temps & Cooling). This extreme heat can pose heat stress and burn risks for users (cleats and skin in contact with 140°F+ turf can scald). Organic infills are often lighter in color and retain moisture, which can mitigate heat to some degree. In a lab test, a coconut/cork infill system was ~12 °F cooler than black rubber, but still exceeded 150 °F under summer sun (). Santa Clara County found that turf with rubber infill can reach 122 °F versus 82 °F for natural grass on a similar day (a 40 °F difference) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). Heat mitigation for synthetic turf can include watering the field before play (which gives a temporary cooling for 20–30 minutes as water evaporates ()) or scheduling play outside of peak midday sun. PFAS-free turf products themselves don’t necessarily run cooler (though some companies add infrared-reflective pigments to fibers, with limited effect ()). Palo Alto’s summers are warm (80s°F) but not desert-hot; however, even in these conditions, artificial turf often becomes uncomfortably or unsafely hot during midday. Any synthetic turf field would need a heat protocol (e.g. if surface exceeds ~120 °F, activity should be limited – some school districts require moving activities to cooler areas when turf gets too hot (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance)). While organic infill helps, it does not fully eliminate the heat issue (). Lifespan, Maintenance & Recyclability: The typical lifespan of a high-quality synthetic turf is about 8–10 years of heavy use before replacement is needed (fiber wear and infill compaction lead to degraded performance). Some newer products advertise 10–12 year warranties (Pivot by Tencate - GeoSurfaces), but real-world life depends on usage intensity and upkeep. PFAS-free turf should have similar lifespan to conventional turf. One upside of the PFAS-free, non-infill design (like TenCate’s Pivot) is potentially simpler recycling: without tons of infill mixed in, the removal process is easier and the entire carpet (made of a single plastic type) can be recycled in theory (The next generation of synthetic turf: the future of non-fill systems) (The next generation of synthetic turf: the future of non-fill systems). In practice, recycling options in the U.S. are still limited – most old turf ends up in landfills or is sometimes repurposed in pieces. A fully recyclable or even compostable turf is on the horizon: a Dutch consortium recently developed a turf called “GreenBlade” that is 100% biodegradable, intended to break down at end-of-life or be industrially composted (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis) (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis). Such technology is emerging but not yet mainstream for large fields. Routine maintenance for synthetic turf includes brushing/grooming the fibers to keep them upright, redistributing infill, cleaning debris (leaves, trash), disinfecting biological contaminants, and periodic infill top-up (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) ( Understand the Game-Changing Benefits of Routine Turf Cleaning – Athletic Turf Wash, LLC). Unlike grass, it does not need watering or mowing, though occasional watering is used to cool the surface in hot weather (CEMO 24-0602 Artificial Turf/Synthetic Grass Report back-final02192025). Overall, PFAS-free synthetic turf with organic infill represents the most advanced, environmentally conscious version of artificial fields – it substantially reduces chemical hazards (no PFAS, no heavy-metal rubber) and potentially eases end-of-life recycling, while still delivering the core benefit of synthetic turf: high durability and all-weather play. Case Studies: Many Bay Area fields are still third-generation synthetic turfs with crumb rubber; however, some communities have begun installing organic infills. For example, San Francisco’s Beach Chalet soccer fields switched to a cork and sand infill mix in recent years as a safer alternative (to address public concerns about crumb rubber). The City of San Carlos installed a turf field at Highlands Park using GeoFill (coconut+cork) infill, finding it acceptable in performance and cooler than rubber (anecdotal reports suggest ~20°F cooler). Los Prados Park in San Mateo opted for an EPDM (virgin rubber) infill for toxicity reasons (Los Prados Park installs field with EPDM alternative infill |). While PFAS in turf was not widely recognized until recently, now manufacturers like Shaw and AstroTurf offer guarantees of “no intentionally added PFAS” in their products to comply with evolving regulations (e.g. some states are moving to ban PFAS in turf by 2026 (CEMO 24-0602 Artificial Turf/Synthetic Grass Report back-final02192025)). A notable local case highlighting synthetic turf issues is the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields (Mayfield): installed in 2016, by 2023 the turf was deteriorating and even oozed a strange sticky substance (possibly melted backing or binder) that caused a player’s injury (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight) (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight). This underscores that even relatively new turf can have failures. Palo Alto has maintained that its turf fields meet safety standards and are maintained per specs (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post), but as fields age, risks of seams tearing, infill hardening, or unusual breakdowns increase. New PFAS-free turf technology has promise, but real-world case data (especially on longevity and recyclability) is still limited since these products are just hitting the market in the last 1–2 years. Natural Grass (Conventional Maintenance) Conventional natural grass is the traditional sports field surface: a living turfgrass (often a blend of ryegrass, bluegrass, or Bermuda, depending on climate) rooted in soil. For a high-quality athletic field, typically a well-draining sand or sand-soil mix is used for the root zone, and subsurface drainage may be installed to prevent flooding. Palo Alto’s prior experience with grass fields and the issues of wear and tear will inform this option. Materials & Ecology: A grass field has all-natural materials: soil, grass plants, perhaps some sand/topdressing, and organic matter. There are no plastics, no PFAS, and no persistent pollutants inherent in the field itself – which aligns strongly with S/CAP goals of reducing synthetic materials. A grass surface provides ecosystem benefits: it supports soil microorganisms, insects (like earthworms), and even urban wildlife (birds feeding on bugs, etc.). The soil acts as a carbon sink, sequestering CO₂ in roots and organic matter – one analysis noted that replacing a living grass area with plastic turf not only removes that ongoing carbon sequestration but also entails a large one-time carbon cost (manufacturing and transporting tons of plastic) (Why are artificial lawns bad for the environment? - University of Plymouth) (Why are artificial lawns bad for the environment? - University of Plymouth). In other words, real grass helps mitigate climate change over time, whereas turf contributes to it. A downside is that maintaining lush grass conventionally often involves synthetic fertilizers (typically high in nitrogen) and pesticides/herbicides. Overuse or runoff of these can harm waterways (e.g. nutrient runoff causing algae blooms (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance)) and soil health. However, these impacts can be managed with best practices (calibrated fertilization, integrated pest management, etc.). Playability & Shock Absorption: When healthy, natural grass on a well-prepared field offers excellent shock absorption and traction. The grass blades and thatch layer, combined with slightly moist soil, act as a natural cushion. G-max on a good natural turf can be 100 or lower (very soft) and generally stays well below danger levels – except in certain conditions like drought/hard freeze when soil becomes very hard. If a grass field dries out and compacts, G-max can rise, but with routine aeration and irrigation this is controllable. Natural grass also provides more sliding resistance – players can safely slide/tumble on grass with minimal abrasions, unlike artificial turf which can cause “turf burns” on skin. However, natural fields can develop uneven spots: divots, holes, or an overall crown for drainage. These irregularities can pose injury risks if not repaired, and uneven footing can affect ball bounce. In Palo Alto, it’s been observed that some existing grass fields have “holes, dry patches and broken sprinklers” which can be hazardous if not maintained (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). Maintaining a high-quality grass surface requires diligent care – in absence of that, safety can degrade. But given proper care, grass is often considered the gold standard by athletes for feel and safety. (Notably, many professional sports leagues prefer natural grass due to lower injury rates, which we’ll discuss later.) Heat and Weather: Natural grass stays much cooler than synthetic turf. Grass has an evapotranspiration cooling effect – as it transpires water, it cools itself and the air above. Even on 90 °F days, a moist grass field might be at or slightly below air temperature (80s °F) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). This means heat-related illness risk is far lower on grass. Additionally, natural grass does not contribute to urban heat island effect; in fact, grassy parks are cool islands in cities. Weather-wise, grass fields do get muddy or slick in rain. Without a good drainage design, heavy rain can waterlog the field and force closures to avoid tearing up the turf. But if built with drainage (e.g. perforated pipes and a sand layer), a grass field can handle rain surprisingly well. A case study: Denison University (Ohio) rebuilt their grass soccer field with improved drainage and reported zero rain cancellations afterward – teams could play even after heavy rain, transforming it from a frequently waterlogged field to a reliable one (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Palo Alto’s El Camino Park, if converted to grass, would need such modern drainage to maximize uptime in winter rains. Grass fields also need some rest periods – for instance, many communities take grass fields offline for a few weeks or months a year (often in winter) to let the turf recover. In a Mediterranean climate, grass can potentially grow year-round (cool-season grass in winter, warm-season in summer or overseeded mix), but continuous use without rest will wear it out. Maintenance & Staffing: Conventional maintenance of a sports turfgrass is labor and resource intensive. Key tasks include: mowing (at least weekly during the growing season to keep grass at playable height ~1–2 inches), irrigation (daily or several times a week in dry months to provide 1–2 inches of water per week, unless rainfall suffices), fertilization (typically 4–5 applications per year of nitrogen fertilizer to promote growth and recovery, plus soil amendments like phosphorus, potassium, lime, etc. as needed from soil tests), weed control (applying herbicides or hand-pulling weeds to prevent invasive weeds from creating uneven footing or allergens), pest control (insecticides or fungicides if there’s a grub infestation or fungal disease patch), and aeration (punching holes or removing cores in the soil a few times a year to relieve compaction and allow air/water to roots) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Worn areas (like soccer goal mouths or center field) often require overseeding or resodding – e.g. replacing divots with new sod or seeding in turf periodically. All these tasks require a skilled grounds crew and equipment (mowers, irrigation systems, aerators, sprayers). The city would likely need to dedicate significant staff hours or contractor services to maintain a premium grass field at El Camino Park. This is a cost consideration (addressed later) – indeed, some California cities switched to turf largely to avoid the ongoing expense of grass upkeep and water. But some have found that a well-managed grass program can be cost-effective in the long run (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Lifespan & Renovation: A natural grass field does not “expire” like turf – if cared for, it can last indefinitely. However, every so often (perhaps every 10–15 years), a major renovation may be needed: re-leveling the field, improving drainage, or re-establishing the grass completely. This might involve stripping and re-sodding the entire field or a portion. Such capital rehab is much cheaper than a full turf replacement but must be planned for. If grass is neglected, it can deteriorate to a point where a full overhaul is required sooner. Conversely, incremental upkeep can avoid the need for complete re-do. Grass’s end-of-life simply returns to soil (old sod and thatch can be composted), so there’s no disposal hazard – a sustainability win. Case Studies: In the Bay Area, few municipal high-use fields remain natural due to the demand for play hours. However, some cities preserve grass for lower-use fields or have hybrid schedules (using grass in summer, turf in winter, etc.). One relevant example is San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park Polo Fields – they are grass and host many soccer matches, maintained by SF Rec & Park with intensive care (including periodic closures to prevent overuse). In 2018, Springfield, MA (different climate, but instructive) documented over 1,000 hours of use on a municipal soccer field after switching to organic maintenance, an increase in playable hours due to improved grass resilience (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). This shows that with attention, a grass field can handle on the order of ~1,000 hours per year of use (which is about 20 hours/week average). Still, this is at the low end of Palo Alto’s needs; currently synthetic fields host far more hours. If Palo Alto goes back to grass, scheduling and field allocations would need adjustment (more on usage capacity in a later section). It’s worth noting that some California jurisdictions are now favoring natural grass over turf for environmental reasons: e.g., the City of Millbrae, CA, in 2023 banned new artificial turf and is requiring residents to revert to natural lawn by 2028 (CEMO 24-0602 Artificial Turf/Synthetic Grass Report back-final02192025) (CEMO 24-0602 Artificial Turf/Synthetic Grass Report back-final02192025). Santa Clara County in 2024 considered prohibiting artificial turf on county properties due to health/environment concerns (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post) (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post). These policy shifts suggest a trend back toward grass if the practical challenges (water, maintenance, usage) can be overcome. Organic or Regenerative Natural Grass This option is essentially an enhanced approach to natural grass – focusing on sustainable maintenance practices that improve soil health and durability, potentially reducing long-term costs and environmental impact. “Organic” management means no synthetic chemical fertilizers or pesticides are used. Instead, it relies on natural amendments (compost, organic fertilizers), biological controls, and cultural practices (aeration, overseeding, proper mowing height) to keep the turf healthy. “Regenerative” implies practices that build up soil organic matter and a robust root system, making turf more resilient to stress (drought, heavy foot traffic). Key Practices: An organic athletic field program would use compost and organic fertilizer to feed the grass. For example, using compost tea or meals (like feather meal, kelp, bone meal) can provide nutrients slowly and improve soil microbial life (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Increasing soil organic matter is crucial – many programs topdress fields with a thin layer of compost annually. This feeds soil microbes and improves moisture retention, potentially reducing irrigation needs over time as the soil holds water better (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Regular aeration (more frequent than conventional) is emphasized – some organic-managed fields aerate 3–4 times a year (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) because relieving compaction not only helps roots but also reduces runoff and keeps the surface softer (safer). Instead of chemical herbicides, organic management may tolerate a few weeds or use manual removal, and it prevents weeds by keeping turf dense (overseeding bare spots, using grass species that out-compete weeds). Pest control relies on non-toxic methods (e.g., beneficial nematodes for grubs, or simply improving grass vigor to resist fungus). By avoiding synthetic chemicals, the field is safer for pollinators and soil fauna – earthworms thrive, naturally aerating soil, etc. (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). One perhaps counterintuitive benefit: healthy soil with diverse microbes can reduce pathogen survival. There’s evidence that soil microbes can outcompete or even consume harmful bacteria. So, for instance, concerns like MRSA bacteria on fields might be mitigated on an organically maintained field because the soil biosphere is robust (though direct evidence on MRSA reduction is not settled, a thriving soil is generally a healthier environment). Water Conservation: While grass needs irrigation, organic practices can make turf more drought-tolerant. Deep root systems are encouraged (by less frequent, deep watering and use of drought-resistant grass cultivars). Over time, organic fields have shown they can maintain turf quality with less water. For example, Martha’s Vineyard schools installed smart irrigation and organic care and achieved water savings while keeping fields green (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). In Palo Alto’s climate, choosing an appropriate grass blend is also part of regenerative practice – possibly a Bermudagrass base (tolerant of heat/drought, goes semi-dormant in winter) overseeded with ryegrass (for cool-season cover) could provide year-round green with lower water than pure cool-season grass. The trade-off: Bermuda uses less water but needs more aggressive maintenance (it spreads, needs dethatching). An organic field might also integrate native grasses or clover in out-of-play areas to enhance biodiversity and resilience. Performance & Playability: If done right, an organic grass field’s playability can equal or exceed conventional grass. In fact, the grass may be denser and stronger because the focus is on soil/root strength rather than quick green-up with high nitrogen. Case studies show significant improvement in field quality after transitioning to organic. For instance, a borough in Pennsylvania improved a compacted, poor grass field via soil rebuilding (aeration, compost, etc.), resulting in thicker grass and a “smoother, softer surface” in one year (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Another example: Springfield, MA’s organic fields saw increased hours of use due to better turf condition and fewer closures (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Organic maintenance does not eliminate the need for rest, but the field recovers faster when given rest because the grass is healthier. Cost and Labor: At first glance, organic management can be more labor-intensive (more frequent aeration, etc.) and organic products sometimes cost more than synthetics. However, studies have found that after an initial transition period, annual costs can be comparable or even lower than conventional. One study cited found an established organic program can cost 25% less than a conventional program (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). The logic is that as soil health improves, the field requires fewer inputs (less fertilizer, less water, fewer interventions). Springfield’s program estimated about $1,500 per acre annual product+labor cost, which is very low (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Denison University also reported their natural grass (21 acres) is far cheaper in the long run than their one synthetic field, partly because the synthetic has huge periodic costs (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). That said, successful organic programs often involve a learning curve and possibly consulting expertise (e.g., hiring turf experts like Osborne Organics to develop a plan). Palo Alto’s staff might need training to adopt organic methods effectively. From a sustainability standpoint, an organic grass field hits all the marks: no chemical runoff, building local soil health, no plastics, cooler microclimate, and supporting biodiversity (even pollinators benefit when no pesticides are used (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance)). It aligns strongly with climate action goals – indeed, it could be a showcase project for S/CAP, demonstrating regenerative urban land management. Case Studies & Local Examples: While not in the Bay Area, the Field Fund in Martha’s Vineyard, MA has converted many school fields to organic management with great success, often cited in literature (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). In California, some cities are starting organic parks maintenance (e.g., Irvine, CA piloted organic lawn care for parks). Santa Clara County is discussing requiring any grass fields to be organic if they move away from turf (Sports Fields Procurement and Maintenance - Ecology Center). For Palo Alto, implementing organic on a heavy-use field would be ambitious but potentially rewarding. There may be an example in Northern California: Marin County has some high school fields managed organically. The key is to commit to the approach fully – partial measures yield less benefit. This could mean dedicating budget for high-quality compost, specialized machinery, and perhaps partnering with organizations experienced in organic turf. In summary, organic/regenerative grass is essentially the “greenest” option: it forgoes the convenience of quick-fix chemicals in favor of long-term field vitality and safety. The field becomes a living asset that improves over time. The primary challenge remains usage pressure – even the healthiest grass will suffer if usage exceeds its recovery capacity. So this option might require accepting some limits on scheduling or creating a rotation system among fields. Hybrid Turf Systems (e.g. GreenFields XtraGrass, Tarkett GrassMaster) Hybrid turf is an innovative middle-ground that combines natural grass with synthetic reinforcement. The concept has been used in professional stadiums worldwide: natural grass grows in and around a lattice or network of artificial fibers, which serve to anchor the rootzone and provide stability when the natural grass is worn. Two common systems: ● GrassMaster (by Tarkett Sports): millions of synthetic fibers (polypropylene or polyethylene) are stitched vertically into the soil about 7 inches deep, spaced every 3/4 inch. Grass is then grown (or laid as sod) among these fibers. The fibers (about 5% of surface composition) hold the soil together and prevent divots from completely dislodging, since roots intertwine with the fibers. ● XtraGrass (by GreenFields): a synthetic turf mat (with wide spacing) is laid with artificial grass strands woven in; it’s then filled with sand/soil and seeded. The natural grass grows up through the openings, resulting in a field that looks and plays like natural grass but has an integrated net of synthetic turf for support (What is hybrid grass? - Blog | SPORTENG) (What is Hybridgrass). Advantages: Hybrid systems can reportedly handle more intensive use than pure natural grass – figures often cited are 2–3 times more hours of play before wear becomes an issue (GrassMaster overview) (GRASSMASTER HYBRID - Fieldturf NZ). For example, GrassMaster pitches can take ~600–1,000 hours per year, versus maybe ~300 for a top-quality unreinforced grass in the same climate (What is a GrassMaster? - Sportsfields.info) (Hybrid fields discussed - Sportsfields.info). The synthetic fibers share the load, so even if the natural grass thins out, the field still has a stable, even footing (no big clumps of sod getting kicked out). It’s like a safety net for the grass. This means fewer and shorter closures for field repair – the grass still needs regrowth time, but it doesn’t completely “fail” as quickly under heavy play. Surface Quality and Safety: Players generally experience a hybrid field as natural grass – cleats grip in real soil and grass, and sliding is on natural grass (the fibers are usually below the top of the grass canopy or just at blade height, so they aren’t abrasive). Shock absorption is essentially that of natural soil (which can be excellent if moist) or slightly enhanced by the mesh. Hybrid fields maintain consistency: they won’t develop the large divots or “pot holes” that plague badly worn natural fields, because the synthetic mesh holds the surface intact. This can reduce injury risk associated with uneven ground. On the other hand, there is still some plastic content on the field (albeit a small fraction of what a full turf field has). The fibers in GrassMaster are deeply anchored, so they don’t easily come loose as microplastics; however, over many years, some fiber wear could add plastic bits to the soil. Generally, these systems are considered safe and have been used in elite venues (e.g., many soccer World Cup stadiums have hybrid pitches). Notably, the NFL’s Green Bay Packers’ Lambeau Field is GrassMaster – a cold climate example – and players often praise it as a top field. Maintenance: A hybrid grass field is maintained almost the same as a regular grass field. It still needs mowing, watering, fertilizing, etc. One difference: you typically cannot use deep tine aeration aggressively (so as not to disturb the fibers). Instead, other methods of decompaction (like shallow aeration or special machines) are used. If you need to resod a hybrid field, that’s possible – replacement sod can be grown in a nursery with fibers or the existing fibers can be restitched after major repairs. Day-to-day, maintenance crew might not notice the fibers much; they’re just below the surface doing their job. Because the grass is real, you avoid the disinfecting and infill refilling chores of synthetic turf – it’s more like maintaining a high-end golf course tee or green, but one that’s much sturdier thanks to the fibers. One key maintenance aspect: over time, natural grass could thatch over or cover the fibers, potentially reducing their effect. Periodic “fraze mowing” (scalping off the thatch) might be done to re-expose fiber tops and encourage new grass growth – this is a specialized task. Longevity: The synthetic component of hybrid fields is long-lasting (fibers are protected in soil from UV). GrassMaster claims the fiber will last 15+ years in the ground. The natural grass, of course, is renewed constantly through growth and overseeding. So a well-cared hybrid field could potentially last decades without needing a full replacement of fibers. If after, say, 10–15 years the fiber percentage is reduced or the field needs regrading, you might have to replace or restitch the fibers – a procedure less intensive than a full turf replacement, but still significant. There isn’t a lot of data on municipal hybrid field replacement cycles because it’s mostly been used in pro sports where budgets are high and fields are often rebuilt on a schedule regardless. Cost: Hybrid systems are expensive upfront. They involve both the cost of a high-end natural field build and the additional cost of fiber installation. For instance, stitching technology requires specialized equipment and expertise – often overseas companies – which can run several hundred thousand dollars just for the stitching. As a ballpark, a hybrid field could cost on the order of $1.2–1.5 million to install (versus maybe $0.8M for a top natural field or $1M for turf). So the capital cost is similar to synthetic turf or higher. However, you are left with a mostly natural field thereafter, without recurring $700k carpet replacements. Maintenance cost will be akin to a natural field (maybe $40–60k/year). So lifecycle costs could be comparable to natural grass overall, if the fibers last 15+ years. Environmental Impact: Relative to full synthetic, hybrid uses perhaps ~5–10% as much plastic by volume. It still requires plastic production for those fibers, but dramatically less infill and carpet material. There are no infill microplastics to spill since hybrid typically uses sand and soil as infill for the fiber matrix. Water usage and mowing are needed, so it doesn’t save those resources compared to grass. But it also provides the cooling and habitat benefits of grass. One could argue hybrid is a good compromise: it keeps a living field (with carbon sequestration, no heat island, minimal runoff issues) while using a touch of synthetic material to extend functionality. Disposal: if ever removed, you’d have to extract plastic fibers from soil – not simple, but presumably the fibers could be separated and recycled. On the PFAS front, one would need to ensure the synthetic fiber used is PFAS-free (likely, since these systems often use polyethylene fibers similar to artificial turf). Case Studies: In California, hybrid turf has not been widely adopted at public parks yet. It has been considered in Southern California: e.g., Orange County Great Park evaluated hybrid for high use fields but I’m not sure if they implemented. Globally, many soccer clubs use GrassMaster or its competitor SISGrass (e.g., used in some FIFA World Cup 2022 stadiums). These fields have shown that even in very hot climates (Qatar) or rainy climates, hybrid holds up. If Palo Alto were to use hybrid, it might be one of the first municipalities in the region to do so, making it a pilot/demonstration. The City would need to weigh if the increased upfront cost is justified by reduced downtime and possibly avoiding going full synthetic. A hybrid field could potentially host perhaps ~1,500 hours/year (as an estimate between grass and turf) while still being largely natural. In summary, hybrid turf gives a “best of both worlds” if you can afford the installation and maintain it like a natural field. It doesn’t reach the 3,000+ hours of a synthetic field, but it might reach double what a typical grass field could handle before quality suffers (GrassMaster overview). It could be a strong option for Palo Alto if the aim is to maximize use and adhere to environmental principles. The complexity of installation and need for high maintenance skill are factors to consider. Plant-Based or Low-Plastic Emerging Alternatives The last category includes novel field surface solutions that significantly reduce or eliminate petroleum-based plastics. This is a rapidly evolving area as companies respond to environmental pressures on synthetic turf. Examples: ● Non-PFAS, Partially Bio-Based Turf: Some manufacturers use bio-derived ingredients in their turf components. For instance, SYNLawn markets an “EnviroLoc+” backing that uses soy-based polymers instead of 100% petroleum plastic, boasting up to 60–80% renewable content in the whole turf product (Eco-Friendly Artificial Grass | SYNLawn). Also, some turf fibers can be made from bio-polyethylene (ethanol-sourced plastic, e.g. from sugarcane). These turfs look and perform like standard synthetic, but their production has a lower carbon footprint (since the plant-based content absorbed CO₂). They are still plastic in the end, just from a different source, and won’t biodegrade readily. However, they might be recyclable, and they reduce dependence on fossil fuels. ● Completely Biodegradable Turf: As mentioned earlier, the GreenBlade project in the Netherlands has developed a fully compostable sports turf (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis). They achieved this by using a special biopolymer for fibers and backing that can break down (possibly polylactic acid or PHA blends). This technology is in pilot phase – one or two fields in Europe are testing it. The goal is a field that, after its life, can be taken up and industrially composted or recycled, leaving no microplastic pollution (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis). If successful, this could revolutionize turf sustainability. We must note, durability of such materials is unproven; the field must last years in sun and stress without breaking down prematurely. GreenBlade claims top sports performance and durability along with compostability (GreenBlade- Biodegradable and recyclable artificial grass - Senbis), which is promising. ● “Eco” Turf Systems with Less Plastic Infill: Another angle is using mineral or plant-based infills in an otherwise standard turf to greatly cut plastic content. Options include cork only infill (like PureFill), wood fiber infill, or even experimental infills like Kenaf core (a plant fiber). There are also infill-free designs (like the TenCate non-infill turf (The next generation of synthetic turf: the future of non-fill systems)) which eliminate the need for microplastic infill. These still have plastic grass fibers, but a lot less total polymer in the system since infill can be 30% of a field’s weight. So a combination could be: a recyclable single-polymer turf carpet + cork infill + no PFAS = dramatically lower environmental impact than 3rd-gen turf. Such configurations are already commercially available. ● Modular or Removable Systems: A different approach, though not exactly plant-based, is systems where the turf is not glued down but modular (like carpet tiles or rolls that can be removed, cleaned, and reused). This can facilitate reuse and recycling, cutting waste. Some European companies do lease models where they take back old turf for recycling. Palo Alto could explore if any vendor offers a guarantee to recycle the turf at end-of-life (some do in contracts, though actual recycling rates vary). Because these alternatives are new, case studies are sparse. We can extrapolate benefits: reduced chemical exposure (if no PFAS, no petro-rubber), potentially cooler surfaces (if lighter color fibers or cooler infill), and easier end-of-life handling. But one must be cautious that “emerging” means there may be unknown issues. For example, if a biodegradable fiber starts breaking down during its useful life, that would be a problem (it could lead to faster degradation or more frequent replacement). Also, cost is likely higher at this stage due to low volumes and new tech. Relevance to Palo Alto: Given Palo Alto’s emphasis on sustainability and being a leader, the city could opt to be an early adopter of a fully sustainable turf solution. The risk is that the performance might not be as proven. If considering this, a pilot on a smaller scale (half a field, or practice area) could be done first. Alternatively, specifying in any RFP that the turf must be PFAS-free and recyclable will push vendors to use their latest eco-friendly tech. Already, California agencies are moving that way – some state codes disallow turf in water conservation plans (to encourage real drought-tolerant landscaping over plastic) (CEMO 24-0602 Artificial Turf/Synthetic Grass Report back-final02192025), and although the PFAS-ban bill (AB 1423) was vetoed in 2023, it could come back. Palo Alto could future-proof by installing a turf that meets likely future regulations (no PFAS, and minimal environmental toxicity). In summary, the low-plastic and plant-based turf options strive to solve the main environmental downsides of synthetic fields while retaining their high usability. If successful, they could allow a city to have year-round playable fields that are carbon-neutral, non-polluting, and fully circular. This vision is likely a few years away from broad reality, but components of it (organic infill, PFAS-free fibers, recyclable design) are available now and should be included if any synthetic solution is chosen. Maintenance and Operations Comparison Field maintenance requirements differ vastly between synthetic turf and natural grass systems. Below is a comparison of key maintenance and operational considerations for each option, including routine schedules, staffing, inputs, and downtime impacts. Maintenance Tasks and Frequency ● Synthetic Turf (PFAS-free w/ organic infill): Routine maintenance involves weekly to monthly grooming – using a machine with brushes/tines to fluff up the fibers and redistribute infill for an even surface (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Debris like leaves, trash, and rocks must be removed regularly (often blown off or swept) to prevent contamination of the infill or drainage clogs. Infill top-up is done as needed; with organic infill, some material may biodegrade or migrate, so each year a crew might add a few hundred pounds to low spots. Sanitization is another aspect: because it’s not living, the turf doesn’t break down bodily fluids or microbes; some owners periodically spray diluted disinfectant or use UV treatment to kill bacteria (especially if there have been blood incidents, etc.) ( Understand the Game-Changing Benefits of Routine Turf Cleaning – Athletic Turf Wash, LLC) ( Understand the Game-Changing Benefits of Routine Turf Cleaning – Athletic Turf Wash, LLC). The water use for maintenance is minimal – just occasional rinsing or cooling. Importantly, synthetic fields require annual safety testing (G-max testing at various points) and any area that approaches the threshold (e.g. 165 G) must be addressed, either by adding infill or repairing the pad (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research) (Risks of Head Injuries on Artificial Turf Fields in Washington, D.C. - National Center for Health Research). Every 8–10 years, a major operation is needed to replace the turf carpet: this entails shutting the field for several weeks, removing the old turf/infill, regrading or repairing the base as needed, and installing new turf. During that process, you need to handle disposal of old materials (potentially a hazardous waste concern if containing PFAS or other toxins). Staffing/Equipment: Synthetic turf maintenance can be done with a small team (1–2 staff) using specialized equipment (a motorized groomer, often a tow-behind unit for a small tractor). Cities often train existing parks staff or hire contractors for quarterly deep cleaning. It does not require horticultural expertise – more mechanical skill and adherence to manufacturer guidelines. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Maintenance is continuous and seasonally varied. Mowing is the most frequent task – typically once or twice a week during growing seasons. Heights must be kept consistent for play (about 1.5–2.5 inches for sports fields). Irrigation is done almost daily in summer (automated sprinklers often run late at night or early morning). In Palo Alto’s dry season, a field might require on the order of 2 acre-feet of water over several months – for El Camino’s ~2-acre field, that’s up to ~650,000 gallons per summer (water usage is a significant operational consideration both in cost and conservation). Fertilization with synthetic fertilizers happens perhaps 4 times a year (early spring, late spring, summer, fall). Weed control might involve spraying selective herbicides annually or as needed to control broadleaf weeds. Aeration and overseeding are done 1–2 times a year, usually spring and fall: pulling cores from soil to relieve compaction and then spreading grass seed to fill in thinning areas. High-wear spots could be resodded during slow periods (e.g., summer break for school fields or winter break) – for instance, replacing the goalmouths with fresh sod each year. Pest management: if grubs or other pests are detected, chemical treatment might be applied once a year (some fields need grub control to prevent beetle larvae from eating roots). Fungicides might be applied if there are fungal patches (though in arid summers, fungus is less an issue than in humid climates). Staffing/Equipment: Maintaining a high-quality grass field is labor-intensive. The city would need skilled groundskeepers (either dedicated or via a contractor). Equipment includes commercial mowers, fertilizer spreaders, aerators (or contracting aeration), irrigation control systems, etc. Training is important for proper pesticide application (staff need to be certified applicators in many cases). The city might already have this capability for golf course or park lawns, but athletic fields require extra care for safety (e.g., ensuring no pesticides are applied right before use, mowing patterns that avoid clumping, etc.). There’s also some regulatory compliance: using pesticides involves reporting and adhering to any local bans (some communities restrict glyphosate or certain chemicals). ● Organic/Regenerative Grass: The tasks are similar to conventional grass with a few twists. Mowing and irrigation remain (though irrigation may be optimized with weather-based smart controllers to avoid overwatering). Fertilization shifts to organic products: perhaps more frequent smaller applications (since organic fertilizers release slowly). Compost topdressing might be done annually which is an extra task not in conventional programs. Aeration is done more often – maybe 3–4 times per year (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) – meaning more labor but it’s key to keep soil loose. Overseeding is very frequent, potentially every season, to constantly encourage thick grass that crowds out weeds (instead of using herbicide). Without herbicides, crews may need to manually remove any persistent weeds or spot-treat with non-toxic solutions (e.g. vinegar-based herbicide, which is laborious). Pest control relies on preventive measures (e.g., encouraging birds that eat grubs, or applying beneficial nematodes to soil). These methods can be more time-consuming and may not eradicate issues as quickly as chemicals, requiring patience and iterative attempts. Staffing/Training: Organic maintenance often requires a higher skill level in turf science – understanding soil test results, brewing compost teas, etc. Staff might need training via programs like the Sustainable Sites Initiative or local organic land care courses (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). There are organizations (like the Toxics Use Reduction Institute – TURI, which has guides (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance)) that can assist in developing organic maintenance schedules. The city could also contract an expert consultant for the first couple of years of transition. Over time, many cities find that crew become proficient and even prefer the organic approach once they see improved field quality and reduced chemical handling. ● Hybrid Turf: Day-to-day, treat it as a natural grass field – mow, water, fertilize (could be conventional or organic approach). One unique maintenance need: after games, divots still occur (chunks of grass may tear, but not fully because fibers hold them). Groundskeepers should replace any divots/plugs and press them back (like on a golf course) to ensure smoothness. Aeration must be done carefully (shallower) – some systems have specific equipment to avoid fiber damage. If using conventional care, you’d apply fertilizers and possibly pesticides similarly to a grass field (though one might be more cautious with chemicals to not affect fiber integrity, but generally that’s not a concern). Irrigation for hybrid is the same as grass – still required. Staffing: similar to grass – you need groundskeepers with turf management knowledge. One could argue hybrid requires the most expertise: you have to know grass care and also understand the presence of the fiber matrix (for example, if you verticut or dethatch the field, you must adjust for the synthetic). But many clubs manage it successfully with normal crews given some initial instruction. Annual Maintenance Costs and Inputs To estimate maintenance costs: According to data from Montgomery County parks (Maryland), a natural grass field’s annual upkeep ranged from ~$21k for a lower-end field to ~$38k for a high-end field, whereas a synthetic turf field’s upkeep was about $33k per year (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Interestingly, the school system in that study reported only ~$12k/year for their synthetic (possibly because they do minimal maintenance) and ~$50k for high-end grass (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). For Palo Alto, where labor and water costs are high, we can expect the following ballpark: ● Synthetic Turf: ~$20,000–$30,000 per year in maintenance. This includes periodic grooming service, infill top-ups (organic infill might be a bit pricier to replenish than crumb rubber), and annual testing. If the city outsources deep cleaning (e.g., a company comes in to power-wash and sanitize once a year), add a few thousand. Water cost is negligible (maybe a bit for occasional rinse). Electricity for lights etc. is separate and same regardless of surface. Note: The city must also budget for the replacement reserve – essentially, dividing the expected $600k–$900k replacement cost over, say, 8 years, meaning putting aside ~$75k–$110k per year. This isn’t an operating “maintenance” expense per se, but a capital sinking fund. If not saved annually, it hits as a big CIP cost when needed. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Possibly on the order of $40,000–$60,000 per year. Water could be a big line item – for example, 1.2 million gallons/year as cited by the soccer club official (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). If Palo Alto’s water cost is say $0.015 per gallon (approx $6 per 1000 gal, just an estimate for irrigation water), then 1.2M gal costs about $18k. Labor for mowing (let’s say 4 hours/week, 30 weeks = 120 hours) plus aeration, fertilizing, etc., plus materials (fertilizer, seed, pest control) – those could sum in the tens of thousands. Many cities report ~$0.50–$1 per square foot per year for high-use natural turf maintenance. For a ~80,000 sq ft field, that is $40k–$80k. This aligns with the ranges seen elsewhere (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Conventional also has equipment depreciation (mowers etc.) to consider. ● Organic Grass: The cost can initially be slightly higher (more labor on soil work, maybe higher unit cost for organic fertilizer), but as noted earlier, can drop over time. Springfield, MA’s program cited <$1,500 per acre, which sounds extremely low (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance) – perhaps due to low material costs after soil health improved. Denison University was spending ~$1,800 per acre (not counting pesticides) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). If Palo Alto could achieve even <$5,000 per acre, that’s $10k for ~2 acres – plus labor. Realistically, in CA, water dominates cost, and organic doesn’t cut water much (maybe a bit). So perhaps organic field maintenance would be similar to conventional, maybe slightly more in labor offset by slightly less in chemical costs. Another aspect: organic might involve purchasing compost or special amendments. These could be a few thousand a year. Overall, one might budget $50k/year for organic grass, with the possibility of reduction after a few years as less inputs are needed. ● Hybrid Turf: Annual costs similar to a high-end natural field (since you maintain it like one). So expect $50k or more. The presence of fibers doesn’t reduce routine costs (it just reduces how quickly the field deteriorates under play). You might save some resodding costs since the turf holds better, but you might spend more on certain maintenance (maybe specialized aeration equipment rental). Net, it’s in the same ballpark. ● Emerging Alt Turf: If it’s basically a synthetic turf with some tweaks (like recyclable, or new infill), maintenance cost would be akin to synthetic – maybe a bit more if, say, you have to add more organic infill that decomposes. But largely $20k–$30k range. If a new product requires special care (for instance, maybe a fully compostable turf requires you to ensure it stays dry when not in use to not start composting!), that could add some nuance – but that’s speculative. We’d assume maintenance is standard for these. Downtime and Operational Impact Field Availability (“Usable Days/Hours”) is a critical operational aspect: ● Natural Grass Downtime: Grass fields typically need rest after heavy use. For example, after a tournament or many hours of play, a field may be closed for a day or two to recuperate (especially if divots need fixing). If it rains heavily, natural fields are often closed to prevent damage – potentially for 1–3 days until drying. In winter, if grass becomes dormant or muddy, some cities close fields for a season (in Palo Alto’s mild winter, complete closure might not be needed, but reduced schedule might be). Also, maintenance activities cause downtime: aeration might require closing the field for a day; fertilization might need 24 hours before play resumes (to allow absorption); re-sodding an area could close that section for a few weeks to knit. These downtimes reduce total available hours. If Palo Alto has limited fields, closing one for months is problematic. That is why historically synthetic turf has been favored – no seasonal closures. ● Synthetic Turf Downtime: Synthetic fields can generally be used rain or shine – they drain quickly and don’t get muddy. So rainouts are virtually eliminated (unless there’s standing water from extreme storm, which proper drainage design prevents). They also don’t need seasonal rest; in fact, you can schedule back-to-back games all day every day. There are still some conditions prompting downtime: if the field overheats (e.g., on a 95°F day, midday use might be unsafe), you essentially lose that time or have to water it and wait. Also, when it comes time for replacement, the field might be out of service for a month or more – but that happens once a decade. Minor repairs (like seam fixes) might take a few hours or a day, often scheduled off-peak. Another scenario: contamination events (like if someone vomits or there’s a blood spill), you may pause play to properly clean the spot (with grass you might wash it off or let biodegrade). But these are short. In essence, synthetic has higher uptime during normal years, and then one big downtime for replacement. Grass has periodic small downtimes regularly. ● Hybrid Downtime: Similar to grass, though possibly a bit less. Because hybrid tolerates wear, you might not need to close it as often for recovery. You might still avoid scheduling it solid every single day to let grass grow. After heavy rain, if drainage is good, hybrid can be used like turf (the fibers help prevent damage even if soil is a bit soft). But caution is still wise – some managers treat hybrids like a normal grass field with regard to resting during/after rain, just with faster post-rain readiness. Staff & Scheduling Impacts: With natural surfaces, you need a team available to respond to weather – to put up “Field Closed” signs, to inspect turf and decide if it’s too worn, etc. With synthetic, you don’t have to worry about that day-to-day. However, you do need to schedule the maintenance windows: e.g. block off a morning once a week for grooming or once a month for deep cleaning. Those are short and can be done off-peak typically. For natural grass, some maintenance like mowing can often be done early morning before games, but if schedule is packed, you might have to occasionally restrict use to get the mower on safely. Compliance/Regulations: There aren’t specific regulatory “downtimes” required, but if using pesticides on grass, you’d follow label instructions which might say “Keep off treated area for 24 hours” etc., effectively scheduling downtime. In organic, you avoid those. If water restrictions are imposed during drought (common in California), natural grass fields might have to reduce irrigation, which could harm the turf and force reduced usage to avoid damage. This is a risk – e.g., in a severe drought, the city might have to stop irrigating sports fields (unless using non-potable source), which would kill the grass and render the field unplayable for a time. Synthetic turf in that scenario shines as it doesn’t need water to survive (only to cool if used in heat). So drought-related closures could hit grass but not turf. Safety Monitoring: For turf, if G-max starts creeping up, a field could be temporarily closed until remedial action (adding infill) is done to bring impact attenuation back into range. This is more of a preventative maintenance scheduling thing. In summary, from an operations perspective, synthetic turf maximizes continuous availability – you can program it intensely with minimal breaks. Grass (natural or hybrid) needs a more carefully managed schedule with built-in rest periods and is at the mercy of weather for occasional closures. This has implications for how many fields Palo Alto needs to meet demand if they choose grass. If one synthetic can handle what perhaps two or three grass fields would, then going grass might require the city to stagger usage among multiple fields or accept lower total play hours. We will quantify usage in the next section, but from a maintenance/ops standpoint: synthetic is lower routine labor but higher periodic capital work; natural is higher ongoing labor and input, with routine minor resting. Usage and Playability Comparison Perhaps the most pivotal question is: How many hours of sports use per year can each surface support, given Palo Alto’s high demand? And how does play quality (ball bounce, traction, injury incidence) compare? Below we model playable hours and discuss playability factors. Playable Hours per Year A well-maintained synthetic turf field can accommodate roughly 2,000 to 3,000 hours of play per year (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). This assumes the field is scheduled heavily (e.g., ~40–60 hours per week most of the year). Empirical data: Montgomery County, MD found their synthetic fields averaged ~1,500 hours/year use, but could go up to ~3,000 with full scheduling (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Palo Alto could similarly schedule a turf field from morning to night on weekends and after-school to night on weekdays, plus daytime use by pick-up players, etc. The limit is usually not the turf but human scheduling constraints and avoiding time slots like weekday mornings. Essentially, a synthetic field can be used year-round, daily, only limited by extreme heat or maintenance slots. A natural grass field has a much lower sustainable capacity. Traditional benchmarks: ~600–800 hours/year for a typical municipal grass field, and perhaps 850–1,200 hours/year for a professionally maintained cool-season grass field, or up to ~1,200 for warm-season Bermuda in ideal conditions (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Indeed, data from multiple sources show natural grass maxing out around 20 hours per week (which is ~1,000/year) if you want to keep it healthy (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile) (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). For example, Palo Alto Soccer Club’s director stated one turf field would require “3–4 grass fields” to replace its capacity, as turf allows 2–3 times more playing hours than natural grass (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). This implies one grass field can only do 30–50% of the hours a turf does. As a concrete number, he cited that replacing one turf would “require an additional 1.2 million gallons of water” – which corresponds to watering those extra grass fields (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). So implicitly, if El Camino’s turf currently hosts say 2000 hrs/year, a single grass field at El Camino might only handle ~700 without quality loss, meaning you’d need 3 fields or one field used in rotation 3 years to equal that usage. However, organic/regenerative practices might push the upper bound of grass usage a bit higher. If the field is kept in prime condition, some communities have reported higher usage before deterioration. The Massachusetts case noted Treetop Park field handled just over 1,000 hours in a year with organic management (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Some hybrid Bermuda/rye strategies allow fields to be used in one season then renovated for the next. But realistically, expecting much above 1,200 hours on grass risks the turf thinning, soil compacting, and injuries increasing. Grass needs recovery: typically a grass field benefits from at least one day of rest for every 2–3 days of play, and extended rest in off-season. A hybrid turf field can bridge some gap. Manufacturers claim 50% to 200% more hours than natural. GrassMaster literature states up to 1,000 hours per season and 3× more capacity than 100% natural (GrassMaster overview). In practice, users say about 800–1,500 hours/year for hybrids, depending on maintenance and climate (What is a GrassMaster? - Sportsfields.info). Let’s estimate ~1,500 hours/year could be achievable (which is ~30 hours/week). That’s still only half to two-thirds of what a full synthetic could do, but significantly more than a typical grass. The hybrid’s big advantage is handling concentrated usage in short periods – e.g., multiple back-to-back games in a day – without falling apart. It then still needs agronomic recovery but the fibers ensure the field is still playable during recovery (even if grass blades are a bit worn, the surface remains even and stable). We can visualize these differences: (image) Approximate annual playable hours capacity for each surface type (assuming high maintenance level). Natural grass: ~800–1200 hours; Hybrid reinforced grass: ~1500 hours; Synthetic turf: 2000–3000+ hours. In Palo Alto, considering year-round sports and community use, demand likely approaches what 2–3 fields could handle if all were grass. The city currently manages a mix of synthetic and natural fields. If El Camino went grass, scheduling would need adjustment: perhaps shifting some activities to other fields to avoid exceeding that ~1000 hours/year range. Recovery Time and Seasonality Natural grass benefits from seasonal rest. Many grass fields in temperate climates are taken out of rotation in winter (when grass grows slowly and wear accumulates). Palo Alto’s winters are mild, so grass will grow slowly but not go completely dormant (unless Bermuda which goes brown in cold). Still, heavy play on saturated winter grass can destroy it. Thus, one strategy could be to ease off use in the wettest months (December–February), reserving those months for synthetic fields or lower-intensity use. Conversely, summer is a great growing season (if irrigated), so grass fields can sustain more play and recover faster in summer (except extreme heat days). Synthetic turf has no seasonal preferences – it’s equally usable in July or January (aside from heat as noted). During the playing season, grass might need short breaks: e.g., limit a single field to, say, 20 hours a week with at least one day with no scheduled play to let the grass “breathe” and for maintenance. If a grass field gets torn up during a tournament, one might close it for a week or two after to repair divots and let it regrow. These nuances require an adaptive scheduling approach. Playability Factors (Traction, Ball Behavior, Night Play) Traction and Surface Consistency: Modern synthetic turf offers very consistent traction – the surface is uniformly flat (assuming infill is level) and there are no muddy or slick spots (when dry). However, traction can be too high – several studies suggest that the rotational friction on artificial turf is greater than on natural grass, meaning a player’s foot might stick more firmly and not release as easily during pivots, potentially contributing to knee injuries like ACL tears (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile) (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). Natural grass has a bit of give – under high force, it might divot or the foot might slide slightly, which can reduce torque on joints. Athletes often say natural grass is “softer” on the body for this reason. That softness, however, can become slipperiness if grass is wet or worn. Worn grass (especially if only dirt remains in spots) can be slick or uneven, leading to slips or turned ankles. So at peak condition, grass traction is optimal; at degraded condition, artificial might be better simply by being uniform. Ball Roll and Bounce: In soccer and field hockey, this is important. Synthetic turf generally provides a faster ball roll (less friction) and a more predictable bounce (no tufts of grass to cause random bounces). Some players enjoy the faster game on turf, others prefer the natural damping of grass. In hot weather, the ball can actually bounce too high on hot rubber infill. Organic infills and newer turfs try to emulate natural ball response. If Palo Alto’s fields host sports like soccer, rugby, lacrosse, the consensus from many athletes is they prefer natural grass for playability if it’s in good shape, but prefer turf over a beat-up grass. E.g., a perfectly manicured grass soccer pitch is ideal (slightly cushioned, true roll), but an uneven grass with patchy coverage is frustrating compared to a smooth turf. Night Play: All surfaces can be lit for night play. There’s no fundamental difference except one: at night, temperatures drop, so synthetic turf heat is less an issue (if it cooled off). One minor note: wetness – at night, grass can get dew and slick, whereas turf doesn’t grow dew (though it can be wet from earlier rain or sprinkling). Some players find the contrast of the ball on turf under lights easier/harder depending on color differences, but that’s trivial. If lights are present, both can host night games equally. The key is that synthetic fields are more likely to be available for night games because they didn’t get torn up earlier in the day. Weather-related Playability: In rain, as discussed, synthetic remains playable (no mud, good traction if shoes are good, though some risk of skidding on very wet turf). Grass can become a mudbath which affects play (ball stops in puddles, players slip). If a grass field is allowed to be played in heavy rain, expect significant damage and a sloppy game. So typically, you’d close it – meaning no play at all in those conditions, whereas turf could host the game. Injury and Safety Considerations Traumatic Injuries: The debate on injury rates on artificial vs natural turf has been ongoing. A comprehensive meta-review of 53 studies (1972–2020) found no overall injury rate difference in over half the comparisons, but among the rest, injuries were more often higher on turf (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). In particular, some data indicate higher rates of lower extremity injuries (knees and ankles) on synthetic turf (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight). For example, one study of NFL plays found 16% more lower extremity injuries on turf than grass ([PDF] Examining Hybrid Systems). ACL tears have been a focal point – many athletes and orthopedic doctors assert ACL injuries are more frequent on turf due to the high grip and lack of give (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight). Conversely, certain injuries like “turf toe” (hyperextension of the big toe) are named after turf as they’re more common there. Natural grass isn’t injury-free: poorly maintained grass with holes or uneven spots can cause sprains. Also, if grass gets very hard (compacted dry soil), it can lead to higher concussion risk if a head hits ground (though usually still less hard than turf without a pad). However, concussion risk is significant on old/hard turf; ensuring a turf has a pad can mitigate that. Sports like rugby or American football where players are tackled to the ground prefer grass or padded turf for this reason. Heat-related safety: We touched on this – on hot days, artificial turf can cause heat exhaustion, dehydration, and even skin burns. There have been instances of athletes getting blisters or heatstroke symptoms from playing on 140°F turf. Grass, being cooler, does not pose that issue; in fact, it can be a refuge from heat. So during summer camps or afternoon practices, grass is far safer temperature-wise. This is a factor in Palo Alto where summer days can be in the 90s°F at times. Santa Clara County’s review highlighted that turf can exceed 122°F when grass is ~82°F under same conditions (County may ban artificial turf due to health concerns – Palo Alto Daily Post) – athletes on the turf under such conditions are at risk. Some jurisdictions (as noted with Burlington, MA schools) have policies moving activities off turf when it’s too hot (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance). Abrasions and Infections: Artificial turf, even the newer softer varieties, can cause skin abrasions (“rug burn”) when players slide or fall. These open scrapes can be entry points for infection. MRSA (staph) infections have been a concern, especially in football and rugby. Studies have found that athletes with turf burns have a much higher likelihood of developing MRSA infection – one finding was a 7-fold increase in MRSA risk for those with turf abrasions vs those without ( Understand the Game-Changing Benefits of Routine Turf Cleaning – Athletic Turf Wash, LLC). This likely stems from the combination of an abrasion and the presence of bacteria on the surface or from other players. Synthetic turf doesn’t naturally kill bacteria, whereas the soil in natural grass fields hosts microbes that might limit harmful bacteria. Research by Penn State showed that under sunlight, MRSA bacteria on both turf and grass die off within hours (UV is a disinfectant) (Staph infection turf study yields insight in coronavirus survivability on fields | Penn State University) (Staph infection turf study yields insight in coronavirus survivability on fields | Penn State University). So outdoor fields aren’t long-term reservoirs of these germs, but the immediate transfer risk is there (e.g., player-to-player or from a recent contamination on turf). Grass tends to cause fewer and less severe abrasions (you might get some scratches from dry grass or small cuts, but generally not the large friction burns turf can cause). Thus, natural grass fields have lower incidence of turf burn-type infections. Proper hygiene (players cleaning wounds, showering after play, etc.) is crucial regardless of surface. Chemical Exposures: Health-wise, a synthetic turf may expose players to chemicals: older turfs with crumb rubber infill raised concerns of inhaling or ingesting particles with PAHs, VOCs, and heavy metals (zinc, lead). Studies by California OEHHA and others did not find an acute risk for players, but they did note presence of various compounds in the air above fields (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). With organic infill, these particular exposures drop. PFAS in turf fibers is a newer worry – while playing on the field, some PFAS could potentially migrate to dust or get on skin/clothing. We don’t yet have studies showing how much of a dose a player gets, but given PFAS accumulate, any additional source is concerning. Natural grass on the other hand could expose players to pesticides or fertilizer residues if those are used. For example, if a field was sprayed with 2,4-D herbicide, that chemical residue could be present on grass blades where kids roll or fall. Many lawn chemicals have re-entry intervals to ensure they dry, etc., but repeated exposure (especially for children) is something to consider. Organic maintenance avoids that. Player Preference & Psychological Factors: Surveys of athletes often reveal that many prefer natural grass if they had the choice, citing it being easier on their bodies (less joint pain after games, etc.) and cooler to play on. Professional soccer players have at times refused to play on turf for major games due to injury fears. On the other hand, athletes appreciate that synthetic turf is always available and consistent. There’s no bad mud patch, no worry about field condition – which can reduce injuries related to field degradation. So some high school and youth players actually prefer turf if their alternative is a beat-up grass. It really comes down to maintenance: a superb grass field is best, but a poorly maintained grass is worse than a maintained turf. In summary, regarding safety: Natural grass has an edge in terms of reduced heat stress and possibly fewer chronic leg injuries and skin infections, provided it’s kept in safe condition (not too hard or uneven). Synthetic turf provides a reliably even surface but may contribute to slightly higher acute injury rates (especially knee and ankle) and certainly poses more heat and abrasion issues. Ensuring whichever surface is chosen is properly maintained is key – many injuries on both surfaces occur when maintenance is lacking (compacted infill or divot-filled grass are both dangerous). Palo Alto will need to weigh these factors with input from user groups and possibly insurance/liability perspectives. 20-Year Lifecycle Cost Analysis A comprehensive cost analysis must account for initial construction, annual maintenance, periodic renovation/replacement, and end-of-life disposal or recycling over a 20-year horizon. We also consider the net present cost (NPC) assuming a typical public-sector discount rate (e.g. 3% real). Below, costs are estimated for each option using available data (including Palo Alto/region-specific figures where possible, and published benchmarks). Initial Installation Costs ● Synthetic Turf (PFAS-free, organic infill): The upfront cost for a full-size synthetic soccer/football field (approx 80,000 sq ft) in California is roughly $1.0 to $1.2 million (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Palo Alto’s Finance Committee had budgeted ~$900,000 for replacing the El Camino Park turf with a similar synthetic (Palo Alto treads lightly on artificial turf as health concerns surface - San José Spotlight), likely reflecting reusing existing base and just replacing carpet/infill. Building from scratch (including base prep, drainage, shock pad, new turf) tends toward the $1M+ mark. In our analysis, we’ll assume ~$1.1M initial if going new turf with all the latest features (shock pad, etc.). This includes materials (carpet, infill) and installation labor. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Costs can vary widely depending on if the field is sand-capped, has subsurface drainage, type of irrigation, etc. A basic grass field might be as low as a few hundred thousand. For a high-quality sand-based field with irrigation and drainage, one source gives $700k–$800k range (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Montgomery County data showed ~$275k for a low-end grass field (likely just grading and seeding native soil) and up to $800k for a top-tier one (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). Since Palo Alto would likely want a high-performing grass field (with good drainage to maximize usability), we estimate around $750,000 initial cost. This would cover removing the existing turf system (which also costs something in disposal), importing rootzone soil/sand, installing irrigation lines, sprinkler heads, a drainage layer, and either sodding or seeding the grass. Sodding with sports-grade turf might be preferred for immediate use, which is pricier than seed but gives an instant lawn. ● Organic Grass: The construction of the field itself is same as conventional grass. There might be additional costs such as sourcing organic-certified sod (if available) or ensuring amendments are organic. These are minor relative to overall construction. So, expect a similar $700k–$800k. Actually, one could argue that if building with organic in mind, you might invest more in soil preparation (extra compost, etc.) adding some cost, but likely still in that range. We’ll use $800,000 for initial to be a bit conservative (assuming high-quality soil building at the start). ● Hybrid Turf: This has the highest initial cost. You effectively pay for building a top-tier grass field (~$750k) plus the hybrid fiber technology. The fiber stitching (GrassMaster) can cost on the order of $5–$8 per sq ft, which for 80k sq ft is $400k+. GreenFields XtraGrass (the woven mat approach) might be slightly cheaper in installation, but still you pay for the proprietary system. There may also be licensing or specialist costs. It’s reasonable to estimate $1.2 to $1.5 million initially for hybrid. We’ll use $1.3M as an estimate. ● New Plant-Based Turf: Likely similar to regular synthetic, possibly a premium for being new tech. If something like GreenBlade were chosen, initial might even be higher due to early-adopter cost. But without firm data, assume roughly $1.1M–$1.3M, comparable to synthetic. For cost analysis, we treat it akin to synthetic (perhaps slightly more). Annual Maintenance & Operation Costs (Note: These are expressed in today’s dollars per year; in NPV we will treat them as constant real dollars for simplicity.) ● Synthetic Turf: Estimated $25,000/year. This covers routine grooming, cleaning, infill top-up, testing. Palo Alto might contract some of this out; some cities use about $5k–$10k/year in material/services and the rest in internal labor allocation. We will use $30k in some scenarios as upper end (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County), but also remember synthetic’s effective maintenance cost is often stated lower because people sometimes exclude the replacement fund. However, we will account for replacement separately. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Estimated $50,000/year. This includes water (which could be ~$15k–$20k/year for millions of gallons), fertilizer, seed, pesticides, and labor for mowing/aeration/etc. It could be higher if very intensive (Montgomery Parks reported ~$26k–$38k for their parks fields, but their labor costs may differ (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County); their school fields were $50k (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) which likely includes staff labor fully loaded). We’ll use $50k as a round figure. ● Organic Grass: Also estimate $50,000/year (after initial years). Possibly it starts at $60k and drops to $40k, but we’ll assume level. As noted, Springfield got it lower, but that might not directly translate to CA wages and water costs. If organic reduces fertilizer and pesticide costs, that savings might be offset by increased labor for extra aeration, etc. Water cost remains. ● Hybrid Turf: $55,000/year, slightly more than grass because we assume same regimen as high-end grass plus maybe some specialist check-ups. It might be equal to natural, but we’ll allocate a bit more for caution. ● Plant-Based Turf: $30,000/year, similar to synthetic. If anything, maybe slightly more if, say, you have to add more infill or do extra to care for the unique material. But likely about the same as standard synthetic. Major Renovation/Replacement Cycles ● Synthetic Turf: Needs full replacement about every 8–10 years. Palo Alto’s turf (installed 2011) was planned to replace by 2026 (15 years) but it was clearly past prime by year ~12 if issues arose in 2023 (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile) (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). Most tenders plan for 8-10. We assume replacement at year 10 and year 20 in a 20-year span (though year 20 replacement might slide to year 21, but let’s include two to be safe). Each replacement cost is roughly $600k–$700k (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County) (since some infrastructure like base and drainage is reused). We’ll use $650k per replacement in dollars. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): There’s no set “replacement,” but likely a major renovation at year 10. That could involve re-grading, redoing drainage lines if needed, and re-sodding – essentially a reconstruction-lite. If initial was $750k, a mid-life renovation might be perhaps $200k (mostly re-sodding and fixes). Additionally, one might need periodic resodding of sections every few years (which can be considered part of maintenance). Let’s assume at year 10 a $200k renovation. ● Organic Grass: Same as above – if maintained well, maybe the renovation can be smaller (or perhaps not needed until year 15). But to be fair, budget something like $150k at year 10 (maybe less extensive because soil is in good shape, just resod). ● Hybrid Turf: The synthetic fibers will eventually need refreshing, but literature suggests a hybrid can go 15+ years. Possibly at year 15 or 20 one would re-stitch fibers or replace the mesh. That cost might be similar to the original fiber install cost (say $400k). Let’s plan one major refurb in 20 years, say at year 10 or 12: maybe $300k (not full re-install, but reinforcing fiber injection in high-wear zones, etc.). Also, you might need to periodically overseed or resod as with grass – included in maintenance. ● Plant-Based Turf: This would also likely follow the 8-10 year replacement, unless the technology provides longer life. Given uncertainty, assume 10-year life, replacement at year 10 and 20 at similar cost ~$700k each (maybe slightly more if tech is expensive). ● Disposal/Recycling Costs: For turf, disposing of a 80k sq ft turf can cost tens of thousands in trucking and tipping fees (as it’s ~400,000 lbs of material including infill). Some companies now include recycling in their install price (or charge extra ~ $1/sq ft to take it back). If PFAS is present, disposal could be hazardous classification in future (more cost). For our analysis, we consider disposal cost included in the replacement cost figure we used (the $650k presumably includes old removal). If a recycling service is used, maybe city can get a small credit or just avoid landfill fee – minor effect. For grass, disposal of removed sod is trivial (it’s clean fill/compostable). Opportunity Costs Opportunity cost refers to the value of lost opportunities when a field is unavailable or if additional fields must be acquired due to lower capacity: ● If Palo Alto chooses grass and thus field hours drop, the “opportunity cost” could be need for additional fields (which might mean capital cost to build more or rent other facilities) or reduction in sports programs (which has social cost, though hard to monetize). For a numeric analysis, one could estimate how many hours might be lost or need relocation. For instance, if turf provides 2,500 hrs/yr and grass can only do 1,000, there’s a shortfall of 1,500 hours. If renting equivalent hours elsewhere at, say, $50/hour (typical field rental), that’s $75k/year of opportunity cost. Over 20 years present value, that’s quite large (over $1M). Alternatively, the city could invest in another grass field for, say, $800k, to make up hours. We won’t deeply monetize this, but it is a factor: synthetic allows more revenue from rentals and more community use. If we needed to factor it, it can tilt economic favor to turf on a per-hour basis. ● Another opportunity cost: with synthetic, the field could potentially generate more permit revenue (if the city charges groups). With grass, the city might have to limit rentals to protect the field, losing some revenue. Palo Alto’s fee schedule shows hourly rates for turf fields (e.g., ~$57/hr for adult non-resident use) ([PDF] ATHLETIC FIELD FEE SCHEDULE - Menlo Park - E-Gov Link). So indeed, fewer available hours = fewer rental fees. ● Environmental opportunity cost: replacing a natural surface with plastic means loss of ecosystem services (cooling, carbon capture). If one tried to offset that, there’s a cost (e.g., planting trees elsewhere or purchasing carbon credits). Hard to quantify in dollars here, but one could consider the social cost of carbon for the emissions difference (the manufacturing and disposal of turf might emit on the order of hundreds of tons CO₂; at say $50/ton that’s tens of thousands of dollars societal cost). Net Present Cost Calculations (20-year, 3% discount) Let’s summarize the cash flows (in thousands of dollars): ● Synthetic Turf: Initial $1,100k in year 0. Replacement $650k in year 10, $650k in year 20 (we might include year 20 or assume they plan to have to spend it at the tail end). Annual maintenance $30k each year. Using discount factor (3%), present value of initial = 1,100. PV of each replacement: $650k / (1.03^10) ≈ $485k; $650k/(1.03^20) ≈ $365k. PV of maintenance annuity: $30k * [(1–(1.03)^-20)/0.03] ≈ $30k * 14.88 = $446k. Sum NPC ≈ $1.1M + $0.485M + $0.365M + $0.446M = $2.396 million (if including second replacement PV). If we stopped at year 19, one replacement, it’d be ~$2.03M. So around $2.3M in today’s dollars including two cycles. ● Natural Grass (Conv.): Initial $750k. Renovation $200k at year 10 (PV~$149k). Annual $50k (PV of 20-yr @3% ≈ $50k * 14.88 = $744k). Possibly another mid-life at year 20? A second renovation at year 20 if we extend beyond 20. But let’s assume one major renovation in 20 years. NPC ≈ $0.750M + $0.149M + $0.744M = $1.643M. Even if we added another $200k at year 20 PV ~$112k, total would be ~$1.75M. ● Organic Grass: Initial $800k, renovation $150k at year 10 (PV $112k), annual $50k (PV $744k). Sum ≈ $1.656M. Similar to conventional, maybe slightly higher initial. ● Hybrid Turf: Initial $1,300k. Renovation $300k at year 10 (PV $224k). Annual $55k (PV ~ $818k). Possibly no second big cost in 20 yrs (maybe fibers last whole period). NPC ≈ $1.3M + $0.224M + $0.818M = $2.342M. So about same as synthetic in NPV (this is interesting, hybrid basically costs as much as turf in long run, with these assumptions). ● Plant-Based Turf: Initial $1,200k, replacements $700k at yr 10 (PV $523k) and yr 20 ($392k), annual $30k (PV $446k). NPC ≈ $1.2M + $0.523M + $0.392M + $0.446M = $2.561M. Possibly higher than conventional turf due to slightly higher cost assumptions. If it lasted longer (say 12 year life), that could change. These are rough but illustrative. We see natural grass is roughly 60–70% the cost of synthetic over 20 years, even with high maintenance, if you only consider one field meeting its reduced capacity. If we had to provide the same play hours, we might need more grass fields. For apples-to-apples per hour cost: If one turf provides 2500 hrs/yr, ## Comparison Matrix of Field Surface Options To synthesize the key differences, the table below compares the five surface options across major criteria: Criteria PFAS-Free Synthetic Turf(Organic Infill) Natural Grass(Conventional ) Organic Grass(Regenerative ) Hybrid Turf(Reinforced Grass) Emerging Plant-Based Turf(Low-Pla stic) Materials & Sustainabilit y Plastic fibers & backing (no PFAS added). Organic infills (cork, coconut) replace tire rubber – reducing toxins. Contains petrochemicals; potential microplastic shed. Living grass and soil. Uses water, fertilizer, pesticides. No plastic (unless turf blankets used). Can absorb carbon and support soil life. Same as natural grass, but no synthetic chemicals. Builds soil health and biodiversity. Fully natural inputs (compost, organic fertilizer). 95% natural grass, 5% synthetic fibers embedded. Plastic fibers in soil add stability. Reduces plastic vs full turf, but still some petro-material in ground. Fibers/backing made of bio-based or recyclable materials (e.g. soy-based polymer or biodegradable plastic). Little or no rubber infill. Aims for compostable or recyclable end-of-life. Shock Absorption Engineered for safety: uses shock pad and infill to meet impact tests (Gmax ≤165). Consistent cushion if maintained (infill level). Hardens if infill compacts; needs periodic Gmax testing. Natural cushion from turfgrass and soil. Excellent shock absorption when grass is healthy and soil is moist. Can become hard if soil compacts or grass dies (e.g., during drought). Requires aeration to maintain softness. Similar to conventional grass initially. Over time, improved soil structure can enhance cushioning. Organic thatch layer acts as added cushion. Avoids chemical residues that could irritate skin. Shock absorption comparable to natural grass (soil base). Synthetic fibers help field maintain level and consistency, reducing divots that cause hard spots. Overall soft landing if grass cover is good. Similar to regular synthetic turf if a pad is used (likely needed). Some new designs claim more “grass-like” feel. Not yet widely proven in studies; expected to meet same Gmax criteria without added PFAS. Surface Heat Tends to overheat in sun. Surface temps 40–70°F hotter than air; recorded 150°F+ on hot days. Cork/coco infill and cooling tech can reduce peak temps ~10–20°F but turf still far hotter than grass. Requires watering or schedule adjustments to manage heat. Stays cool (near ambient air temp). 80°F day yields ~80–85°F grass surface. No heat island effect; grass even cools the air via evapotranspiration. Comfortable for players even in peak summer. Same as natural grass: cool surface. Improved soil moisture retention (from organic matter) can further keep surface cooler. No heat-related play restrictions needed (aside from normal hydration needs). Cooler than full turf: natural grass covers the surface, so the field largely behaves like grass in terms of temperature. Still requires irrigation; the small percentage of fibers in soil do not create a heat hazard. Can be used in hot weather like a grass field (monitor for any drought stress on grass). Variable: If mostly bio-plastic fibers, they can still get hot (though some use light colors or cooling tech). Some experimental fully plant-based turfs claim lower heat retention but lab tests show even new turf systems exceed 150°F in sun. Further data needed; assume heat management similar to synthetic turf unless proven otherwise. Usage Capacity Very high: ~2,000–3,000 hours/year playable. Can schedule back-to-back daily; minimal “rest” needed. All-weather: rain generally does not limit use (drains quickly). Only extreme heat or maintenance causes closures. Night use with lights is routine. Moderate: ~600–1,000 hours/year (approx. 15–20 hrs/week) with periodic rest. Needs recovery especially after rain or heavy use – e.g. fields often closed for a day or two after rain to prevent damage. Some seasonal downtime may be needed (over-seeding, turf recovery in winter). Night use fine when field is in good condition, but overuse leads to deterioration. Moderate (slightly improved): Still on the order of 800–1,200 hours/year sustainably. Enhanced maintenance may double a poor field’s capacity, but biological limits remain – grass needs regrowth time. However, field quality remains higher at those upper limits due to better care (e.g., Springfield saw ~1,000 hrs with good turf quality). Rain closures still apply, though improved drainage can shorten them. High (vs. grass): ~1,200–1,500 hours/year (about 1.5× a well-kept grass). Tolerates more consecutive play – fibers prevent divots, so field stays playable even as grass wears. Still requires grass regrowth, so not as unlimited as full turf. Rain is less damaging (reinforcement improves drainage), but some closures likely to protect grass. Very high (expected): Goal is to match or exceed conventional turf’s hours. If durability issues are solved, could be 2,000+ hours/year like synthetic. All-weather if drainage is good. (If a fully compostable turf degraded faster with heavy use, that could limit life, but not necessarily hours per year until replacement.) At this early stage, assume it can be used essentially like regular synthetic turf in scheduling. Maintenance Needs Routine: Weekly or biweekly grooming (brush fibers, redistribute infill); cleaning of debris; monthly or quarterly deep cleaning/disinfection (to mitigate bacteria build-up). Infill top-up as needed (especially with organic infill that can biodegrade or migrate). Annual: Gmax safety testing, minor repairs (seam fixes). Staff: 1–2 staff or contractor visits; specialized equipment (brush sweeper, magnet for metal debris). Water: minimal (occasionally water for cooling or cleaning). Downtime: very little for routine (a few hours during off-peak). Major downtime only during replacement every ~10 yrs. Routine: Mow 1–3 times per week in growing season; irrigate multiple times per week (automated) – ~1–1.5 million gallons per year per field in this climate. Fertilize ~4–5×/year; apply herbicides/pesticides as needed; aerate 1–2×/year; overseed bare spots; repair irrigation periodically. Staff: skilled turf manager plus crew; significant labor hours year-round. Equipment: commercial mowers, irrigation system, spreaders, etc. Downtime: during/after heavy rain (to avoid damage), after chemical applications (24–48h closure if pesticide applied), and occasional field rest (e.g. a few weeks off-season for renovation). Routine: Mowing and irrigation as for conventional. Fertilization with organic products ~4×/yr; heavy aeration 3–4×/yr; topdress with compost annually; overseed frequently. No synthetic pesticides – manual or bio-control of weeds/pests (labor-intensive). Staff: team with expertise in organic turf care; likely more labor hours initially (offset by not needing chemical handling). Downtime: similar to grass (rain closures, etc.), but no pesticide re-entry wait. Often fields improve to require less frequent rehab downtime as soil strengthens. Routine: Essentially same as high-end natural grass: mowing, watering, feeding. Must avoid damaging fibers: e.g., slightly shallower aeration, careful sod removal if needed. Otherwise standard sports turf care. Staff: experienced groundskeepers (need to learn fiber presence considerations). Downtime: similar to grass (rain & recovery). No large-scale replacement needed for fibers in short term – fibers are permanent in soil. If grass wears out, can overseed or patch-sod without replacing whole system. Routine: Similar to synthetic turf (since it’s an artificial surface) – brushing, cleaning. If infill is biodegradable , may need more frequent top-ups. If partially natural (some products incorporate live plants or thatch), would need hybrid maintenance – but most are still essentially plastic lawns. Staff: similar to synthetic (small crew or contractor). Downtime: similar to synthetic; main unknown is if any special handling needed to maintain the bio-based materials (e.g., ensuring compostable fibers don’t start breaking down prematurely – likely not an issue until end-of-life). Lifespan & Replacement Turf carpet lifespan ~8–10 years under heavy use. Warranty often ~8 yrs. After that, fibers significantly wear/flatten and performance drops (higher Gmax, more seam failures). Replacement involves removing old turf & infill, and installing new carpet/infill (underlying pad and base can usually be reused). Disposal is a concern: old turf (often 40+ tons) typically landfilled; only a few recycling options exist. Some vendors now offer take-back recycling, but not guaranteed. Field can last indefinitely if cared for. Grass is a self-renewing surface (through growth and overseeding). However, major renovation every ~10 years is wise – e.g., regrade and resod to fix wear and tear, improve soil, and address any leveling/drainage issues. Such a renovation might cost ~$150k–$300k (20–40% of initial build cost). Otherwise, maintenance is continuous and field quality can actually improve with good practices. Essentially no end-of-life disposal costs – just soil and plant matter that can be reused or composted. Also indefinite lifespan, theoretically improving over time as soil health builds. Must guard against soil compaction; if neglect occurs, can be restored via intensive remediation rather than full rebuild. May go longer between major renovations if successful (e.g., some organically managed fields have not needed reconstruction in decades). No disposal issues. Hybrid fibers are long-lasting (15+ years) since they’re embedded and protected in soil. Natural grass component continuously regrows. Typically, a hybrid field’s synthetic portion might be refreshed after ~15–20 years (e.g., re-stitch fibers or replace the mesh sections), but not on the short cycle of full turf. The natural portion can be renovated like a regular grass field (resod, etc., perhaps every 8–10 years, which leaves fibers in place). Disposal at end of ultimate life would involve removing plastic fibers from soil – potentially laborious, but the plastic fraction is much lower than full turf. Current products are targeting 8–10+ year lifespans to be competitive with conventional turf. A fully biodegradable field might be designed to be composted at end of life (instead of ending up in landfill). If the entire system is compostable, then “replacement” means breaking it down into compost and installing new material – ideally with cradle-to-cradl e recycling if compost is used for new backing, etc. These technologies are new – actual lifespan and durability data is limited. Conservative assumption: replace on roughly the same schedule as synthetic (8–10 yrs) until proven otherwise. Additional Considerations by Option ● PFAS-Free Synthetic (Organic Infill): Eliminates intentional PFAS, addressing a major health concern. Organic infills avoid tire crumb toxicity and can reduce runoff pollution. However, plastics still present microplastic pollution risks and a high carbon footprint in manufacturing. Best for maximizing field use and all-weather play; mitigations needed for heat (e.g. cooling with water or shade) and injury (ensure shock pad + regular testing to keep surface forgiving). Disposal is a looming cost – with two turf fields (El Camino and Cubberley) potentially up for replacement, the city should plan for responsible recycling programs or vendor take-back to avoid landfill. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Time-tested option offering a cool, cushioned play surface loved by athletes. Aligns with environmental goals (green space, habitat) but at the cost of significant water use (~1–1.5 million gallons per field annually in Palo Alto’s climate) and ongoing fertilizer and pesticide inputs (unless going organic). Provides fewer hours of use, so scheduling would prioritize most important uses or require more fields to meet demand. Maintenance must be diligent – poor maintenance quickly leads to unsafe or unplayable conditions (hardpan, mud, weeds). To succeed, the city would need to invest in top-notch turf management staff/equipment and possibly limit users during winter/rain. Life-cycle costs can be lower than turf (no costly replacements), but the “capacity gap” means opportunity costs if demand outstrips supply. ● Organic/Regenerative Grass: Similar play characteristics as conventional grass, but managed without synthetic chemicals to meet Palo Alto’s sustainability ethos. Likely requires partnership with organic turf experts (especially in initial years) and a strong commitment to iterative soil improvement. Benefits include eliminating pesticide exposure for users and waterways, building long-term soil fertility (potentially lowering input needs over time), and possibly achieving better drought resilience (deeper roots from soil health focus). Still needs substantial water – though any water savings from improved soil structure or drought-tolerant grass species should be pursued (e.g., using Bermuda hybrid that needs less water but goes dormant in winter). Annual maintenance costs may come down after initial investment, making it competitive in cost with or cheaper than conventional programs. Performance-wise, evidence from other communities shows properly executed organic fields can handle significant use (in some cases doubling prior playable hours). This option scores highest on environmental metrics (no microplastics, no toxic runoff, carbon sequestration) and aligns with climate action – effectively turning sports fields into green infrastructure assets. ● Hybrid Turf (e.g. GrassMaster/XtraGrass): A compromise delivering a natural grass playing experience with boosted durability. Could be an ideal solution if the city is willing to invest upfront. It preserves almost all the ecosystem benefits of grass (cooling, habitat, carbon sink), while enabling higher usage (likely ~1.5× the hours of a typical grass field) and reducing the risk of catastrophic wear damage. Water and maintenance needs are similar to regular grass – so it does not solve resource use issues, but maximizes the return (hours of play) on those inputs. Hybrid does require very specialized installation (only a few vendors globally), so there are procurement and logistics considerations. It might also require consulting agronomists for maintenance fine-tuning. If chosen, Palo Alto could pioneer its use in municipal parks on the West Coast, demonstrating innovation. Over 20 years, the life-cycle cost may be on par with or slightly higher than regular turf when factoring initial premium (our NPV analysis showed roughly ~$2.3M for hybrid vs ~$2.4M for synthetic vs ~$1.6M for grass over 20 years). One risk: if the grass portion isn’t maintained (e.g., during drought or staff turnover), the presence of fibers won’t fully save the day – you’d still end up with a mostly plastic field, negating some benefits. Thus, hybrid is only as good as the natural grass program around it. ● New Plant-Based/Low-Plastic Turf: An emerging category worth monitoring. At present, the safest route for Palo Alto would be to incorporate elements of these technologies into a synthetic turf choice (e.g., specifying USDA bio-based content in the turf fiber or backing, requiring a recycling guarantee from the vendor, and using organic infill). A fully “GreenBlade” style compostable turf is perhaps 1–2 generations away from being a proven product – it could be revolutionary (solving the disposal and microplastic issues), but the city would be taking a gamble to be an early adopter without long-term field data. Still, given the timeline (El Camino replacement is planned around FY2026), it’s possible more of these eco-turf options will become market-ready in time. Palo Alto could include in any RFP a requirement or preference for innovative sustainable turf solutions that minimize plastic and are PFAS-free. This will encourage bidders to propose their latest tech. Cost is likely to be higher initially, but as with many sustainable products, could be offset by long-term environmental cost savings (and goodwill from the community). If the city does pilot such a system, it should budget for careful monitoring of performance (injury rates, heat, longevity) and have a fallback plan (like warranty clauses or partial refunds) if it under-performs. Maintenance and Operations Comparison Routine Maintenance Schedules: The maintenance profiles of the options differ significantly: ● Synthetic Turf: Requires frequent light maintenance and infrequent heavy maintenance. On a weekly or biweekly basis, staff should remove debris (trash, leaves) and brush the surface so infill and fibers remain level. For example, Santa Clara County noted synthetic fields still need watering in summer to cool and clean them, contrary to the notion they need no water. Every 1–2 months, a more thorough grooming with a machine is done to de-compact infill and ensure even distribution. Sanitizing the field a few times a year (with antimicrobial solutions or diluted bleach) can reduce pathogens – especially if there’s high usage by kids (spit, blood, etc. on the turf). The city would maintain a schedule to test and keep the field within safety limits (e.g., a Gmax test annually or after extreme heat events). Staffing can be part-time: e.g., one trained maintenance worker can manage multiple turf fields, with occasional specialist contractor visits (for testing or deep cleaning). Equipment needed includes a small tractor or groomer unit, attachments for brushing and magnet (to pick up any metal like hairpins that could drop). It’s also advisable to keep a stock of extra infill and repair materials (for minor patches). The city’s current staff handles three turf fields – likely with a mix of parks staff and contracting for annual servicing – and that would continue similarly. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Daily to weekly tasks are needed in season. Mowing ideally 2–3 times per week during peak growing (spring, early summer) to keep grass at sports height (~1.5”). Cutting too infrequently causes clumping and stress to grass, so a tight mowing schedule is critical. Watering is done nightly or every other night in dry weather – automated irrigation makes this easy, but staff must adjust timing and amounts seasonally and repair broken sprinkler heads promptly (to avoid dry spots or overwatering). Marking/painting lines is another task (shared with turf – turf has inlaid lines or requires painting too if multi-sport). Weekly: monitor for pests or disease (especially in spring/fall), and apply treatments as needed; check for and fill any divots (this might be done by field users as well – e.g., coaches replacing divots after practice). Monthly: fertilize as per schedule during growing season, lightly fill holes or low spots with sand/soil, and edge the field (grass can creep over boundaries). Periodically (2–3 times/year): core aeration and soil loosening to prevent compaction from all the foot traffic; overseed high-wear zones (like midfield, goal areas). Possibly sod replacement in goal mouths every year or two. Staffing: To do this intensively, a dedicated crew of 2–3 could be assigned to athletic fields citywide. Given Palo Alto’s multiple fields, this might mean expanding parks maintenance or contracting a sports turf specialist. Equipment: ride-on mowers (with reel or rotary blades suitable for sports turf), aerators, topdressers, seeders, sprayers for liquid applications, etc. This is more equipment-heavy than turf maintenance. Downtime Impacts: During mowing or aeration, the field can’t be used – typically schedule these early morning or one day mid-week when field use is lower. Rain can cause cancellations – staff need to evaluate fields after rain and decide closures (this is an operational call balancing protecting the field vs allowing play). The city might implement a policy like “fields closed if >0.5 inch rain in 24h” to avoid damage. This can frustrate users, so communication is key. Also, if fields get really worn, staff might declare a longer rehabilitation closure (e.g., close for a month to regrow turf) – hopefully avoidable with good routine care. ● Organic Grass: The operations are similar in timing but with some different tasks. Instead of synthetic fertilizer applications, staff would apply organic fertilizer or compost teas, which may need different equipment (spreaders that can handle organic pelletized fertilizer, or sprayers for liquid compost tea). Pest control operations change: for instance, if weeds are an issue, staff might physically remove them or spot-treat with vinegar-based solutions, which might be less effective and require repeat treatments. They may introduce beneficial insects or biocontrol agents – not typical in sports fields but possible (e.g., release ladybugs if aphids were an issue on clover). Cultural practices (aeration, overseeding) are even more critical in organic to naturally prevent weeds and keep turf dense. The schedule might include more frequent aeration (quarterly) and overseeding (maybe a little bit after each season). This is more labor, but improves the field. One operational aspect is training: crew must be trained to identify turf issues (nutrient deficiency vs disease vs drought stress) because they can’t rely on quick chemical fixes. For example, if brown patch fungus appears, instead of fungicide, they might increase aeration and apply compost topdress to let microbes fight it – a slower response. So monitoring is key, catching problems early. As for inputs: organic fertilizer often comes from things like bone meal, feather meal, etc.; these sometimes have an odor – scheduling their application when the field will have a day of rest (and maybe after watering to wash it in) can minimize any temporary smell for users. Organic management might also involve soil testing every year to guide natural amendments, which is a minor operational step. Overall, staffing needs could be a bit higher, but some cities find that after establishing the program, staff efficiency improves (less time reacting to crises because the field stays healthier proactively). Public Works operations should be prepared for scrutiny as well – organic fields often get attention, and staff might field questions from the public about why certain things are done (community outreach on organic benefits could be part of operations). ● Hybrid Turf: Maintenance-wise, it falls under the purview of the natural turf team, with a few special notes. For one, the presence of synthetic fibers means no metal blades or deep tines beyond a certain depth – the installation provider will give guidelines. For example, if fibers are 7” deep, you wouldn’t want to aerate deeper than 6” to avoid snagging them. You also might not use a sod cutter casually, since fibers anchor the sod. If a section needs replacement (say, a large area died due to disease), you can cut it out – the fibers will be cut too – and then re-stitch fibers in that patch later if needed. Those tasks may require the vendor’s involvement, which is a complication (you can’t fully DIY repair a hybrid field’s synthetic part without special equipment). So part of operations would be keeping a relationship or maintenance contract with the hybrid provider for periodic fiber inspection or restitching every few years. Fertilizing and watering is the same as any grass. Mowing might dull blades a bit faster if they occasionally hit fibers at the surface – using high-quality mower blades and checking fields for any exposed fiber tufts (which could be trimmed by hand) would be an operational nuance. Drainage in hybrid fields is usually excellent (sand-based, fibers aid structure), so the field might be playable sooner after rain – meaning operations can reopen fields faster. However, in a heavy storm, even if playable, operations might proactively rest the field to preserve grass if it’s waterlogged. Staffing/Cost on a hybrid is comparable to a premium grass field; the main difference is budgeting some money for fiber maintenance (maybe every 5+ years have a contractor come do fiber “rejuvenation” which could cost a fraction of install). ● Synthetic (Plant-Based): If the city opted for a novel turf, maintenance guidelines might be slightly different. For example, if a turf is compostable, maybe they instruct not to use certain cleaning chemicals that could start breaking down the fibers. It might also have different infill behavior if a non-standard infill is used (e.g., a wood-based infill might float or migrate in heavy rain more than rubber, so operations might need to sweep back infill after big storms). These specifics would come from the vendor. Otherwise, day-to-day care would mimic standard synthetic turf – brushing, cleaning, etc. Monitoring might include checking that the material isn’t degrading too fast (one could take fiber samples every few years to test integrity if that was a concern). Also, if recyclable, operations should plan how to collect and send it for recycling at replacement time (keeping packaging or contact info from vendor to coordinate take-back). Staff Training and Regulatory Needs: For synthetic turf, staff should be trained in heat safety (using an infrared thermometer to check surface temp on hot days, so they know when to turn on cooling sprinklers or close the field temporarily). Also, handling of any cleaning agents (some fields use quaternary ammonium disinfectants which require proper PPE). For grass, if pesticides are used, a staff member must have a California Qualified Applicator Certificate – a regulatory requirement for city pesticide use. For organic, training involves learning non-chemical pest control and possibly attending courses on organic turf (like those by Sports Turf Managers Association or TURI). In all cases, safety protocols are needed: e.g., for synthetic, ensuring nobody is on the field during equipment operation (to avoid being hit by the groomer or flying debris); for grass, ensuring mowing occurs at safe times and equipment is well-maintained (a broken sprinkler head can injure players if not fixed, etc.). Maintenance Costs (Annual): To recap from the life-cycle analysis with local context: ● Synthetic turf: roughly $20k–$30k/year in Palo Alto for routine maintenance (lower labor, some materials like infill and cleaning solutions). ● Natural grass (high-use): roughly $50k/year (most of it labor and water; e.g., water could be $15k+, fertilizers maybe $5k, labor and equipment depreciation the rest). ● Organic grass: $50–$60k/year initially, potentially dropping to ~$40k as fewer inputs are needed (if city compost is used, etc.). There might be some upfront cost in new equipment (e.g., compost spreader). ● Hybrid: $55k/year (treat as high-end grass maintenance). ● Plant-based turf: $25–$30k/year (no real data yet, but assume similar to synthetic). These costs exclude the eventual replacement; for budgeting, the city would have a sinking fund for turf replacement (e.g., putting aside ~$100k each year so that in 8–10 years you have $1M for two fields). Grass field maintenance is more pay-as-you-go. Downtime Impact on Users: Grass fields will have more frequent smaller closures (for weather or agronomic reasons). This means recreation programs need backup plans (e.g., scheduling flexibility, or accepting cancellations). Synthetic rarely closes unexpectedly (except extreme heat), giving more reliability – a plus for leagues planning games. However, when synthetic does need replacement (once a decade), that’s a long closure (potentially 1–2 months to rip out and install new turf). This can be timed in summer or a low-use period, but still a hit to capacity. If Palo Alto staggers the replacement of its turf fields (El Camino in one year, Cubberley a couple years later, etc.), it can mitigate system-wide downtime. Summary: From an operations perspective, synthetic turf offers convenience and predictability – easier routine upkeep, fewer weather disruptions – at the cost of eventual big replacements and some specialized tasks (like monitoring heat and hardness). Natural/organic grass demands a robust year-round maintenance effort with more staff involvement but provides a living asset that doesn’t “expire.” The city would shift from a relatively passive maintenance model (for turf) to a very active one (for grass) – this is feasible if resources are allocated and could even create local green jobs/training opportunities. Hybrid will demand the highest expertise (combining both skillsets) but not necessarily more daily work than grass. In all cases, aligning maintenance with city sustainability practices (e.g., using electric equipment to mow to reduce emissions, using reclaimed water for irrigation if available, or solar-powered lighting to offset any heat island from turf) can further support S/CAP goals. Palo Alto should also establish metrics and monitoring – for instance, tracking injury reports, field downtime hours, maintenance costs – to continually evaluate field performance under whichever option is chosen, feeding data into future decisions for other fields. Usage and Playability Usable Hours per Year and Scheduling One of the starkest contrasts between the surfaces is how much play they can sustain. Palo Alto has high field demand (youth and adult sports, school teams, pick-up games, rentals, etc.), so this carries heavy weight in the decision. ● Synthetic Turf: Typically allows ~2,500–3,000 hours per year of use, which equates to heavy scheduling (e.g., 8 hours a day, ~6 days a week year-round). In practice, Palo Alto’s synthetic fields are booked every weekday evening and all weekend daytimes, plus often used informally at other times. A study in Maryland found synthetic fields averaged ~1,500 hours but had capacity for up to 3,000. Users can play back-to-back games with minimal wear on the field. Even in rain, the field can usually remain open (the limiting factor becomes player safety in rain or league rules, not field condition). This all-weather durability is a huge asset for scheduling – essentially, the field schedule is limited only by the 24 hours in a day, not by the turf needing rest. The only downtime needed is short maintenance windows (which can be done at night or early morning) and extreme heat pauses. So, one synthetic field can handle what might require 2–3 grass fields to accommodate in terms of programming. For example, if youth soccer, lacrosse, and adult leagues all want prime time slots, a turf field can host them sequentially; a grass field might have to limit total games per week to avoid damage. ● Natural Grass (Conventional): Generally can sustain ~20 hours of play per week (roughly 800–1,000 per year) without significant deterioration, under good conditions. Some guidelines suggest even less if year-round (because grass in winter grows slowly – extended use then is especially damaging). For cool-season grass (like rye/bluegrass), Montgomery County assumed ~850 hrs/year capacity; warm-season Bermuda can take ~1,200 hrs because it recovers faster in summer. In Palo Alto, a combined strategy (Bermuda base overseeded with rye in winter) could stretch the capacity toward the upper end – perhaps around 1,000 hrs. Crucially, those hours cannot be all in one continuous stretch: grass needs frequent recovery periods. For instance, after 4–5 consecutive days of use, it might need a few days with no play to bounce back (especially if that use included a lot of running that tears turf). The city might impose scheduled rest, like “no play on Mondays and Fridays” or limiting each user group to certain days. Additionally, seasonal rotation might be needed: e.g., heavy youth soccer season in fall, heavy lacrosse in spring – after each, field could be renovated/rested. Palo Alto’s climate allows nearly year-round growth, but December–January are slower; field use might need to be lighter in those months. Realistically, to meet the city’s current usage (which likely exceeds 1,500 hrs/year on El Camino now), keeping it grass would require either limiting usage or finding alternate fields for overflow. Users would see more frequent “field closed for maintenance” or weather-related cancellations, which can impact sports leagues and recreation programs. ● Organic Grass: Does not magically allow more hours than conventional grass, but because the turf tends to be healthier and soil more resilient, it might better withstand approaching the upper limit of natural grass capacity. Case studies like Springfield, MA saw usage rise from a poor baseline to over 1,000 hours after organic improvements. So, an organic program might make the difference between a field falling apart at 800 hours vs staying strong through 1,000 hours. Essentially, you get closer to the grass field’s theoretical max potential. Also, because organic focuses on year-round soil vitality, the field might recover faster from bouts of use. That said, biology is biology – grass still can’t handle continuous trampling without rest. The city would still abide by similar rest scheduling. Perhaps one advantage: if the field does get overused and worn, an organic approach can regenerate it faster (with compost, etc.) whereas a chemically managed field might get into a vicious cycle of fertilizer (which makes grass grow but not roots) and herbicides (which weaken soil) leading to chronic deterioration. ● Hybrid Turf: Usage capacity lies between grass and full turf. Manufacturers cite ~1,000 hours per season (~year) safely, which aligns with about 2–3× the usage of an unreinforced grass field. In plain terms, hybrid could likely take 30–35 hours per week for extended periods – for example, you could schedule games every weekday evening and all weekend, but you might need to leave a day or two for the grass to recuperate or do maintenance. The reinforcement prevents the field from becoming unplayable when grass is worn, so you might even push beyond 1,500 hours, but the natural grass component will thin out if truly pushed to turf-like levels. In pro stadiums, hybrid is used to allow training sessions plus matches on the same surface regularly. In a park context, it could allow something like: youth soccer every weeknight, multiple games on weekends, and still hold up – whereas a normal grass would tear up by mid-season under that load. So hybrid offers a middle path: improved availability but not infinite. A possible strategy is to allocate the most intense activities to a hybrid field and moderate ones to regular grass. If El Camino was hybrid, perhaps it could host soccer and lacrosse practices/games like a turf does now (with careful scheduling), whereas smaller activities (frisbee, PTAs, etc.) rotate on it without worry. ● Synthetic (Emerging Eco): Assuming performance parity with current turf, it would have the same high usage benefit. If any design compromises were made to make it biodegradable (like slightly less durable fibers), those could potentially shorten daily use lifespan rather than hourly capacity. But there’s no evidence the new solutions sacrifice immediate performance – they aim to replicate the plastic turf playability fully. So we can expect similar ~2,500+ hours/year capability. The city could, in theory, schedule games from 8 AM to 10 PM every day on such a field (with lights), which far exceeds what any grass could handle. One consideration: if an eco-turf uses a plant-based infill like wood that floats, heavy rain might wash out some infill and require more grooming before next use (a minor scheduling blip). But generally, it’s designed for the same usage intensity as turf. Playability (Surface Performance): ● Traction: Natural grass provides good traction under most conditions, with a bit of natural slip that can actually be beneficial (players’ cleats can release from the turf during sharp turns, potentially reducing twisting injuries). When grass is wet or heavily worn (muddy or bald spots), traction drops dramatically – players may slip, and games can become sloshy. Synthetic turf has consistent traction – perhaps too high in some cases. Modern turf tries to simulate the give of grass, but many players and studies note that foot rotation and release is less on turf, meaning shoes can stick and transfer more force to ankles/knees. This high traction can be a pro for some sports (better push-off for sprinting) and a con for others (higher injury risk). It’s adjustable somewhat by infill type and depth. For example, adding more infill can make turf more forgiving (cleat goes in and can pivot), while low infill might make it grabby. Hybrid traction is effectively natural grass traction, as the fibers aren’t usually felt by cleats (they’re mostly below the surface). So hybrid maintains good grip when grass cover is present; even if grass thins, the exposed fiber matrix still provides some traction (similar to a turf, but presumably with more dirt present to allow some give). ● Ball Behavior: For soccer and lacrosse, natural grass tends to slow the ball slightly and can create an occasional uneven bounce (if the surface isn’t perfectly level or grass length varies). Artificial turf provides a very true, predictable surface – balls roll faster and bounce higher on average. Soccer players often have to adjust technique on turf (e.g., weighting passes less because the ball carries more). Some prefer the faster game; others feel it’s less “natural”. In Palo Alto, players have experience with both and often note the differences. Hybrid would behave like grass when the grass is good, and if grass thins, it might start behaving more like turf in those patches. Ideally, hybrid keeps a uniform grass cover so the ball sees grass everywhere (some stadiums with hybrid report no noticeable difference from pure grass in ball action). ● Injury and Fatigue: Many athletes report feeling more soreness in joints after playing on turf versus grass, especially with repeated use. The harder surface and lack of “forgiving” divots can mean every footfall transmits more shock up the legs. This contributes to chronic issues like tendonitis or lower back pain in some. Grass, being soil-based, has natural shock absorbency that reduces such cumulative impact. Concussions from head impact on the ground are also a factor: studies in high school sports found higher concussion incidence on turf for falls, likely because well-maintained grass is a slightly softer landing. However, poorly maintained grass (hard soil) could be worse. Thus, maintenance plays a huge role in safety and playability for grass – you want it neither rock-hard nor too soggy. ● Heat and Player Comfort: As detailed, on a hot 90°F day, turf surface might be 140°F+. Players will feel that through their shoes; it can even cause cleats to soften or blister feet. Frequent water breaks and even hosing down the turf mid-game are sometimes needed. Officials may call more breaks or shorten games in extreme heat on turf. On grass, the surface would be maybe 95°F at most – far less radiant heat. In fact, playing on grass on a hot day feels cooler than standing on adjacent concrete. So players can perform more intensely without overheating. This affects not just player health but quality of play: in extreme turf heat, players tire faster and play conservatively to avoid heat exhaustion, arguably reducing the level of play. So grass can enable better performance in hot conditions. ● Night Play & Dew: In evenings, one small factor is dew on grass can make the surface slick after sunset, whereas turf doesn’t produce dew (though it might be wet from earlier irrigation). This typically isn’t major, but some sports (like ultimate frisbee or field hockey) notice the difference – a dewy grass can slow a frisbee on the ground or alter ball roll. ● Cleat Requirement: Some sports may require different cleats for turf vs grass (turf shoes vs studs). This can be an inconvenience and a cost for players to have appropriate footwear for each surface. It also matters for injuries – using the wrong cleats (e.g., long studs on turf) can increase injury risk. So having multiple surface types citywide might require coaches and players to be mindful of swapping cleats. Drainage and Rain Play: Modern synthetic fields are built with excellent drainage (perforated base and porous aggregate layers). They often drain 8–10 inches of rain per hour, far more than any natural event – essentially, puddles seldom form. Thus, even in moderate rain, a turf field remains playable (though the game might be messy for other reasons). Natural grass fields with good drainage can handle rain to a point, but during heavy rain, the sheer volume might overwhelm infiltration, leading to puddles or slick mud. Also, playing on a grass field while raining will tear it up far worse than playing on it dry – thus, fields are usually pre-emptively closed in rain not because they are immediately unplayable, but to prevent severe damage. Hybrid fields, given their sand base and reinforcement, can drain as fast as turf in many cases and resist deep mud formation (the fibers hold the topsoil). So a hybrid field might be playable sooner after a downpour (and incur less damage from a rainy game) than a standard grass field. Still, generally, games in rain are unpleasant on any surface – but turf at least recovers immediately after (grass does not). Injury Data Summary: It’s worth summarizing known research: A 2022 systematic review in American Journal of Sports Medicine found that out of 32 studies comparing injury rates on newer turf vs grass, 53% found no overall difference, 38% found higher injury rates on turf, 9% found higher on grass. Notably, lower extremity (knee, ankle) injuries and muscle strains tend to be higher on turf, while upper body or concussion differences are less clear or turf slightly higher. Some specific findings: ● Professional soccer sees more ankle and foot injuries on turf. ● NFL data in recent years indicated higher rate of non-contact knee injuries on turf. ● High school athletes have reported more skin abrasions (which we know) and possibly more infections on turf if not cleaned. ● Conversely, in very wet conditions, a grass field might cause more slips leading to acute injuries like groin pulls due to loss of footing, where turf would have held firm. User Experience and Preferences: Many players voice that natural grass “feels” better – cooler, easier on joints, and with the aesthetic of real grass which some find psychologically pleasing (the smell of grass, etc.). However, if grass fields are in poor shape (patchy, uneven), players can become frustrated and prefer the consistency of turf. For parks and recreation, user satisfaction often depends on maintenance quality more than inherent surface – a well-maintained grass is rated above any turf, and a poorly maintained grass is rated below turf. Lighting and Night Play: Palo Alto’s El Camino field has lights. All surfaces can be lit, but one consideration: at night, artificial turf can sometimes cause more glare (the fibers reflect light differently than grass blades). This is minor, but perhaps worth noting – modern turf is usually a matte finish to minimize this. Grass has no glare but can have dark and light patches depending on wear (which might affect visibility of lines or ball). In general, both surfaces work under lights; the advantage is more to turf in that it encourages more night use (since you’re not worried about dewy or worn conditions as much). Adaptability: Synthetic turf can be lined for multiple sports (permanent tufted lines or painted temporarily), making it easy to host different sports in quick succession. Grass fields often must compromise: e.g., a soccer field and a lacrosse field overlapping might need different paint at different times, which requires removing paint or having confusing multiple lines. It’s doable (using different color paints), but frequent line painting can stress grass (paint can smother grass if done repeatedly). Operations can manage this by using removable lines (e.g., chalk or temporary paint that washes off), but that’s extra work. Turf often is installed with permanent lines for primary sports and uses painted lines for secondary sports. There’s an operational flexibility with turf – you could even overlay a temporary grid for a different use (like a special event) without harming the surface. Equity of Playability: One could argue turf ensures all user groups get a similar quality field anytime – which is an equity issue if, say, lower-resourced groups get stuck with a chewed-up grass slot versus a higher-resourced club getting prime turf time. With all turf, everyone more likely plays on consistent quality. With grass, the field quality might degrade through a season, so those playing later (or those who have practice after a prior practice) get worse conditions. Careful scheduling (rotating practice areas, etc.) can mitigate this. In conclusion, for playability, if the sole concern was optimizing play quality and availability, synthetic would win. But considering player safety and comfort, natural/hybrid surfaces have clear advantages (cooler, potentially safer on joints if maintained). There’s also a value in the experience of playing on real grass – some sports purists and many parents favor it for their kids (less worry about rug burns or chemicals). The decision hinges on how much the city values maximum usage versus these health/experience factors. A hybrid approach could try to get the best of both: distribute usage so that grass fields aren’t overburdened, and reserve the most intense schedules for surfaces that can handle it. 20-Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis To inform the financial aspect, we compare the total cost of ownership for each option over a 20-year period (roughly two turf life cycles or one generation of a grass program). All costs are in today’s dollars. We include initial capital costs, maintenance, periodic replacements/renovations, and end-of-life disposal. Table 1 summarizes the estimates: Table 1: Estimated 20-Year Life Cycle Costs (2025–2045) for One Field (in $ thousands) Cost Component PFAS-Free Synthetic Turf(Organic Infill) Natural Grass(Conventional ) Organic Grass(No Chems) Hybrid Turf(Reinforced) Plant-Based Synthetic(Emerging ) Initial Installation (Year 0) $1,100 (includes turf, pad, infill) $750 (grading, drainage, irrigation, sod) $800 (additional soil amendments ) $1,300 (grass + fiber stitching) $1,200 (likely premium for new tech) Annual Maintenance (avg) ~$30 per year (low labor, periodic grooming) ~$50 per year (high labor, water, supplies) ~$50 per year (labor, organic inputs) ~$55 per year (like high-maint grass) ~$30 per year (similar to conv. turf) 20-yr Maintenance Total (NPV*) $446 (discounted@3%) $744 $744 (assume similar to conv.) $818 (slightly higher) $446 (assume similar to conv. turf) Major Rehab/Replacemen t Replace turf at Year 10 ($650) and Year 20 ($650). Renovation at Year 10 ($200) – resod, etc. Minor rehab Year 20 ($200). Renovation Year 10 ($150) – less intensive due to organic soil; Year 20 ($150). Partial refurb Year 10 ($300) – fiber boost, resod; Year 20 ($0 or minor). Replace at Year 10 ($700), Year 20 ($700) (if similar life as turf). 20-yr Capital Costs (NPV*) Replacement NPV: $850 (includes both cycles discounted). Renovation NPV: $149 (for Year 10; Year 20 one is end-of-period, not fully in 20yr window) Renovation NPV: $112 (Year 10; Year 20 minor) Rehab NPV: $224 (Year 10 work) Replacement NPV: $915 (for Year 10 & 20) Total 20-Year NPV ~$2,400 (million) ~$1,650 (million) ~$1,650 (similar to conv. grass) ~$2,340 (million) ~$2,560 (million, est.) Analysis: Conventional and organic grass come out lowest in direct dollar costs (around $1.6–1.7M NPV over 20 years), while synthetic and hybrid are higher ($2.3–2.4M). The emerging plant-based turf, if priced similar to turf but replaced just as often, could be highest ($2.5M) unless its longevity or recycling offsets improve. A few key points behind these numbers: ● Maintenance vs Capital Trade-off: Synthetic turf shifts costs to upfront and periodic big-ticket replacements, whereas grass spreads costs in annual maintenance. If the city has budget constraints on annual O&M, turf might seem attractive, but then one must plan for the capital hit a decade later. Conversely, grass requires steady funding for maintenance each year – any lapse in funding directly degrades the asset (while with turf, shorting maintenance just shortens lifespan or increases injury risk, which is serious but not as immediately visible as a dead grass field). ● Disposal Costs: We included disposal implicitly in turf replacement costs. However, if regulations tighten (for example, if by 2030 PFAS-laden turf must be treated as hazardous waste or recycling mandates increase costs), those replacement costs could rise. The analysis assumed PFAS-free turf, so hazard disposal might not apply, but even then turf disposal is expensive (trucking tons of material). Grass disposal is negligible (compost old sod). If an emerging turf is fully compostable, disposal cost might drop (could be tilled into soil or composted locally), improving its lifecycle economics in the future. ● Water and Utilities: The grass costs include a rough estimate for water. If water rates rise sharply (likely in California), grass O&M costs will increase. If Palo Alto can use non-potable water or very efficient irrigation tech, that could mitigate some cost. Synthetic saves those water costs, which is reflected in its lower annual maintenance figure. Over 20 years, water is a significant expense for grass (~$300k of that $744k maintenance NPV could be water). There is also an environmental “cost” to that water usage not captured in dollars here. ● Revenue and Utilization Benefits: From a pure city budget standpoint, a turf field can generate more revenue by being rented more hours (assuming there’s demand). For example, if the city charges $50/hour for field use to some groups, an extra 500 hours a year on turf is $25k revenue, which over 20 years (discounted) is several hundred thousand dollars, partially offsetting turf’s higher cost. Grass might limit revenue simply because the field can’t be rented out as much or might need free closures for rehab. This was not netted out above, but it is an important consideration – essentially, turf’s capacity can translate to economic value. On the other hand, turf could carry future liabilities (if health concerns lead to litigation or mandated remediation of fields, etc., which one could argue is a contingent cost not in the analysis). ● External Funding: Sometimes grants are available for environmentally friendly projects. For instance, there may be state or federal grants for water conservation (which turf would qualify for) or for green infrastructure (which organic grass might qualify for, as carbon farming or urban greening). Palo Alto could seek funding to offset initial costs depending on what they choose (e.g., a pilot organic sports field could attract grants from environmental health agencies, while an innovative turf could partner with companies or universities for research funding). These could tilt actual city expenditure. ● Carbon Cost (Social Cost of Carbon): If one quantifies environmental externalities, artificial turf has a higher carbon footprint upfront (manufacturing 80,000 sq ft of plastic turf emits tens of tons of CO₂, plus loss of carbon sequestration from soil). Natural grass requires fertilizer production and mowing fuel each year (some carbon), but also sequesters carbon in soil. While not in the financials, if one put a price on carbon, turf likely “costs” more in societal terms. Cities aiming for carbon neutrality might consider these external costs in decision-making. Bids/Estimates from Nearby Projects: Palo Alto can also glean cost info from local projects: ● The Finance Committee cited $900,000 for El Camino turf replacement in FY2024 budget (likely using existing base). ● Mountain View’s Shoreline Athletic Fields (two new turf fields) cost about $10.5M for the whole project – that included more than just turf, but indicates how expensive multi-field projects are. ● Menlo Park recently installed turf at Kelly Park; that contract was on the order of ~$1.2M for one field (with cork infill). ● Any natural field projects: less documented, but e.g., a grass field renovation at a school might be in the few hundred thousand range. ● Santa Clara County in its April 2024 referral considered the cost of converting existing turf fields back to grass (noting loss of use and maintenance cost increases) – Palo Alto may want to coordinate with that county study for cost assumptions. Opportunity Cost of Field Shortage: As mentioned, if going grass reduces playable hours, one might need to invest in additional fields or alternatives (e.g., use school fields, partner with neighboring cities, or build smaller practice areas). The cost of acquiring or repurposing land for another field in Palo Alto is enormous (land values are very high). It may be infeasible, so the more likely scenario is managing within the existing inventory, which could mean less sports programming or more wear on other fields. There’s a community cost to that in terms of reduced recreation opportunities. While hard to price, it should be acknowledged – e.g., if 500 hours of youth sports per year cannot be accommodated due to switching El Camino to grass, that might affect hundreds of kids (lost games, shorter seasons). The city could partially mitigate by improving maintenance on all fields (so each grass field can take a bit more) or by scheduling creatively (perhaps using school district fields more). In summary, natural grass is the budget-friendly option long-term, if you ignore the need to possibly increase capacity elsewhere. Synthetic turf is a higher investment but delivers more service (hours) which can justify its cost for a community with high demand. Hybrid sits in between, both in performance and cost – requiring near-turf level investment to achieve something less than turf’s hours but more than grass’s. The financial decision can’t be separated from the usage analysis: if Palo Alto absolutely needs the current level of field hours to meet community needs, the city might face either building more grass fields (with significant capital cost/land cost) or sticking with some form of synthetic. That trade-off might tilt the economic decision when scaled to the whole city’s field network. On the other hand, if community sentiment and policy goals strongly favor sustainability and health, the city may find the extra cost or reduced revenue of grass is worth it. The 20-year horizon also aligns with the city’s climate and sustainability targets – it forces thinking about not just immediate capital costs but the recurring environmental and health costs (which, while not line items in a budget, often become costs in other ways, e.g. healthcare or future remediation). A lifecycle approach, as done here, ensures we don’t just pick the cheapest upfront option and get blindsided by replacement expenses or cumulative impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment A core part of Palo Alto’s evaluation is how each option aligns with environmental sustainability and the city’s Climate Action goals. Key factors include: water consumption, carbon footprint, pollution (microplastics, chemicals), runoff effects, heat island, and ecological impacts (soil health, biodiversity). Water Usage Water is a critical resource in California’s climate. Synthetic turf’s often-cited advantage is virtually zero irrigation need, whereas natural grass needs substantial watering: ● Synthetic Turf: Saves an estimated 1–1.5 million gallons of water per field per year in Palo Alto’s climate compared to maintaining irrigated grass. This is a significant conservation benefit given frequent droughts. (Note: some water is still used on turf for cooling/cleaning, but it's a small fraction – perhaps 5–10% of what grass would use, depending on heat events.) Over 10 years, that’s 10–15 million gallons saved per field. This reduction in water use also means energy savings at the regional level (less pumping/treatment) and cost savings. California’s SB 676 (2023) even noted that while turf saves water, it’s not considered “drought-tolerant landscaping” legally due to other issues. If Palo Alto’s priority is water conservation, turf is a clear winner. ● Natural Grass: Requires regular irrigation. If using potable water, this has a high environmental footprint (especially if imported water or energy-intensive). There are ways to mitigate: using reclaimed water if available (some cities irrigate parks with treated wastewater or groundwater); employing smart irrigation controllers and moisture sensors to avoid overwatering; and selecting drought-tolerant grass species. For instance, a Bermuda grass field goes dormant (brown) in winter but uses less water in summer than a rye/blue mix. The city could choose paspalum or other warm-season grasses that are relatively low-water. But even the best grass will need water to remain playable in summer – unlike native drought-tolerant landscapes, a sports field can’t go brown all summer. So, a conversion back to grass would increase the city’s water usage, potentially conflicting with water reduction goals during drought emergencies. The soccer club claimed “banning turf would require an additional 1.2 million gallons” for replacement grass – that quantification underscores the magnitude. ● Organic Grass: Doesn’t inherently change water needs vs conventional grass, but practices like improving soil organic matter can reduce irrigation requirements by maybe 20–30% (healthy soil holds water better). Also, a dense, healthy turf with deep roots (an outcome of organic care) can survive on slightly less water. Some organic programs report being able to water less frequently without turf quality loss. It’s still water-intensive, but perhaps at the lower end of the range. The city could also explore stormwater capture for irrigation – e.g., harvesting rainwater or using runoff from nearby surfaces stored in cisterns to offset irrigation demand. ● Hybrid Turf: Water needs equal to natural grass (the grass in it must be watered). Possibly, because of improved drainage and soil, water might be used more efficiently (less lost to runoff). But overall, expect similar irrigation volume to a well-built sand-based grass field. No savings here. ● Emerging Turf: Could reduce water needs somewhat if the design addresses heat (some new turf systems advertise cooler surfaces that need less watering for cooling). For example, a turf with reflective fibers or evaporative infill might not require mid-day water spraying as often. But compared to grass, it’s still a huge water saver. If a partial hybrid system is considered (there are some that integrate live plants in a minimal way), water use would rise accordingly, but pure synthetic with plant-based components still doesn’t need irrigation. Summary: If water conservation is weighted heavily, synthetic (or plant-based synthetic) turf stands out. Each grass field conversion would be a notable water demand increase. However, water isn’t the only environmental factor – sometimes water savings could be outweighed by other negatives (like plastic pollution). Also, the city could consider offsetting water use by investing in water recycling projects as part of the mitigation if choosing grass. Carbon Footprint and Energy The life-cycle carbon emissions differ: ● Manufacturing Synthetic Turf is energy-intensive. Producing plastic grass fibers, backing, and infill involves petroleum extraction and processing in factories (often overseas). One analysis by University of Plymouth estimated that just a small 60 m² (about 645 ft²) artificial lawn has ~435 kg CO₂ embodied. Scaling that to a full-size field (~7,000 m²) would be roughly 50,000 kg CO₂ (50 metric tons) just from manufacturing materials. Transport and installation add more. Additionally, the disposal or recycling at end-of-life has carbon impacts (especially if incinerated or landfilled). On the flip side, maintaining turf uses little fuel (just electricity for grooming equipment perhaps). If lights are used more due to more hours of play, that’s an operational energy use but would be similar for grass if used at night. ● Natural Grass Carbon Dynamics: Grass fields can act as carbon sinks. Through photosynthesis, they capture CO₂ and store carbon in biomass and soil. Well-managed turf can sequester a meaningful amount of carbon in soil, especially if clippings are left to mulch (though on sports fields clippings are often removed to avoid thatch). A healthy grass field’s soil over 10 years can increase in organic carbon content – this is a climate benefit. A reference noted scientists are investigating soil as a “carbon sink” – relevant to grass fields absorbing CO₂. That said, grass maintenance emits carbon: lawn mowers (unless electric) burn fuel, fertilizer production is energy-intensive (and releases N₂O, a potent greenhouse gas), and water pumping/treatment uses energy. A life-cycle analysis by the Synthetic Turf Council (STC, an industry group) argued that the avoided mowing and fertilizer of turf offset some manufacturing emissions, but independent analyses (e.g., from municipalities) often find the opposite: that artificial turf produces a higher carbon footprint than natural grass when you include manufacturing and disposal. Also, grass provides cooling (through evaporative cooling and shading of soil) which in a city can reduce energy needed for cooling nearby buildings – small effect but cumulative. Turf, by absorbing heat, could indirectly cause increased use of A/C nearby (though El Camino Park is not right next to buildings, so negligible in that sense). ● Organic Grass: Eliminates emissions from synthetic fertilizer manufacturing and reduces those from pesticide production. Organic fertilizers often have a lower carbon footprint (though some like blood meal, if not sourced locally, still carry footprint). Additionally, organic fields build soil carbon faster, potentially sequestering more CO₂. Reducing mowing frequency (if possible by using slower-growing grass varieties) could cut emissions or switching to electric mowers (which Palo Alto could do to align with climate goals). The S/CAP likely encourages electrification of landscape equipment – implementing that would make grass maintenance much greener (running on the city’s increasingly renewable electricity vs gasoline). ● Hybrid Turf: Its carbon profile is essentially the sum of a grass field’s ongoing emissions plus the embodied carbon of the synthetic fibers (which are a smaller quantity than full turf). Roughly, if full turf is 50 tons CO₂ to make, and hybrid uses maybe 5–10% as much plastic, that’s perhaps 2.5–5 tons CO₂ embodied. That’s still more than grass (which has near zero embodied carbon, since soil and seed are natural), but far less than full turf. Maintenance emissions the same as grass. So hybrid might strike a middle ground in carbon terms as well. ● Overall Climate Impact: Natural solutions (grass) help with mitigation (reducing climate change) by sequestering carbon and avoiding plastic production, and with adaptation by keeping the city cooler and absorbing stormwater. Turf contributes to emissions and heats the environment (creating heat islands that exacerbate urban warming). Palo Alto’s S/CAP likely emphasizes both mitigation and resilience – fields of living grass act as green infrastructure supporting both, whereas plastic fields do the opposite (they remove green space, one reason some cities like San Francisco have debated turf conversions heavily in environmental reviews). The Plymouth University article explicitly states artificial grass contributes to global warming by absorbing more radiation than living grass and removing that natural carbon sink. Runoff, Water Quality, and Microplastics ● Runoff Quantity: Natural grass excels at absorbing rainwater. A healthy lawn can infiltrate most rainfall, reducing runoff volume (and thus easing storm drain loads and downstream flood risk). It also filters the water as it percolates. Artificial turf, while permeable, often has an impermeable layer beneath (the backing or a compacted base) that channels water to drains. It prevents soil mud, but it doesn’t soak up water like soil – it tends to shunt water away quickly. Studies have found that artificial lawns exhibit increased runoff and decreased water retention compared to living lawns. Essentially, less rain goes back to groundwater, more becomes surface runoff. In a big storm, a turf field might send a surge of water to the storm sewers whereas a grass field would have slowed and retained more. Palo Alto must consider stormwater management: converting a turf back to grass is like adding a large pervious area – beneficial for local aquifer recharge and reducing runoff. Conversely, keeping it turf means treating it more like infrastructure that needs drains. (That said, modern turf systems often include detention features like a gravel base that holds some water and releases it slowly – partly mitigating this.) ● Runoff Quality – Microplastics: Synthetic turf fields are recognized sources of microplastic pollution. As they age,## Health and Safety Profile Extensive research and sports medicine findings offer a mixed picture of artificial turf vs. natural grass on athlete health. Key points include: ● Injuries (ACL, Ankles, etc.): Many studies – especially on older turf generations – found higher rates of lower extremity injuries on synthetic turf. A 2022 meta-analysis of 53 studies reported 38% found higher overall injury rates on turf (mostly knee/ankle injuries), 53% found no difference, and 9% found higher on grass. The consensus in professional sports is that ACL tears and other ligament injuries are more common on artificial surfaces. This is attributed to turf’s high traction – cleats can “stick” in the fibers and not release as readily, placing more torque on knees. Natural grass, by contrast, has more give – the sod can divot or the foot can slide slightly under stress, dissipating force. Many NFL players and coaches have called for a return to all-grass fields to reduce injuries. That said, injury risk on a poorly maintained grass (with holes or uneven footing) can also be high – so maintenance quality is pivotal. A well-kept grass and a modern, padded turf both can meet safety standards, but epidemiological trends favor grass for fewer acute leg injuries. For youth athletes, who are still developing, the softer, forgiving nature of grass may be safer on joints. ● Concussions and Head Impacts: The hardness of fields is measured by G-max and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). Both surfaces can be safe if standards are met (ASTM limit is Gmax 200, though industry and NFL use ≤165). A fresh, irrigated grass over a cushioned soil is very soft (Gmax ~100). Turf with a quality shock pad can also achieve Gmax ~100–120 initially. However, as turf ages and infill compacts, hardness can increase and localized hard spots can form – necessitating regular testing and maintenance. Natural grass can become hard if the soil dries out or compacts, but routine aeration and irrigation mitigate that. Regarding concussions, if a player’s head hits the ground, studies suggest well-maintained grass slightly lowers concussion risk relative to turf, likely due to more impact absorption. Moreover, physicians note that even sub-concussive impacts can accumulate; a field that is consistently a bit harder (turf trending toward upper Gmax limits between maintenance) might contribute to those. To address this, any turf in Palo Alto should be installed with a shock pad and strictly kept under safety thresholds; conversely, a grass field should be monitored (e.g., using Clegg hammer tests) to ensure it’s not getting too hard in dry spells. In summary, both surfaces can be made safe for head impact, but grass has a natural advantage when moist, and turf has a risk of unnoticed hardening if not tested. ● Heat Stress and Burns: Heat is a major safety concern with synthetic turf. Surface temps above ~120°F can cause skin injuries and heat illness. Santa Clara County found on a typical warm day turf hit 122°F vs 82°F on adjacent grass. At 140–150°F (not uncommon on summer afternoons for turf), players can get burns on exposed skin slides and their body core can overheat quickly. Children are particularly vulnerable (lower sweat capacity and higher absorption of radiant heat). Cases of “turf burn” – literal friction burns exacerbated by hot plastic – are routine on artificial fields. Grass, in contrast, remains cool (and even damp grass can have a cooling effect). No athlete ever got a burn from natural grass; rather, on a hot day, the grass field may be one of the coolest spots around. To manage turf heat, Palo Alto would need strict heat policies: for instance, Burlington, MA’s school district has a policy moving activities off turf to natural grass when heat/humidity thresholds are exceeded. Palo Alto could adopt similar rules (e.g., if turf surface > 120°F, move practice to grass or delay). This implies that having at least some natural grass available is a safety backup on extreme heat days. Also, turf fields often require pre-watering before sessions in heat, which uses staff time and water and only temporarily cools the surface. In terms of burns: beyond heat, the abrasive plastic can shear off a layer of skin – even in moderate temperatures athletes get “rug burn” from sliding on turf. These open abrasions are not only painful but are infection portals (discussed next). Grass can cause scrapes too, but usually more minor; players slide willingly on grass because it’s a smoother, organic friction (and cooler). ● Chemicals and Particulates (Exposure Risks): Synthetic turf has raised flags about exposure to various chemicals: ○ PFAS (Per- & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances): Dubbed “forever chemicals,” PFAS are linked to immune, hormonal, and carcinogenic effects at certain exposures. Older turf carpets often had PFAS in their fibers or backing as processing aids. The Palo Alto study is specifically investigating PFAS leaching from turf. Direct contact (skin, inhalation of dust, ingestion of crumb) could introduce PFAS to users, though the dose per play is not well quantified. Given PFAS accumulate in the body over time, any avoidable exposure is concerning. Switching to PFAS-free turf eliminates this source, and going to natural grass avoids it entirely. ○ VOCs & Off-gassing: On hot days, turf (especially with rubber infill) can release volatile organic compounds – some users report a “chemical smell.” These VOCs (like benzothiazole, PAHs, etc.) are found in crumb rubber fields, though organic infill fields likely emit far less. Short-term exposure on an open field is usually below acute health thresholds, but it does contribute to overall pollutant exposure. Grass emits no VOCs (aside from the pleasant smell of cut grass – which is actually organic compounds but not harmful). ○ Microplastics & Dust: As turf ages, it sheds microplastic fibers and creates dust (from pulverized infill and fiber). Athletes can inhale or swallow some of this (e.g., turf fibers have been found in athletes’ eyes, mouths, and wounds). The long-term health impact of microplastic inhalation is not fully known, but research is ongoing. Natural grass, aside from kicking up some soil dust (which is generally inert and even beneficial in small microbiome exposures), doesn’t pose this risk. ○ Herbicides/Pesticides on Grass: Conventional grass fields often rely on chemical weed killers, insecticides, and fungicides – which have their own health risks. Children can be exposed to residues by skin contact or hand-to-mouth behavior. For example, 2,4-D herbicide (commonly used on turfgrass for weeds) is a possible carcinogen and can cause skin and gastrointestinal irritation on acute exposure; organophosphate insecticides can affect neurological development. Palo Alto’s sustainability goals would push to minimize these chemicals. If grass is managed organically, these exposures are eliminated. Thus, from a chemical exposure standpoint, organic grass is the “cleanest” surface (no PFAS, no plastics, no pesticides – just soil and grass). Synthetic turf (if PFAS-free) still has plastics and potential residues from manufacturing, whereas conventional grass might have fertilizer/pesticide residues. ○ Fertilizer Runoff (Nitrates): While not a direct on-field exposure, high fertilizer use on grass can leach nitrates into groundwater or run off into creeks, which is a public/environmental health issue (nitrates in drinking water can cause “blue baby” syndrome, and nutrient pollution causes algal blooms). Organic management uses slow-release sources and builds soil to hold nutrients, drastically reducing runoff. Turf has zero fertilizer runoff, one environmental plus (no need for nutrients), though it can leach other pollutants instead. ● Infections and Hygiene (MRSA/Staph): An infamous risk in sports like football and wrestling is MRSA (antibiotic-resistant Staph) infections. Turf burn abrasions are a known risk factor for MRSA: one study found athletes with turf burns had a 7-fold higher risk of MRSA infection than those without. The turf surface itself, especially if not cleaned, can harbor bacteria. However, research by Penn State showed that outdoors, UV sunlight kills most staph bacteria on both turf and grass within a few hours – so the field isn’t a long-term reservoir in sunlight. The bigger issue is immediate transfer: a player gets a turf scrape and picks up bacteria from another player or from the field before it dies. Natural grass has fewer abrasive injuries and there is some evidence that soil microbes might out-compete pathogenic bacteria (soil is full of benign bacteria that could limit staph survival – a hypothesis consistent with some experts). Also, turf fields that aren’t regularly disinfected can accumulate bodily fluids (blood, spit) and create a soup of microbes in the infill, whereas soil has natural microbial ecology that tends toward balance. In practice, plenty of athletes get scrapes on grass too (especially hard, dry grass) – those can get infected with MRSA as well, but it’s less commonly reported. Hygiene measures are vital on any field: players should clean and cover wounds, shower after play, and for turf, fields should be periodically sanitized. Palo Alto could incorporate antimicrobial treatments in a turf maintenance plan (some infills now come with antimicrobial coatings, though their effectiveness is debated). Or if opting for grass, commit to no high-risk pesticides that could ironically kill the very soil microbes that help keep pathogens in check. ● Allergies and Irritants: One often overlooked aspect: natural grass can cause allergies for some (grass pollen). But sports turf grasses like Bermuda or rye are low pollen producers when mowed frequently (they don’t get to seed head stage). Weeds on grass fields (like Plantain or nettle) could cause allergies if not controlled. Turf, meanwhile, has no pollen, but some players report allergic reactions to latex in backing or to chemical coatings – rare but documented sensitivities. Generally, allergy concerns are minor in this decision (and can be mitigated by choosing hypoallergenic grass varieties or ensuring players take antihistamines if needed). ● Public Perception vs. Scientific Data: There is a gap between what some in the public fear and what studies definitively show: ○ Cancer Risk: A highly publicized concern about crumb rubber infill causing cancer (especially lymphomas in soccer goalies) arose in the 2010s. Multiple studies (including by California OEHHA and Washington State) have not found a higher cancer incidence among turf users, and lab tests of crumb rubber show chemicals but at exposure levels likely below carcinogenic thresholds. The scientific consensus so far is that there isn’t clear evidence linking turf fields to cancer in players. However, that research focused on crumb rubber; it did not address PFAS or newer materials. So while some parents still worry (“my kid is playing on ground-up tires!”), moving to organic infill largely alleviates the known part of that concern. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of risk – communities like Palo Alto are invoking the precautionary principle, especially with PFAS which weren’t accounted for in older studies (A Comparison of Natural Grass and Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields in Montgomery County). ○ Perception of Turf as ‘Toxic’ vs Reality: Modern turf with organic infill and no known toxics is much “cleaner” than older turf. But it’s still plastic, and public sentiment in environmentally conscious communities tends to associate plastic with pollution and health harm. On the other hand, the public may not realize the “toxins” in natural grass under conventional care – pesticides, fertilizers – can also be harmful. A key difference is natural vs synthetic: many intuitively feel a natural surface must be healthier. In large part, with organic methods, that’s true. With heavy pesticide use, maybe not – but Palo Alto is likely to avoid heavy chemicals anyway. ○ Community Trust: The ongoing city study indicates some distrust or uncertainty about industry assurances. Having transparent data (PFAS testing results, injury statistics, etc.) will help. For instance, showing side-by-side comparisons: “Here’s the temperature on our turf field vs our grass field on a 90°F day” (likely a huge gap) can make risks tangible. Similarly, demonstrating improved turf maintenance (if turf is chosen) might assuage those worried about injuries (e.g., commit to adding infill and laser-leveling frequently to avoid the bumpy turf problem that contributed to past injuries). In short, natural grass (especially organically managed) is the benchmark for a safe, cool, and non-toxic play environment, whereas synthetic turf carries some safety drawbacks (heat, abrasion injuries, possible chemical leaching). Those drawbacks can be mitigated but not entirely eliminated: pads and protocols for injuries, strict cleaning for hygiene, and design innovations (PFAS-free, cooler infills) reduce the risks. The health trade-offs align with an oft-repeated idea: turf maximizes play time at some cost to player comfort and possibly long-term health factors; grass prioritizes player well-being but at the cost of play availability. Palo Alto must weigh how much risk is acceptable. Given its “aggressive sustainability and health goals,” leaning towards natural solutions would align with a more cautious approach to health (favoring known safety of grass) – provided the city can still meet recreation needs. Community Preferences and Stakeholder Input The Palo Alto community has actively engaged in the turf vs. grass debate, revealing a split in priorities. Below is a summary of perspectives from various stakeholders: ● Local Sports Organizations (Field Users): The Palo Alto Soccer Club and other youth sports leagues strongly advocate for retaining synthetic turf fields. Their primary concern is field availability. With over 50 soccer teams and numerous other sports (football, lacrosse, ultimate frisbee) sharing limited fields, turf’s ability to handle continuous play is seen as essential. The club’s Executive Director, Rodrigo Baptista, warned that losing turf would “take away valuable athletic opportunities for kids” and exacerbate the field shortage. He estimates one turf field provides as many hours as 3–4 grass fields, and that converting one turf to grass would require 1.2 million extra gallons of water for irrigation. For these groups, the year-round, all-weather use of turf translates directly into equitable access – more practice slots, fewer canceled games (important for working parents juggling schedules), and the ability to host programs for all ages and income levels. They point out that Palo Alto already struggles to meet demand (teams often travel to Mountain View or further for practice space), and reducing capacity could force cuts or exclude some participants. Equity: From their view, synthetic turf increases equity by providing more playing time especially for those who rely on public fields (low-income or apartment-dwelling families can’t fall back on private lawns or pay for private sports facilities). Some also note that turf fields can be programmed for diverse uses (e.g., a single evening might see youth soccer, then adult league, then a pickup group) maximizing community benefit. ● Parents and Players: Many parents are torn. They appreciate the convenience of turf (no muddy uniforms, fewer cancellations). But as health concerns surface in media (PFAS, heat stroke, injury reports), some parents voice concern. At public meetings, anecdotal input has included stories of children coming home with melted turf bits in cuts, or suffering heat exhaustion on hot tournament days. Informally, you hear things like “my kid’s cleat got stuck and he sprained his ankle on that turf,” or conversely “my daughter’s soccer game got canceled because the grass field was muddy – turf would have allowed it.” In the absence of a formal survey, we glean that parents of younger kids may lean towards caution (preferring grass for its natural safety), whereas parents of highly competitive athletes may lean towards turf for more reliable training time. High school athletes in Palo Alto have commented too: some Paly and Gunn athletes have noted the poor condition of certain turf fields (like Mayfield before it was closed) was hazardous (City Council temporarily halts replacement of synthetic turf fields – The Campanile). They ultimately just want a safe, playable field – be it well-maintained grass or new turf – rather than the status quo of aging turf. So their preference is contingent on quality: a pristine grass field would likely be embraced, but a torn-up grass field would frustrate them. ● Environmental Advocates and Many Residents: There is a significant faction in Palo Alto that prioritizes environmental sustainability and public health over maximizing play hours. These include members of local environmental groups (e.g., Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, perhaps, and non-profits like the Partnership for Healthy Playing Surfaces). Their stance: Artificial turf is fundamentally at odds with Palo Alto’s climate goals. They highlight the plastic waste (“2 acres of plastic carpeting”), the microplastics pollution to San Francisco Bay, the fact that turf will sit in landfill for centuries (if not recycled), and the presence of chemicals like PFAS and VOCs. As one resident, Linda Marquez, told the county, “Turf has the dubious distinction of being something that will linger on this planet forever”. This group likely submitted letters and spoke at City Council when the issue was discussed. They often bring up that natural grass, especially organic, aligns with climate action (carbon sequestration, cooling, supporting biodiversity) and that children deserve a connection to nature, not plastic. They argue that any water saved by turf is offset by environmental costs and that Palo Alto should lead by example in phasing out plastics where possible. Some have also raised concerns about long-term health: even if studies haven’t yet proven harm from turf chemicals, they feel it’s prudent to avoid exposing kids to “a toxic chemistry experiment” when a natural option exists. ● City Commissions and Officials: The Parks and Recreation Commission has shown interest in exploring alternatives. While minutes are not all public, the Commission likely values quality of play and sustainability both. City Council members have voiced cautious views: Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker noted seeing injury issues with turf in her soccer experiences, and Councilmember Pat Burt urged a careful approach aligning with health findings. The fact that Council unanimously approved spending $232k on a comprehensive turf study indicates they are taking citizen concerns seriously and not rubber-stamping a turf replacement. There is political will in Palo Alto to prioritize environmental leadership – recalling that the City banned gas leaf blowers and has a strong climate plan, it wouldn’t be surprising if Council leans slightly in favor of grass/organic if it can be shown feasible. At the same time, they feel pressure from the sports community to ensure sufficient facilities (no one on Council wants to be blamed for “ruining youth sports in Palo Alto”). So their preference is for a solution that can satisfy both aims – hence the interest in data and perhaps hybrid options. ● Equity and Access Considerations: Palo Alto strives for inclusive recreation. If fields become fewer or usage is curtailed, those who lose access might be those who can’t afford private alternatives. Wealthier families might form clubs that rent turf elsewhere, but others could be left with shorter seasons or no space. There’s also an equity issue in the distribution of environmental burdens – for example, if turf causes pollution, that pollution (like microplastics in bay or chemicals in water) affects the whole community and future generations. Some have framed the removal of turf as a justice issue for the environment (protecting common goods like water and soil), while others frame keeping turf as a justice issue for youth and working families needing play opportunities. The city will have to carefully balance these. ● Stakeholder Consensus or Compromise: So far, the process has been collaborative. The city engaged Lloyd Consulting for an impartial analysis and is likely holding community meetings. One possible emerging consensus is the idea of piloting organic or hybrid grass on one field to evaluate whether it can meet demands, while not immediately removing all turf. This pilot approach might satisfy environmental advocates (showing commitment to try grass) and not alarm sports groups too much since alternative fields remain during the test. If it fails, the city can revert to turf with better data; if it succeeds, it paves the way for converting other fields. Many stakeholders appear open to such creative solutions. In community meetings, one might hear a refrain: “We want our kids safe, but we also want them to have a place to play.” The ideal outcome for the community is having it both – a safe, non-toxic field that still is usable year-round. That’s why hybrid turf or high-performance organic grass is appealing if it can be proven. Public Input Themes: ● Health & Safety First: A number of parents and residents implore the city to prioritize kids’ health over convenience, essentially saying if grass is safer (less injuries, no PFAS), then “we’ll figure out the scheduling – just do the right thing.” ● Data-Driven Decisions: Many community members want objective information. This is a technical topic, and residents have requested clarity on trade-offs (hence the matrix and charts in this report). There’s appreciation that the city is doing a study and not rushing. Palo Altans, being highly educated, tend to dig into the details – expect that whichever way the recommendation goes, it will be scrutinized with the data provided. ● S/CAP Alignment: Stakeholders involved in the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan process likely weighed in that this decision should set a precedent for choosing sustainable infrastructure. They might view an artificial turf full of plastic as an anachronism in a city that is trying to eliminate single-use plastics and go carbon-neutral. A comment along these lines might be: “How can we tell residents to ditch plastic straws when we’re covering parks in plastic? We need consistency with our values.” In sum, community preferences are divided, but not irreconcilable: ● There is strong support for exploring grass/organic options, especially if they can be shown to maintain playability, reflecting community environmental values. ● There is also strong support for not reducing play capacity, reflecting community recreation values. This dual mandate is driving the city toward a thoughtful solution that possibly uses innovation to satisfy both – something stakeholders on both sides seem to acknowledge. A public opinion might be coalescing around: “If any place can figure out how to make organic grass work, it’s Palo Alto – and we should try. But we also must have a fallback plan to ensure our kids and users aren’t left without fields.” Therefore, a likely community-backed approach is a pilot or phased transition, with continual input from user groups and environmental experts to adjust management strategies. Recommendations and Feasibility Assessment After evaluating all factors – playability, cost, health, environment, and community input – this report makes the following recommendations for Palo Alto: 1. Embrace a Pilot Conversion to Sustainable Natural Fields (with Contingencies): Convert El Camino Park’s field to an organically managed natural grass system, potentially enhanced with hybrid reinforcement in high-wear areas. This option best aligns with Palo Alto’s S/CAP goals by eliminating plastic and chemical exposure, while recent case studies and improved turf management practices suggest that a high-quality grass field can support heavy use if properly built and maintained. Key actions for feasibility: ● Invest in Field Infrastructure: Re-build El Camino Park with a modern sand-based profile and sub-drainage to ensure rain tolerance (no waterlogging). Consider using a reinforced sod or hybrid system for extra durability – for example, install GrassMaster fibers in the goal mouths and center stripe where wear is greatest (this targeted hybrid approach can increase longevity in critical zones without the full cost of a hybrid field). ● Adopt Comprehensive Organic Maintenance: Contract with or hire a professional turf manager experienced in sports field organic care (perhaps consult Osborne Organics or TURI experts) to implement a regime of frequent aeration, compost topdressing, overseeding, and careful irrigation management. Allocate sufficient budget (estimate ~$50k–$60k/year for this field) in the Parks maintenance plan, and ensure staff are trained in these methods. Organic management will keep the field safe and resilient without pesticides, addressing health concerns. ● Monitor Playability & Adjust Use Patterns: Establish a monitoring program to track field usage hours, resting periods, turf density, Gmax, and user feedback. Use scheduling software to ensure the field gets small windows of rest (even a day or two a week) and rotate user groups so no single area gets trampled continuously (e.g., move soccer practices around the field). If signs of wear appear, be ready to temporarily limit use and perform remedial actions (e.g., mid-season aeration and overseeding). Communicate this proactively with sports leagues so they understand that short closures ensure long-term availability – fostering a culture of shared stewardship. ● Leverage Other Fields During Transition: During the grow-in period of the new grass (which might take 2–3 months for strong establishment if sodded, or longer if seeded), utilize existing turf fields (e.g., Cubberley, Mayfield) to absorb the displaced play. Work with schools or neighboring cities for any interim overflow. Essentially, manage the transition so sports schedules are disrupted minimally. Once the grass field is in use, if it can handle ~1000+ hours/year as expected, great. If demand still exceeds supply, consider scheduling some activities (like adult leagues or non-league play) at slightly reduced frequency or on alternate sites to prioritize youth play on the new field. ● Feasibility: This recommendation is feasible if the city commits the necessary resources and expertise to maintaining the field. The upfront cost (~$750k) is within the already-budgeted range for turf replacement. The ongoing maintenance will be higher than for a turf field, but still modest in the context of the City’s budget and could be offset by savings from not replacing turf every 8 years. The risk is that if maintenance or usage control falls short (e.g., budget cuts or pressure to overuse the field), the grass could deteriorate. To mitigate that, the City Council should treat field maintenance funding as inviolate – as critical as funding the fire department, because if underfunded, the “asset” fails. Given Palo Alto’s strong financial position, this is doable. Staff capacity is a consideration – if current parks staff are stretched, the city may need to add a turf specialist position or a dedicated crew for athletic fields (potentially shared with school district fields). This is a feasible expansion if justified by the benefits to health and environment. Why this approach? It aims to deliver a safe, cool, chemical-free playing experience (which community and Council desire) while employing techniques to stretch grass’s capacity to as high as possible (approaching what stakeholders need). It makes Palo Alto a regional leader in sustainable sports field management – a powerful statement for climate action. It also responds directly to Council’s directive to evaluate going “back to grass”, demonstrating that the city is willing to act on the study’s findings. 2. Mitigate Field Capacity Loss with Strategic Measures: Converting one synthetic field to grass will reduce total available hours in the short term. To ensure sports programs do not suffer, implement these complementary steps: ● Upgrade and Maximize Other Fields: Intensify maintenance on other natural fields in the city (e.g., Greer Park, Mayfield soccer fields which are turf, etc.). If Cubberley remains turf until 2028 as planned, ensure it’s kept in top shape to carry heavy load. Consider installing lights on one more grass field if not already in place, to extend its usable hours after dark (grass can handle evening play if rested in daytime). Lights plus good drainage effectively yield more hours out of a grass field with minimal environmental cost. ● Phased Scheduling & Use of School Facilities: Work with PAUSD (school district) to allow community use of high school or middle school fields on weekends if needed. Many school fields lie idle off-season or midday; a joint use agreement could open additional time slots. This could especially help during the winter when daylight is short – e.g., use lit school turf fields for some practices to relieve pressure on the new grass. ● Monitor Participation and Manage Growth: If demand for field time continues to grow (e.g., new sports or population increases), Palo Alto may need to invest in additional field space regardless of surface. Options include renovating underused park areas or partnering in regional sports complexes. While building new fields in Palo Alto is challenging due to space, creative options like converting a portion of the Baylands Golf Course driving range to multi-use fields or using temporary pop-up turf on parking lots could be explored. These are outside-the-box and would require community vetting. In the near term, better scheduling efficiency (perhaps using an app for sharing field space in off-peak hours) can make the most of what we have. ● If Grass Pilot Struggles, Be Ready to Adjust: In the event that after, say, 2–3 years the El Camino Park grass field cannot sustain acceptable quality or hours (despite best efforts), the city can re-evaluate. By then, hybrid technologies or new organic stabilizers might be even better – perhaps the solution would be to retrofit the field with a full hybrid fiber reinforcement or a newer generation of bio-turf that can overlay on grass. The recommendation is not to simply flip back to plastic turf, but to look at why the pilot struggled: Was maintenance insufficient? Was usage too high? Those factors are controllable. However, if it’s determined that even with optimal care the grass field only delivers, say, 800 hours and demand is 1,500, the city might then consider a compromise of installing a hybrid system or a next-gen non-PFAS turf at that point. Essentially, maintain flexibility. 3. If Synthetic Turf is Retained or Later Considered, Set Stringent Sustainability Criteria: Should Palo Alto decide that synthetic turf (now or in the future) is necessary for some fields (for example, if the Cubberley turf comes up for replacement before results of the grass pilot are known), it must be done in the most health- and eco-conscious way possible: ● Require PFAS-Free Certification: Vendors must supply testing data showing no intentionally added PFAS and negligible total fluorine in any turf components. This ensures we are not adding to the “forever chemical” burden. Many leading manufacturers now have PFAS-free product lines. ● Use Organic or Inorganic Infill (No Tire Crumb): Opt for plant-based infills like cork/coconut (which have lower heat retention and no toxic leachate) or other inert infills (e.g., coated sand). Avoid crumb rubber or EPDM that can off-gas or leach metals. The slight increase in cost for organic infill is justified by reduced health concerns. Also, include a shock pad under the turf; this not only improves safety but means you can use a shorter fiber and less infill (some new systems are designed that way), thereby reducing microplastic generation and making future recycling easier. ● Heat Mitigation Plan: Choose turf fiber colors and technology that stay cooler (some use reflective pigment or hollow fibers). Even then, implement design features like planting shade trees around the perimeter or installing shade sails over spectator areas. Provide hose bibs at the field for quick cooling sprays and mandate scheduled water breaks on hot days. Essentially, institutionalize the practice that on any day >85°F, staff will cool the field pre-play and monitor surface temps throughout. Also, coordinate with user groups to possibly shift summer practice times to early morning/evening to avoid peak sun on turf. ● End-of-Life Recycling/Disposal Assurance: Include in contracts a requirement that the turf carpet and infill will be recycled or repurposed at end of life, not landfilled. This might involve working with companies in the emerging turf recycling industry (e.g., those in the Netherlands or Georgia who shred and separate turf into raw materials). It could add cost, but perhaps the city can negotiate a take-back program. Given legislative trends, by the time this turf wears out (~2035), there may even be laws banning turf in landfills. Planning for this now avoids a future environmental liability. If no recycling facility is available in the US, the city should at least ensure the materials are non-toxic to dispose of (hence no PFAS, no heavy metals in infill). ● Innovate with Emerging Solutions: Palo Alto could coordinate with researchers or companies to pilot new sustainable turf tech. For instance, if fully biodegradable turf like GreenBlade proves successful in Europe in the next few years, the city could volunteer as a U.S. pilot site. This would maintain the play benefits of turf while satisfying environmental objectives, essentially turning turf into a compostable system after its service. There is risk in being an early adopter, but the city’s willingness to try grass demonstrates an openness to innovation – this could extend to trying cutting-edge turf if needed. ● Enhanced Maintenance & Safety on Turf: If we stay with turf, double-down on maintenance to address known issues: schedule quarterly deep groomings and annual re-leveling to avoid bumpy areas (a cause of injury previously); test Gmax twice a year (summer heat and winter) rather than just once; and implement an aggressive cleaning schedule (perhaps monthly anti-microbial treatment and infill rinse) to minimize infection and odor issues. These practices exceed the norm but will make Palo Alto’s turf as safe as it can be – a necessary step if we’re offsetting concerns. (Of course, this comes with increased maintenance cost, which should be budgeted.) 4. Implement Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement and Education: To ensure success, the city should continue involving all stakeholders in the process: ● Create a “Field Steering Committee” with representatives from user groups (sports leagues), environmental advocates, parks staff, a Parks & Rec Commissioner, and perhaps a youth representative. This committee can meet quarterly to review field conditions, usage reports, and any issues. They can serve as a forum to balance interests – e.g., if staff suggests resting the field for a week, the sports rep can help coordinate that with league schedules, and the environmental rep can validate why it’s needed. ● Develop signage and communications that set expectations: If El Camino goes grass, post info at the field about its maintenance schedule – “This field is organically maintained for your safety and the environment. Please help care for it by staying off when closed,” etc. Also, publish annual “state of the fields” reports with data on hours used, injury incidents (if any), maintenance performed, etc. Transparency will build trust that the fields are being managed optimally whether turf or grass. ● Host a demonstration day or clinic on the new grass field (if that route is taken) – invite coaches and players to literally “feel” the difference in midday heat or after a rain. Similarly, if new turf tech is installed, show the public how it’s different (no black crumbs, cooler surface, etc.). Educating users on proper use (for grass: wear appropriate cleats, rotate drills; for turf: don’t spill sports drinks which can foster bacteria, etc.) will also help longevity. ● Conduct periodic user satisfaction surveys – ask the athletes and parents how they feel about the field conditions, any health issues noted, etc. This subjective data can flag concerns early (e.g., if many say “we’re getting more ankle twists on Field X,” staff can investigate traction issues). 5. Pursue Multi-Pronged Environmental Offsets: No matter what, there will be some environmental footprint (water use for grass, plastic use for turf). The city can offset these as part of the project: ● If grass is chosen (higher water use), invest in water-saving elsewhere – e.g., upgrade park restrooms with ultra-low-flow fixtures, or replace ornamental grass in medians with drought-tolerant landscaping, to balance out the irrigation increase. Also explore using non-potable water for the field (if a well or recycled water pipeline is feasible in future). ● If any synthetic component is used, offset the carbon emissions by initiatives like planting trees or buying renewable energy credits. For example, Palo Alto could plant a number of trees in the park perimeter sufficient to absorb an equivalent of the turf’s lifecycle emissions over time. This would enhance the park and directly tie into climate goals. ● Utilize the field project as a public education exhibit for sustainability: If organic grass is done, put up a small display explaining how healthy soil stores carbon and filters water, connecting local action to climate solutions. If turf is done sustainably, display how innovation can reduce waste (e.g., “this field’s infill is made from coconut husks – a renewable resource!”). Feasibility Assessment: ● Technical Feasibility: All recommended approaches use existing, proven techniques – organic sports turf management has been implemented successfully in various cities (including Springfield MA, Marblehead MA (Organically Managed Grass Athletic Fields - Green Building Alliance | Green Building Alliance)), and hybrid turf is used in professional venues worldwide. No insurmountable technical barrier exists, but it will require high-quality execution. Palo Alto has access to expertise (it can hire consultants, collaborate with nearby Stanford University turf researchers, etc.), which improves feasibility. ● Financial Feasibility: The city’s budget will need to accommodate a shift in expense type (less capital replacement, more annual maintenance). Our cost analysis indicates even a high-end grass program could be slightly cheaper over 20 years than status quo turf. There may be upfront costs in equipment (e.g., purchasing an aerator, topdresser) and training, but these are minor relative to capital costs saved by not buying new turf carpet every decade. Additionally, Palo Alto can seek grants: for example, the state’s Urban Greening grant program might fund the grass conversion as a climate project, or water agencies might give rebates for efficient irrigation tech installed. The pilot approach allows the city to spread costs and learn before committing to doing the same at other fields. ● Operational Feasibility: The biggest challenge is maintaining the commitment to intensive field care and resisting the temptation to over-schedule a grass field. This is as much a management and political challenge as operational. It requires coordination between the Community Services Department (which manages fields) and user groups to ensure everyone buys into the “long game” of keeping fields healthy. Given the community’s high engagement, we believe it’s feasible to garner that cooperation – especially if the city clearly demonstrates it’s doing this to protect players and meet climate goals. In terms of city staffing, there may be a need for additional personnel or reassignments; this should be planned well in advance (perhaps even have the organic turf consultant manage the field for the first year while training city staff, to ensure a smooth start). ● Political Feasibility: With the information available, a balanced solution appears politically viable. The Finance Committee and Council have already signaled openness by halting the turf project for study. If the study (and this report) shows that an organic/hybrid grass field can be done without greatly compromising sports usage, there’s likely a Council majority in favor – aligning with sustainability goals is a strong motivator, and there’s public support for it. At the same time, maintaining at least one synthetic field (for now) in the city (e.g., not immediately ripping out all turf) gives assurance to sports advocates that capacity will not plummet. Therefore, a phased approach is key to political feasibility. It’s essentially a compromise that addresses both camps’ top priorities, and such compromises often find broad support. 6. Long-Term Strategy (“Adaptive Management”): Finally, whichever route is taken, Palo Alto should treat this as an adaptive management experiment. Use the data from El Camino Park to decide future field replacements: ● If the organic/hybrid solution proves successful, blueprint it for Cubberley and other fields when their turf expires, thereby gradually phasing out synthetic surfaces citywide over the next decade. This would be a huge win for sustainability and could make Palo Alto one of the first cities to fully transition back to green fields for sports while still meeting community needs – a model for others. ● If it falls short in some aspects, adjust the strategy rather than abandoning it. Perhaps the answer will be a mix: some fields grass, some cutting-edge turf for peak usage times. The city could end up with a portfolio of surfaces optimized for different uses (e.g., keep one turf field for extremely high traffic activities or winter play, but use grass for all others). This diversified approach hedges against uncertainty and spreads benefits. ● Continue to monitor industry developments: it’s quite plausible that in 5-10 years, bio-based turf and recyclable systems will be standard, and the concerns around current turf will diminish. Palo Alto’s short-term decision can be revisited if technology changes. In the meantime, by choosing natural grass now, the city buys time without committing to another decade of plastic. It can always decide to re-install turf later if the sustainable turf version 2.0 solves current issues. In conclusion, the recommended path is to prioritize people and planet, and manage the play. That means giving our athletes a safe, cool, natural field to play on – even if it means a bit more work on the city’s side – because that work is in service of our community values of health, sustainability, and excellence. By doing so in a careful, data-driven manner and keeping all stakeholders on board, Palo Alto can achieve a solution that is truly “best of both worlds.” It is fitting for a city known for innovation to innovate not just in tech, but in how we provide something as fundamental as a place for our community to play, in harmony with our environment. The feasibility is there, the community support can be built, and the benefits will be enjoyed by current and future generations of Palo Altans who can play on fields that are safe, green, and available when they need them. From:Karinna Hurley To:Council, City Subject:Safe Routes to School program Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:26:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Members of the City Council, I am writing to support the Safe Routes to School program. The important work this programdoes is vital to our children's safety and our community. I understand that budget cuts are anticipated and am hoping that the City still fills the currently vacant Safe Routes to SchoolPlanner position to ensure critical bicycle safety education programs are sustained for our children. Thank you, Karinna Hurley This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew Cc:Sean Allen; Council, City; Pat M; Perron, Zachary; dennis burns; Enberg, Nicholas; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Dana St. George; Friends of Cubberley; h.etzko@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Vara Ramakrishnan; Reckdahl, Keith; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Mickie Winkler; Wagner, April; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; board@pausd.org; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Palo Alto Free Press; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach Subject:Morgan Hill man charged with hate crime for allegedly pushing elderly Muslim man The man faces up to a year inprison, community service if convicted Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 7:56:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Morgan Hill man chargedwith hate crime forallegedly pushing elderlyMuslim man The man faces up to a year in prison, community service if convicted https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/04/22/morgan-hill-hate-crime-charge-allegedly-pushing-elderly-muslim-man/ From:ReDoing 2020 To:Council, City Subject:AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO GIFT "OLD BOY NETWORK" NON-PROFIT "INSIDER" $40 MILLION PLUS IN PUBLIC FUNDS. Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 4:54:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto, Northern California USA 4/22/2025 4:52 p.m. What else are they not telling us? #2 AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO PAY THEIR OWN NON-PROFITBOARD MEMBERS MULTI-MILLIONS IN PUBLIC MONIES TO CONSTRUCTEXPANSION PROJECTS. There is a curious pattern behind more than $40 milliom in construction contracts given to a local builder, with questions of whether procedures complied withthe mandated fiduciaryresponsibilities of staff and board members of an IRS 501(c)3 charity to whomfinancialcontributions are tax deductible. From publicly available sources,It seems that a well known neighborhoodbusinessmandeveloped a winning marketing strategy to gain the confidence of nonprofitboards in order to influence their decisions regarding allocation of publicmonies. He targeted groups withupcoming construction projects that could reward him with tens of millions ofdollars for working on city projects. Keep in mind, the questions being asked here are not about the technicalqualifications of the favored construction business to do the work. Instead,this inquiry relates to the contract award processand whether the public interest in the spending of public monies was honestand fair. Here is how the corporate strategy likely worked: First, a member of the business joins a non-profit board of directors as a"selfless" volunteer. Next, the corporate representatives, from this company recognized for it'slong time construction activity, offers advice and guidance that is gratefully accepted by theother board members. The deliberations continue, steered by the friendly corporate representativesuntil not surprisingly, their firm is formally recognized as the logicalchoice to build the organization's new project. Even the City Council, guided by its liaison (now the Mayor) chips in millions of taxpayerfunds to support the collaboration. In two latest property expansion plans, the builder snared about $25 millionand $15 million for the Palo Alto Zoo, and Avenidas, the City's seniorcenter. There is a third project that has also been awarded (the Palo AltoHistory Museum) to the same builder, but its process history was notcollected for inclusion in this current report. In fact, there may be moreexamples. Third, once the monies were awarded, the corporate representatives leave theboard positions,don their hard hats, and resumes their professional entrepreneurial roles tosupervise theconstruction work. It all seems a pretty simple procedure, and was likely celebrated by many asa job well done. Even the City Council liaison assigned to monitor each agency likely gotmuscle spasms patting himself on the back for facilitating the process thatgranted major municipal contracts to thatfamiliar business well known to politicians and government employees. But wait, there is an element in the Federal Internal Revenue Service statutethat seems to deal with situations as described above, where a board memberof a tax deductible organization is prohibited from benefiting financiallydue to their "insider" status. It is clear that both the staffleadership and the individual board members are responsible to enforce theseconflict of interest rules. So far, no action has been identified as having been made by either the non-profit agency or the CityCouncil representative to explain the apparent conflict created by thatconstruction company's scheme to jump on and subsequently off tbe charityboards once a multi million dollar windfall is won. For example, to protect the taxpayers' interests, is there a record ofcompetitive bidding, given that scores of construction companies that operatein California and the U.S. are capable ofperforming under the contract requirements, perhaps at a lower cost to thepublic? However, if in fact no other bidders were sought,is there documentation thatascertains that thelocal company was justified as a "sole source." (other than that thebuilder/owner, a third generation member of the hometown's "old boy network"was just that, a familiar entity with persuasive influential friends, andclever charm offensive techniques. One more thing: In the case of the Avenidas senior center, the group's CEO,after having steered the charity's millions to her builder board member,reportedly resigned her position as he did, to take on coordinating theconstruction and expansion project. Perhaps a review by the Council or other enforcement bodies delegated withresponsibility to protect the public interest, will reveal if other specialbenefits accrued to individuals as a result of the granting of millions totheir on but then off "insider" board member, despite the flouting of Federalconflict protections. Note:Our main interest is improving the governing behaviors of themunicipality, having observed that in many interpretations of law,rules,administrative and enforcement practices in the City of Palo Alto, resultsseem to skew in favor of the private sector and away from an evenhandedapproach that good governance demands.(More about this in future reports.) ____Telimtu Gedidun, Editor Corrections or updates to:Redoing2020@gmail.com (please first read notes below)----------------------- NOTES TO READERS: If you are a working reporter or government investigatorthat wants more information in order to followup on reported issues, pleasesend your professional credentials, contact information, and an idea of yourinterests, and we will contact you via email and/or telephone. Ditto forCity or State or County officials authorized to followup to protect thepublic or track wrong-doing. ABOUT US: We are a volunteer source for important civic and consumer factsdesigned to help combat and overcome the relentless conduct by a self-serving variety of fraudsters that unjustly profit from taking advantage ofthe public's naivety and/or lack of knowledge. WE DON'T OPEN ATTACHMENTS. Please don't send attachments, images, or longstories of suffering, including abusive practices at the hands of Palo Altogovernment or its landlords (a common source of stress for about half thepopulation that are renters.) WE CANNOT ACCEPT UNREQUESTED MATERIALS. However, if you have well documentedevidence of Palo Alto municipal misdeeds similar to our report, send a shortparagraph in 100 words or less, with your confidential contact information and permission for us to connect you with professionals and investigators whoare following up. Otherwise, if coverage of consumer or renter or municipalethics and favoritism issues in our planned future editions is related toyour specific knowledge we may contact you. From:Kyla Farrell To:Council, City Subject:Please fill the Safe Routes to School Planner position Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:12:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am writing in strong support of the Safe Routes to School program. As an avid bike commuter and a parent of two young children—a TK and a 2nd grader—who ride their bikes to school every day, I know firsthand how essential safe, accessible bike routesare for families like mine. Biking is one of our primary forms of transportation, and one of the things I value most about living in Palo Alto is the robust bike infrastructure that allows mychildren to navigate our community independently and safely. The Safe Routes to School program plays a vital role in making that possible. I deeply value this program and the safety, confidence, and independence it provides to students and familiesacross our city. I want to see the City continue to invest in Safe Routes to School and keep it fully funded at current levels. With anticipated budget cuts ahead, I am writing to urge the City to prioritize this essentialwork by filling the currently vacant Safe Routes to School Planner position. This role is key to sustaining critical bicycle safety education and ensuring our children have safe, reliableoptions for getting to and from school. Best, Kyla FarrellPalo Alto Resident and PAUSD Parent From:Maor Greenberg To:Becchetti, Benjamin; Patrick Kelly; Marguerite Poyatos; Dave Stellman; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane; Lester Wong; Gaines, Chantal;Osbaldo R; Manu Kumar; Dave Stellman; City.Manager@paloalto.gov; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; Drew Maran; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa;Reifschneider, James; Transportation; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; Romain Clerou; Jade Jin; Xenia Czisch; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed;Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Tony Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:36:07 AM Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngemail-signture_87b8d7a2-c4f4-4cbf-b474-af2f32118dd2.pngF_1bc77f31-68bf-4143-80ea-3f34f539ea07.pnginsta_26696304-1b39-4259-9776-9f137454bed9.pngyelp_e821c57e-caea-4e87-a5dd-5905e7ca4fb1.pngHouzz_7abe75ad-d6ee-48ac-943b-592713e31957.pngP_aece63f3-754b-4dca-a0a9-e93b94de4930.pnggoogle_04352117-2fb4-4963-bb3e-cc5317269360.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Good Morning The Rv which getting marked right now didn't move 1" for the past 6 years, also for more than a year no one isleaving in it anymore, but the owner just comes and removes your notices as she own 1 more Rv which is parkednearby. Maor GreenbergCEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 From: Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@paloalto.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:45:07 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@paloalto.gov>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety You don't often get email from benjamin.becchetti@paloalto.gov. Learn why this is important Morning, We will have officers respond today. The area is due to be marked tomorrow as well for 72 hour violations. Ben Becchetti Lieutenant, Investigative Services Division/Traffic Palo Alto Police Department (650)329-2232 benjamin.becchetti@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org | www.papd.org From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 6:51 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@paloalto.gov>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@paloalto.gov>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Lt Becchetti, This vehicle has been abandoned for months with no sign of human activity. Can we please address? This is at the corner of Industrial and Charleston which makes pedestrian crossing very dangerous due to the lack of visibility. This violates quite a few municipal codes. Please address before someone gets hurt. Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:12:02 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Hi all, Bringing back to the front the topic of safety. Our employees continue to be put at unnecessary risk because of abandoned vehicles along these streets. The vehicle on Industrial in front of OneMove has been completely abandoned for months and has not moved an inch in years. This vehicle obstructs visibility for the entire street at a very dangerous intersection with many pedestrians (including children from PAUSD) that are at risk. This needs to be addressed. To Marguerite's question: What is the acceptable time to be parked? Per regulations, this vehicle is far past the 72hr limit. I would be happy to commission a traffic engineer if that is what is needed to justify towing this vehicle. It sounds a lot less expensive than a lawsuit stemming from a catastrophic incident from an otherwise entirely preventable situation. Respectfully, Patrick From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 1:51 PM To: Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Thanks, Ben. I am circling everyone back in for transparency as this is a critical issue for the businesses located in this area. What is the acceptable amount of time for a vehicle to be parked on asophospsmartbannerendThanks, Ben. I am circling everyone back in for transparency as this is a critical issue for the businesses located in this area. What is the acceptable amount of time for a vehicle to be parked on a street in Palo Alto without moving? On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:29 PM Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Marguerite, We are having our CSO’s visit your area on a weekly basis. They will mark them again this week. We have also asked our regular patrol officers spend more time in the area when they are available. Unfortunately though, if those vehicles are being moved as you mentioned, they could be properly in compliance with the parking regulations. Thank you, Ben From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:51 PM To: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Cc: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Please send officers by to put notices on the attached vehicles. These vehicles were moved 3/28, after notices were last put on them and have not moved for 10 days. This gentleman is playing music chairs with vehicles but none of them have left this street. Parking is still not available for the people who work on this street. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:44 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Attached are new pictures of the vehicles that I failed to attach in my previous email. Please have vehicles numbered 1-5 towed as soon as possible. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:41 AM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: You’re right Marguerite, there has never been anyone living in these vehicles. This person is using our street as his private storage for his collection of junk cars and the infamous “Raider” motor home. This parking is desperately needed by local businesses for our customers and employees. These and the other vehicles that are being tagged and ignoring it need to be towed NOW. On Mar 27, 2025, at 8:26 AM, Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you for sending by officers to put notices on the numerous vehicles that have not moved in a month. Please note, the gentleman I initially emailed about ripped the notices off of his 6 vehicles (including his RV) and has not moved them. At this point, can you tow them? Officers have explained to us in the past that the RV's cannot be towed since they are someone's dwelling. However, this gentleman's 5 additional vehicles he has parked on this street are not lived in. Rather, they are filled with trash. Attached is a picture numbering all of his vehicles in addition to his RV. None of these vehicles move and they really have no business on this street. Please also note, it may look as if I used the exact same pictures that were sent yesterday, but in fact I took new pictures this morning which show that he has seen the notices (as hes removed them from his windshield) and has made no attempt to move a single car. Also attached are pictures of the RV belonging to the same gentleman which is leaking sewage. Again, parking is exasperated here. Employees of businesses have to park in other businesses' parking lots because there is no room on the street. This is creating tensions between businesses who want their parking open for their own employees and customers. Why is this ok for a random person to decide that they are going to monopolize public parking and defy any sort of rules that are in place?? On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:06 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Can you please send community officers to put notices on vehicles that have not moved? Please see the attached images. All vehicles with a red X are associated with the RV with the damaged Raiders wrapping. These vehicles have all been parked in the same spots for at least a month. Thank you. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:19 PM Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> wrote: I wanted to let you know that the new resident has been seen wandering around theneighborhood. I initially encountered her on Saturday at 998 San Antonio, where shewas asking for money. Then, on Tuesday, she was going through our dumpster at923 Industrial. She just walked by our front, ranting. Cathi On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:44 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Is the plan for Palo Alto to follow in San Francisco's footsteps? What's next, open-air drug markets for Palo Alto. This person moved to our street just a few days ago, and we have had to call the police every day due to her behavior and out of concern for her well-being. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council <Image.jpeg> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time when they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached <email-signture_87b8d7a2-c4f4-4cbf- b474-af2f32118dd2.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610- 7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143-80ea- 3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39-4259-9776- 9f137454bed9.png> <yelp_e821c57e-caea-4e87-a5dd- 5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee-48ac-943b- 592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca-a0a9- e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4-4963-bb3e- cc5317269360.png> From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem. On Mar 12, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote: Hi Ben, Please take action. The safety of our employees and locals is critical. Anyone walking or driving on Industrial/Transport/Commercial is constantly at risk. Every crosswalk and entry is a major risk for anyone walking the sidewalks or pulling into any of these facilities where illegally parked abandoned vehicles are encamped. The visibility is very poor and the reason there are height and length restrictions for these types of streets; There are There are illegally running generators with unsafe live electrical lines oftentimes in the sidewalk or even running across entryways There are collections of volatile liquids like gasoline and oil (environmental issues aside) that pose additional hazards to anyone in the vicinity Please let us know what you need from us to support your team in enforcing our city regulations in order to make our workplaces safer for our employees. Respectfully, Patrick Kelly | CIO DMD Systems Recovery, LLC. C: 650.492.9003 patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com | www.dmdsystems.com <Outlook-DMD Logo.png> <Outlook- larpkod1.png> Book time to meet with me From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 12:39 PM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns A citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here. I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same. That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govsophospsmartbannerendA citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here. I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same. That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govern the city of Palo Alto and the state of California. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:13 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Please see the attached image. The pictured RV & associated white truck pulled up over night. As pictured, they disregarded marked parking spots, which is one of the things that exacerbates our parking issue. A small car or motorcycle may fit there but in a commercial area where most vehicles are trucks, this does not help. Can you please send a community officer to leave notices on the RVs? I hope this doesn't come across as petty, but every spot really does matter on this block. Employees of some businesses have to park in lots that belong to other businesses, which can create tension amongst neighbors. Thank you. On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 9:19 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: The police also responded and were very helpful. Initially the people involved denied everything, but when I sent the videos to the officer and he showed it to them they admitted to dumping their RV waste. They were cited for misdemeanor illegal waste dumping and will be going to court. They were then told to leave the area - and freed up two parking spaces. Thank you Palo Alto Police and Fire. Apparently reporting violations of every kind is what is going to have to be done on a regular basis if we want our streets cleaned up. On Dec 21, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you, Dave! Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 8:22 AM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: I just called the hotline for Palo Alto for hazardous waste dumping and gave them all of this information including license numbers. These vehicles are still parked there.They are sending the fire department out to flush the street and these people better be held accountable. On Dec 21, 2024, at 7:56 AM, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: License plate of the accomplice <IMG_0142.jpeg> Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 5:13 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Still parked right across from my building. Note, NO rear license plate. I do think that is against the law. I do also have video of them driving up, proof of the vehicle operating on city streets. Do you think they have insurance? <image.png> Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 4:54 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Here, they are emptying their waste in front of my building. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 9:18 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: Chantal, It looks like somehow most of the city council members, Vice Mayor and Mayor must have inadvertently been deleted from your last email response. I have added them back in to make sure they stay apprised of the situation. I hope it doesn't take the legal channels mentioned to start cleaning up our neighborhood immediately; this has gotten out of control and kicking the problem back and forth to different members of your city staff is not going to make it go away. Dave Stellman Transport St. On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 8:16 AM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction > wrote: Dear Chantal, Your response, while detailed, fails to address the critical andongoing violations of law,public safety, and business rights in the area. The City of Palo Alto has both the authorityand obligation to takeimmediate and decisive action to protect its residents,businesses, and public spaces.Allowing illegally parked, unsafe, and hazardous RVs to persist is unacceptable anddirectly violates state and localregulations. Below are specific legal and factual challenges to the City’s approach, along withdemands for corrective action: 1. Illegally Parked andUnsafe RVs California Vehicle Code §4000(a)(1) and Palo AltoMunicipal Code §10.48.010 clearly require allvehicles parked on public streets to display valid registration. Many of the RVsin question lack valid registration, making their presence illegal. Further,under California Vehicle Code§ 22651(o) and PAMC § 10.48.120, any vehicle unregistered for six months ormore may be towedimmediately. Additionally, vehicles withexposed sewage tanks, missing wheels, or other structural hazards are in direct violationof California Vehicle Code § 24002, which prohibits parking or operating vehicles in unsafeconditions. These RVs alsocreate a public health hazard under California Health and Safety Code § 117490, which prohibits improper disposal ofwaste and sewage. **2. ClarificationRequested RegardingUnregistered Vehicles In light of your response, please confirmwhether the City of Palo Altoallows unregistered vehiclesto be driven on its streets. - Ihave some fun vehicles Iwould love to order fromAlibaba and drive themaround Palo Alto... • California Vehicle Code §4000(a)(1) expressly prohibits the operation of unregistered vehicles. If theseRVs are being moved every 72 hours as claimed, and they lack proper registration, theiroperation is illegal understate law. • Allowing unregistered vehicles to remain or operatewithin city limits underminestraffic safety and compliance standards. This point must be clarifiedexplicitly: Does the City ofPalo Alto condone theoperation of unregisteredvehicles? 3. Abuse of the 72-HourRule The City’s reliance on PAMC § 10.36.060 to justify the continued presence of theseRVs is flawed. Surveillance footage and eyewitness accounts confirm that manyRVs are circumventing the 72-hour rule by wiping off chalk markings rather than physically moving. This is blatant non-compliance and undermines the intent of the ordinance. Furthermore, CaliforniaVehicle Code § 22669 explicitly allows for the removal of vehicles that are“wrecked, dismantled, orinoperative,” even if they are moved every 72 hours. TheCity has the authority to act,and failing to do so jeopardizes public safety and traffic flow. 4. Public Safety andSanitation Violations The exposed sewage tanks, illegal dumping, and general neglect by these RV occupantspose significant health andenvironmental risks. The City’s failure to enforce sanitationlaws, such as CaliforniaHealth and Safety Code §117490 and PAMC § 16.09.100, endangers residents, workers, and the environment.Additionally, blockingroadways and driveways is a clear violation of CaliforniaVehicle Code § 22500, whichprohibits parking that obstructstraffic flow or access. 5. Impact on Businesses andTraffic Flow Businesses in the area aresuffering due to blocked roadways, limited parking for customers, and safety concerns.Under California Vehicle Code § 21101(c) and PAMC § 10.48.120, the City has theauthority to regulate parking toensure the safety of businesses and residents. The City’s failure to allocate parking for business deliveries, customers, or even emergencyservices is a gross dereliction of duty. Blocking roadways for long periods creates safetyhazards, violates municipal code, and disrupts commerce. Conclusion and FinalDemands The City of Palo Alto has the legal authority and responsibility to act under thefollowing regulations: • PAMC § 10.48.120: Authorizes the removal of unregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code §22651(o): Allows towing of unregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code §22669: Mandates removal ofinoperative vehicles. • California Health and Safety Code § 117490:Prohibits illegal wastedisposal. • California Vehicle Code §21101(c): Permits parkingrestrictions to ensure safety. We demand the immediateimplementation of thefollowing measures: 1. Impound all unregistered, unsafe, or inoperative RVswithin two weeks. 2. Establish designated loading zones and 2-hour parking areas nearbusinesses. 3. Conduct regular sanitation inspections and impose penalties forviolations. 4. Provide a clear timeline for resolution and enforcement updates. The continued failure to act exposes the City to liability forneglecting public health and safety under California Government Code § 815.6,which requires municipalities toperform mandatory duties. We expect a formal response with a clear action plan within 14days. If no satisfactory action is taken, we reserve the right to escalate this matter throughlegal channels to protect ourbusinesses, employees, and the community. <email- signture_87b8d7a2- c4f4-4cbf-b474- af2f32118dd2.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143- 80ea-3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39- 4259-9776- 9f137454bed9.png> <yelp_e821c57e-caea- 4e87-a5dd- 5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee- 48ac-943b- 592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca- a0a9-e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4- 4963-bb3e- cc5317269360.png> From: Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@Cityof PaloAlto.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 7:12 AM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.constr uction>, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltogla ss.com>, osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com >, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.co m>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com >, Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@Cit yofPaloAlto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.co m>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstructio n.com>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.co m>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto. org>, Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers. com <Jacob@onemovemovers .com>, david@paloaltoconcrete. com <david@paloaltoconcrete .com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.co m>, RamonMorenoSchool@g mail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@ gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com >, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketma terials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@Ci tyofPaloAlto.org>, Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@C ityofPaloAlto.org>, Transportation <Transportation@CityofP aloAlto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.c om>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction .com>, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofP aloAlto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com> , Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com >, City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPal oAlto.org> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Com mercial concerns You don't often get email fromchantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org.Learn why this is important Hello everyone, Thank you for the emails and the time you all have spent to relay your concerns about the area surrounding your businesses. My name is Chantal and I’m the Deputy City Manager responding on behalf of the City Manager. I understand that you feel a lack of progress on the concerns you’ve identified. Through multiple City departments we are continuing to explore avenues to help mitigate those concerns being mindful of compliance with the federal Constitution and state laws, City resources, as well as providing respect to the humanity of the individuals experiencing homelessness. As our Police Lieutenant mentioned, our enforcement largely consists of the efforts described below involving multiple City departments, including: Weekly markings for 72-hour violations from our Community Service Officers. These are required by law prior to issuing citations for the 72- hour violations. Weekly re-checks of those markings, followed by citations if vehicles are not moved. Checks of the area by traffic officers as well as patrol officers on a routine basis, consistently several times per week. Officers make personal contact with RV occupants to speak with them regarding complaints and concerns, offer services or seek alternative solutions (i.e., a small repair to fix a vehicle). Through our Community Services Department, had our Homeless Outreach Team attempt to speak with RV occupants to connect them to available resources. Of note, there are limited safe parking resources available countywide. Consulted with our Code Enforcement team to address any activity that falls under municipal code violations. We hear you that there are perhaps more RVs in the neighborhood than have been in the past. Some previous concerns, relayed through the Police Department, have been for dumping, visibility/safety issues, or other nuisance-type complaints. Officers have responded to investigate and determine if a violation has in fact occurred in response to those complaints. As the officer who issues the citation must attest to its legality, we trust their judgement to use their discretion when deciding to cite or not. It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the RV’s are compliant with the 72-hour rule on a weekly basis according to our Police Department and their regular checks. RVs (and any other vehicle) are allowed to move and return to the exact same location under PAMC section 10.36.060. I asked the Police Department to examine the calls for service in your area since November 1st to look for additional complaints the Police Department might be able to address and to get an understanding of what they have responded to in your area. Officers responded to 29 calls for service between the 900 block of San Antonio, Commercial, Transport and Industrial Ave. Only 2 were reported complaints from a business about the RV’s. None of those 29 calls for service reported potential illegal behavior, such as illegal dumping, threatening or harassing behavior, or other criminal actions, on behalf of those working in the area. Most of those calls were self-initiated by the officers or calls from the RV occupants themselves. One of the calls, initiated by an RV occupant, reported suspicious persons that helped prevent a burglary to one of the businesses. Since early November, there have been several citations issued and one vehicle tow. I would encourage your employees to report, either online, through our non-emergency line (650-329-2413) or via 911, any behavior they feel is harassment, or potentially illegal or unsafe. The Police Department will continue to explore ideas such as additional collaboration with City departments, outside organizations and service providers, as well as nearby police departments whose actions can influence the issues felt in Palo Alto. We will also investigate the ability to perform street sweeping efforts and consult with our wastewater officials to address any cleanliness, illegal dumping and sanitation issues. The Police Department will be further assessing the vehicle code violations in the coming weeks to determine the necessity of removing some offending vehicles. Best, Chantal <image001.png>Chantal Cotton Gaines Deputy City Manager (650) 329-2572 |chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> From: Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction> Sent: Tuesday, December17, 2024 11:35 PMTo: Marguerite Poyatos<marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; osbaldo@or-builders.comCc: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com>;Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com >; Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>;Becchetti, Benjamin<Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>; LesterWong<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Moffatt, Pete<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>; Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>;McDonough, Melissa<Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Reifschneider, James<James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Patrick Kelly<info@basketmaterials.com>; John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Tanaka, Greg<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Binder,Andrew<Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims,Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>;Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>;City Attorney<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns CAUTION: This emailoriginated from outsideof the organization. Becautious of openingattachments andclicking on links. Dear Molly (City Attorney)and All Copied CityOfficials, On behalf of the manybusinesses in theCommercial-Industrial-Transport Street area whoare deeply frustrated withthe persistent and escalatingissues caused by illegallyparked RVs, unregisteredvehicles, and boats. Thissituation has reached acritical point, impacting notonly our daily operationsbut also the safety,reputation, and economichealth of our businesses. Impact on Businesses andCommunity 1. Safety and Sanitation Hazards: • Dumpedbodily waste, debris, andhazardous conditions arebecoming commonplace,creating significant healthrisks. • Aggressivebehavior and intimidationfrom some vehicleoccupants have beenreported, making the areaunsafe for employees andcustomers. 2. Operational Challenges: • Parking foremployees, customers, andservice vehicles is nearlynonexistent due to theoccupation of public spacesby illegally parked vehicles. • Businessesare suffering tangiblefinancial losses ascustomers avoid the areadue to these conditions. 3. Lack of Enforcement: • Despiterepeated citations andnotices issued byCommunity Service andSpecial Problems Officers,there has been nomeaningful resolution. • Violations ofCalifornia Vehicle Code4000(a)(1) VC(unregistered vehicles) andVehicle Code 22651(o)(1)VC (impound authority forregistration violations) arebeing ignored. Call for Immediate Action This is a collective appealto the city and itsrepresentatives to actdecisively to restore orderin our community. We urgethe city to prioritize: 1. Enforcement: Immediate towing and penalties for unregistered and illegally parked vehicles in alignment with state and local laws. 2. Comprehensive Solutions: A transparent and actionable plan to address these issues, including increased patrols, collaboration with businesses, and enforcement timelines. 3. Engagement: A commitment to working with affected businesses to ensure our concerns are heard and addressed effectively. Potential Legal Action The city’s ongoing inactionnot only jeopardizes publicsafety and operationalviability but also exposes itto potential legalconsequences. Manybusinesses on this emailchain are experiencingsevere financial andreputational damages due tothese unresolved issues. We cannot afford furtherdelays. Thank you for yourattention. Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto <image003.png>94303 <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltogla ss.com> Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:29 AM To: osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com >, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.co m>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com >, Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cit yofpaloalto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.co m>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstructio n.com>, Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.constr uction>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.co m>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto. org>, Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers. com <Jacob@onemovemovers .com>, david@paloaltoconcrete. com <david@paloaltoconcrete .com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.co m>, RamonMorenoSchool@g mail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@ gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com >, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketma terials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@ci tyofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <James.Reifschneider@ci tyofpaloalto.org>, Transportation <transportation@cityofpa loalto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.c om>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction .com>, Greg Tanaka <Greg.Tanaka@cityofpalo alto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalt o.org>, Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalt o.org>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpal oalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpa loalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloa lto.org>, Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto. org>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpalo alto.org>, Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cit yofpaloalto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com> , Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com > Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Com mercial concerns You don't often get email frommarguerite@paloaltoglass.com.Learn why this is important A community officer cameby today. Not sure whatwas done other thaninspecting the volume ofvehicles on the street. It ispretty disheartening thatthere are 14 cityemployees/email addressesincluded in this email andwe are getting no responsesor acknowledgements fromany of them. This seems tobe just a community forumfor us to air our grievancesregarding the area we allwork in rather than gettingany sort of resolutions. For years now, thebusinesses in this area havedealt with a number ofissues that are a direct resultof the RVs residing on thisstreet - dumped bodilywaste, aggressive dogs,aggression/intimidation,amongst many others. Wetry to vigilant and call thenon-emergency police lineto confront situations.Officers will come out andat the very most, they willgo and have a conversationwith whoever it is that'scausing issues. Then,nothing happens. We havehad customers complainthat they do not feel safecoming into this corner ofPalo Alto. This is directlyaffecting Palo Altobusinesses - many of whichon this street provide important/critical types ofservice to residents,businesses, localgovernment and schools inPalo Alto. Can we please get somehelp other than weeklynotices stuck onwindshields? On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at8:36 AM <osbaldo@or-builders.com> wrote: I agree 100 % The city of Palo A lotneeds to have a solutionfor this please O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 From: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Tuesday,December 17, 2024 5:34AMTo: Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>Cc: Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>; Marguerite Poyatos<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; BenjaminBecchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; LesterWong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com; PeteMoffatt<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>; DanMcKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>;Melissa McDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesReifschneider<James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>;Transportation<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Kelly<info@basketmaterials.com>; John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Greg Tanaka<Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker<Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; AndrewBinder<andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; CityCouncil<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; JadeJin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns Out of curiosity, were this my personal vehicle or one of my company vehicles, how long would it take for the City of Palo Alto to either site me or tow me? This is ridiculous; our streets have now become storage for people's crap; sorry, no better way to state that. This boat is not someone's dwelling; neither are all the additional cars associated with each camper out here. If you can't do anything about the campers, do something about the additional crap. Again, how quickly would the city respond if it were my car that was illegally parked out here? I implore everyone on this thread to continue this daily until something is done. Do better, City of Palo Alto. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:08 PM Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: This is ridiculous. TheSupreme Court hasgiven cities in the stateof California moretools to crack down onhomeless camps andillegally parked andstored vehicles. It’stime to clean up thismess in theCommercial -Industrial - Transportstreet area before itbecomes even more ofan eyesore than it isnow. This is just notfair to owners andcustomers trying hardto do business herewith NOAVAILABLEPARKING. Dave Stellman 4083 / 4085 TransportSt. On Dec16, 2024,at1:42 PM,ManuKumar<manu@k9ventures.com>wrote: Here aresomepicturesfrom mywalkaroundthe blocka weekago.. <IMG_1556.jpeg> <IMG_1557.jpeg> I countedat least10 RVsjust onCommercial St....too manyto evenfit on onecameraframe.And that'snot evencountingthe onesall overTransport andIndustrial. Some ofthe RVsalso haveothersupporting vehiclesas notedin prioremail. The Cityof PaloAltoclearlydoesn'tcareaboutbusinesses andwouldratherhave thestreets beaneyesore,sidewalksbeunusableto walkon, andparkingspots notbeavailabletocustomers/clientsoremployees. Warmregards, -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) <Safety on Industrial avenue.pdf> -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) <IMG_0946.jpg> <IMG_0947.jpg> -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City Subject:No more mandatory overtime for our brave firefighters. Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:57:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Chief Blackshire said at the Finance Committee meeting that he would staff Fire Station 4 with 12 hour overtime shifts of firefighters. That is unacceptable. South Palo Altans are deserving of well rested firefighters. They make life and death decisions when they arrive at a medical emergency, a gas leak, a burning building, a child inrespiratory difficulty. The mental and physical fatigue of overtime diminishes expert response. All medical journal articles studying this issue conclude that critical thinking andphysical ability begin to plummet after 8 hours of work. Hence, most medical mistakes occur after 8 hours of work. More than 40 hours of work is detrimental as well. Stanford's fire station does not staff on overtime! Stanford has five firefighters RTC, never reduced in number. South Palo Alto demands the same. We want five dedicatedfirefighters. Hire them, since the PAFD is woefully short staffed. We don't care if Stanford pays! South Palo Alto also pays! We are the bulk of the tax base! I have a petition which I have been circulating. Residents have come to my house at all hours to sign. I am waiting to collect 1000 signatures; I am almost there. It reads: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DEMAND THAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PROVIDESTHE FUNDING FOR A FULLY EQUIPPED FIRE ENGINE TO BE HOUSED PERMANENTLY AT FIRE STATION 4. WE DEMAND THAT A 24/7, FOUR MANSTAFF OF PERMANENT FIREFIGHTERS BE FUNDED FOR SAID ENGINE. There is another petition circulated by others which includes wording speaking to theneed for a medic truck, the capacity for an engine in the new Fire Station 4, and adherence to the 2018 STANDARDS OF COVER REPORT. Shame on Palo Alto for flogging our firefighters! I believe 23% of hours worked by our firefighters are overtime hours; I will double check that number. Regardless, we prideourselves as a city for innovation and progressive thinking, and yet we treat our firefighters, our first responders, with less than the honor they deserve, and we have done so for 17 years. The City fails to follow OSHA standards for staffing. Palo Alto is in violation of Departmentof Labor regulations speaking to excessive mandatory overtime. San Jose does better than Palo Alto does. The NLRB should be notified of the flogging our firefighters endure. It is all to save money, for 17 years now. The number of firefighters we have now and the number of engines we have now is less than that of thirteen years ago. Yes, I do realize we jettisonedFire Station 7!! However, we staff by apparatus and we are way below the resources we had 13 years ago in manpower and apparatus, yet we have a far, far greater workload. If the City needs to save money, consider that, of the $55 million dedicated to the fire department, it is softened by the $10 million Stanford pays, the $9 million the firedepartment should receive from Measure K this year, (as it received nothing last year from it) and the ambulance service which is a money maker. Might Mr. Shikada jettison three of his13 assistants to help pay for our brave firefighters? No one believes the Chief's contention that we have a city wide response. We know we had aone minute response before 2020, here in south Palo Alto. Now we have an 8 minute and greater response. The 12 schools surrounding FS4 deserve a one minute response. The other 6 schools beyond that perimeter, including the private schools on Fabian attended by theCrescent Park children, are also vulnerable to a delayed response. Please fund 10 dedicated firefighter positions for FS4. No overtime shifts. Even if you hireparamedics, we want well rested firefighters. Do not cut the three positions the Chief spoke of. Instead, hire up. We deserve no less. Thank you for protecting us.CeCi Kettendorf. RN, BSN 46 year resident of south Palo Alto3719 Grove Avenue Palo Alto,Ca. 94303 From:Kennith Hartley To:Council, City Subject:Re: Quality Estimates Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:56:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Just checking in, I just wanted to follow up-did you get my email below? Please confirm and let me know if you have any questions or send me the plans of your current job for a quote on our service chargesbefore getting started. ThanksOn April 18, 2025 06:16, Kennith Hartley <kennithhartley921@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Are you looking for a reliable partner to handle your construction takeoffs and estimates?Look no further, we provide accurate and timely services. Send us your plans in PDF format for a quote Regards, Kennith Hartley / Estimation Department Unity Estimating, LLC From:Becchetti, Benjamin To:Patrick Kelly; Marguerite Poyatos; Dave Stellman; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Gaines, Chantal;Osbaldo R; Manu Kumar; Dave Stellman; City.Manager@paloalto.gov; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; Drew Maran; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa;Reifschneider, James; Transportation; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; Romain Clerou; Jade Jin; Xenia Czisch; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed;Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Tony Subject:RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:45:12 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.png Morning, We will have officers respond today. The area is due to be marked tomorrow as well for 72 hour violations. Ben Becchetti Lieutenant, Investigative Services Division/Traffic Palo Alto Police Department (650)329-2232 benjamin.becchetti@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org | www.papd.org From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 6:51 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@paloalto.gov>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@paloalto.gov>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Lt Becchetti, This vehicle has been abandoned for months with no sign of human activity. Can we please address? This is at the corner of Industrial and Charleston which makes pedestrian crossing very dangerous due to the lack of visibility. This violates quite a few municipal codes. Please address before someone gets hurt. Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:12:02 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Hi all, Bringing back to the front the topic of safety. Our employees continue to be put at unnecessary risk because of abandoned vehicles along these streets. The vehicle on Industrial in front of OneMove has been completely abandoned for months and has not moved an inch in years. This vehicle obstructs visibility for the entire street at a very dangerous intersection with many pedestrians (including children from PAUSD) that are at risk. This needs to be addressed. To Marguerite's question: What is the acceptable time to be parked? Per regulations, this vehicle is far past the 72hr limit. I would be happy to commission a traffic engineer if that is what is needed to justify towing this vehicle. It sounds a lot less expensive than a lawsuit stemming from a catastrophic incident from an otherwise entirely preventable situation. Respectfully, Patrick From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 1:51 PM To: Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Thanks, Ben. I am circling everyone back in for transparency as this is a critical issue for the businesses located in this area. What is the acceptable amount of time for a vehicle to be parked on asophospsmartbannerendThanks, Ben. I am circling everyone back in for transparency as this is a critical issue for the businesses located in this area. What is the acceptable amount of time for a vehicle to be parked on a street in Palo Alto without moving? On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:29 PM Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Marguerite, We are having our CSO’s visit your area on a weekly basis. They will mark them again this week. We have also asked our regular patrol officers spend more time in the area when they are available. Unfortunately though, if those vehicles are being moved as you mentioned, they could be properly in compliance with the parking regulations. Thank you, Ben From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:51 PM To: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Cc: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Please send officers by to put notices on the attached vehicles. These vehicles were moved 3/28, after notices were last put on them and have not moved for 10 days. This gentleman is playing music chairs with vehicles but none of them have left this street. Parking is still not available for the people who work on this street. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:44 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Attached are new pictures of the vehicles that I failed to attach in my previous email. Please have vehicles numbered 1-5 towed as soon as possible. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:41 AM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: You’re right Marguerite, there has never been anyone living in these vehicles. This person is using our street as his private storage for his collection of junk cars and the infamous “Raider” motor home. This parking is desperately needed by local businesses for our customers and employees. These and the other vehicles that are being tagged and ignoring it need to be towed NOW. On Mar 27, 2025, at 8:26 AM, Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you for sending by officers to put notices on the numerous vehicles that have not moved in a month. Please note, the gentleman I initially emailed about ripped the notices off of his 6 vehicles (including his RV) and has not moved them. At this point, can you tow them? Officers have explained to us in the past that the RV's cannot be towed since they are someone's dwelling. However, this gentleman's 5 additional vehicles he has parked on this street are not lived in. Rather, they are filled with trash. Attached is a picture numbering all of his vehicles in addition to his RV. None of these vehicles move and they really have no business on this street. Please also note, it may look as if I used the exact same pictures that were sent yesterday, but in fact I took new pictures this morning which show that he has seen the notices (as hes removed them from his windshield) and has made no attempt to move a single car. Also attached are pictures of the RV belonging to the same gentleman which is leaking sewage. Again, parking is exasperated here. Employees of businesses have to park in other businesses' parking lots because there is no room on the street. This is creating tensions between businesses who want their parking open for their own employees and customers. Why is this ok for a random person to decide that they are going to monopolize public parking and defy any sort of rules that are in place?? On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:06 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Can you please send community officers to put notices on vehicles that have not moved? Please see the attached images. All vehicles with a red X are associated with the RV with the damaged Raiders wrapping. These vehicles have all been parked in the same spots for at least a month. Thank you. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:19 PM Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> wrote: I wanted to let you know that the new resident has been seen wandering around theneighborhood. I initially encountered her on Saturday at 998 San Antonio, where shewas asking for money. Then, on Tuesday, she was going through our dumpster at923 Industrial. She just walked by our front, ranting. Cathi On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:44 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Is the plan for Palo Alto to follow in San Francisco's footsteps? What's next, open-air drug markets for Palo Alto. This person moved to our street just a few days ago, and we have had to call the police every day due to her behavior and out of concern for her well-being. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council <Image.jpeg> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time when they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached <email-signture_87b8d7a2-c4f4-4cbf- b474-af2f32118dd2.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610- 7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143-80ea- 3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39-4259-9776- 9f137454bed9.png> <yelp_e821c57e-caea-4e87-a5dd- 5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee-48ac-943b- 592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca-a0a9- e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4-4963-bb3e- cc5317269360.png> From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem. On Mar 12, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote: Hi Ben, Please take action. The safety of our employees and locals is critical. Anyone walking or driving on Industrial/Transport/Commercial is constantly at risk. Every crosswalk and entry is a major risk for anyone walking the sidewalks or pulling into any of these facilities where illegally parked abandoned vehicles are encamped. The visibility is very poor and the reason there are height and length restrictions for these types of streets; There are There are illegally running generators with unsafe live electrical lines oftentimes in the sidewalk or even running across entryways There are collections of volatile liquids like gasoline and oil (environmental issues aside) that pose additional hazards to anyone in the vicinity Please let us know what you need from us to support your team in enforcing our city regulations in order to make our workplaces safer for our employees. Respectfully, Patrick Kelly | CIO DMD Systems Recovery, LLC. C: 650.492.9003 patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com | www.dmdsystems.com <Outlook-DMD Logo.png> <Outlook- larpkod1.png> Book time to meet with me From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 12:39 PM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns A citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here. I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same. That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govsophospsmartbannerendA citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here. I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same. That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govern the city of Palo Alto and the state of California. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:13 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Please see the attached image. The pictured RV & associated white truck pulled up over night. As pictured, they disregarded marked parking spots, which is one of the things that exacerbates our parking issue. A small car or motorcycle may fit there but in a commercial area where most vehicles are trucks, this does not help. Can you please send a community officer to leave notices on the RVs? I hope this doesn't come across as petty, but every spot really does matter on this block. Employees of some businesses have to park in lots that belong to other businesses, which can create tension amongst neighbors. Thank you. On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 9:19 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: The police also responded and were very helpful. Initially the people involved denied everything, but when I sent the videos to the officer and he showed it to them they admitted to dumping their RV waste. They were cited for misdemeanor illegal waste dumping and will be going to court. They were then told to leave the area - and freed up two parking spaces. Thank you Palo Alto Police and Fire. Apparently reporting violations of every kind is what is going to have to be done on a regular basis if we want our streets cleaned up. On Dec 21, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you, Dave! Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 8:22 AM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: I just called the hotline for Palo Alto for hazardous waste dumping and gave them all of this information including license numbers. These vehicles are still parked there.They are sending the fire department out to flush the street and these people better be held accountable. On Dec 21, 2024, at 7:56 AM, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: License plate of the accomplice <IMG_0142.jpeg> Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 5:13 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Still parked right across from my building. Note, NO rear license plate. I do think that is against the law. I do also have video of them driving up, proof of the vehicle operating on city streets. Do you think they have insurance? <image.png> Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 4:54 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Here, they are emptying their waste in front of my building. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 9:18 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: Chantal, It looks like somehow most of the city council members, Vice Mayor and Mayor must have inadvertently been deleted from your last email response. I have added them back in to make sure they stay apprised of the situation. I hope it doesn't take the legal channels mentioned to start cleaning up our neighborhood immediately; this has gotten out of control and kicking the problem back and forth to different members of your city staff is not going to make it go away. Dave Stellman Transport St. On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 8:16 AM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction > wrote: Dear Chantal, Your response, while detailed, fails to address the critical and ongoing violations of law,public safety, and businessrights in the area. The City of Palo Alto has both the authority and obligation to takeimmediate and decisive action to protect its residents, businesses, and public spaces.Allowing illegally parked,unsafe, and hazardous RVs to persist is unacceptable and directly violates state and localregulations. Below are specific legal and factual challenges to the City’s approach, along withdemands for corrective action: 1. Illegally Parked andUnsafe RVs California Vehicle Code §4000(a)(1) and Palo AltoMunicipal Code § 10.48.010 clearly require all vehicles parked on publicstreets to display validregistration. Many of the RVs in question lack valid registration, making theirpresence illegal. Further, under California Vehicle Code§ 22651(o) and PAMC §10.48.120, any vehicle unregistered for six months or more may be towedimmediately. Additionally, vehicles with exposed sewage tanks, missingwheels, or other structuralhazards are in direct violation of California Vehicle Code §24002, which prohibits parkingor operating vehicles in unsafeconditions. These RVs also create a public health hazard under California Health andSafety Code § 117490, which prohibits improper disposal of waste and sewage. **2. ClarificationRequested RegardingUnregistered Vehicles In light of your response, please confirmwhether the City of Palo Altoallows unregistered vehiclesto be driven on its streets. - Ihave some fun vehicles Iwould love to order fromAlibaba and drive themaround Palo Alto... • California Vehicle Code § 4000(a)(1) expressly prohibits the operation ofunregistered vehicles. If theseRVs are being moved every 72 hours as claimed, and they lack proper registration, theiroperation is illegal under state law. • Allowing unregistered vehicles to remain or operatewithin city limits undermines traffic safety and compliance standards. This point must be clarifiedexplicitly: Does the City ofPalo Alto condone theoperation of unregisteredvehicles? 3. Abuse of the 72-HourRule The City’s reliance on PAMC § 10.36.060 to justify thecontinued presence of theseRVs is flawed. Surveillance footage and eyewitness accounts confirm that manyRVs are circumventing the 72- hour rule by wiping off chalk markings rather than physicallymoving. This is blatant non-compliance and undermines the intent of the ordinance. Furthermore, CaliforniaVehicle Code §22669 explicitly allows for theremoval of vehicles that are “wrecked, dismantled, orinoperative,” even if they aremoved every 72 hours. The City has the authority to act, and failing to do so jeopardizespublic safety and traffic flow. 4. Public Safety andSanitation Violations The exposed sewage tanks, illegal dumping, and generalneglect by these RV occupantspose significant health and environmental risks. The City’s failure to enforce sanitationlaws, such as CaliforniaHealth and Safety Code §117490 and PAMC § 16.09.100, endangers residents, workers, and the environment.Additionally, blocking roadways and driveways is a clear violation of CaliforniaVehicle Code § 22500, whichprohibits parking that obstructs traffic flow or access. 5. Impact on Businesses andTraffic Flow Businesses in the area are suffering due to blockedroadways, limited parking for customers, and safety concerns. Under California VehicleCode § 21101(c) and PAMC §10.48.120, the City has the authority to regulate parking to ensure the safety of businessesand residents. The City’s failure to allocate parking for business deliveries,customers, or even emergencyservices is a gross dereliction of duty. Blocking roadways for long periods creates safetyhazards, violates municipal code, and disrupts commerce. Conclusion and FinalDemands The City of Palo Alto has thelegal authority andresponsibility to act under the following regulations: • PAMC § 10.48.120:Authorizes the removal ofunregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code §22651(o): Allows towing ofunregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code § 22669: Mandates removal of inoperative vehicles. • California Health andSafety Code § 117490: Prohibits illegal waste disposal. • California Vehicle Code §21101(c): Permits parking restrictions to ensure safety. We demand the immediateimplementation of the following measures: 1. Impound all unregistered,unsafe, or inoperative RVswithin two weeks. 2. Establish designated loading zones and 2-hour parking areas nearbusinesses. 3. Conduct regular sanitation inspections and impose penalties forviolations. 4. Provide a clear timeline for resolution and enforcement updates. The continued failure to act exposes the City to liability for neglecting public health andsafety under CaliforniaGovernment Code § 815.6, which requires municipalities to perform mandatory duties. Weexpect a formal response with aclear action plan within 14 days. If no satisfactory action istaken, we reserve the right toescalate this matter through legal channels to protect our businesses, employees, and thecommunity. <email- signture_87b8d7a2- Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143- 80ea-3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39- 4259-9776- 9f137454bed9.png> c4f4-4cbf-b474- af2f32118dd2.png><yelp_e821c57e-caea- 4e87-a5dd- 5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee- 48ac-943b- 592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca- a0a9-e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4- 4963-bb3e- cc5317269360.png> From: Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@Cityof PaloAlto.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 7:12 AM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.constr uction>, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltogla ss.com>, osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com >, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.co m>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com >, Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@Cit yofPaloAlto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.co m>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstructio n.com>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.co m>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto. org>, Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers. com <Jacob@onemovemovers .com>, david@paloaltoconcrete. com <david@paloaltoconcrete .com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.co m>, RamonMorenoSchool@g mail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@ gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com >, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketma terials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@Ci tyofPaloAlto.org>, Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@C ityofPaloAlto.org>, Transportation <Transportation@CityofP aloAlto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.c om>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction .com>, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofP aloAlto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com> , Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com >, City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPal oAlto.org> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Com mercial concerns You don't often get email fromchantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org.Learn why this is important Hello everyone, Thank you for the emails and the time you all have spent to relay your concerns about the area surrounding your businesses. My name is Chantal and I’m the Deputy City Manager responding on behalf of the City Manager. I understand that you feel a lack of progress on the concerns you’ve identified. Through multiple City departments we are continuing to explore avenues to help mitigate those concerns being mindful of compliance with the federal Constitution and state laws, City resources, as well as providing respect to the humanity of the individuals experiencing homelessness. As our Police Lieutenant mentioned, our enforcement largely consists of the efforts described below involving multiple City departments, including: Weekly markings for 72-hour violations from our Community Service Officers. These are required by law prior to issuing citations for the 72- hour violations. Weekly re-checks of those markings, followed by citations if vehicles are not moved. Checks of the area by traffic officers as well as patrol officers on a routine basis, consistently several times per week. Officers make personal contact with RV occupants to speak with them regarding complaints and concerns, offer services or seek alternative solutions (i.e., a small repair to fix a vehicle). Through our Community Services Department, had our Homeless Outreach Team attempt to speak with RV occupants to connect them to available resources. Of note, there are limited safe parking resources available countywide. Consulted with our Code Enforcement team to address any activity that falls under municipal code violations. We hear you that there are perhaps more RVs in the neighborhood than have been in the past. Some previous concerns, relayed through the Police Department, have been for dumping, visibility/safety issues, or other nuisance-type complaints. Officers have responded to investigate and determine if a violation has in fact occurred in response to those complaints. As the officer who issues the citation must attest to its legality, we trust their judgement to use their discretion when deciding to cite or not. It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the RV’s are compliant with the 72-hour rule on a weekly basis according to our Police Department and their regular checks. RVs (and any other vehicle) are allowed to move and return to the exact same location under PAMC section 10.36.060. I asked the Police Department to examine the calls for service in your area since November 1st to look for additional complaints the Police Department might be able to address and to get an understanding of what they have responded to in your area. Officers responded to 29 calls for service between the 900 block of San Antonio, Commercial, Transport and Industrial Ave. Only 2 were reported complaints from a business about the RV’s. None of those 29 calls for service reported potential illegal behavior, such as illegal dumping, threatening or harassing behavior, or other criminal actions, on behalf of those working in the area. Most of those calls were self-initiated by the officers or calls from the RV occupants themselves. One of the calls, initiated by an RV occupant, reported suspicious persons that helped prevent a burglary to one of the businesses. Since early November, there have been several citations issued and one vehicle tow. I would encourage your employees to report, either online, through our non-emergency line (650-329-2413) or via 911, any behavior they feel is harassment, or potentially illegal or unsafe. The Police Department will continue to explore ideas such as additional collaboration with City departments, outside organizations and service providers, as well as nearby police departments whose actions can influence the issues felt in Palo Alto. We will also investigate the ability to perform street sweeping efforts and consult with our wastewater officials to address any cleanliness, illegal dumping and sanitation issues. The Police Department will be further assessing the vehicle code violations in the coming weeks to determine the necessity of removing some offending vehicles. Best, Chantal <image001.png>Chantal Cotton Gaines Deputy City Manager (650) 329-2572 |chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> From: Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction> Sent: Tuesday, December17, 2024 11:35 PMTo: Marguerite Poyatos<marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; osbaldo@or-builders.comCc: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com>;Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>; Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>;Becchetti, Benjamin<Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>; LesterWong<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Moffatt, Pete<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>; Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>;McDonough, Melissa<Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Reifschneider, James<James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Patrick Kelly<info@basketmaterials.com>; John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.c om>; Tanaka, Greg<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Binder,Andrew<Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims,Julie<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>;Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>;City Attorney<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns CAUTION: This emailoriginated from outsideof the organization. Becautious of openingattachments andclicking on links. Dear Molly (City Attorney)and All Copied CityOfficials, On behalf of the manybusinesses in theCommercial-Industrial-Transport Street area whoare deeply frustrated withthe persistent and escalatingissues caused by illegallyparked RVs, unregisteredvehicles, and boats. Thissituation has reached acritical point, impacting notonly our daily operationsbut also the safety, reputation, and economichealth of our businesses. Impact on Businesses andCommunity 1. Safety and Sanitation Hazards: • Dumpedbodily waste, debris, andhazardous conditions arebecoming commonplace,creating significant healthrisks. • Aggressivebehavior and intimidationfrom some vehicleoccupants have beenreported, making the areaunsafe for employees andcustomers. 2. Operational Challenges: • Parking foremployees, customers, andservice vehicles is nearlynonexistent due to theoccupation of public spacesby illegally parked vehicles. • Businessesare suffering tangiblefinancial losses ascustomers avoid the areadue to these conditions. 3. Lack of Enforcement: • Despiterepeated citations andnotices issued byCommunity Service andSpecial Problems Officers,there has been nomeaningful resolution. • Violations ofCalifornia Vehicle Code4000(a)(1) VC(unregistered vehicles) andVehicle Code 22651(o)(1)VC (impound authority for registration violations) arebeing ignored. Call for Immediate Action This is a collective appealto the city and itsrepresentatives to actdecisively to restore orderin our community. We urgethe city to prioritize: 1. Enforcement: Immediate towing and penalties for unregistered and illegally parked vehicles in alignment with state and local laws. 2. Comprehensive Solutions: A transparent and actionable plan to address these issues, including increased patrols, collaboration with businesses, and enforcement timelines. 3. Engagement: A commitment to working with affected businesses to ensure our concerns are heard and addressed effectively. Potential Legal Action The city’s ongoing inactionnot only jeopardizes publicsafety and operationalviability but also exposes itto potential legalconsequences. Manybusinesses on this emailchain are experiencingsevere financial andreputational damages due tothese unresolved issues. We cannot afford furtherdelays. Thank you for yourattention. <image003.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltogla ss.com> Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:29 AM To: osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com >, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.co m>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com >, Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cit yofpaloalto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.co m>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstructio n.com>, Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.constr uction>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.co m>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto. org>, Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers. com <Jacob@onemovemovers .com>, david@paloaltoconcrete. com <david@paloaltoconcrete .com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.co m>, RamonMorenoSchool@g mail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@ gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com >, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketma terials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@ci tyofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <James.Reifschneider@ci tyofpaloalto.org>, Transportation <transportation@cityofpa loalto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.c om>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction .com>, Greg Tanaka <Greg.Tanaka@cityofpalo alto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalt o.org>, Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalt o.org>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpal oalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpa loalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloa lto.org>, Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto. org>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpalo alto.org>, Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cit yofpaloalto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com> , Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com > Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Com mercial concerns You don't often get email frommarguerite@paloaltoglass.com.Learn why this is important A community officer cameby today. Not sure whatwas done other thaninspecting the volume ofvehicles on the street. It ispretty disheartening thatthere are 14 cityemployees/email addressesincluded in this email andwe are getting no responsesor acknowledgements fromany of them. This seems tobe just a community forumfor us to air our grievancesregarding the area we allwork in rather than gettingany sort of resolutions. For years now, thebusinesses in this area havedealt with a number of issues that are a direct resultof the RVs residing on thisstreet - dumped bodilywaste, aggressive dogs,aggression/intimidation,amongst many others. Wetry to vigilant and call thenon-emergency police lineto confront situations.Officers will come out andat the very most, they willgo and have a conversationwith whoever it is that'scausing issues. Then,nothing happens. We havehad customers complainthat they do not feel safecoming into this corner ofPalo Alto. This is directlyaffecting Palo Altobusinesses - many of whichon this street provideimportant/critical types ofservice to residents,businesses, localgovernment and schools inPalo Alto. Can we please get somehelp other than weeklynotices stuck onwindshields? On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at8:36 AM <osbaldo@or-builders.com> wrote: I agree 100 % The city of Palo A lotneeds to have a solutionfor this please O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 From: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Tuesday,December 17, 2024 5:34AMTo: Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>Cc: Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>; Marguerite Poyatos<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; BenjaminBecchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; LesterWong<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com; PeteMoffatt<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>; DanMcKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>;Melissa McDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesReifschneider<James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>;Transportation<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Kelly<info@basketmaterials.c om>; John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Greg Tanaka<Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker<Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; AndrewBinder<andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; CityCouncil<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; JadeJin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns Out of curiosity, were this my personal vehicle or one of my company vehicles, how long would it take for the City of Palo Alto to either site me or tow me? This is ridiculous; our streets have now become storage for people's crap; sorry, no better way to state that. This boat is not someone's dwelling; neither are all the additional cars associated with each camper out here. If you can't do anything about the campers, do something about the additional crap. Again, how quickly would the city respond if it were my car that was illegally parked out here? I implore everyone on this thread to continue this daily until something is done. Do better, City of Palo Alto. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at3:08 PM Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: This is ridiculous. TheSupreme Court has given cities in the stateof California moretools to crack down onhomeless camps andillegally parked andstored vehicles. It’stime to clean up thismess in theCommercial -Industrial - Transportstreet area before itbecomes even more ofan eyesore than it isnow. This is just notfair to owners andcustomers trying hardto do business herewith NOAVAILABLEPARKING. Dave Stellman 4083 / 4085 TransportSt. On Dec16, 2024,at1:42 PM,ManuKumar<manu@k9ventures.com>wrote: Here aresomepicturesfrom mywalkaroundthe blocka weekago.. <IMG_1556.jpeg> <IMG_1557.jpeg> I countedat least10 RVsjust onCommercial St....too manyto evenfit on onecameraframe.And that'snot evencountingthe onesall overTransportandIndustrial. Some ofthe RVsalso haveothersupporting vehiclesas notedin prioremail. The Cityof PaloAltoclearlydoesn'tcareaboutbusinesses andwouldratherhave thestreets beaneyesore,sidewalksbeunusableto walkon, andparkingspots notbeavailableto customers/clientsoremployees. Warmregards, -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) <Safety on Industrial avenue.pdf> -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) <IMG_0946.jpg> <IMG_0947.jpg> -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) From:mark kleppenger Cc:christine.chen@morganphilips.com; china-airlines@spazio.aero; chang.shih@u.nus.edu;chinaairlines.ie@aviareps.com; chinaairlinesfrance@aviareps.com; chinabroker@wework.cn;christyho@outlook.com; chtours2@si.edu; chris@mixingbowl.ca; chuck@uniquevenues.com;chuckcreacy@uky.edu; chulmleighgolfcourse@outlook.com; chun-yi.lee@nottingham.ac.uk;cian.osullivan@linesight.com; ciaran.hickey@linesight.com; ciel.rodriguez@uga.edu; ciharris@princeton.edu;cindy.xu@rxglobal.com; christine.brush@nhlawnclub.com; cho@kenilworth.com; chicago@ocac.gov.tw;christie@joels.com; circdesk@brookings.edu; circle@nga.gov; circulation@artforum.com;circulation@columbian.com; circulation@mariettatimes.com; china-airlines@apghellas.gr;circulation@thealpenanews.com; christine@therowleyestates.com; cires.norway@aviareps.com;cires.scan@aviareps.com; christopher.e.voss@wmich.edu; City Attorney; City Auditor; christy@aaa.org.hk; Clerk,City; city.commons@cityoflondon.gov.uk; Council, City; cityattorney@greeleygov.com;cityclerk@greeleygov.com; christopher_cook@edenpr.k12.mn.us; citygardens@cityoflondon.gov.uk;citylounge@executivecentre.com; citymanager@surrey.ca; chinasupport@pret-a-portrait.net; City Mgr;citysurveyor@cityoflondon.gov.uk; civilrights@kingcounty.gov; civilrights@mailbox.sc.edu Subject:AMELIA & MARK NOVEMBER 2025 Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 7:28:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello I hope this message finds you well. My fiancé and I are in the early stages of planning our wedding for 2025, and we were excited to reach out to you. My sister, Lauren Taylor, was married at your venue last year in April, and we were truly impressed by the beauty of thespace and the wonderful experience. Could you kindly provide us with details about your wedding packages and pricing for 2025?We would be so grateful for any information you can share. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Amelia and Mark From:Patrick Kelly To:Marguerite Poyatos; Becchetti, Benjamin; Dave Stellman; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Gaines,Chantal; Osbaldo R; Manu Kumar; Dave Stellman; City.Manager@paloalto.gov; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; Drew Maran; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa;Reifschneider, James; Transportation; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; Romain Clerou; Jade Jin; Xenia Czisch; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed;Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Tony Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 6:56:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Lt Becchetti,This vehicle has been abandoned for months with no sign of human activity. Can we please address? This is at thecorner of Industrial and Charleston which makes pedestrian crossing very dangerous due to the lack of visibility.This violates quite a few municipal codes. Please address before someone gets hurt. Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:12:02 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Romain Clerou <romain@presidiobay.com>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tony <tony@onemovemovers.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Hi all, Bringing back to the front the topic of safety. Our employees continue to be put at unnecessary risk because of abandoned vehicles along these streets. The vehicle on Industrial in front of OneMove has been completely abandoned for months and has not moved an inch in years. This vehicle obstructs visibility for the entire street at a very dangerous intersection with many pedestrians (including children from PAUSD) that are at risk. This needs to be addressed. To Marguerite's question: What is the acceptable time to be parked? Per regulations, this vehicle is far past the 72hr limit. I would be happy to commission a traffic engineer if that is what is needed to justify towing this vehicle. It sounds a lot less expensive than a lawsuit stemming from a catastrophic incident from an otherwise entirely preventable situation. Respectfully, Patrick From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 1:51 PM To: Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; news@padailypost.com <news@padailypost.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City.Manager@paloalto.gov <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Drew Maran <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Thanks, Ben. I am circling everyone back in for transparency as this is a critical issue for the businesses located inthis area. What is the acceptable amount of time for a vehicle to be parked on a street in Palo Alto without moving? On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:29 PM Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:Hi Marguerite, We are having our CSO’s visit your area on a weekly basis. They will mark them again this week. We havealso asked our regular patrol officers spend more time in the area when they are available. Unfortunatelythough, if those vehicles are being moved as you mentioned, they could be properly in compliance with theparking regulations. Thank you,Ben From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:51 PMTo: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>Cc: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; news@padailypost.com; Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Gaines, Chantal<Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>;Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>;City Mgr <City.Manager@paloalto.gov>; Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reifschneider, James<James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; JohnLerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Burt, Patrick<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Please send officers by to put notices on the attached vehicles. These vehicles were moved 3/28, after notices were last put on them and have not moved for 10 days. Thisgentleman is playing music chairs with vehicles but none of them have left this street. Parking is still notavailable for the people who work on this street. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:44 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Attached are new pictures of the vehicles that I failed to attach in my previous email. Please have vehiclesnumbered 1-5 towed as soon as possible. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 8:41 AM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: You’re right Marguerite, there has never been anyone living in these vehicles. This person is using ourstreet as his private storage for his collection of junk cars and the infamous “Raider” motor home. Thisparking is desperately needed by local businesses for our customers and employees. These and the othervehicles that are being tagged and ignoring it need to be towed NOW. On Mar 27, 2025, at 8:26 AM, Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>wrote: Thank you for sending by officers to put notices on the numerous vehicles that have not movedin a month. Please note, the gentleman I initially emailed about ripped the notices off of his 6vehicles (including his RV) and has not moved them. At this point, can you tow them?Officers have explained to us in the past that the RV's cannot be towed since they aresomeone's dwelling. However, this gentleman's 5 additional vehicles he has parked on thisstreet are not lived in. Rather, they are filled with trash. Attached is a picture numbering all ofhis vehicles in addition to his RV. None of these vehicles move and they really have nobusiness on this street. Please also note, it may look as if I used the exact same pictures thatwere sent yesterday, but in fact I took new pictures this morning which show that he has seenthe notices (as hes removed them from his windshield) and has made no attempt to move asingle car. Also attached are pictures of the RV belonging to the same gentleman which is leakingsewage. Again, parking is exasperated here. Employees of businesses have to park in other businesses'parking lots because there is no room on the street. This is creating tensions betweenbusinesses who want their parking open for their own employees and customers. Why is thisok for a random person to decide that they are going to monopolize public parking and defyany sort of rules that are in place?? On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:06 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>wrote: Can you please send community officers to put notices on vehicles that have not moved? Please see the attached images. All vehicles with a red X are associated with the RV withthe damaged Raiders wrapping. These vehicles have all been parked in the same spots for atleast a month. Thank you. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:19 PM Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> wrote: I wanted to let you know that the new resident has been seen wandering aroundthe neighborhood. I initially encountered her on Saturday at 998 San Antonio,where she was asking for money. Then, on Tuesday, she was going through ourdumpster at 923 Industrial. She just walked by our front, ranting. Cathi On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:44 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Is the plan for Palo Alto to follow in San Francisco's footsteps? What's next, open-air drug markets for Palo Alto. This person moved to our street just a few days ago, and we have had to call the police every day due to her behavior and out of concern for her well-being. Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice PresidentO: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.84554067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council <Image.jpeg> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PMTo: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>;chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>;osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong<LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; DaveStellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; PeteMoffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney<city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>;Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker<vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>;Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to theman living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stoveinside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard notonly for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles &businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe forpedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed bypeople associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues.Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time when theywill be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowherenear the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehiclesrarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimalprogress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come andclean the street as it’s not safe see attached <email-signture_87b8d7a2-c4f4-4cbf-b474-af2f32118dd2.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610- 7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143-80ea-3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39-4259-9776-9f137454bed9.png> <yelp_e821c57e-caea-4e87-a5dd-5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee-48ac-943b-592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca-a0a9-e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4-4963-bb3e-cc5317269360.png> From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AMTo: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; DaveStellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>;Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>;nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; CityAttorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>;Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>;Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of thecountry? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of theunsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enoughevidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces,local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun theprocess of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Itsnot a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow somevehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even biggerproblem. On Mar 12, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Patrick Kelly<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote: Hi Ben, Please take action. The safety of our employees and locals is critical. Anyone walking or driving on Industrial/Transport/Commercial is constantly at risk. Every crosswalk and entry is a major risk for anyone walking the sidewalks or pulling into any of these facilities where illegally parked abandoned vehicles are encamped. The visibility is very poor and the reason there are height and length restrictions for these types of streets; There are There are illegally running generators with unsafe live electrical lines oftentimes in the sidewalk or even running across entryways There are collections of volatile liquids like gasoline and oil (environmental issues aside) that pose additional hazards to anyone in the vicinity Please let us know what you need from us to support your team in enforcing our city regulations in order to make our workplaces safer for our employees. Respectfully, Patrick Kelly | CIODMD Systems Recovery, LLC. C: 650.492.9003 patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com | www.dmdsystems.com<Outlook-DMD Logo.png> <Outlook-larpkod1.png> Book time to meet with me From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 12:39 PMTo: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com<osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong<lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt<pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com<Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com<david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com<RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com<nancy@drewmaran.com>; Patrick Kelly<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider<James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Kelly<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder<Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker<Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt<Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor<maor@greenberg.construction>Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns A citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here. I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same. That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govsophospsmartbannerendA citation for double parking and expired tags is what is needed here.I’m positive that’s what the police would do to me if I did the same.That is unless there are two separate sets of laws that govern the cityof Palo Alto and the state of California. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:13 AM Marguerite Poyatos<marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Please see the attached image. The pictured RV & associated white truck pulled up over night. Aspictured, they disregarded marked parking spots, which is one of thethings that exacerbates our parking issue. A small car or motorcycle may fit there but in a commercial areawhere most vehicles are trucks, this does not help. Can you please send a community officer to leave notices on theRVs? I hope this doesn't come across as petty, but every spot reallydoes matter on this block. Employees of some businesses have topark in lots that belong to other businesses, which can create tensionamongst neighbors. Thank you. On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 9:19 PM Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: The police also responded and were very helpful. Initially thepeople involved denied everything, but when I sent the videos tothe officer and he showed it to them they admitted to dumpingtheir RV waste. They were cited for misdemeanor illegal wastedumping and will be going to court. They were then told to leavethe area - and freed up two parking spaces. Thank you Palo AltoPolice and Fire. Apparently reporting violations of every kind iswhat is going to have to be done on a regular basis if we want ourstreets cleaned up. On Dec 21, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you, Dave! Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 8:22 AM Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com> wrote: I just called the hotline for Palo Alto for hazardouswaste dumping and gave them all of thisinformation including license numbers. Thesevehicles are still parked there.They are sending thefire department out to flush the street and thesepeople better be held accountable. On Dec 21, 2024, at 7:56 AM, BillMcLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>wrote: License plate of the accomplice<IMG_0142.jpeg> Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 5:13 AM BillMcLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>wrote: Still parked right across from my building. Note, NO rear license plate. I do think that is against the law. I do also have video of them driving up, proof of the vehicle operating on city streets. Do you think they have insurance? <image.png> Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 4:54 AMBill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Here, they are emptying their waste in front of my building. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 9:18 PMDave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>wrote: Chantal, It looks like somehow most ofthe city council members, ViceMayor and Mayor must haveinadvertently been deleted fromyour last email response. I have added them back in tomake sure they stay apprised ofthe situation. I hope it doesn'ttake the legal channelsmentioned to start cleaning upour neighborhood immediately;this has gotten out of controland kicking the problem backand forth to different membersof your city staff is not going tomake it go away. Dave StellmanTransport St. On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at8:16 AM Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>wrote: Dear Chantal, Your response, while detailed,fails to address the critical andongoing violations of law, public safety, and business rights in thearea. The City of Palo Alto has both the authority and obligation to take immediate and decisiveaction to protect its residents, businesses, and public spaces.Allowing illegally parked,unsafe, and hazardous RVs to persist is unacceptable anddirectly violates state and local regulations. Below are specific legal and factual challenges tothe City’s approach, along with demands for corrective action: 1. Illegally Parked andUnsafe RVs California Vehicle Code §4000(a)(1) and Palo AltoMunicipal Code § 10.48.010 clearly require allvehicles parked on public streets to display valid registration. Many of the RVs in question lackvalid registration, making their presence illegal. Further,under California Vehicle Code §22651(o) and PAMC § 10.48.120, any vehicleunregistered for six months or more may be towed immediately. Additionally, vehicles withexposed sewage tanks, missingwheels, or other structural hazards are in direct violationof California Vehicle Code § 24002, which prohibits parking or operating vehicles in unsafeconditions. These RVs also create a public health hazardunder California Health andSafety Code § 117490, which prohibits improper disposal ofwaste and sewage. **2. Clarification RequestedRegarding UnregisteredVehicles In light of your response, pleaseconfirm whether the City ofPalo Alto allows unregisteredvehicles to be driven on itsstreets. - I have some funvehicles I would love to orderfrom Alibaba and drive themaround Palo Alto... • California Vehicle Code §4000(a)(1) expressly prohibitsthe operation of unregistered vehicles. If these RVs arebeing moved every 72 hours asclaimed, and they lack proper registration, their operation isillegal under state law. • Allowing unregistered vehicles to remain or operatewithin city limits undermines traffic safety and compliancestandards. This point must be clarifiedexplicitly: Does the City of PaloAlto condone the operation ofunregistered vehicles? 3. Abuse of the 72-Hour Rule The City’s reliance on PAMC § 10.36.060 to justify the continued presence of these RVs is flawed.Surveillance footage and eyewitness accounts confirm thatmany RVs are circumventing the72-hour rule by wiping off chalk markings rather than physicallymoving. This is blatant non- compliance and undermines the intent of the ordinance. Furthermore, California VehicleCode § 22669 explicitly allows for the removal of vehicles thatare “wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative,” even if they are moved every 72 hours. The Cityhas the authority to act, and failing to do so jeopardizespublic safety and traffic flow. 4. Public Safety andSanitation Violations The exposed sewage tanks,illegal dumping, and generalneglect by these RV occupants pose significant health andenvironmental risks. The City’s failure to enforce sanitation laws, such as California Health andSafety Code §117490 and PAMC § 16.09.100, endangers residents, workers, andthe environment. Additionally,blocking roadways and driveways is a clear violationof California Vehicle Code § 22500, which prohibits parking that obstructs traffic flow oraccess. 5. Impact on Businesses andTraffic Flow Businesses in the area aresuffering due to blocked roadways, limited parking forcustomers, and safety concerns. Under California Vehicle Code§ 21101(c) and PAMC §10.48.120, the City has the authority to regulate parking toensure the safety of businessesand residents. The City’s failure to allocate parking for business deliveries,customers, or even emergency services is a gross dereliction ofduty. Blocking roadways for long periods creates safety hazards, violates municipal code, anddisrupts commerce. Conclusion and FinalDemands The City of Palo Alto has thelegal authority and responsibility to act under the followingregulations:• PAMC § 10.48.120: Authorizes the removal ofunregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code §22651(o): Allows towing ofunregistered vehicles. • California Vehicle Code §22669: Mandates removal ofinoperative vehicles. • California Health andSafety Code § 117490: Prohibits illegal waste disposal.• California Vehicle Code § 21101(c): Permits parkingrestrictions to ensure safety. We demand the immediate implementation of the following measures:1. Impound all unregistered, unsafe, or inoperative RVswithin two weeks.2. Establish designated loading zones and 2-hourparking areas near businesses. 3. Conduct regular sanitation inspections and imposepenalties for violations. 4. Provide a clear timeline forresolution and enforcement updates. The continued failure to act exposes the City to liability for neglecting public health andsafety under California Government Code § 815.6,which requires municipalities toperform mandatory duties. We expect a formal response with aclear action plan within 14 days. If no satisfactory action is taken, we reserve the right to escalatethis matter through legal channels to protect our businesses,employees, and the community. <email-signture_87b8d7a2-c4f4-4cbf-b474-af2f32118dd2.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <F_1bc77f31-68bf-4143-80ea-3f34f539ea07.png> <insta_26696304-1b39-4259-9776-9f137454bed9.png> <yelp_e821c57e-caea-4e87-a5dd-5905e7ca4fb1.png> <Houzz_7abe75ad-d6ee-48ac-943b-592713e31957.png> <P_aece63f3-754b-4dca-a0a9-e93b94de4930.png> <google_04352117-2fb4-4963-bb3e-cc5317269360.png> From: Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 at 7:12 AM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>, osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>, Becchetti, Benjamin <Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>, Moffatt, Pete <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>, david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>, RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.com>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>, Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>, City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns You don't often get email fromchantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org.Learn why this is important Hello everyone, Thank you for the emails and the time you all have spent to relay your concerns about the area surrounding your businesses. My name is Chantal and I’m the Deputy City Manager responding on behalf of the City Manager. I understand that you feel a lack of progress on the concerns you’ve identified. Through multiple City departments we are continuing to explore avenues to help mitigate those concerns being mindful of compliance with the federal Constitution and state laws, City resources, as well as providing respect to the humanity of the individuals experiencing homelessness. As our Police Lieutenant mentioned, our enforcement largely consists of the efforts described below involving multiple City departments, including: Weekly markings for72-hour violationsfrom our CommunityService Officers.These are required bylaw prior to issuing citations for the 72-hour violations. Weekly re-checks ofthose markings,followed by citations ifvehicles are notmoved. Checks of the area bytraffic officers as wellas patrol officers on aroutine basis,consistently severaltimes per week. Officers make personalcontact with RVoccupants to speakwith them regardingcomplaints andconcerns, offerservices or seekalternative solutions(i.e., a small repair tofix a vehicle). Through ourCommunity ServicesDepartment, had ourHomeless OutreachTeam attempt to speakwith RV occupants toconnect them toavailable resources. Ofnote, there are limitedsafe parking resourcesavailable countywide. Consulted with ourCode Enforcementteam to address anyactivity that falls undermunicipal codeviolations. We hear you that there are perhaps more RVs in the neighborhood than have been in the past. Some previous concerns, relayed through the Police Department, have been for dumping, visibility/safety issues, or other nuisance-type complaints. Officers have responded to investigate and determine if a violation has in fact occurred in response to those complaints. As the officer who issues the citation must attest to its legality, we trust their judgement to use their discretion when deciding to cite or not. It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the RV’s are compliant with the 72-hour rule on a weekly basis according to our Police Department and their regular checks. RVs (and any other vehicle) are allowed to move and return to the exact same location under PAMC section 10.36.060. I asked the Police Department to examine the calls for service in your area since November 1st to look for additional complaints the Police Department might be able to address and to get an understanding of what they have responded to in your area. Officers responded to 29 calls for service between the 900 block of San Antonio, Commercial, Transport and Industrial Ave. Only 2 were reported complaints from a business about the RV’s. None of those 29 calls for service reported potential illegal behavior, such as illegal dumping, threatening or harassing behavior, or other criminal actions, on behalf of those working in the area. Most of those calls were self-initiated by the officers or calls from the RV occupants themselves. One of the calls, initiated by an RV occupant, reported suspicious persons that helped prevent a burglary to one of the businesses. Since early November, there have been several citations issued and one vehicle tow. I would encourage your employees to report, either online, through our non-emergency line (650-329-2413) or via 911, any behavior they feel is harassment, or potentially illegal or unsafe. The Police Department will continue to explore ideas such as additional collaboration with City departments, outside organizations and service providers, as well as nearby police departments whose actions can influence the issues felt in Palo Alto. We will also investigate the ability to perform street sweeping efforts and consult with our wastewater officials to address any cleanliness, illegal dumping and sanitation issues. The Police Department will be further assessing the vehicle code violations in the coming weeks to determine the necessity of removing some offending vehicles. Best,Chantal <image001.png>Chantal Cotton GainesDeputy City Manager(650) 329-2572 |chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> From: Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>Sent: Tuesday, December17, 2024 11:35 PMTo: Marguerite Poyatos<marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>;osbaldo@or-builders.comCc: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com>;Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>;Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>;Becchetti, Benjamin<Benjamin.Becchetti@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Lester Wong<lwong@wongelectric.com>;Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>;City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>;Moffatt, Pete<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com;Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>;Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>;McDonough, Melissa<Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Reifschneider, James<James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Patrick Kelly<info@basketmaterials.com>;John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>;Tanaka, Greg<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Lauing, Ed<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Kou, Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Veenker, Vicki<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Binder, Andrew<Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;Burt, Patrick<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Stone, Greer<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Lythcott-Haims, Julie<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>;Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>;City Attorney<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercialconcerns CAUTION: This emailoriginated from outsideof the organization. Becautious of openingattachments and clickingon links. Dear Molly (City Attorney)and All Copied CityOfficials, On behalf of the manybusinesses in theCommercial-Industrial-Transport Street area who aredeeply frustrated with thepersistent and escalatingissues caused by illegallyparked RVs, unregisteredvehicles, and boats. Thissituation has reached acritical point, impacting notonly our daily operations butalso the safety, reputation,and economic health of ourbusinesses. Impact on Businesses andCommunity 1. Safety and SanitationHazards: • Dumpedbodily waste, debris, andhazardous conditions arebecoming commonplace,creating significant healthrisks. • Aggressivebehavior and intimidationfrom some vehicle occupantshave been reported, makingthe area unsafe foremployees and customers.2. OperationalChallenges: • Parking foremployees, customers, andservice vehicles is nearlynonexistent due to theoccupation of public spacesby illegally parked vehicles. • Businesses aresuffering tangible financiallosses as customers avoid thearea due to these conditions.3. Lack of Enforcement: • Despiterepeated citations and noticesissued by CommunityService and SpecialProblems Officers, there hasbeen no meaningfulresolution. • Violations ofCalifornia Vehicle Code4000(a)(1) VC (unregisteredvehicles) and Vehicle Code22651(o)(1) VC (impoundauthority for registrationviolations) are being ignored. Call for Immediate Action This is a collective appeal tothe city and itsrepresentatives to actdecisively to restore order inour community. We urge thecity to prioritize:1. Enforcement:Immediate towing andpenalties forunregistered andillegally parkedvehicles in alignmentwith state and locallaws.2. ComprehensiveSolutions: Atransparent andactionable plan toaddress these issues,including increasedpatrols, collaborationwith businesses, andenforcement timelines.3. Engagement: Acommitment toworking with affectedbusinesses to ensureour concerns are heardand addressedeffectively. Potential Legal Action The city’s ongoing inactionnot only jeopardizes publicsafety and operationalviability but also exposes itto potential legalconsequences. Manybusinesses on this emailchain are experiencing severefinancial and reputationaldamages due to theseunresolved issues. We cannot afford furtherdelays. Thank you for yourattention. <image003.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650- 600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269- 2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:29 AM To: osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>, Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>, Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>, Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>, Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>, david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>, RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>, nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>, Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>, Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>, Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.com>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>, Greg Tanaka <Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>, Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial concerns You don't often get email frommarguerite@paloaltoglass.com.Learn why this is important A community officer cameby today. Not sure what wasdone other than inspectingthe volume of vehicles on thestreet. It is prettydisheartening that there are14 city employees/emailaddresses included in thisemail and we are getting noresponses oracknowledgements from anyof them. This seems to bejust a community forum forus to air our grievancesregarding the area we allwork in rather than gettingany sort of resolutions. For years now, thebusinesses in this area havedealt with a number of issuesthat are a direct result of theRVs residing on this street -dumped bodily waste,aggressive dogs,aggression/intimidation,amongst many others. We tryto vigilant and call the non-emergency police line toconfront situations. Officerswill come out and at the verymost, they will go and have aconversation with whoever itis that's causing issues. Then,nothing happens. We havehad customers complain thatthey do not feel safe cominginto this corner of Palo Alto.This is directly affecting PaloAlto businesses - many ofwhich on this street provideimportant/critical types ofservice to residents,businesses, local governmentand schools in Palo Alto. Can we please get some helpother than weekly noticesstuck on windshields? On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at8:36 AM <osbaldo@or- builders.com> wrote: I agree 100 %The city of Palo A lotneeds to have a solutionfor this please O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 From: Bill McLane<bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Tuesday, December17, 2024 5:34 AMTo: Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>Cc: Manu Kumar<manu@k9ventures.com>;Marguerite Poyatos<MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>;Benjamin Becchetti<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>;Lester Wong<lwong@wongelectric.com>;Cathi Lerch<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>;Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction>;Dave Stellman<dave@paloaltoglass.com>;City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>;osbaldo@or-builders.com;Pete Moffatt<pete@petemoffat.com>;Jacob@onemovemovers.com;david@paloaltoconcrete.com;Steve Wong<swong@wongelectric.com>;RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com;nancy@drewmaran.com;Patrick Kelly<patrick.kelly@basketmaterials.com>;Dan McKinley<danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; MelissaMcDonough<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>;James Reifschneider<James.Reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>;Transportation<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;Patrick Kelly <info@basketmaterials.com>;John Lerch<john@lerchconstruction.com>;Greg Tanaka<Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>;Ed Lauing<Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>;Lydia Kou<Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>;Vicki Veenker<Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>;Andrew Binder<andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>;City Council<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;Patrick Burt<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>;Greer Stone<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>;Julie Lythcott-Haims<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>;Jade Jin<JJin@wongelectric.com>;Xenia Czisch<Xenia@qmsshields.com>Subject: Re:Industrial/Transport/Commercialconcerns Out of curiosity, were this my personal vehicle or one of my company vehicles, how long would it take for the City of Palo Alto to either site me or tow me? This is ridiculous; our streets have now become storage for people's crap; sorry, no better way to state that. This boat is not someone's dwelling; neither are all the additional cars associated with each camper out here. If you can't do anything about the campers, do something about the additional crap. Again, how quickly would the city respond if it were my car that was illegally parked out here? I implore everyone on this thread to continue this daily until something is done. Do better, City of Palo Alto. Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at3:08 PM Dave Stellman<davestellman@gmail.com>wrote: This is ridiculous. TheSupreme Court hasgiven cities in the stateof California more toolsto crack down onhomeless camps andillegally parked andstored vehicles. It’s timeto clean up this mess inthe Commercial -Industrial - Transportstreet area before itbecomes even more ofan eyesore than it isnow. This is just not fairto owners and customerstrying hard to dobusiness here with NOAVAILABLEPARKING. Dave Stellman4083 / 4085 TransportSt. On Dec 16,2024, at1:42 PM,ManuKumar<manu@k9ventures.com> wrote: Here aresomepicturesfrom mywalkaround theblock aweekago.. <IMG_1556.jpeg><IMG_1557.jpeg> I countedat least 10RVs justonCommercialSt.... toomany toeven fit ononecameraframe. Andthat's notevencountingthe onesall overTransportandIndustrial.Some ofthe RVsalso haveothersupporting vehiclesas noted inprioremail. The City ofPalo Altoclearlydoesn'tcare aboutbusinessesand wouldratherhave thestreets beaneyesore,sidewalksbeunusableto walk on,andparking spots notbeavailabletocustomers/clientsoremployees. Warmregards, --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) <Safety on Industrial avenue.pdf> --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX)<IMG_0946.jpg><IMG_0947.jpg> --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) --Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite PoyatosPalo Alto Glass, Inc.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto CA 94303(650) 494-7000(650) 494-7087 (FAX) From:Aram James To:Doug Minkler; Raymond Goins; Bill Newell; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser,Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; josh@joshsalcman.com; JoshBecker; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Henry Etzkowitz; Zelkha, Mila; Foley, Michael; Andrew Bigelow;Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Kaloma Smith; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Lotus Fong;Friends of Cubberley; Liz Kniss; Roberta Ahlquist; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Bains, Paul;Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Dana St.George; Gerry Gras; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Hayden; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Council, City; Vicki Veenker; Veenker,Vicki; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; Dennis Upton;Daniel Kottke; Angel, David; Human Relations Commission; Gardener, Liz; Mickie Winkler; WILPF Peninsula PaloAlto; Rodriguez, Miguel; Damon Silver; Sheree Roth; Lauing, Ed; ladoris cordell; Palo Alto Free Press; DonnaWallach; EPA Today; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Jensen, Eric;Figueroa, Eric; Afanasiev, Alex; Gennady Sheyner; Blackshire, Geoffrey; Diana Diamond; Wagner, April;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Nat Fisher; boardfeedback@smcgov.org;BoardOperations; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; editor@paweekly.com; Patrice Ventresca; Rowena Chiu;Templeton, Cari; Cribbs, Anne Subject:Protect Ethnic Studies in California Schools Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 10:44:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Protect Ethnic Studies in California Schools https://actionnetwork.org/letters/protect-ethnic-studies-in-california-schools From:David Sacerdote To:Council, City Subject:Safe routes to school Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 6:23:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i As a parent, I know that Safety systems are created because people died. As such, cuttingfunding for safe routes to school is a serious mistake which puts our children at risk. I urge you to: * fully fund safe routes to school, including filling the currently open position* set up and maintain annual reviews of conditions with those running the program to ensure that key safety issues are surfaced to city council Thank you, David Sacerdote 3716 Starr King Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306 P.S. I attempted to comment over zoom at the beginning of city council due to my work schedule but was apparently blocked from doing so by city staff. Telling people they cancomment on the city website when they can't actually do so is incredibly destructive. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:April 21, 2025 Council Meeting, Item #10: Council Chambers Surveillance Use Policy Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 5:32:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! APRIL 21, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETIG, AGENDA ITEM #10COUNCIL CHAMBERS SECURITY CAMERAS SURVEILLANCE USE POLICY I urge you to remove this item from your Consent Calendar toclarify some of the language in the proposed Surveillance UsePolicy for Security Cameras in the Council Chambers. The staff report for this agenda item (Report #2502-4143)includes the following statements: "Access to Council Chambers is available to the general publicfor public meetings or authorized specific events. Outside ofthese, use is limited to staff to minimize the risk of damageto City property, tampering with equipment, and securityrisks." "Security cameras in Council Chambers will focus on entrypoints, Council dais, and areas where valuable equipment isstored. The technology may also include motion detectors andalarm systems that notify designated personnel of suspiciousactivities." "The route connecting the main lobby and Police Department willnot be monitored." The Ralph M. Brown Act at Government Code Section 54953.3provides that "A member of the public shall not be required, asa condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body ofa local agency, to register his or her name, to provide otherinformation, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise tofulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance." Placing a security camera at entry points to the CouncilChamers effectively requires the public attending a meeting ofa legislative body in the Council Chambers to identifythemselves in violation of the Brown Act. Placing a security camera at entry pints to the CouncilChambers appears to contradict the statement in the staff This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast report that "The route connecting the main lobby and Police Department willnot be monitored." Using the term "Police Department" is ambiguous since thePolice Department will soon move to another location. A moregeneral term should be used to ensure that the statement is notmisinterpreted to apply only when the location is occupied bythe Police Department rather than another group. The only relevant incident I recall from the past is when amember of the public accessed the Council's private room fromthe rear of the Dais and took a soft drink from the Council'srefrigerator, which led to a lock being placed on therefrigerator. When the Civic Center building was opened in April 1970, awindow overlooking the Council Chambers was installed on themezzanine level of the Police Department to permit the Policeto photograph and take videos of anyone in the CouncilChambers. A record of those photos and videos from the past 55 yearsshould be provided and the videos and photos destroyedaccording to the schedule in the Surveillance Policy in thisagenda item. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:promiserani To:Council, City Subject:Artificial turf - please support the environment Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 5:01:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council, I support the Sierra Club's points on study of artificial turf - please consider the environmentalimpacts to our local communities and the health effects on children exposed to plastic, heat burns, and more. In particular, please compare organic grass fields with artificial turf over itswhole lifespan. thank you! Prerana JayakumarMidtown This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Subject:April 21, 2025 Council Meeting, item #16: Independent Police Auditor"s Reprot Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 4:55:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! APRIL 21, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #16INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS' REPORT On Page 5 of the Independent Police Auditors' Report, thirdparagraph, the first sentence of the paragraph cites footnote#2, but that footnote does not appear in the report, whilefootnote #1 cited in the previous paragraph on the page doesappear at the bottom of the page, and footnote #3 cited in themiddle of page 7 does appear at the bottom of Page 7. What is the text of footnote #2, why was it removed from thereport, and who removed it? In the staff report for this agenda item (Report #2504-4480),the first sentence refers to "certain investigations ofuniformed Police Department personnel" (emphasis added) I believe the contract with the Independent Police Auditor isfor certain investigations of sworn Police Departmentpersonnel, both those in uniform and those in plain clothes. The top of the second page of the staff report says, "Thesediscussions with the IPA and the City Council are not for thepurpose of elaborating on the published reviews of specificincidents." Although the Council may be legally prohibited from discussingcertain personnel matters, the staff report description of thepurpose of the Council meeting does not prohibit the publicfrom discussing anything in the Auditors' Report. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock Cc: Mike Gennaco, Independent Police Auditors This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Magdalena Cabrera To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO on Lloyd Consulting Contract tonight Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 2:50:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Esteemed City council Members, I beseech you to consider the overwhelming evidence about plastic in our world. Fleece toys are poisoning our children. Researchers say there is reason to be concerned: https://search.app/vh8fFc85qM3CTWpo7 More studies showing plastics in our brains: https://search.app/vmJtefnYwepMdnof7 It's everywhere, even in bedding: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/15/health/child-mattress-bedding-toxins-wellness?cid=ios_app Do we really need another study to show that plastics are bad for people, the environment and our children????? Do NOT hire Lloyd Consulting to do a needless study on the relative merits/demerits of artificial turf. For one, there is more than enough evidence to condemn its use in our world and parks and playing fields. Secondly, Lloyd Consulting installs artificial turf. Do we really have faith that they can be impartial????? I do not. Please take the $160K and replace the turd in Boulware Park. Do the right thing for our community. Thank you, Magdalena Cabrera Resident of the Ventura Neighborhood