HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-02 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS 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: 6/2/2025
Document dates: 5/27/2025 - 6/2/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Item 3 June2, 2025 -- BPTP
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 1:13:34 PM
Attachments:BTPT Comments June 2 2025.pdf
See attached.
-- -- Robertrobert@neffs.net
June 2, 2025
Re: Item 3, BTPT Update
Honorable Council Members,
I am glad to see the prioritized list of projects created for your discussion this evening. I think
that creating and endorsing this list will give Palo Alto direction and flexibility to upgrade our bike
and pedestrian networks, making more of our facilities direct and comfortable for riders of All
Ages and Abilities. I am glad that this plan sets higher goals for all our streets.
I endorse the priority ranking process, and the ranking shown in attachment D, with two notes:
1) The protected bike lane project for Middlefield Road did not make it onto this prioritized
list. The bike network needs a route either along MIddlefield or an adjacent parallel
street, especially north of Oregon Expy, and I would like to see an alternative to
Middlefield identified that could be prioritized onto this list.
2) I believe BLVD_CROSSING_04 and BLVD_CROSSING_05 have the wrong
descriptions on the list in Attachment D.
A goal I see for this project is to improve everyone’s comfort with bicycling and walking for
everyday trips in our community, improving our quality of life, and helping meet our sustainability
goals. But our current streets are crowded with lanes and parked cars. As members of PABAC
observed, when discussing improvements around Downtown, it seems impossible to meet our
goals for bicycling safety, comfort, and efficiency, by just modifying the travel lanes. The first
step towards a transformation of our streets may be by removing half or all of the parked cars
on a few streets, and make those still work for folks in moving vehicles, and exceptionally well
for all folks on bikes.
I look forward to this transformation of our streets.
Thank you for your service to the City of Palo Alto.
Robert Neff
Emerson near Alma.
Current PABAC member, representing just myself.
From:Peter Baltay
To:Council, City
Subject:ARB appointments
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 1:02:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I urge you to reappoint David Hirsch and Ying Xi Chen to the Architectural Review Board.
Both are:
1. Experienced design professionals well versed in the type of projecxts commonly
reviewed by the ARB
2. Palo Alto residents, with strong community connections
3. Current ARB members, and offer much needed board continuity
4. Board member Chen is the current vice-chair, and likely to be appointed chair. No
other members have her leadership experience.
5. Board member Hirsch is a past chair, and respected by his colleagues
Ying Xi Chen's soft spoken demeanor belies her strong sense of design rigour; she has
frequently pushed convincingly for projects needing approval, or revisions, to the benefit
of all.
David Hirsch's years of experience and passion for design and planning excellence has
been our conscience. Without him, the board would too often follow the easy path of the
staff recommendation, without fully considering alternatives.
Please, help maintain design review excellence by maintaining strong, experienced and
continuous board membership.
Thank you,
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
-peter baltay
From:Melinda Deutsch
To:Council, City
Subject:Someone defecated in front of my house
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 12:53:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
Someone defecated in front of my house on Friday night in between the sidewalk and thestreet leaving dirty toilet paper to blow around an area where there are many pedestrians. This
is the second time this has happened in the last few weeks. I am bringing this to your attentionbecause perhaps this may be a consequence of homelessness in Palo Alto. I attach two photos
of the most recent incident.
Sincerely, Melinda Deutsch
2460 Bryant Street
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Why the proposed plan for cyclists on arterials?
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 12:53:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and council members,
I am nonplussed as to why the 2012 plan is now being discarded to place bike lanes on arterials. The 2012 plan
where much consideration and careful analysis shows logical routes where safety is paramount.The plan's
specifically selected routes were not replete with traffic and congestion. Now either because of some consultant’s
vision and or the pushing by lobbyists from the Bike Coalition the city wants to put bike lanes on improper roads.
Palo Alto has been the recipient of several bad plans due to consultants who do not know Palo Alto. For example the
city has engaged past consultants from Virginia and Washington DC.
You the council must stop this nonsense.
We do not need bike lanes on Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. Drivers most often do not adhere to the
speed limit. On Middlefield and Embarcadero there is constant friction right now where residents must be hyper
vigilant leaving driveways. Add the scooters, EV bikes and cyclists and you will see more accidents and stress.
Please adhere to your goal of prioritizing safety and do not allow pressure from consultants and lobbyists to do
otherwise.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From:Justin Chueh
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; daniel.lurie@sfgov.org; mike.nakornkhet@flysfo.com; Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov; Justin Chueh
Subject:SFO DEIR is inadequate without the consideration of flight path impacts
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 12:47:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air quality impacts
from SFO-bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is inadequate as longas it does not consider flight path impacts. At the May 22 public Hearing SFO’s presentation
suggested that “There are no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or toaircraft flight paths, which are the sole purview of the FAA." As this report and process is
meant to protect the environment and people who stand to be negatively affected by SFO'sdevelopment plan, please consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA. An
airport’s role is required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of theFAA’s Nextgen program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the role of
airports as regards flight paths. SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical Working Groupsfor flight path design and the Government Accountability Office recommended for theFAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and processed. The FAA’s publication“How the FAA engages with Airport and Community Roundtables” now describes the role of
an Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible for airtraffic control (ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT,
etc.) require airport authority concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a sharedresponsibility between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government, communities,
and the Federal Aviation Administration. Furthermore, communities expect airport sponsorsto balance the interests of various stakeholders.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions for
changes are ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and theneeds of the National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static given that
in addition to the FAA’s internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) requests areinitiated by airlines - including for private use flight paths. SFO also has flight path procedures
(navigation rules) for its new landing system “GBAS” which can INCREASE noise and SFOcontrols these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to be responsive
to the public and to consider the environment and people. SFO's misrepresentation that “flightpaths will not change” has broken trust before. Unless this is addressed, SFO is misinforming
the FAA on current and future projects, and leaving the public in the dark about potentialconsequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraftflight paths” mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts and mitigation
options.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight paths arenot static; flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of usage of flight paths
from increasing operations can increase noise and air quality impacts. Not only are flight pathsdistinct infrastructure from runways, flight paths can be more deleterious in terms of affecting
more sensitive areas and people. The menu of potential mitigations for flight paths is alsodistinct. Quieter aircraft engines for example do not help address flight path noise but
thoughtful flight path design and compliance can meaningfully mitigate night time noise.These mitigations however cannot be employed if the airport is denying how directly their
project will impact noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means more flights, moreflight path impacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline programs to induce more
operations for more profits. As noted by public comment at the May 22 Hearing, UnitedAirlines has a $2.6 billion construction project to re-establish SFO as the airline’s global
gateway. This expands United’s route networks with more flights, including promotionalflights that are not at full passenger capacity but add more noise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlines requested
lower altitudes for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure to recognizecommunity concerns over flight path changes led to an FAA Initiative and official community
meetings with FAA and local leaders in three counties; thousands of citizens weighed in overmonths to come up with consensus recommendations to address flight path noise and night
time operations. The DEIR's omission of the impacts of flight path changes undermines recentregional history to address just this issue, and ignores opportunities identified by citizens, local
officials and the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting people's health, quality of life,and the environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNEL criteriawhen the FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order 1050.1F looks at a 3
dB increase in DNL 60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more metricsto consider local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold criteria (65) is
applied which effectively lowers the standard for SFO’s environmental review. As SFO isaware, the FAA has scientific studies that provide substantial evidence that 65 DNL or 65
CNEL is no longer supported to identify community concerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000residents living near 20 representative airports with results showing that aircraft noise causes
greater levels of community annoyance compared to other transportation noise, and a need formore sensitive criteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal considerations about
noise threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs National EnvironmentalPolicy Act requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise impacts
to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the highestnumber of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is necessary; sleep
being critical for physical and mental health and productivity. SFO has extensive data toaccomplish regional noise assessments, and with various metrics. In addition, provide details
such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for SFO arrival flight paths. The reportshould also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path requests; how pre- and post-
implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed, and who is responsible forkeeping communities informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Justin Chueh
Palo Alto CA
From:Maria Jenson
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:daniel.lurie@sfgov.org; mike.nakornkhet@flysfo.com; Council, City; Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov
Subject:Re: REVISED: SFO DEIR is inadequate without the consideration of flight path impactsre:
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 11:26:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Please take seriously the points outlined in the most recent email from the Sky Posse Palo
Alto. One of the things I always dread as the weather gets warmer is the disruption from theplanes since our windows are now open. It is bad enough with the windows closed, but the
plane noise requires us to stop a conversation when the windows are open. And with no AC,most homes in Palo Alto must leave their windows open at night.
Please address the impact of the flight paths over our city and others.
Maria Jenson612-669-0732
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Thomas Rindfleisch
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; daniel.lurie@sfgov.org; mike.nakornkhet@flysfo.com; Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov
Subject:SFO DEIR is inadequate without the consideration of flight path impacts
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 11:25:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners, I am writing to add my support for the comments sent to you recently bySky Posse Palo Alto (see below). I live under the SIDBY waypoint affected by many of the
aircraft arrival routes into SFO, including from BDEGA (west), DYAMD, PIRAT, andSERFR. We are overflown by on the order of 350 SFO arrival flights each day and the
soundscape impacts of the ground noise they generate impedes many routine daily activities.Please include the points raised in the Sky Posse message in your SFO DEIR.
Thank you for your consideration, Thomas Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
Palo Alto, CA
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air quality impactsfrom SFO-bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is inadequate as long
as it does not consider flight path impacts. At the May 22 public Hearing SFO’s presentationsuggested that “There are no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to
aircraft flight paths, which are the sole purview of the FAA." As this report and process ismeant to protect the environment and people who stand to be negatively affected by SFO's
development plan, please consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA. Anairport’s role is required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of the
FAA’s Nextgen program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the role ofairports as regards flight paths. SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical Working Groups
for flight path design and the Government Accountability Office recommended for theFAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and processed. The FAA’s publication
“How the FAA engages with Airport and Community Roundtables” now describes the role ofan Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible for air
traffic control (ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.)require airport authority concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a shared
responsibility between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government, communities,and the Federal Aviation Administration. Furthermore, communities expect airport sponsors tobalance the interests of various stakeholders.
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions forchanges are ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and the
needs of the National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static given thatin addition to the FAA’s internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) requests are
initiated by airlines - including for private use flight paths. SFO also has flight path procedures(navigation rules) for its new landing system “GBAS” which can INCREASE noise and SFO
controls these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to be responsiveto the public and to consider the environment and people. SFO's misrepresentation that “flight
paths will not change” has broken trust before. Unless this is addressed, SFO is misinformingthe FAA on current and future projects, and leaving the public in the dark about potential
consequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft
flight paths” mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts and mitigationoptions.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight paths are
not static; flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of usage of flight pathsfrom increasing operations can increase noise and air quality impacts. Not only are flight paths
distinct infrastructure from runways, flight paths can be more deleterious in terms of affectingmore sensitive areas and people. The menu of potential mitigations for flight paths is also
distinct. Quieter aircraft engines for example do not help address flight path noise butthoughtful flight path design and compliance can meaningfully mitigate night time noise.
These mitigations however cannot be employed if the airport is denying how directly theirproject will impact noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means more flights, more
flight path impacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline programs to induce moreoperations for more profits. As noted by public comment at the May 22 Hearing, United
Airlines has a $2.6 billion construction project to re-establish SFO as the airline’s globalgateway. This expands United’s route networks with more flights, including promotional
flights that are not at full passenger capacity but add more noise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlines requestedlower altitudes for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure to recognize
community concerns over flight path changes led to an FAA Initiative and official communitymeetings with FAA and local leaders in three counties; thousands of citizens weighed in over
months to come up with consensus recommendations to address flight path noise and nighttime operations. The DEIR's omission of the impacts of flight path changes undermines recent
regional history to address just this issue, and ignores opportunities identified by citizens, localofficials and the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting people's health, quality of life,
and the environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNEL criteriawhen the FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order 1050.1F looks at a 3
dB increase in DNL 60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more metricsto consider local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold criteria (65) is
applied which effectively lowers the standard for SFO’s environmental review. As SFO isaware, the FAA has scientific studies that provide substantial evidence that 65 DNL or 65
CNEL is no longer supported to identify community concerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000residents living near 20 representative airports with results showing that aircraft noise causes
greater levels of community annoyance compared to other transportation noise, and a need formore sensitive criteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal considerations about
noise threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs National EnvironmentalPolicy Act requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise impacts
to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the highestnumber of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is necessary; sleep
being critical for physical and mental health and productivity. SFO has extensive data toaccomplish regional noise assessments, and with various metrics. In addition, provide details
such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for SFO arrival flight paths. The reportshould also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path requests; how pre- and post-
implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed, and who is responsible forkeeping communities informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
From:Sky Posse Post
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; daniel.lurie@sfgov.org; mike.nakornkhet@flysfo.com
Subject:REVISED: SFO DEIR is inadequate without the consideration of flight path impacts
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 9:55:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air quality impacts from SFO-
bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is inadequate as long as it does not consider
flight path impacts. At the May 22 public Hearing SFO’s presentation suggested that “There are no
changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths, which are the sole
purview of the FAA." As this report and process is meant to protect the environment and people who
stand to be negatively affected by SFO's development plan, please consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA. An airport’s role is
required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of the FAA’s Nextgen
program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the role of airports as regards flight paths.
SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical Working Groups for flight path design and the Government
Accountability Office recommended for the FAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and
processed. The FAA’s publication “How the FAA engages with Airport and Community Roundtables”
now describes the role of an Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible for air traffic
control (ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) require
airport authority concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a shared responsibility
between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government, communities, and the Federal Aviation
Administration. Furthermore, communities expect airport sponsors to balance the interests of various
stakeholders.
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions for changes are
ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and the needs of the
National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static given that in addition to the FAA’s
internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) requests are initiated by airlines - including for
private use flight paths. SFO also has flight path procedures (navigation rules) for its new landing system
“GBAS” which can INCREASE noise and SFO controls these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to be responsive to the public
and to consider the environment and people. SFO's misrepresentation that “flight paths will not change”
has broken trust before. Unless this is addressed, SFO is misinforming the FAA on current and future
projects, and leaving the public in the dark about potential consequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths”
mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts and mitigation options.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight paths are not static;
flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of usage of flight paths from increasing
operations can increase noise and air quality impacts. Not only are flight paths distinct infrastructure from
runways, flight paths can be more deleterious in terms of affecting more sensitive areas and people. The
menu of potential mitigations for flight paths is also distinct. Quieter aircraft engines for example do not
help address flight path noise but thoughtful flight path design and compliance can meaningfully mitigate
night time noise. These mitigations however cannot be employed if the airport is denying how directly
their project will impact noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means more flights, more flight
path impacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline programs to induce more operations for
more profits. As noted by public comment at the May 22 Hearing, United Airlines has a $2.6 billion
construction project to re-establish SFO as the airline’s global gateway. This expands United’s route
networks with more flights, including promotional flights that are not at full passenger capacity but add
more noise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlines requested lower altitudes
for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure to recognize community concerns over flight
path changes led to an FAA Initiative and official community meetings with FAA and local leaders in three
counties; thousands of citizens weighed in over months to come up with consensus recommendations to
address flight path noise and night time operations. The DEIR's omission of the impacts of flight path
changes undermines recent regional history to address just this issue, and ignores opportunities identified
by citizens, local officials and the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting people's health, quality of
life, and the environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNEL criteria when the
FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order 1050.1F looks at a 3 dB increase in DNL
60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more metrics to consider
local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold criteria (65) is applied which effectively
lowers the standard for SFO’s environmental review. As SFO is aware, the FAA has scientific studies that
provide substantial evidence that 65 DNL or 65 CNEL is no longer supported to identify community
concerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000 residents living near 20 representative airports with results showing
that aircraft noise causes greater levels of community annoyance compared to other transportation noise,
and a need for more sensitive criteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal considerations about
noise threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs National Environmental Policy Act
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise impacts to inform on
regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the highest number of complaints.
Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is necessary; sleep being critical for physical and
mental health and productivity. SFO has extensive data to accomplish regional noise assessments, and
with various metrics. In addition, provide details such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for
SFO arrival flight paths. The report should also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path
requests; how pre- and post-implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed, and who is
responsible for keeping communities informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
From:Mark Samson
To:skypossepost@gmail.com
Cc:Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org; cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org; Council, City
Subject:Re: See Sky Posse Comment on the Inadequacy of SFO’s Draft Environmental Review - due 5PM Monday June 2nd
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 9:13:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Sky Posse heroes—You are incredible people. To continue to push back against this enormous profit driven bloated bullywho is absolutely ruining our beloved Palo Alto lifestyle already—as continue to expand the airport ?BIG RESPECT. BIG REGARD. That’s what I have for you.
With much gratitude.
MSMark SamsonPalo Alto, CA 94303
On Jun 1, 2025, at 15:30, Sky Posse Palo Alto <skypossepost-gmail.com@shared1.ccsend.com> wrote:
Sky Posse Palo Alto
Dear Friends,
SFO’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has a fatal flaw because it excludes
flight path impacts. See our comment below on the DEIR’s inaccuracies and missing
information. To add your voice, questions, or to support the points we make please
email cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org by 5PM Monday June 2. Written comments are
expected to be released in the Fall, followed by a Hearing when the PlanningCommissioners will be asked to certify SFO’s review should the project go forward.
Sky Posse Email to San Francisco Planning Commission:
cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Copy: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org
Subject: SFO DEIR has inaccuracies, incomplete information and is inadequate
without the consideration of flight path impacts
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air qualityimpacts from SFO-bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is
inadequate as long as it does not consider flight path impacts. At the May 22 publicHearing SFO’s presentation suggested that “There are no changes or expansions
proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths, which are the sole purview
of the FAA." As this report and process is meant to protect the environment andpeople who stand to be negatively affected by SFO's development plan, please
consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA.An airport’s role is required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of
the FAA’s Nextgen program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the
role of airports as regards flight paths. SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical
Working Groups for flight path design and the Government Accountability Officerecommended for the FAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and
processed. The FAA’s publication “How the FAA engages with Airport and
Community Roundtables” now describes the role of an Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible
for air traffic control (ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight
standards, FPT, etc.) require airport authority concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a shared
responsibility between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government,
communities, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Furthermore, communities
expect airport sponsors to balance the interests of various stakeholders.
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions for
changes are ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and
the needs of the National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static
given that in addition to the FAA’s internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT,
etc.) requests are initiated by airlines - including for private use flight paths. SFO also
has flight path procedures (navigation rules) for its new landing system “GBAS” whichcan INCREASE noise and SFO controls these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to beresponsive to the public and to consider the environment and people. SFO's
misrepresentation that “flight paths will not change” has broken trust before. Unless
this is addressed, SFO is misinforming the FAA on current and future projects, andleaving the public in the dark about potential consequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to
aircraft flight paths” mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts
and mitigation options.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight
paths are not static; flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of
usage of flight paths from increasing operations can increase noise and air qualityimpacts. Not only are flight paths distinct infrastructure from runways, flight paths can
be more deleterious in terms of affecting more sensitive areas and people. The menuof potential mitigations for flight paths is also distinct. Quieter aircraft engines for
example do not help address flight path noise but thoughtful flight path design and
compliance can meaningfully mitigate night time noise. These mitigations however
cannot be employed if the airport is denying how directly their project will impact
noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means more flights, more flight pathimpacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline programs to induce more
operations for more profits. As noted by public comment at the May 22 Hearing,United Airlines has a $2.6 billion construction project to re-establish SFO as the
airline’s global gateway. This expands United’s route networks with more flights,
including promotional flights that are not at full passenger capacity but add morenoise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlinesrequested lower altitudes for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure
to recognize community concerns over flight path changes led to an FAA Initiativeand official community meetings with FAA and local leaders in three counties;
thousands of citizens weighed in over months to come up with consensus
recommendations to address flight path noise and night time operations. The DEIR's
omission of the impacts of flight path changes undermines recent regional history to
address just this issue, and ignores opportunities identified by citizens, local officialsand the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting people's health and the
environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNELcriteria when the FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order
1050.1F looks at a 3 dB increase in DNL 60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more
metrics to consider local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold
criteria (65) is applied which effectively lowers the standard for SFO’s environmentalreview. As SFO is aware, the FAA has scientific studies that provide substantial
evidence that 65 DNL or 65 CNEL is no longer supported to identify communityconcerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000 residents living near 20,000 representative
airports with results showing that aircraft noise causes greater levels of community
annoyance compared to other transportation noise and, a need for more sensitivecriteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal considerations about noise
threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs National EnvironmentalPolicy Act requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noiseimpacts to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas
with the highest number of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night timeoverflights is necessary; sleep being critical for physical and mental health and
productivity. SFO has extensive data to accomplish regional noise assessments, and
with various metrics. In addition, provide details such as target altitudes and current
navigation rules for SFO arrival flight paths. The report should also describe how SFO
makes decisions on flight path requests; how pre- and post-implementation reviews offlight path changes are managed, and who is responsible for keeping communities
informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional
impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
SPREAD THE WORD
Ask neighbors to JOIN OUR CALLS TO ACTION and to get updates by sending "SUBSCRIBE" toinfo@skypossepaloalto.org
MOST IMPORTANTReport intrusive jet noise!The number of reporters matters (enlist neighbors who arebothered by intrusive jet noise to report!)
Use any of these methods:
The APP stop.jetnoise.netOR
EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com
SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290.
ONLINE:SFO traffic: click here for the linkSJC traffic: click her for the linkOther airports: click here for more info
Sky Posse Palo Alto | Suite 200 2225 East Bayshore Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Constant Contact
From:Aram James
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Ed
Lauing; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; Gardener, Liz;
Raymond Goins; h.etzko@gmail.com; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg;
ParkRec Commission; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council; Council, City; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff
Rosen; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; board@pausd.org; Sheree Roth;
Lori Meyers; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov
Subject:British Surgeon in Gaza Reports on Rafah Massacre as Dozens of Palestinians Killed Waiting for Aid
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 7:39:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
British Surgeon in Gaza Reports on Rafah Massacre as Dozens of Palestinians Killed Waitingfor Aid
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/2/gaza_doctor_israel_aid_attack
From:Aram James
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Stump, Molly; Emily Mibach; editor@paweekly.com; Diana Diamond;
Bill Johnson; Lait, Jonathan; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; EPA Today; Lythcott-Haims,
Julie
Subject:scrutinizing all consultant spending
Date:Monday, June 2, 2025 7:22:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
scrutinizing all consultant spending
Portola Valley scours for helphttps://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=2d73e25f-1a03-48da-91ce-ee0c450e6822&appcode=SAN252&eguid=c8de570b-c02f-4563-9868-7d32d6683465&pnum=3#
For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here:
From:Loran Harding
To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides;bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod; fred beyerlein; boardmembers; Becky Vagim; Council,City; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; kdeem.electriclab@gmail.com;Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; IrvWeissman; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; MY77FJ@gmail.com; newsdesk;news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; jerry ruopoli; Steve Wayte; tsheehan;vallesR1969@att.net
Subject:Many think summer spike in Covid coming.
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 9:31:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Sunday, June 1, 2025
To all-
I got a Covid shot Sept. 2024, one of many. They said to get a booster in March, 2025. I got
it Thursday, May 29, 2025. I should have pretty good immunity, but they say here that a newvariant has appeared. Keep getting those shots.
Will a summer COVID surge hit California?
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
From:jeannie duisenberg
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org
Subject:SFO"s Draft EIR
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 8:16:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
For SFO to omit the inclusion of fight path study in the DEIR is a problem that renders the EIR incomplete at best ifnot frankly duplicitous.Flight paths ARE the problem and SFO must exercise its oversight in this study.
I am quite certain the fight path/airplane noise disturbance, particularly in the night is grossly underreported by thoseof us affected adversely by it. That is because it is very convenient to report an incident from the middle of the nightwith the details required for veracity unless one writes it down, thus further disturbing sleep.(3 noisy night incidentsthis past month are still awaiting my reporting). There is a general fatigue about reporting since it has been morethan a decade that we have been trying to bring about some relief from flight path disturbance. I think anothergeneral call to action for reporting during a finite period of study twould be revelatory.
Not to consider flight path status in the DEIR is inexcusable.
Sincerely,Jeannie DuisenbergPalo Alto, CA
From:Randy Mont-Reynaud
To:Council, City
Subject:Cal Ave Bike Path - Solution Oriented suggestion, Palo Alto 2025 is not F. Scott Fitzgerald"s Paris!
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 6:46:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
…and a gripe:I hope to be able to speak at City Council Meeting tomorrow night if appropriate, to
the Cal Ave bike paths issue. Does that work? If so when? If not, here are my
solution oriented suggestions:
1. Please Consider green lanes on Cambridge, or the alleys behind shops, on
Sherman/alleys. If you remove parking on Sherman (after all, we have an extensivegarage!) there's plenty of safe space for bike paths. The alley behind Zareensthrough to Izzie's Bagels is also a good option, no?
Currently,Bikes and scooters zoom along Cal Ave through the opening onto
Birch, the green lane in the middle of Cal Ave ends, and bikes continue to
fly through the MIDDLE of the intersection of Birch and Cal Ave! Scary!
Going kitty-corner to Gamelandia...
2. Space: As Mark Twain said,"Buy land. They're not making it any more."
The current wide open middle space is great for strolling..why can't we just
have some empty space? Empty safe space.
3. The elders and elderly: And did I mention the elderly? Bikes have come
up behind me, thinking I have eyes in back of my head! On Cal Ave, bikes
and scooters ignore bike lanes, and take to the sidewalks as well!
4. Commuting times compromise: Please consider bike path usage to be
allowed during commute and school hours, similar to Parking signage, say,
between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 pm to 6 p.m.?
5. Bottom line: No bike paths on Cal Ave; if we restrict cars, how do bikes
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
get a pass? I know Council approved the idea, but please consider: Bike
parking racks in the alleys and in the Sherman garage? And, safety for all
pedestrians, old and young (they do wander)
From:Aram James
To:Vicki Veenker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;Gardener, Liz; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; GRP-City Council; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; WILPF Peninsula PaloAlto; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Tim James; Cait James; Lewis james;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Templeton, Cari; EPAToday; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Pat M; Burt, Patrick; DuJuan Green; gstone22@gmail.com; Nash, Betsy;dcombs@menlopark.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Clerk; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com;<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Doug Minkler; Gennady Sheyner; Ruth Silver Taube; Wagner, April; AnnaGriffin; h.etzko@gmail.com; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky; HumanRelations Commission; Council, City; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Foley, Michael; Zelkha, Mila; Rodriguez, Miguel;Damon Silver; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Donna Wallach; Enberg, Nicholas; Friends of Cubberley; Palo AltoFree Press; Drekmeier, Peter; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; Marina Lopez; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; PatriceVentresca; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Raymond Goins; Perron, Zachary; Afanasiev, Alex; Mickie Winkler;Shikada, Ed; Tom DuBois; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org;BoardOperations; qy2103@columbia.edu
Subject:A man is in custody and suspected in an attack in Boulder. Five people were burned and witnesses said the
suspect threw molitov cocktails. They were part of a m…
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 5:34:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
A man is in custody and suspected in an attack in Boulder. Five people were burned and
witnesses said the suspect threw molitov cocktails. They were part of a m…
https://share.google/ptbxYapbsrOGAuQBm
From:Aram James
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;
assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City; Nash, Betsy; Supervisor
Susan Ellenberg; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila;
Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Shikada, Ed;
Lauing, Ed; Marina Lopez; Tim James; Cait James; Josie James-Le; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Raymond Goins;
Gardener, Liz; Vara Ramakrishnan; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Rodriguez, Miguel;
jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Damon Silver; Diana Diamond; Doug Minkler; Sean Allen; Pat M; sharon jackson;
Rose Lynn; Roberta Ahlquist
Subject:Why Trump is really going after Harvard
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 5:00:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Why Trump is really going after Harvard Source: The Guardian
https://share.newsbreak.com/dczyz9xt?s=i0
From:Nadav Ben-Efraim
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org
Subject:Comments on SFO"s Draft Environmental Impact Report
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 4:36:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I support the submission of comments on SFO's Draft Environmental Impact Report, highlighting the inclusion of flight path impacts as acritical issue. Your disregard to our quality of life is deplorable. SFO should not be allowed to increase or change traffic load or patterns itsolves the noise issues with current flight patterns.Regards,Nadav Ben-EfraimPalo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Mike Fischer
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org
Subject:SFO DEIR has inaccuracies, incomplete information and is inadequate without the consideration of flight pathimpacts
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 4:02:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air quality impacts
from SFO-bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is inadequate as long
as it does not consider flight path impacts. At the May 22 public Hearing SFO’s
presentation suggested that “There are no changes or expansions proposed to the existing
runway or to aircraft flight paths, which are the sole purview of the FAA." As this report and
process is meant to protect the environment and people who stand to be negatively
affected by SFO's development plan, please consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA. An
airport’s role is required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of the
FAA’s Nextgen program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the role of
airports as regards flight paths. SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical Working
Groups for flight path design and the Government Accountability Office recommended
for the FAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and processed. The FAA’s
publication “How the FAA engages with Airport and Community Roundtables” now
describes the role of an Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible for air
traffic control (ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT,
etc.) require airport authority concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a shared
responsibility between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government,
communities, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Furthermore, communities expect
airport sponsors to balance the interests of various stakeholders.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions for
changes are ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and the
needs of the National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static given
that in addition to the FAA’s internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.)
requests are initiated by airlines - including for private use flight paths. SFO also has flight
path procedures (navigation rules) for its new landing system “GBAS” which can
INCREASE noise and SFO controls these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to be
responsive to the public and to consider the environment and people. SFO's
misrepresentation that “flight paths will not change” has broken trust before. Unless this is
addressed, SFO is misinforming the FAA on current and future projects, and leaving the
public in the dark about potential consequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft
flight paths” mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts and mitigation
options.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight paths
are not static; flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of usage of flight
paths from increasing operations can increase noise and air quality impacts. Not only are
flight paths distinct infrastructure from runways, flight paths can be more deleterious in
terms of affecting more sensitive areas and people. The menu of potential mitigations for
flight paths is also distinct. Quieter aircraft engines for example do not help address flight
path noise but thoughtful flight path design and compliance can meaningfully mitigate night
time noise. These mitigations however cannot be employed if the airport is denying how
directly their project will impact noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means
more flights, more flight path impacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline
programs to induce more operations for more profits. As noted by public comment at the
May 22 Hearing, United Airlines has a $2.6 billion construction project to re-establish SFO
as the airline’s global gateway. This expands United’s route networks with more flights,
including promotional flights that are not at full passenger capacity but add more noise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlines requested
lower altitudes for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure to recognize
community concerns over flight path changes led to an FAA Initiative and official community
meetings with FAA and local leaders in three counties; thousands of citizens weighed in
over months to come up with consensus recommendations to address flight path noise and
night time operations. The DEIR's omission of the impacts of flight path changes
undermines recent regional history to address just this issue, and ignores opportunities
identified by citizens, local officials and the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting
people's health and the environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNEL
criteria when the FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order 1050.1F
looks at a 3 dB increase in DNL 60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more metrics
to consider local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold criteria (65) is
applied which effectively lowers the standard for SFO’s environmental review. As SFO is
aware, the FAA has scientific studies that provide substantial evidence that 65 DNL or 65
CNEL is no longer supported to identify community concerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000
residents living near 20,000 representative airports with results showing that aircraft noise
causes greater levels of community annoyance compared to other transportation noise and,
a need for more sensitive criteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal
considerations about noise threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs
National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise
impacts to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the
highest number of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is
necessary; sleep being critical for physical and mental health and productivity. SFO has
extensive data to accomplish regional noise assessments, and with various metrics. In
addition, provide details such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for SFO arrival
flight paths. The report should also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path
requests; how pre- and post-implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed,
and who is responsible for keeping communities informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Michael C. Fischer
763 E. Charleston Rd.Palo Alto CA 94303650 855 9816
From:Aram James
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;
assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad;
Gardener, Liz; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; board@pausd.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg;
BoardOperations; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City; Salem
Ajluni; Sean Allen; Pat M; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson; walter wilson; Marina Lopez; Cait James; Josie James-Le;
Tim James; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; GRP-City Council; Binder, Andrew;
Cribbs, Anne; Angel, David; Roberta Ahlquist; Robert. Jonsen; Baker, Rob; Diana Diamond; Lotus Fong; Friends
of Cubberley; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Human Relations Commission; Vara
Ramakrishnan; josh@joshsalcman.com; Holman, Karen (external); jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Daniel Kottke;
Drekmeier, Peter; Tom DuBois; Jasso, Tamara; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Dan Okonkwo; Karen Holman; Lu,
George; quimani2@yahoo.com; Palo Alto Free Press; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Patrice Ventresca;
Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee,
Craig; Afanasiev, Alex; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Dennis Upton; Figueroa, Eric; h.etzko@gmail.com; EPA
Today
Subject:In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most transparent Genocide in Human History," Richard Falk
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 3:49:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
"In Gaza, the West Is Enabling the Most transparent Genocide in Human History," Richard Falk
Richard A. Falk - Wikipedia
https://share.google/ZymrEZadH8CBqKm7b
From:Sky Posse Post
To:cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org
Cc:Council, City; Kathryn.Angotti@sfgov.org
Subject:SFO DEIR has inaccuracies, incomplete information and is inadequate without the consideration of flight pathimpacts
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 3:17:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of thousands of Midpeninsula residents impacted by noise and air quality impacts from SFO-bound flight paths, we respectfully submit that SFO’s DEIR is inadequate as long as it does not consider flight path impacts. At the May 22 public Hearing SFO’s presentation suggested that “There are no
changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths, which are the sole
purview of the FAA." As this report and process is meant to protect the environment and people who stand to be negatively affected by SFO's development plan, please consider our feedback as follows:
INACCURACIES:
#1 SFO is incorrect to say that flight paths are “the sole purview” of the FAA. An airport’s role is
required in flight path oversight.
After serious miscalculations about regional noise effects from the implementation of the FAA’s Nextgen program for Northern California in 2014, the FAA expanded the role of airports as regards flight paths. SFO has since been on the FAA’s Technical Working Groups for flight path design and the Government Accountability Office recommended for the FAA to clarify how a flight path change is initiated and processed. The FAA’s publication “How the FAA engages with Airport and Community Roundtables” now describes the role of an Airport authority;
Step 2 of the FAA’s criteria for Flight Path development states,
“All requests not made by the airport authority or internal FAA sections responsible for air traffic control
(ATC) and flight procedure development (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) require airport authority
concurrence prior to submission."
This is consistent with US Aviation policy which states that aircraft noise is a shared responsibility
between airport authorities, airlines, state and local government, communities, and the Federal Aviation
Administration. Furthermore, communities expect airport sponsors to balance the interests of various stakeholders.
#2 It is also inaccurate that flight paths will “not change” when petitions for changes are ongoing largely from airlines and the airport itself.
The FAA continuously makes changes to flight paths in response to SFO’s needs and the needs of the National Airspace System. It is impossible for flight paths to be static given that in addition to the FAA’s internal changes (e.g., ATC, flight standards, FPT, etc.) requests are initiated by airlines - including for private use flight paths. SFO also has flight path procedures (navigation rules) for its new landing system “GBAS” which can INCREASE noise and SFO controls these procedures.
It is evident that the FAA looks to airports to provide local context in efforts to be responsive to the public and to consider the environment and people. SFO's misrepresentation that “flight paths will not change” has broken trust before. Unless this is addressed, SFO is misinforming the FAA on current and future
projects, and leaving the public in the dark about potential consequences from SFO’s operations.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND MISSING REGIONAL HISTORY:
SFO’s claim that “no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths” mixes two sets of airport infrastructure that have distinct impacts and mitigation options.
The public needs to be informed that while runways are not changing, SFO’s flight paths are not static; flight path procedure (navigation rules) design and the level of usage of flight paths from increasing operations can increase noise and air quality impacts. Not only are flight paths distinct infrastructure from runways, flight paths can be more deleterious in terms of affecting more sensitive areas and people. The menu of potential mitigations for flight paths is also distinct. Quieter aircraft engines for example do not help address flight path noise but thoughtful flight path design and compliance can meaningfully mitigate night time noise. These mitigations however cannot be employed if the airport is denying how directly their project will impact noise. Adding a gate to serve more passengers means more flights, more flight path impacts. Moreover SFO’s plan leverages powerful airline programs to induce more operations for more profits. As noted by public comment at the May 22 Hearing, United Airlines has a $2.6 billion construction project to re-establish SFO as the airline’s global gateway. This expands United’s route networks with more flights, including promotional flights that are not at full passenger capacity but add more noise.
Airport-airline projects influence noise as happened with Nextgen when airlines requested lower altitudes for SFO’s arrivals which greatly increased noise. The failure to recognize community concerns over flight path changes led to an FAA Initiative and official community meetings with FAA and local leaders in three counties; thousands of citizens weighed in over months to come up with consensus recommendations to address flight path noise and night time operations. The DEIR's omission of the impacts of flight path changes undermines recent regional history to address just this issue, and ignores opportunities identified by citizens, local officials and the FAA to mitigate flight path impacts affecting people's health and the environment.
INQUIRY ON THE NOISE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD:
We would like to know the reason why SFO looks at the +1.5dB increase in 65 CNEL criteria when the FAA’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Guideline Order 1050.1F looks at a 3 dB increase in DNL 60-65 dB and +5 dB for 45-60 dB as well.
CEQA allows the flexibility to use significance thresholds below 65 CNEL and more metrics to consider local context, so it is disappointing that only the higher threshold criteria (65) is applied which effectively
lowers the standard for SFO’s environmental review. As SFO is aware, the FAA has scientific studies that provide substantial evidence that 65 DNL or 65 CNEL is no longer supported to identify community concerns. The FAA surveyed 10,000 residents living near 20,000 representative airports with results showing that aircraft noise causes greater levels of community annoyance compared to other transportation noise and, a need for more sensitive criteria to evaluate aircraft noise. There are also legal considerations about noise threshold criteria to assess areas that qualify for insulation, vs National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise impacts to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the highest number of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is necessary; sleep being critical for physical and mental health and productivity. SFO has extensive data to accomplish regional noise assessments, and with various metrics. In addition, provide details such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for SFO arrival flight paths. The report should also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path requests; how pre- and post-implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed, and who is responsible for keeping communities informed.
Please reject any environmental review for SFO that excludes SFO’s regional impacts.
Thank you for your attention,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Subject:June 2, Item #3
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 12:52:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Councilmembers,
I recently spoke with a friend who lives on Middlefield Road and learned that the Council may
be considering whether to add Middlefield Road bike lanes back onto the project list as part ofthe Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). I am very concerned that this action
would disregard the substantial public opposition expressed during the comment period.
Ross Road and Bryant Street, which run parallel to Middlefield, have already been designated
as bike routes, with significant public investment—particularly on Ross. Introducing bikelanes on Middlefield would seem to undermine those prior efforts and investments intended to
encourage cyclists to use Ross and Bryant.
In addition, removing parking along Middlefield would pose significant challenges for North
Palo Alto residents, where many homes directly front the street. The combination of bike lanesand the loss of parking would directly affect residents' ability to safely access and navigate
their neighborhood.
This is also a sensitive issue for those of us in Ventura. We were promised that Park
Boulevard would become a designated Bike Boulevard with corresponding improvements, yetthose upgrades have yet to materialize. Now, with El Camino Real improvements underway,
we fear we may never see those long-promised enhancements.
I respectfully urge you not to reintroduce the Middlefield Road bike lanes at this time. Doing
so would send the wrong message—that the voices of residents are not being heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
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:Nick Webster
Cc:Brian Phillips; Taylor Hungerford
Subject:Partner with Rad Work for Your 2026 World Cup Community Celebrations
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 11:36:24 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Leadership, Events, Parks and Recreation,
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is coming to America, and your community has an incredible opportunity to be
part of this historic global celebration. Cities across the country are encouraged to create engaging fan
experiences and community events that bring the excitement of the world's biggest sporting event directly
to your residents.
That's where Rad Work comes in.
We're a specialized soccer activation company dedicated to creating unforgettable fan experiences and
community celebrations. With the World Cup just around the corner, we're reaching out to forward-
thinking municipalities like yours to help you maximize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Our Services Include:
Custom Viewing Parties - Professional setup with large screens, sound systems, and crowd
management
Interactive Soccer Activations - Skills challenges, penalty kick contests, and family-friendly
activities
Community Fan Festivals - Complete event planning from concept to execution
Cultural Celebrations - Authentic experiences celebrating the international spirit of the World
Cup
Youth Engagement Programs - Soccer clinics and educational components
Beautification Support - Helping with banners, decorations, and World Cup theming
We understand that every community is unique, which is why we customize our approach to fit your
budget, venue, and vision. Whether you're planning an intimate neighborhood gathering or a city-wide
celebration, we have the expertise and resources to make it spectacular.
Why Partner with Rad Work?
Proven experience in soccer event activation
Full-service approach (we handle the details so you can focus on your community)
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Scalable solutions for any budget
A passionate team that understands the magic of soccer
The World Cup will bring hundreds of thousands of visitors to our region, and this is your chance to
showcase what makes your community special while creating lasting memories for residents.
Next Steps: I'd love to schedule a brief 15-minute call to discuss your World Cup plans and explore how
Rad Work can support your goals. We're offering free initial consultations to help cities make the most of
this incredible opportunity.
Please reply to this email or call me directly at 310-795-0323 to set up a conversation. Time is moving
quickly, and the most successful community celebrations will be those that start planning early.
Let's make your World Cup celebration unforgettable.
Best regards,
Nick
Rad Work Soccer Activations
310-795-0323
nickjwebster@rad.work
rad.experience
P.S. We're also happy to connect you with other municipalities we're working with to share ideas and best
practices. The World Cup is about bringing communities together, and that starts right here!
From:Aram James
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;
Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Josh Becker; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky;
assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission;
Dave Price; Sean Allen; Pat M; Gardener, Liz; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; EPA Today; Templeton, Cari; Cribbs,
Anne; Cait James; Tim James; Josie James-Le; Marina Lopez; board@pausd.org; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin;
Donna Wallach; Ruth Silver Taube; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James;
cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Barberini, Christopher;
<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Salem Ajluni; Raymond Goins; Daniel Kottke; Karen Holman;
Drekmeier, Peter; Tom DuBois; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Nash,
Betsy; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Palo Alto Free Press; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Friends of
Cubberley; Lotus Fong; Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; BoardOperations;
boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Bill Newell; Mickie Winkler; h.etzko@gmail.com; Vara Ramakrishnan; Patrice
Ventresca; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Jeff
Conrad; Diana Diamond; Doug Minkler; Bains, Paul; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Enberg, Nicholas
Subject:MIT bans class president from graduation commencement after pro-Palestinian speech
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 9:15:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
MIT bans class president from graduation
commencement after pro-Palestinian speech
Megha Vemuri called out MIT for having research ties with the Israeli army and "aiding andabetting" the country with its "assault on the Palestinian people."
MIT bans class president from graduation commencement after pro-Palestinian speech
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mit-bans-class-president-graduation-commencement-palestinian-speech-rcna210023
From:Joyce Schmid
To:Council, City
Cc:Greg Schmid (external); CeCi Kettendorf; letters@padailypost.com
Subject:Fire station four
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 1:33:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
There was another major fire in the Palo Verde neighborhood today—May 31, 2025--on
Vernon Terrace. The house that burned on Janice Way in January of this year is stilluninhabitable. The week before the Janice Way fire, there was a fire on Kenneth Drive.
Please, dear City Council Members. Please. Station Four is one of the few— if not the only—
fire station in Palo Alto that uses cross staffing. That is blatantly inequitable and dangerous.Had there been a medical emergency requiring an ambulance, the fire truck (which we are
grateful to have!) would have been stuck in the station, unable to respond to the fire.
We were lucky today. The staff was not out on a medical emergency so the first fire truck toarrive was from Station 4. I was told by bystanders that even so, response time was 10 minutes
from the time of the 911 call. By the time the Station Four truck arrived, according to the PaloAlto Online, the house was fully involved in flames.
The house next door is marked by charcoal. Thank God there was little wind. Thank God the
trucks arrived in time to save the surrounding homes— and the whole neighborhood. Hadthere not been a fire truck fully manned at Station Four, arriving trucks may have face a
whole neighbor in flames.
How many homes have to burn before it becomes clear that we need at least the same fireprotection as the rest of the City?
And given the reckless buildup of dense housing the City Council has planned for this side of
town, we will actually need more than just one fully-staffed fire truck. At a recentneighborhood meeting, our City Manager told us that the new housing won’t burn because ithe
building will be protected with sprinkler systems. To my knowledge sprinkler systems are notfamous for putting out major fires.
Please: start with IMMEDIATELY giving full staff to Station Four.
And then please think about how much fire protections will be needed in the light of all the
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
new homes to be built here.
Thank you for reading this desperate plea.
Joyce Schmid3428 Janice Way
Palo Alto, 94303
From:Aram James
To:Raymond Goins; Jose Valle; Sean Allen; Pat M; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council;Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; DuJuan Green; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Dave Price; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Afanasiev,Alex; Emily Mibach; h.etzko@gmail.com; Barberini, Christopher; chuck jagoda; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto;cromero@cityofepa.org; Human Relations Commission
Subject:After nearly 6,000 California prisoners falsely tested positive for opioids, officials launch sweeping review
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:47:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
After nearly 6,000 California prisoners falsely tested positive for opioids, officials launch
sweeping review
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-05-31/hundreds-state-parole-denials-under-
review
From:Aram James
To:Sean Allen; Pat M; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California DemocraticDelegate, Assembly District 23; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Dave Price; h.etzko@gmail.com; JayBoyarsky; Human Relations Commission; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois;dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Perron, Zachary; Foley, Michael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Raymond Goins; Lotus Fong;Roberta Ahlquist; Gerry Gras; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; board@pausd.org; BillNewell; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; EPA Today; city.council@menlopark.gov; Cait James;Tim James; Marina Lopez
Subject:Todd Chrisley said that he witnessed "injustices" against Black inmates while in prison: "They were denied access
to certain things. I was not denied that, but …
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2025 1:58:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Todd Chrisley said that he witnessed 'injustices' against Black inmates while in prison: 'They
were denied access to certain things. I was not denied that, but …
Todd Chrisley admits he got specialtreatment in prison over Black inmates:'We know why I wasn't denied that'
Source: EW.comhttps://share.google/9WhLtQSFuLZEjjPw6
From:D Martell
To:Blanch, Sandra
Cc:adriana@eberlaw.com; michellekraus@yahoo.com; Shikada, Ed; Ed Lauing; Hoyt, George; Council, City; Van Der
Zwaag, Minka; O"Kane, Kristen
Subject:for Sandra Blanch ... Are you Minka Van Der Zwaag"s Supervisor?
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2025 12:31:14 AM
Attachments:image003.pngimage001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Ms. Sandra Blanch – Please FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO HRC COMMISSIONERS &
confirm when you have done so:
Mary Kate Stimmler, Chair
Sridhar Karnam
Katie Causey
Don Barr
Ms. Sandra Blanch, DirectorHuman Resources
City of Palo Alto
Dear Ms. Blanch:
Thank you for your acknowledgement of this very important issue of city trust andconfidentiality, especially because it involves the Human Relations Commission (HRC).
I see you cc'd Kristen O'Kane. What is your interest, and what is Kristen O'Kane's interest in
this issue?
Are either of you one of Ms. Van Der Zwaag's supervisors?
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
(I do not believe in hidden players and insist on knowing the names of those whohave been brought into my personal, private business.)
If so,
Then, I request a meeting with you, and extend an invitation to include Ms. Van DerZwaag, HRC Commissioners Michelle Kraus and Adriana Eberle, Esq, and all other HRC
commissioners.Else, forward Ms. Van Der Zwaag's supervisor's name and contact information as soon
as you can manage, please.
I have no interest in receiving Ms. Van Der Zwaag's email.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag's emails are blocked, sending them to spam without being seen.Ms. Van Der Zwaag and I spoke at length about her betrayal and there is nothing else to
be said between the two of us.
At that time, she made no apologies or excuses for her unethical behavior.Her sole defense was that she did not "feel comfortable" revealing with whom she
spoke, in the department that I specifically asked her to not approach.
She refused to identify others with whom she shared my private business,although she commented there were others in a voicemail, which I saved.
I am not just upset and disappointed, I am disgusted.
Cordially,
Danielle MartelldmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Residentialist – Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Blanch, Sandra <Sandra.Blanch@paloalto.gov>Date: Fri, May 30, 2025 at 4:33 PMSubject: RE: for Minka Van Der Zwaag... Your Violation of Promised Confidentiality as the City Liaison to Human Relations Commission (HRC)To: dmpaloalto@gmail.com <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>Cc: adriana@eberlaw.com <adriana@eberlaw.com>, michellekraus@yahoo.com <michellekraus@yahoo.com>, Lauing, Ed<Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, Van Der Zwaag, Minka <Minka.VanDerZwaag@paloalto.gov>, O'Kane, Kristen<Kristen.O'Kane@paloalto.gov>, Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>
Dear Ms. Martell,
Thank you for sending the email below to us; we understand your frustration in this sensitive
matter. This is to acknowledge your statement regarding your meeting with the Community
Services Manager you identified below. We have been in dialogue with Ms. Van Der Zwaag
regarding this situation and you should expect to receive a response from her as well within
the next 7 – 10 business days. To your question about notes, there are no responsive records
to your request.
Sincerely,
Sandra
Sandra Blanch
Director, HR
Human Resources
(650) 329-2294 |sandra.blanch@paloalto.gov
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 4:54 PM
To: Van Der Zwaag, Minka <Minka.VanDerZwaag@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: adriana@eberlaw.com; michellekraus@yahoo.com; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Ed
Lauing <elauing@equitysearchpartners.com>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>; Council,
City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: for Minka Van Der Zwaag... Your Violation of Promised Confidentiality as the City Liaison to
Human Relations Commission (HRC)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
MINKA – FORWARD TO HRC COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Kate Stimmler, Chair
Sridhar Karnam
Katie Causey
Don Barr
Minka Van Der Zwaag
City Liaison to Human Relations Commission (HRC)
City of Palo Alto
Dear Minka,
I have been exposed to some extremely tragic experiences and was referred to andapproached HRC for discrete help and direction.
On May 12, Monday, you, HRC Commissioner Michelle Kraus, and I met at a downtowncoffee shop to discuss a private issue, which involves the city.
At that time, you assured me that we were having a confidential meeting and you would notviolate my privacy; you said to trust you.
You asked for, and I gave permission to speak with ONLY City of Palo Alto BuildingCode Official George Hoyt re my personal business.
Immediately after our meeting, I met with Mr. Hoyt and summarized thismeeting.
I told him to expect your call.
I stressed to you to NOT talk with anyone else at City Hall, and was assured you wouldnot, without going through me first.
Yet, on May 27, during our follow-up phone conversation yesterday, you confessed youapproached and shared what was said at our meeting with another department at City Hall.
You refused to tell me with whom you spoke, stating it was "a colleague", as though that made
it okay .. of course it does NOT, and of course all city employees are your colleagues!
In fact, you spoke to a department that I specifically singled out and emphasized to NOTspeak to, and further detailed why, at length.
I am shocked and mortified that you lied and betrayed my trust.
I demand you tell me with whom you spoke and what transpired.
The good citizens of Palo Alto's tax dollars pay your salary, plusoutstanding benefits.
You forget that you are a servant of the hard-working citizens of PaloAlto.
Again, I need a recap of all your conversations with all at City Hall, with whom you
spoke, and a copy of all correspondences and notes taken.
I consider you unethical, unprincipled, dishonest, and not worthy of working for
my great city.
Please forward this email to ALL the HRC Commissioners so they have a clear
understanding of how unprincipled you operate.
I demand you immediately identify the supervisor who evaluates your work
performance, and send me that employee's contact information.
Danelle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Residentialist – Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
From:Henry Etzkowitz
To:Bette Kiernan; Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; Brian Good; Office of the Provost; Jim Hersh; Avroh Shah;Lotus Fong; Marty Wasserman; Gennady Sheyner; Hannah Lu; Jeanne Fleming; Palo Post; Council, City; RoselineRasolovoahangy; Mark Granovetter; Ellen Fox; Braden Cartwright; Sarah Wright; Mickie Winkler; Joe Penko;Charlie Weidanz; Mary Rorty; Gloria Hom; Cribbs, Anne; Carol Kiparsky; George for Palo Alto; Cari Templeton forCouncil; Henry Riggs; Aram James; W. James Hersh; Jinx Lobdell; John Burt; Roberto Islas; Whitney McNair; JimBeddows; Chunyan Zhou
Subject:Harvard Agonistes
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 3:53:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
>>
>> Cut off the head of the hydra and the body will writhe in dying agony. This is the TrumpistIstrategy of isolating and targeting the renowned leader of American academia, knowing that
if Harvard bows>> and kisses the hem all except a few idiosyncratics will follow the leader as they classically
have in trying to be Harvard of the Wabash or wherever.>
> >> Sincerely
>> >> Henry Etzkowitz
>> Sociology Department>> Stanford University
>> www.triplehelix.net>> 6467012695
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Police; Council, City
Subject:Police Response to Courthouse Protest
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 3:08:34 PM
The City of Palo Alto Police response to the protest at the courthouse/ arraignment of the Stanford student vandals
yesterday couldn't have been carried out in a more professional, capable and competent manner. If I am given three
minutes to speak at public comments on Monday (the 2nd), I will share more details. If not, it will just be a public
thank you.
The only note to add is that the protest organizers, who were violating a number of laws, got to speak, unimpeded
and amplified for twenty minutes before the students walked out of the courthouse. German Gonzales, the lead
speaker of the students, got to speak, amplified, for maybe ten minutes before PAPD showed up. He, and other
students, got to continue speaking - with amplifiers - for another twenty minutes after PAPD showed up. All of this
was recorded by the press and for television by NBC, with the arrival of the police and their dispersal of the crowd
adding considerable "news value" to their protest.
These students and the organizations supporting them are already ranting about how their freedom of speech was
abridged. Not only is this not true, but they were allowed to continue speaking for a long time when what they were
violating laws and PAPD chose to not press the issue until it was clear that they were simply going to carry on for as
long as they could get away with.
Last thought: Thank heavens we are not dependent on SCC Sheriffs for law enforcement! Just sayin.'
Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Bundle - May 30
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 2:19:22 PM
Attachments:FW Cal Ave needs a safety barrier ASAP..msgFW Parking Citation 524 blue Honda civic 8EUW621.msgRE GRADE SEPARATION CHARLESTON ROAD POTENTIAL UNDER COUNT OF FULL TAKES.msgRE Pedestrian safety downtown.msgRE Cars speeding and With Tampered Mufflers On Arastradero.msgimage001.pngimage002.png
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 May 30, 2025.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; Council, City; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; georgeglu@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed
Subject:Thanks for tabling the Middlefield Rd bike plan, now permanently remove it. Item 3
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 11:43:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of City Council,
I am writing to ask you to permanently remove from consideration any plan to addbike lanes to Middlefield Road, or to otherwise encourage cyclists to use this road.
This is the third -- 3d -- time that residents got NO OFFICIAL OUTREACH /
warnings about this drastic plan that would have directly affected us, our neighborson cross-streets, our visitors, us and all service our people; cleaners, gardeners,painters, pool people etc as well as emergency vehicles along with all the school
parents doing pick-up/drop-off at all the Middlefield Road schools, visitors to Lucie
Stern, visitors to the Junior Museum and Zoo which is promoted as a regionaltourist attraction..
(Note this plan to slow traffic all over Palo ALSO slows emergency vehicles all
over Palo Alto!!)
One frustrated neighbor called this latest recycling of this failed plan deja vu all
over again. Others decry the fact that Palo Alto has become a place i where bad
ideas are tabled but never die. I wonder why Palo Alto continues to waste moneyon plans KNOWN to be so dangerous that were rejected twice before when ourstreets were safer.
Fortunately, alert residents and individual city staffers warned us about these plans
each of those 3 times they city tried to push this through while ignoring that thestreet is even more dangerous than the last 2 times they tried this -- and EACH time
residents rallied in droves to kill, er table,
Not that this time, the Middlefield plan got the MOST pushback comments of allthe 100 projects the city and their outside consultants pitched in their incredibly
dense and confusing plan which totally ignores the recent deaths of bicycles on
busy roads like Middlefield and Embarcadero (at Newell) while pushing bikingon these busy roads! WHY??
And why do we have to waste time and energy fighting this increasingly dangerous
recycled nonsense??
As many others have written to you, it is dangerous for cyclists on MiddlefieldRoad. Moreover, cyclists pose a danger to cars trying to avoid them on this narrow,
busy street, and to residents trying to back out of their driveways and to parked cars
and to through traffic boxed in by the bollards sometimes backed up INTO major
intersections like Oregon and Embarcadero
So please kill this bad plan for once and all.
And please stop trying to make life miserable for the vast majority of Palo Alto's66,000 residents and the roughly 264,000 commuters who drive -- low figuresbecause they don't reflect all the new jobs and new housing units -- to appease the
biking zealots and staffers more motivated by getting grant money than by real
safety factors, more reliant on outside consultants with no local knowledge.
(If you want local knowledge, I'll be glad to describe the 3+ collisions directly in
front of my home at Lowell and Middlefield and the perils of the dangerous zero-
visibility bollards already at every Middlefield intersection!)
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
See the news citations below on how drivers are pushing back on the dangers of
similar plans that benefit few while inconveniences tens of thousands.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/traffic-bridge-bicycle-lane-marin-20326160.php
Drivers blame this Bay Area bridge’s
gridlock on a bike lane.
... Critics, however, accuse officials of catering to a small group of hardcore riders
at the expense of people who struggle to get to work each day. According to the
MTC, 140 cyclists cross the Richmond-San Rafael span on an average weekday,
a number that rises to 360 on Saturdays and Sundays. By contrast, the bridge’s
westbound upper deck carries about 35,000 drivers...
San Francisco Leader Faces Recall
After Drivers Lost Their Great
Highway
Joel Engardio, an elected city supervisor, angered thousands of voters by helping to
convert a major thoroughfare into a coastal park.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/san-francisco-recall-great-highway-
park.html
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 6/4/25 Meeting
Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 11:07:20 AM
Attachments:June 2025 Meeting Agenda Packet.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The agenda packet for the June 4, 2025 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website:
https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-06-04-201500.
Best regards,
Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
777 North First Street, Suite 410
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 993-4709
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
REGULAR MEETING
Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, First Floor, San Jose
and
City Administration Conference Room, Gilroy City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St, Gilroy
June 4, 2025 ▪ 1:15 PM
AGENDA
Chairperson: Sylvia Arenas ▪ Vice-Chairperson: Rosemary Kamei
PUBLIC ACCESS AND PARTICIPATION This meeting will be held in person at the location listed above. As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may also attend by virtual teleconference. However, LAFCO cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, the meeting will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing option. To attend the meeting by virtual teleconference, access the meeting at https://sccgov-org.zoom.us/j/84061847627 or by dialing (669) 900-6833 and entering Meeting ID 840 6184 7627# when prompted.
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Written Public Comments may be submitted by email to LAFCO@ceo.sccgov.org. Written comments will be distributed to the Commission and posted to the agenda on the LAFCO website as quickly as possible but may take up to 24 hours.
Spoken public comments may be provided in-person at the meeting. Persons who wish to address the Commission on an item are requested to complete a Request to Speak Form and place it in the designated tray near the dais. Request to Speak Forms must be submitted prior to the start of public comment for the desired item. For items on the Consent Calendar or items added to the Consent Calendar, Request to Speak Forms must be submitted prior to the call for public comment on the Consent Calendar. Individual speakers will be called to speak in turn. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to the time limit allotted.
Spoken public comments may also be provided through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission virtually, click on the link https://sccgov-org.zoom.us/j/84061847627 to access the meeting and follow the instructions below:
• You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you when it is your turn to speak.
• When the Chairperson calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand” icon. The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. Call-in attendees press *9 to request to speak, and *6 to unmute when prompted.
• When called to speak, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
PAGE 2 of 4
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
• Pursuant to Government Code §84308, no LAFCO commissioner shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $500 from any party, or a party’s agent; or any participant or the participant’s agent if the commission knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest, while a LAFCO proceeding is pending, and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered by LAFCO. Prior to rendering a decision on a LAFCO proceeding, any LAFCO commissioner who received a contribution of more than $500 within the preceding 12 months from a party or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding. If a commissioner receives a contribution which would otherwise require disqualification returns the contribution within 30 days from the time the commissioner knows or should have known, about the contribution and the proceeding, the commissioner shall be permitted to participate in the proceeding. A party to a LAFCO proceeding shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution of more than $500 within the preceding 12 months by the party, or the party’s agent, to a LAFCO commissioner. For forms, visit the LAFCO website at www.santaclaralafco.org. No party, or the party’s agent and no participant, or the participant’s agent, shall make a contribution of more than $500 to any LAFCO commissioner during the proceeding or for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered by LAFCO.
• Pursuant to Government Code Sections 56100.1, 56300, 56700.1, 57009 and 81000 et seq., any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly contribute(s) a total of $1,000 or more or expend(s) a total of $1,000 or more in support of or in opposition to specified LAFCO proposals or proceedings, which generally include proposed reorganizations or changes of organization, may be required to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act (See also, Section 84250 et seq.). These requirements contain provisions for making disclosures of contributions and expenditures at specified intervals. More information on the scope of the required disclosures is available at the web site of the FPPC: www.fppc.ca.gov. Questions regarding FPPC material, including FPPC forms, should be directed to the FPPC’s advice line at 1-866-ASK-FPPC (1-866-275- 3772).
• Pursuant to Government Code §56300(c), LAFCO adopted lobbying disclosure requirements which require that any person or entity lobbying the Commission or Executive Officer in regard to an application before LAFCO must file a declaration prior to the hearing on the LAFCO application or at the time of the hearing if that is the initial contact. In addition to submitting a declaration, any lobbyist speaking at the LAFCO hearing must so identify themselves as lobbyists and identify on the record the name of the person or entity making payment to them. Additionally, every applicant shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury listing all lobbyists that they have hired to influence the action taken by LAFCO on their application. For forms, visit the LAFCO website at www.santaclaralafco.org.
• Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on the agenda and distributed to all or a majority of the Commissioners less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the LAFCO Office, 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, California, during normal business hours. (Government Code §54957.5.)
• In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodation for this meeting should notify the LAFCO Clerk 24 hours prior to meeting at (408) 993- 4705.
PAGE 3 of 4
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS This portion of the meeting provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, provided that the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. No action may be taken on off- agenda items unless authorized by law. Speakers are limited to THREE minutes. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
3. APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar includes Agenda Items marked with an asterisk (*). The Commission may add to or remove agenda items from the Consent Calendar. All items that remain on the Consent Calendar are voted on in one motion. If an item is approved on the Consent Calendar, the specific action recommended by staff is adopted. Members of the public who wish to address the Commission on Consent Calendar items should comment under this item.
4. COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS BY THE INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE
For Information Only.
*5. APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2025 LAFCO MEETING
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. FINAL WORK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR FY 2026 AND AB 2561 DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF EMPLOYEE VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, as revised by the Commission at its April 2, 2025 meeting. 2. Adopt the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. 3. Find that the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 is expected to be adequate to allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. 4. Authorize staff to transmit the Final Budget adopted by the Commission including the estimated agency costs to the cities, the special districts, the County, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara County Special Districts Association. 5. Direct the County Auditor-Controller to apportion LAFCO costs to the cities; to the special districts; and to the County; and to collect payment pursuant to Government Code §56381.
PAGE 4 of 4
ITEMS FOR ACTION / INFORMATION
*7. RESULT OF THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL: SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ANNEXATION
For Information Only.
*8. CALAFCO RELATED ACTIVITIES
8.1 Report on the 2025 CALAFCO Staff Workshop (April 30 – May 2, 2025)
For Information Only.
8.2 2025 CALAFCO Regional Meetings and Cultural Assessment Survey
For Information Only.
8.3 2025 CALAFCO Annual Conference (October 22 – 24, 2025)
Recommended Action: Authorize commissioners and staff to attend the Annual Conference and direct that associated travel expenses be funded by the LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2026.
*9. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ASSURA SOFTWARE, LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CUSTOMIZED DATABASE AND FOR PROVIDING ONGOING LICENSING AND ANCILLARY SUPPORT SERVICES
Recommended Action: 1. Approve the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Assura Software, LLC, for the design and development of a customized database to process LAFCO applications, track public inquiries, and manage the LAFCO contacts directory; and for providing ongoing licensing and ancillary support services, including, hosting, and technical support.
10. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
11. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES / NEWSLETTERS
12. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
13. ADJOURN Adjourn to the regular LAFCO meeting on August 6, 2025 at 1:15 PM in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose.
PAGE 1 OF 2
ITEM # 4
LAFCO MEETING: June 4, 2025
TO: LAFCO
FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
Dunia Noel, Asst. Executive Officer
SUBJECT: COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS BY THE INDEPENDENT
SPECIAL DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE (ISDSC)
FOR INFORMATION ONLY At its meeting on May 14, 2025, the Independent Special District Selection Committee (ISDSC) unanimously reappointed Yoriko Kishimoto (Board Member of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and current LAFCO Commissioner) as a regular member and Helen Chapman (Board Member of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and current LAFCO Alternate Commissioner) as an alternate member, to serve on LAFCO for new four-year terms from June 2025 through May 2029. The current terms of Commissioner Kishimoto and Alternate Commissioner Chapman expire on May 31, 2025 and they will both begin new four-year terms on LAFCO on June 1, 2025. Pursuant to Government Code §56332(b), Executive Officer Palacherla convened the meeting of the ISDSC (composed of presiding officers of the 17 independent special districts in Santa Clara County) on May 14, 2025, to appoint two special district members to serve on LAFCO as a regular LAFCO commissioner and an alternate. LAFCO commissioner. In December 2012, Santa Clara LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 2012-07, expanding its membership to include two special district members and one alternate special district member. Under the agreement with the Special Districts Association of Santa Clara County, one special district member is appointed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), while the ISDSC appoints the second regular member and the alternate member to serve in place of either regular member when necessary. We thank the ISDSC members and all participants for their time and attendance at the May 14, 2025 meeting and continued interest in LAFCO. LAFCO staff conducts an orientation program to educate incoming Commissioners on the agency’s history, State mandate, the roles of Commissioners and staff, and Santa Clara LAFCO’s key planning boundaries. The program also covers regulatory
PAGE 2 OF 2
and planning tools, the application review process, the service review program, decision-making procedures, policies, outreach efforts, and current or upcoming projects. Commissioner Kishimoto and Alternate Commissioner Chapman are already well acquainted with LAFCO, having served as Commissioner/Alternate Commissioners for many years. Therefore, an orientation is not necessary in their case.
PAGE 1 OF 4
LAFCO MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:23 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL
Commissioners
•Sylvia Arenas, Chairperson
•Rosemary Kamei, Vice Chairperson
•Jim Beall
•Yoriko Kishimoto (Absent)
•Otto Lee
•Terry Trumbull
•Mark Turner
Alternate Commissioners
•Pamela Campos (Arrived at 1:38 p.m.)
•Helen Chapman (Voting for Yoriko Kishimoto)
•Betty Duong (Absent)
•Zach Hilton
•Teresa O’Neill
Staff
•Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
•Dunia Noel, Assistant Executive Officer
•Emmanuel Abello, Analyst
•Sonia Humphrey, Clerk
•Mala Subramanian, Counsel
2.PUBLIC COMMENTSThere were none.
ITEM # 5
PAGE 2 OF 4
3. APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Lee SECOND: Chapman AYES: Arenas, Beall, Chapman, Kamei, Lee, Trumbull, Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Commission Action: The Commission approved the Consent Calendar, including Items #4, #8, #9 and #10.
4. TAKEN ON CONSENT: APPROVE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2025 LAFCO MEETING The Commission approved the minutes of the February 5, 2025 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION ANNEXATION / SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT
Chairperson Arenas opened the public hearing. 5 individuals addressed the Commission.
Chairperson Arenas closed the public hearing. MOTION: Arenas SECOND: Lee AYES: Arenas, Beall, Chapman, Kamei, Lee, Trumbull, Turner NOES: Turner ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Commission Action: 1. The Commission determined that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15320, Class 20. 2. The Commission approved LAFCO Resolution 2025-01 which: a. approves the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendment that includes all lands contained in the SOI of the South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) and adopts SOI determinations, and b. approves the dissolution of the SCFD and concurrent annexation of its territory to the CCFD, subject to the listed terms and conditions. 3. The Commission directed the LAFCO Executive Officer to conduct protest proceedings pursuant to GC §57000.
PAGE 3 OF 4
6. PROPOSED WORK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR FY 2026 MOTION: Arenas SECOND: Lee AYES: Arenas, Beall, Chapman, Kamei, Lee, Trumbull, Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Commission Action: 1. The Commission directed staff to amend the proposed Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 to include a work item to conduct a strategic planning workshop for the Commission to specifically discuss development of environmental justice policies. 2. Adopted the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. 3. Found that the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 is adequate to allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. 4. Authorized staff to transmit the Proposed Budget adopted by the Commission including the estimated agency costs as well as the LAFCO public hearing notice for the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2026 Final Budget to the cities, the special districts, the County, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara County Special Districts Association.
ITEMS FOR ACTION / INFORMATION
7. PROPOSED WORK PLAN: PHASE 2 - COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF LAFCO POLICIES MOTION: Lee SECOND: Kamei AYES: Arenas, Beall, Chapman, Kamei, Lee, Trumbull, Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Commission Action: The Commission approved the work plan for Phase 2 Comprehensive Review and Update of LAFCO Policies
8. TAKEN ON CONSENT: EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT
Commission Action: The Commission accepted the report.
9. TAKEN ON CONSENT: SPECIAL DISTRICT MEMBER TERMS EXPIRATION
For Information Only.
10. TAKEN ON CONSENT: CALAFCO UPDATE
Commission Action: The Commission accepted the report.
PAGE 4 OF 4
11. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Beall shared about the recent passing of Don Gage and recollected fond memories of serving together on the County Board of Supervisors for over 10 years.
Alternate Commissioner Chapman shared that former Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (OSA) Director Mike Flaugher passed away in February. He served on their Board for 10 years.
Chairperson Arenas acknowledged a member of the public, Kanta Khiatani and praised the positive impact she, along with Don Gage and Mike Flaugher, had on our lives.
12. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES / NEWSLETTERS There were none.
13. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE There were none.
14. ADJOURN The Commission adjourned at 4:00 p.m., to the next regular LAFCO meeting on June 4, 2025, at 1:15 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose. Approved on June 4, 2025 _________________________________________ Sylvia Arenas, Chairperson Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County Prepared by: _____________________________________ Emmanuel Abello, LAFCO Analyst
PAGE 1 OF 3
ITEM # 6
LAFCO MEETING: June 4, 2025
TO: LAFCO
FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: FINAL WORK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR FY 2026 AND
AB 2561 DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF EMPLOYEE
VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
EFFORTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, as revised by the Commission at its April 2, 2025 meeting. 2. Adopt the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. 3. Find that the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 is expected to be adequate to allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. 4. Authorize staff to transmit the Final Budget adopted by the Commission including the estimated agency costs to the cities, the special districts, the County, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara County Special Districts Association. 5. Direct the County Auditor-Controller to apportion LAFCO costs to the cities; to the special districts; and to the County; and to collect payment pursuant to Government Code §56381.
REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSED WORKPLAN FOR FY 2026 On April 2, 2025, the Commission directed staff to revise the proposed workplan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 to include a work item to conduct a strategic planning workshop for the Commission to specifically discuss potential development of environmental justice policies. Staff has amended the proposed workplan to include the work item under “Applications Review / Processing and LAFCO Policy Development”. See Attachment A for the amended Work Plan.
NO CHANGES TO THE DRAFT/PRELIMINARY BUDGET On April 2, 2025, the Commission adopted its preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 as recommended by the Finance Committee. The preliminary budget
PAGE 2 OF 3
adopted by the Commission is available in the report for Agenda Item # 6 of the April 2, 2025 LAFCO Meeting. No further changes are recommended to the preliminary budget adopted by the commission.
AB 2561 DISCUSSION AB 2561, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, requires a public agency to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once per fiscal year and prior to the adoption of the final budget. It requires the public agency, during the public hearing, to identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. It also entitles the recognized employee organization to be present at the hearing. If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the bill requires the public agency, upon request of the recognized employee organization, to include specified information during the public hearing. Santa Clara LAFCO does not have any vacant positions currently and therefore, there are no recruitment efforts. In addition, there are no recommended changes to retention efforts. Lastly, we have not identified any necessary changes to policies, procedures and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process.
LAFCO ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS REQUIREMENTS The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) which became effective on January 1, 2001, requires LAFCO, as an independent agency, to annually adopt a draft budget by May 1 and a final budget by June 15 at noticed public hearings. Both the draft and the final budgets are required to be transmitted to the cities, the special districts and the County. Government Code §56381(a) establishes that at a minimum, the budget must be equal to that of the previous year unless the Commission finds that reduced staffing or program costs will nevertheless allow it to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Any unspent funds at the end of the year may be rolled over into the next fiscal year budget. After adoption of the final budget by LAFCO, the County Auditor is required to apportion the net operating expenses of the Commission to the agencies represented on LAFCO. LAFCO and the County of Santa Clara entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (effective since July 2001), under the terms of which, the County provides staffing, facilities, and services to LAFCO. The associated costs are reflected in the LAFCO budget. LAFCO is a stand-alone, separate fund within the County’s accounting and budget system and the LAFCO budget information is formatted using the County’s account descriptions/codes.
PAGE 3 OF 3
COST APPORTIONMENT TO CITIES, DISTRICTS AND THE COUNTY The CKH Act requires LAFCO costs to be split in proportion to the percentage of an agency’s representation (excluding the public member) on the Commission. Santa Clara LAFCO is composed of a public member, two County board members, two city council members, and since January 2013 – two special district members. Government Code §56381(b)(1)(A) provides that when independent special districts are seated on LAFCO, the county, cities and districts must each provide a one-third share of LAFCO’s operational budget. Since the City of San Jose has permanent membership on LAFCO, as required by Government Code §56381.6(b), the City of San Jose’s share of LAFCO costs must be in the same proportion as its member bears to the total membership on the commission, excluding the public member. Therefore, in Santa Clara County, the City of San Jose pays one sixth and the remaining cities pay one sixth of LAFCO’s operational costs. Per the CKH Act, the remaining cities’ share must be apportioned in proportion to each city’s total revenue, as reported in the most recent edition of the Cities Annual Report published by the Controller, as a percentage of the combined city revenues within a county. Each city’s share is therefore based on the 2022/2023 Report – which is the most recent edition available. Government Code Section 56381 provides that the independent special districts’ share shall be apportioned in proportion to each district’s total revenues as a percentage of the combined total district revenues within a county. The Santa Clara County Special Districts Association (SDA), at its August 13, 2012 meeting, adopted an alternative formula for distributing the independent special districts’ share to individual districts. The SDA’s agreement requires each district’s cost to be based on a fixed percentage of the total independent special districts’ share. The estimated apportionment of LAFCO’s FY 2026 costs to the individual cities and districts is included as Attachment B. The final costs will be calculated and invoiced to the individual agencies by the County Controller’s Office after LAFCO adopts the final budget.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: LAFCO Workplan for FY 2026 Attachment B: Final LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 Attachment C: Costs to Agencies Based on the Final Budget
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 1 OF 6
PRIORITY* H - High Priority (essential activities: state mandate, Commission directive, requirements)
M - Medium Priority (important, provided resources allow or time permits)
L - Low Priority (desirable provided resources allow or time permits, not urgent)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
AP
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S R
E
V
I
E
W
/
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
I
N
G
A
N
D
LA
F
C
O
PO
L
I
C
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Process applicant-initiated LAFCO proposals Encourage pre-application meetings prior to
application submittal
Conduct pre-agenda meetings with County Depts. to
obtain Assessor & Surveyor reports, as needed
Process applications per CKH Act requirements: issue
Notice of Application, Certificate of Filing /
Sufficiency, Public Hearing Notice, staff report,
conduct protest proceedings, as needed
Staff H
Comment on potential LAFCO applications,
relevant projects & development proposals, city
General Plan updates and/ or related
environmental documents
Ongoing, as needed Staff H
Comprehensive review and update of LAFCO
policies for context, clarity and consistency with
State law – Phase 2
Develop a Phase 2 workplan /timeline for commission
consideration and begin implementation
Staff H
Prepare flowcharts for LAFCO processes and
update application packets and application fee
schedules for current requirements and ease of
public use
Upon completion of policies update Staff L
Conduct a Strategic Planning Workshop for the
Commission to Consider the Development of
Environmental Justice Policies
Identify a facilitator for the Workshop - Early 2026 Staff / Consultant M
ITEM # 6
Attachment A
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 2 OF 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
ISL
A
N
D
AN
N
E
X
A
T
I
O
N
S
Conduct outreach to cities with islands, follow
up on responses including review/research of
city limits/ USA boundaries, and provide
assistance with annexations or necessary USA
amendments
Prepare and distribute island maps to cities Staff L
Review and finalize city-conducted island
annexations
Ongoing, as needed
Staff H
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
, G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
/
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
R
E
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
&
CU
S
T
O
M
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
Conduct outreach to increase awareness of
LAFCO’s role
Presentations on LAFCO to cities, other agencies or
organizations, as relevant
Distribute LAFCO communications material to elected
officials and staff of cities, special districts and the
County
Seek exhibit opportunities at public spaces / events
Maintain website as the primary information resource
on LAFCO
Staff M
M
L
H
Engage and establish relationships with local
(cities, districts, county), regional (ABAG/MTC),
state (SGC, OPR, DoC, SWRCB) agencies,
organizations such as SDA, SCCAPO, CALAFCO,
other stakeholder groups
Attend regular meetings of SDA (quarterly), SCCAPO
(monthly), and County Planning Dept. (quarterly)
Small water systems issues / legislation
Collaborate with agencies and entities with goals
common to LAFCO
Staff M
M
M
Track LAFCO related legislation Commission takes positions and submits letters on
proposed legislation
Staff M
Respond to public inquiries re. LAFCO policies,
procedures and application filing requirements
Timely response to public inquiries
Update the PRA form for the website
Document research on complex inquiries
Report to Commission on complex inquiries
Staff H
L
L
H
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 3 OF 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
SE
R
V
I
C
E
R
E
V
I
E
W
S
, S
P
E
C
I
A
L
S
T
U
D
I
E
S
&
SP
H
E
R
E
O
F
I
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
UP
D
A
T
E
S
Countywide Fire Service Review Work with interested agencies on implementing
recommendations requiring LAFCO action (Table B
Recommendations)
Staff H
Countywide Water and Wastewater Service
Review
Develop water/wastewater service review workplan
and identify method for consultant selection
Staff M
Continue to monitor implementation of
recommendations from previous service
reviews and conduct special studies, as
necessary
RRRPD study – city took action to delay decision on
consolidation
Staff L
Map Mutual Water companies Initial maps complete, further through service review Staff L
Engage in or support grant / partnership
opportunities on issues related to enhancing
viability of agriculture, and climate smart
growth
As needed, and as opportunities arise Staff L
Compile and post JPA filings on the LAFCO
website
Notice provided, gather JPA information through
service review process
Staff L
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 4 OF 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
Provide ongoing support to the 12
commissioners for regularly scheduled
Commission meetings, special meetings and
Committee meetings (Finance Committee,
Technical Advisory Committees or Ad-Hoc
Committees)
Prepare and distribute public hearing notices and
agenda packets, provide staff support during the
meetings, record minutes, broadcast meetings
Hold pre-agenda review meeting with Chair
Hold pre-meeting calls with individual commissioners
to address agenda item questions and prepare
meeting script for Chair
Process commissioner per diems for attendance at
LAFCO meetings
Staff H
Keep the Commission informed EO report
Off-agenda emails, as needed
Provide ongoing educational opportunities/events,
including presentations from local agencies
Staff
H
Onboarding new Commissioners Facilitate filing / completion of Form 700,
commissioner pledge, ethics training
Update LAFCO letterhead, directory, and website
Set up vendor accounts, provide parking permits
Conduct new Commissioner orientation
Recognize outgoing commissioners for LAFCO service
Organize Commissioner / staff Luncheon
Staff H
Commissioners Selection Process Inform appointing bodies of any upcoming vacancies
and provide information on appointment criteria
Convene ISDSC committee meeting, as necessary
Coordinate public member selection process, as
necessary
Staff H
Commissioner participation in CALAFCO Support commissioner participation in CALAFCO
activities / or election to the CALAFCO Board
Staff L
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 5 OF 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
V
E
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
Prepare LAFCO annual work plan March – June 2025 Staff/Finance
Committee
H
Prepare LAFCO annual budget March – June 2025 Staff/Finance
Committee
H
Prepare LAFCO Annual Report August 2025 Staff H
Prepare LAFCO Annual Financial Audit October 2025 (Contract with Chavan Associates
extended for FY 2024 thru FY 2027)
Consultant / Staff H
Office / facility management Coordinate with Building Manager on facilities issues
Coordinate with County re. computers/network,
phone, printers, office security, procurement,
installation & maintenance
Order and manage office supplies
Make travel arrangements and process expense
reimbursements.
Process mileage reimbursements
Office space lease through April 30, 2027
Staff H
Records management Organize scan of LAFCO records to Electronic
Document Management System (Laserfiche)
Maintain LAFCO’s hard copy records
Maintain and enhance the LAFCO Website
Maintain LAFCO database
Staff/ Consultant
Staff
H
H
H
H
Contracts and payments & receivables Track consultant contracts and approve invoices
Approve vendor invoices / process annual payments
for various services/ memberships
Coordinate with County Controller’s Office and track
annual collection of payments from member agencies
Staff H
Review and update LAFCO bylaws /
administrative policies and procedures
Ongoing, as needed, and also as part of Phase 2
Policies Revision
Staff H
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
PAGE 6 OF 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACTIVITIES / TIMELINE RESOURCES PRIORITY*
Staff training and development CALAFCO workshops, conferences, relevant courses
Implementation of the work plan for staff professional
development
Staff retreat for team bonding and staff development
Staff H
H
M
Coordinate with County on administrative
issues
Attend monthly meetings with the Deputy County
Executive
Staff H
Staff and EO performance evaluation May – December 2025 Staff/Commission H
Other administrative functions mandated of a
public agency (Form 806, maintaining
liability/workers comp insurance, etc.)
Ongoing Staff H
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
V
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
FINAL LAFCO BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2025- 2026
ITEM #TITLE
APPROVED
BUDGET
FY 2025
ACTUALS
Year to Date
2/25/2025
PROJECTIONS
Year End
FY 2025
FINAL
BUDGET
FY 2026
EXPENDITURES
Object 1: Salary and Benefits $862,484 $580,917 $946,609 $994,427
Object 2: Services and Supplies
5255100 Intra-County Professional $10,000 $0 $10,000 $12,000
5255800 Legal Counsel $85,780 $48,125 $82,000 $88,766
5255500 Consultant Services $150,000 $18,525 $100,000 $175,000
5285700 Meal Claims $750 $139 $700 $1,000
5220100 Insurance $6,737 $0 $0 $8,000
5250100 Office Expenses $5,000 $1,887 $4,000 $5,000
5270100 Rent & Lease $56,416 $42,102 $56,416 $58,106
5255650 Data Processing Services $22,517 $16,832 $22,517 $24,443
5225500 Commissioners' Fee $10,000 $3,800 $8,000 $10,000
5260100 Publications and Legal Notices $1,000 $702 $1,000 $1,000
5245100 Membership Dues $14,509 $14,318 $14,318 $15,000
5250750 Printing and Reproduction $1,500 $416 $1,500 $1,500
5285800 Business Travel $21,000 $6,078 $16,000 $21,000
5285300 Private Automobile Mileage $1,000 $497 $800 $1,000
5285200 Transportation&Travel (County Car Usage)$600 $0 $300 $600
5281600 Overhead $21,119 $10,594 $21,119 $37,324
5275200 Computer Hardware $4,000 $0 $2,000 $4,000
5250800 Computer Software $4,000 $2,261 $4,000 $4,000
5250250 Postage $500 $24 $300 $500
5252100 Staff/Commissioner Training Programs $2,000 $0 $1,000 $2,000
5701000 Reserves $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,280,912 $747,217 $1,292,579 $1,464,666
REVENUES
4103400 Application Fees $25,000 $21,074 $21,074 $25,000
4301100 Interest: Deposits and Investments $6,000 $19,711 $20,000 $10,000
TOTAL REVENUE $36,000 $40,785 $41,074 $35,000
3400150 FUND BALANCE FROM PREVIOUS FY $172,301 $237,891 $237,891 $63,997
NET LAFCO OPERATING EXPENSES $1,077,611 $468,541 $1,013,614 $1,365,669
3400800 RESERVES Available $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
COSTS TO AGENCIES
5440200 County $359,204 $359,204 $359,204 $455,223
4600100 Cities (San Jose 50% + Other Cities 50%)$359,204 $359,204 $359,204 $455,223
4600100 Special Districts $359,204 $359,204 $359,204 $455,223
5/15/2025
ITEM # 6Attachment B
$1,365,669
JURISDICTION REVENUE PER
2022/2023 REPORT
PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL REVENUE
ALLOCATION
PERCENTAGES
ALLOCATED
COSTS
County N/A N/A 33.3333333%$455,223.00
Cities Total Share 33.3333333%$455,223.00
San Jose N/A N/A 50.0000000%$227,611.50
Other cities share 50.0000000%$227,611.50
Campbell $81,150,037 1.8865076%$4,293.91
Cupertino $131,485,364 3.0566608%$6,957.31
Gilroy $127,015,477 2.9527487%$6,720.80
Los Altos $72,145,869 1.6771863%$3,817.47
Los Altos Hills $21,047,529 0.4892952%$1,113.69
Los Gatos $66,269,927 1.5405874%$3,506.55
Milpitas $214,374,038 4.9835868%$11,343.22
Monte Sereno $5,142,039 0.1195378%$272.08
Morgan Hill $130,786,193 3.0404071%$6,920.32
Mountain View $449,519,762 10.4500562%$23,785.53
Palo Alto $834,039,393 19.3890442%$44,131.69
Santa Clara $1,431,529,099 33.2789808%$75,746.78
Saratoga $37,994,793 0.8832709%$2,010.43
Sunnyvale $699,101,862 16.2521303%$36,991.72
Total Cities (excluding San Jose)$4,301,601,382 100.0000000%$227,611.50
Total Cities (including San Jose)$455,223.00
Special Districts Total Share (Fixed %)33.3333333%$455,223.00
Aldercroft Heights County Water District 0.06233%$283.74
Burbank Sanitary District 0.15593%$709.83
Cupertino Sanitary District 2.64110%$12,022.89
El Camino Healthcare District 4.90738%$22,339.52
North Santa Clara Resource Conservation District 0.04860%$221.24
Lake Canyon Community Services District 0.02206%$100.42
Lion's Gate Community Services District 0.22053%$1,003.90
Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District 0.02020%$91.96
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5.76378%$26,238.05
Purissima Hills Water District 1.35427%$6,164.95
Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District 0.15988%$727.81
San Martin County Water District 0.04431%$201.71
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority 1.27051%$5,783.65
Santa Clara Valley Water District 81.44126%$370,739.36
Saratoga Cemetery District 0.32078%$1,460.26
Saratoga Fire Protection District 1.52956%$6,962.91
South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District 0.03752%$170.80
Total Special Districts 100.00000%$455,223.00
Total Allocated Costs $1,365,669.00
LAFCO COST APPORTIONMENT: COUNTY, CITIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Estimated Costs to Agencies Based on the Final FY 2026 LAFCO Budget
Net Operating Expenses for FY 2026
ITEM # 6
Attachment C
PAGE 1 OF 2
ITEM # 7
LAFCO MEETING: June 4, 2025
TO: LAFCO
FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
Dunia Noel, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: RESULT OF THE PROTEST PROCEEDING FOR THE
REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL: SOUTH SANTA CLARA
COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT ANNEXATION
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Background On February 6, 2025, LAFCO received an application initiated by the two agencies – Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) and South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD) – adopting substantially similar resolutions for the reorganization of the two districts that includes dissolution of the SCFD, and concurrent annexation of its territory to CCFD; and a Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendment for the CCFD to include the SCFD SOI. SCFD’s boundary encompasses 288± square miles of unincorporated areas surrounding the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and extending to the Santa Clara-Santa Cruz County line in the southwest, and the Santa Clara-San Benito County line in the south; including the unincorporated area known as Coyote Valley in the north, and portions of the Diablo range to the east. The purpose of the reorganization is to address longstanding structural challenges associated with maintaining an adequate and appropriate level of fire protection for SCFD territories, including addressing SCFD’s structural operating deficit. At a public hearing on April 2, 2025, the Commission approved the reorganization proposal subject to terms and conditions, as specified in LAFCO Resolution 2025-01. The Commission directed EO Palacherla to conduct protest proceedings pursuant to GC §57000 whereby landowners and registered voters within the subject territory (i.e., within SCFD) may file written protest to the Commission’s action.
Notice of Protest Proceeding In compliance with State law, a Notice of Protest Hearing was posted on the LAFCO website and on the County Clerk’s Notice Board on April 8, 2025; and published in
PAGE 2 OF 2
the Morgan Hill Times, the Gilroy Dispatch, and the San Jose Post Record on April 11, 2025; and in the San Jose Mercury News on April 12, 2025. Staff created a dedicated LAFCO Protest Proceeding webpage designed to help landowners, registered voters, and other stakeholders understand the protest proceeding process. The webpage included instructions on how to file a timely written protest against the reorganization and information/weblinks to the following: Notice of Protest Hearing, Downloadable Protest Form, LAFCO Staff Report and the approved Resolution for the Reorganization, Map of SCFD. The webpage also included an interactive mapping tool to help landowners and/or registered voters determine if they are within SCFD boundaries. The public hearing notice included a link to the LAFCO Protest Proceeding Webpage.
Results of Protest Proceeding On May 7, 2025, Executive Officer Palacherla conducted a noticed public hearing to receive protests against the proposed reorganization. LAFCO received written protest in the mail as well as at the protest hearing. In total, LAFCO received 328 protests from landowners and 318 protests from registered voters. Following the conclusion of the protest hearing, LAFCO staff evaluated the protests with the assistance of the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters and the County of Santa Clara Assessor. LAFCO staff made the following determinations: 1. Valid protests were submitted by 213 landowners within the South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District, which represents less than 25% of landowners owning less than 25% of the assessed land value within the area. 2. Valid protests were submitted by 148 registered voters within the South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District, which represents less than 25% of the total number of registered voters residing within the area. Based on these determinations and Government Code §57092, EO Palacherla ordered the reorganization without an election. On May 16, 2025, LAFCO staff recorded a Certificate of Completion (Attachment A) for the reorganization. The reorganization will be effective on July 1, 2025. In the days leading up to the protest hearing, LAFCO received numerous emails from landowners and registered voters within the SCFD boundaries, as well as from residents of nearby cities such as Morgan Hill and Gilroy, expressing a range of views on the proposed reorganization, but with most voicing opposition.
ATTACHMENT Attachment A: LAFCO Certificate of Completion: South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Dissolution and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Annexation/SOI Amendment
ITEM # 7
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AMENDING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (CCFD), DISSOLVING THE SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (SCFD), AND ANNEXING ITS TERRITORY TO CCFD
SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AND
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ANNEXATION /
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT
RESOLVED by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County, State of California, that WHEREAS, on January 14, 2025, the Board of Directors of the SCFD adopted Resolution No. SCFD 2025-01 initiating application by the SCFD requesting the Commission pursue proceedings for the dissolution of the SCFD and the annexation of its territories into the CCFD, and taking further actions consistent therewith; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2025, the Board of Directors of the CCFD adopted Resolution No. CFPD 2025-01 initiating application by the CCFD for the dissolution of the SCFD and annexation of its territory into the CCFD; and requesting an amendment of CCFD’s Sphere of Influence (SOI); and
WHEREAS, under GC §56853(a), if the legislative bodies of two or more local agencies adopt substantially similar resolutions of application in support of the consolidation of districts or for the reorganization of all or part of the districts into a single local agency, a commission shall approve or conditionally approve the reorganization proposal; WHEREAS, the SCFD and CCFD Boards of Directors have adopted substantially similar resolutions initiating application in support of the proposed reorganization, and, therefore Santa Clara LAFCO shall approve or conditionally approve the reorganization proposal; WHEREAS, pursuant to GC §56653, the application includes a “Plan for Services” which provides (1) an enumeration and description of services currently provided or to be provided; (2) the level and range of those services; (3) an indication of when the services can feasibly be extended; (4) an indication of any improvements and augmented services levels; and (5) information on how the services will be financed; and WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(5) requires that when organizational changes affect the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the County Board of Supervisors shall, on behalf of the districts, negotiate any property tax transfers associated with those changes and adopt a resolution identifying the transfers. The County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of both the CCFD and the SCFD negotiated the exchange of property tax revenues, and adopted a property tax exchange agreement on January 28, 2025; and
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Executive Officer on March 6, 2025, issued a Certificate of Filing deeming the application complete and setting the matter for hearing; and WHEREAS, the subject proposal is assigned the distinctive short form designation: “South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Dissolution and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Annexation / Sphere of Influence Amendment”; and WHEREAS, the affected territory is inhabited as defined in GC §56046.
WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner required by law, the Executive Office gave public notice of the Commission’s hearing on this proposal; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the proposal and prepared a report incorporated herein by reference, including her recommendation, the proposal and report having been presented to and considered by this Commission; and WHEREAS, the reorganization proposal is subject to protest proceedings pursuant to GC §57000; and WHEREAS, LAFCO, on June 13, 2001, delegated authority to the Executive Officer to conduct protest proceedings and perform any functions otherwise required of the Commission in regard to its responsibilities as a conducting authority; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Commission on April 2, 2025; and at the hearing the Commission received and considered all oral and written comments, which were made, presented or filed; and NOW, THEREFORE, LAFCO, does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: 1. As a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), LAFCO finds that the proposed reorganization is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15320(b) (Class 20 – Changes of Organization of Local Agencies), which is consistent with the determination made by CCFD, as Lead Agency under CEQA and presented in Resolution No. CFPD 2025-01.
SECTION 2: 1. The Commission hereby approves the amendment of the CCFD SOI to include all lands contained in the SOI of the SCFD, as depicted in Exhibit A, and adopts the SOI determinations, including a statement on the nature, location and extent of any functions or classes of services provided, as presented in Exhibit B.
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01
Page 3 of 4
2. The Commission hereby approves the proposed reorganization consisting of the dissolution of the SCFD and the annexation of its territory to CCFD, as depicted in Exhibit A, and subject to terms and conditions included in Section 3 of this resolution. 3. The effective date of the SOI amendment, and reorganization consisting of the SCFD dissolution, and annexation to CCFD of SCFD territory, shall be the later of the date of recordation of the Certificate of Completion, or July 1, 2025.
SECTION 3:
1. Approval of the reorganization is subject to the following terms and conditions: a. Successor Agency. Upon the effective date of the reorganization, the SCFD shall be dissolved, terminated, and all of its corporate powers shall cease. All rights, responsibilities, and functions of SCFD will be transferred to CCFD, as the successor agency. CCFD, as successor agency to SCFD, shall function under and carry out all authorized duties and responsibilities assigned to a fire protection district as provided in the Health and Safety Code (§13800 et seq.).
b. Revenue Transfer. Upon the effective date of the reorganization, CCFD shall levy, collect, track and administer all revenue, income, and previously authorized funds, charges, fees, assessments, and taxes currently in effect, levied, or collected by SCFD, including, but not limited to, property and other taxes. c. Transfer of Assets & Liabilities. Upon the effective date of the reorganization, all assets and liabilities, including but not limited to debts, obligations, equipment, facilities, property, cash, fund balances or other fiscal matters of SCFD shall become the assets and liabilities of CCFD. d. Successor Agency Revenue Sources. CCFD, as successor agency, will continue to be financed through property taxes, benefit assessments, special assessments and taxes, fees and charges, and all other revenue currently in effect and being collected by CCFD and SCFD. Until otherwise determined by the CCFD Board of Directors, pursuant to GC §56886(t), any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment, or tax within the SCFD territory shall be extended or continued by CCFD, as successor agency. e. Governance – Board of Directors The total composition of the CCFD Board of Directors will remain the same.
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-01
Page 4 of 4
f. Use of Funds. CCFD will ensure that all funds derived from the territory of the former SCFD are accounted for and expended for the provision of fire services within the reorganized CCFD in compliance with all applicable measures, ordinances, statutes and regulations of CCFD.
g. Plan for Services. Upon the effective date of the reorganization, CCFD as the successor agency shall serve the dissolved SCFD service territory through implementation of the Plan for Services until and unless it is determined by the CCFD Board of Directors that fiscal or service requirements justify changes to the Plan for Services. CCFD shall provide LAFCO annually and for the next 2 years, a written update on how the Plan for Services included with the LAFCO application has been implemented.
SECTION 4: 1. The Commission hereby directs the Executive Officer to give notice and conduct protest proceedings, as provided for in GC §57000 et seq., as soon as possible. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County, State of California, on April 2, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: ARENAS, BEALL, CHAPMAN (Alternate to KISHIMOTO), KAMEI, LEE, TRUMBULL
NOES: TURNER
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None ________________________________________ Sylvia Arenas, Chairperson LAFCO of Santa Clara County ATTEST: ___________________________________________ Emmanuel Abello, LAFCO Analyst
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________________________ Malathy Subramanian, LAFCO Counsel Attachments to Resolution No. 2025-01 1. Exhibit “A” Map of CCFD and SCFD Boundaries 2. Exhibit “B” CCFD SOI determinations
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
SAN MATEOCOUNTY
SANTACRUZ
COUNTY
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SAN BENITO COUNTY
MERCEDCOUNTY
STANISLAUSCOUNTY
STANISLAUSCOUNTY
SANTA CRUZCOUNTY
StanfordUniversity
PAR
K
A
V
E
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
LEIGHAVE
DUNNE
A
V
E
SP
R
I
N
G
E
R
R
D
ALMAAVE
MAIN
ST
CHARLESTONRD
EL M
O
N
T
E
A
V
E
CARIBBEANDRJAVA DR
BLOSSOMHILL RD
CAP
I
T
O
LAVE
ALM
A
S
T
MAI
N
A
V
E
TRIMBLERD
4TH
S
T
1ST S
T
SAN M
A
R
T
I
N
A
V
E
LOS
G
A
T
O
SBLV
D
TASMAN DR
JAC
K
S
O
N
A
V
E
CAMPBELL AVE
WOLFE R
D
BA
S
C
O
M
A
V
E
EVANS R
D
ABELST
FREMONT AVE
STOR
Y
R
D
SUMMITRD
HEDDINGST
JULIA
N
S
T
11T
H
S
T
TAYLOR S
T
MASTEN
A
V
E
KIN
G
R
D
SANB
ORNRD
WI
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
B
L
V
D
FER
G
U
S
O
N
R
D
CROP
L
E
Y
A
V
E
MIDDLEFIELDRD
RUCKE
R
A
V
E
DE
WITT
AVE
OCA
L
A
AVE
SAN CARLOS ST
LLA
G
A
S
A
V
E
OREGON EXPY
EDMUNDSON A
V
E
NIEMA
NBLVD
MIDDLE
A
V
E
HOMESTEAD RD
WHI
T
E
R
D
BOLLINGERRD
MO
R
R
I
L
L
A
V
E
10TH S
T
FLEMINGAVE
MURILLO
AVE
CHURCH
A
V
E
PROSPECTRD
BUENA VISTAAVE
CO
T
T
L
E
R
D
JAMI ESONRD
MONTE
R
EY
R
D
WILLOWST
LEAVE
S
L
E
Y
R
D
MTEDEN
RD
YERBABUENA RD
MAB
U
R
Y
R
D
CAPITOLEXPY
FRA
Z
I
ER L
A
K
ERD
HOSTETTERRD
7THST
MIRAM
O
N
T
E
A
V
E
COC
HRANE R
D
HILLSDALEAVE
LUN
DY AV
E
RU
B
Y
AV
E
TENNA
N
T
A
V
E
WILLOW
SPRINGSRD
UNI
O
N
A
V
E
OAKLAN
D
RD
LLAGASRD
PAGEMILL
RD
MOODYRD
PIERCERD
ALMADE
NRD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
SYCAMOREDR
BERRYESSA RD
BLOOMF
IELDAVE
ALDERCROFTHEIGHTSRD
ROOPRD
LINCOLNAVE
CALAVERAS R
D
KENNEDYRD
SHANNONRD
DAYRD
MCKEERD
CO
L
U
M
B
E
T
A
V
E
HAMILTON AVE
QU
ITO
RD
BERNALRD
WATSONVILLERD
PRUNERIDGEAVE
MC
L
A
U
G
H
L
I
N
A
V
E
SILVERCREEKVALLEYRD
PIEDMO
N
T
RD
MONTEBELLO RD
ZANKE
R
R
D
PENITENCIACREEKRD
SANTOMA
S
E
XPY
SAN
ANTONIORD
FELTERRD
SNELL
A
V
E
HELLYERAVE
COYOTERESERVOIRRD
MONTEVIN
ARD
ABORN RD
SUMMITRD
BLACK RD
CROYRD
REDWOODRETREAT RD
SEN
T
E
R
R
D
CURTNERAVE
HALE
A
V
E
MTMADONNARD
NE
W
A
V
E
TULLY RD
CE
N
T
E
R
A
V
E
BRANHAMLN
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
SODASPRINGSRD
BOHLMA
N
RD
OAK GLENAVE
METCALFRD
MONTAGUE
EXPY
MCKEANRD
FOOTHILL EXPY
CAMDENAVE
CASALOMARD
SARATOG
A
AVE
STEVENSCANYON RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
QUIMBYRD
MER
I
DIAN
AVE
SANFELIPERD
HICKSRD
MINE
S
RD
LAWRENC
EEXPY
CANADARD
ALM
AD
E
NEXPY
CENTRAL EXPY
UVAS RD
SANTA TERESABLVD
SANTATER
ESABLVD
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
R
D
(/101
(/101
·|}þ87
·|}þ237
·|}þ17
·|}þ85
!"#$680
!"#$880!"#$280
Milpitas
Gilroy
MorganHill
Saratoga
Campbell
Cupertino
LosAltosHills
LosAltos
SantaClaraSunnyvale
MountainView
PaloAlto
LosGatos
SanJose
CAL FIRE-Station31 (Pacheco)
CCFD Station 81(Campbell)**
CCFD Station71 (Cupertino)
Morgan HillDunne Hill Station
CCFD Station 74(El Monte)***
Morgan HillEl Toro Station
CCFD Station 75(Los Altos)****
CCFD Station83 (Los Gatos)*
CCFD Station 76(Loyola)****
CCFD Station77 (MonteVista)
CCFD Station78 (Quito)
CCFD Station84 (Redwood)
CCFD Station 72(Seven Springs)
CCFD Station82 (Shannon)*
CCFD Station 80(Sunnyoaks)**
CCFD Station79 (West Valley)
CCFD Station85 (Winchester)
GilroyChestnutStation
Gilroy LasAnimasStation
MilpitasStation 1
MilpitasStation 2
Milpitas Station3 (Sunnyhills)
MilpitasStation 4
Mountain ViewStation 1
Mountain ViewStation 2
Mountain ViewStation 3
Mountain ViewStation 4
Mountain ViewStation 5
Palo AltoStation 1
Palo AltoStation 2
Palo AltoStation 3
Palo AltoStation 4
Palo AltoStation 5
Palo AltoStation 6
San JoseStation 1
San JoseStation 10
San JoseStation 11
San JoseStation 12
San JoseStation 13
San JoseStation 14San JoseStation 15
San JoseStation 16
San JoseStation 17
San JoseStation 18
San JoseStation 19
San JoseStation 2
San JoseStation 21
San JoseStation 22
San JoseStation 23
San JoseStation 24
San JoseStation 25
San JoseStation 26
San JoseStation 27
San JoseStation 28
San JoseStation 29
San JoseStation 3
San JoseStation 30
San JoseStation 31
San JoseStation 33
San JoseStation 34
San JoseStation 35
San Jose Station 4
San JoseStation 5
San JoseStation 6
San JoseStation 7
San JoseStation 8
San JoseStation 9
Santa ClaraStation 1
Santa ClaraStation 2
Santa ClaraStation 3 Santa ClaraStation 4
Santa ClaraStation 5
Santa ClaraStation 6
Santa ClaraStation 7
Santa ClaraStation 8
Santa ClaraStation 9
CCFD Station 73(Saratoga)*****
CAL FIRE Hqrs.(SCFD &Morgan Hill)
SCFD Station(Masten)
SCFD Station(Treehaven)
SunnyvaleStation 1
SunnyvaleStation 2
SunnyvaleStation 3
SunnyvaleStation 4
SunnyvaleStation 5 SunnyvaleStation 6
GilroySunriseStation
Palo AltoStation 8
CAL FIRE-Station21 (Coyote)
CAL FIRE-Station22 (Almaden)
CAL FIRE-Station12 (Smith Creek)
CAL FIRE-Station 13(Alma) & Station33 (Helitack)
CAL FIRE-Station23 & StevensCreek VFC
CAL FIRE-Station25 (Sweetwater)
Gilroy SantaTeresa InterimStation
Casa LomaVolunteer FireUpper Station
Casa LomaVolunteer FireLower Station
Spring ValleyVolunteer FireStation
Uvas VolunteerFire Station
San JoseStation 20
NASA AmesFire Station
San JoseStation 37
Q
County Boundary
Cities
Cities Urban Service Areas
Cities Spheres of Influence
Areas Outside Local Fire Service Provider
Fire Districts
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD)
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD)
Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD)*
Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHFD)
Fire Districts Spheres of Influence
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD)
Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHFD)
South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District (SCFD)
Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFD) has a zero SOI✱
*Town of Los Gatos **City of Campbell ***LAHCFD ****City of Los Altos *****SFD
Volunteer Fire StationsCity/District Fire Stations
Fire Station Ownership
Cities and Fire Districts in
San t a Clara County
JUNE 2023
0 5 102.5
Miles
EXHIBIT A
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT B Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CCFD) Sphere of Influence Determinations
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS
1. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space
lands CCFD provides fire and EMS service to the unincorporated areas in the Santa Cruz mountains, the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and a portion of Saratoga, as part of its inherent service area; and by contract to the cities of Campbell and Los Altos; and to the Los Altos Hills County Fire District and the Saratoga Fire Protection District. The expansive area encompasses a variety of land uses, but is predominantly single-family residential, with limited commercial and industrial development and some agricultural and open space lands in the hillside areas. Under the various cities’ existing General Plans and the County General Plan, lands uses in CCFD are not expected to change. Territory within SCFD’s boundary and SOI are unincorporated lands designated by the County General Plan as agriculture, open space lands, rural residential, and regional parks. SCFD’s boundaries also include remote areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range designated as hillside and ranchlands with resource conservation lands and a portion of the Henry Coe State Park. The boundaries also include the rural residential communities of San Martin and Corde Valle. Some limited commercial and industrial uses are located in San Martin and along Pacheco Pass Highway. The unincorporated area within SCFD’s boundary and SOI is planned to remain non-urban in character and predominantly rural residential, agricultural, and open space in accordance with the County’s General Plan. The proposed expansion of CCFD’s SOI to add the SCFD SOI will not facilitate new development or changes in land use and will have no impact on agricultural and open-space lands.
2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area In 2022, there were over 19,000 incidents within CCFD’s bounds and its contract areas, indicating a need for the services provided, in particular for rescue and medical responses which constituted 59% of calls. Calls for service within CCFD declined in 2020 and grew through 2022. This area is projected to have a cumulative growth rate of 13% between 2020 and 2035, or 0.8% annually and 13% between 2035 to 2050, or 0.8% annually, indicating a likely analogous increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services. In 2022, there were over 15,000 incidents within SCFD’s bounds, indicating a need for the services provided, in particular for rescue and medical responses which constituted 61% of calls. Calls for service within SCFD consistently increased between 2018 and 2022. This area is projected to have a cumulative growth rate of 0.07% between 2020
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
Page 2 of 3
and 2035, or <0.01% annually and 5% between 2035 to 2050, or 0.32% annually, indicating a likely analogous increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services. LAFCO’s Countywide Service Review, adopted in 2023, found that some growth is anticipated within CCFD’s current territory and to a much lesser degree within SCFD’s current territory. This very modest amount of growth will slightly increase the demand for fire and emergency medical response services in these areas.
3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the
agency provides or is authorized to provide CCFD operates 15 fire stations throughout the district, with 339 safety and civilian personnel. CCFD provides an adequate level of services and has the capacity to serve existing demand within its service area, including contract agencies. While CCFD is a large, well-funded, all risk fire district with a stable and growing revenue stream, financial limitations pose the greatest threat to SCFD’s ability to provide services to existing and future growth in demand. The Service Review found that additional revenues or reduced costs are necessary to ensure sustainability of SCFD’s operations. As noted in the Plan for Services, only one (Masten) of the four existing fire stations that SCFD currently uses will be transferred to CCFD, and all apparatus owned by SCFD will be transferred to CCFD, as part of the reorganization. Therefore, CCFD will need to enter into a separate agreement with the City of Gilroy to lease an existing fire station (Treehaven,) and establish at least one temporary fire station, until a permanent fire station site can be located and developed.
4. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area The cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, San José, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills, as well as the surrounding incorporated communities, affect CCFD’s service provision and demand for services and are considered social and economic communities of interest. SCFD serves all of South County with the exception of the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Within the SCFD’s boundaries are rural residential communities such as San Martin. However, a majority of the district consists of a patchwork of low-density rural residential development that is socially and economically independent of one another. Upon reorganization, CCFD’s social or communities of interest will include rural residential communities that were served by SCFD, such as San Martin.
5. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence As part of LAFCO’s Countywide Fire Service Review, adopted in October 2023, one disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) was identified within CCFD, outside of CCFD’s SOI. This DUC is also located within and adjacent to the City of San José and its SOI—identified as San José #1. This DUC has an estimated population of 1,656, with a
Docusign Envelope ID: C4C8BDD3-3F60-4225-923E-9DAC4EAE0B21
PAGE 1 OF 3
ITEM # 8
LAFCO MEETING: June 4, 2025
TO: LAFCO
FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
Dunia Noel, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: CALAFCO RELATED ACTIVITIES
8.1 REPORT ON THE 2025 CALAFCO STAFF WORKSHOP (APRIL 30 – MAY 2, 2025)
For Information Only. LAFCO staff attended the 2025 Annual CALAFCO Staff Workshop in Temecula, California (April 30 - May 2), hosted by Riverside LAFCO. Approximately 85 participants from LAFCOs statewide attended the annual workshop, which offered practical and hands-on courses, professional development sessions, and informal roundtable discussions. Assistant EO Noel served on the 2025 CALAFCO Workshop Planning Committee. She coordinated and was a panelist for a breakout session entitled “Cracking the Code for Island Annexations: Insights, Challenges, and What’s Next”. She discussed the long evolution of islands annexations in Santa Clara County, including Santa Clara LAFCO’s very successful Island Annexation Program, and shared a more recent case study involving the annexation of twenty-four unincorporated islands to the Town Los Gatos. In addition to the one pre-workshop activity – a Mobile Workshop showcasing the local wine industry and how it contributes to the vitality of the Temecula Valley, the program for the first day of the workshop included two general sessions entitled
“Ballots & Boundaries: Navigating the Ins and Outs of LAFCO Protest Hearings and
Elections,” and “Back to Basics: How Well Do We Know Ourselves and the Law?” Thursday’s program included one general session entitled “Tips to Improve the MSR Process,” and several breakout sessions including “CEQA: Everything You Need to Know in Under 90 Minutes”; “Making Sense of SB 938: The Adventure of Del Paso Manor Water District”; “Cracking the Code for Island Annexations: Insights, Challenges, and What’s Next”; “Navigating ADA PDF Compliance”; “Funding the Gap: Enhancing Services and Infrastructure in Disadvantaged Communities”; and “Balancing Growth and Green: LAFCO’s Role in the Future of Agriculture.”
PAGE 2 OF 3
Friday’s program featured a general session entitled “Navigating Stormy Waters & Turning the Ship Around – A Special Focus Group/Visioning Session.” Held on behalf of CALAFCO, the session allowed LAFCO staff to provide input on the organization’s future and began with a brief update from two of CALAFCO’s Regional Directors, followed by a facilitated visioning and feedback discussion. CALAFCO has posted workshop handouts on its website at www.calafco.org. Attending the annual CALAFCO Workshop is included in LAFCO’s work plan for staff professional development.
8.2 CALAFCO REGIONAL MEETINGS AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY
For Information Only.
As reported at the April 2025 meeting, CALAFCO is in the process of actively addressing its organizational instability. CALAFCO has taken significant steps to address member concerns, including implementing mitigation measures and approving several membership-recommended changes to its bylaws and policies. To support this work, CALAFCO has retained Pamela Miller, a consultant and former CALAFCO Executive Director (2012–2022), to conduct a full organizational assessment and comprehensive organizational structural assessment, review CALAFCO policies and Bylaws, and assist in the recruitment of a permanent CALAFCO Executive Director. She is also leading stakeholder outreach to ensure member voices are heard. She is in the process of gathering feedback from a broad range of members, including staff, commissioners, and associate members, on various aspects of CALAFCO’s operations to learn what is and is not working. Key areas of inquiry include services, organizational culture, education, legislative advocacy, communications and transparency, Board structure, and the desired qualifications for the next Executive Director. CALAFCO is collecting this feedback through multiple channels, including an online survey (Cultural Assessment Survey) and a series of focus group/visioning sessions held across the state. These efforts aim to help CALAFCO realign its priorities to better support and serve its membership. On May 7, 2025, EO Palacherla emailed CALAFCO’s Cultural Assessment Survey to Commissioners, with a request to complete the online survey by May 23, 2025. Over the next few weeks, Ms. Miller will facilitate a focus group/visioning session in each of CALAFCO’s four regions (Coastal, Central, Southern, and Northern). These sessions will provide participants with an opportunity to engage in the ongoing cultural and organizational review of CALAFCO and to contribute ideas for shaping the future of the Association. The Coastal Region session is scheduled for Wednesday, May 28, 2025, at San Jose City Hall. Santa Clara LAFCO staff have been actively assisting CALAFCO with logistical arrangements for the Coastal Region Session. Special thanks to Commissioner Kamei for securing the venue for this important meeting.
PAGE 3 OF 3
Lastly, as an alternative to the online survey and/or to supplement it, Ms. Miller has offered to meet individually with interested commissioners to gather their feedback.
8.3 2025 CALAFCO ANNUAL CONFERENCE (OCTOBER 22 – 24, 2025)
Recommendation Authorize commissioners and staff to attend the Annual Conference and direct that associated travel expenses be funded by the LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2026.
Discussion The upcoming CALAFCO Annual Conference will be held at the Wyndam San Diego Bayside in San Diego, CA from Wednesday, October 22nd to Friday, October 24th. The Conference provides an annual opportunity for commissioners and staff to gain additional knowledge about changes in LAFCO legislation, LAFCO policies and practices, and the latest issues facing LAFCOs, counties, cities, and special districts across the state. The Conference brings together approximately 250 LAFCO Commissioners and staff from around the state to discuss the latest issues and share knowledge and best practices. Further details will be made available in late summer.
PAGE 1 OF 1
ITEM # 9
LAFCO MEETING: June 4 , 2025
TO: LAFCO
FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH ASSURA SOFTWARE, LLC FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CUSTOMIZED DATABASE AND FOR
PROVIDING ONGOING LICENSING AND ANCILLARY
SUPPORT SERVICES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the first amendment to the professional services agreement withAssura Software, LLC, for the design and development of a customized databaseto process LAFCO applications, track public inquiries, and manage the LAFCOcontacts directory; and for providing ongoing licensing and ancillary supportservices, including, hosting, and technical support.
BACKGROUND In October 2024, LAFCO approved a professional Services Agreement with Assura Software, LLC, for the design and development of a customized database to process LAFCO applications, track public inquiries, and manage the LAFCO contacts directory; and for providing ongoing licensing and ancillary support services, including, hosting, and technical support. The services agreement includes a one-time $7,800 fee for configuring the database platform in accordance with the Scope of Work. However, additional coordination and iterative development between LAFCO staff and the Consultant have been necessary during the testing/development phase. To complete the project, we propose adding 10 additional hours to the contract at a rate of $200 per hour. Please see attachment A for the first amendment to the services agreement. The LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 includes sufficient funding (under “Consultant Services”) for the services.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: First amendment to the services agreement between the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County and Assura Software, LLC to develop a customized database and provide ongoing licensing and ancillary support services
Page 1 of 3
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT
(TO DEVELOP A CUSTOMIZED DATABASE AND
PROVIDE ONGOING LICENSING AND ANCILLARY SUPPORT SERVICES)
This First Amendment to the Services Agreement is made and entered into as of this ____
day of _______, 2025, by and between the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara
County (“LAFCO”), and ASSURA SOFTWARE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“Contractor” or “Consultant”). LAFCO and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to
as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
RECITALS:
A.LAFCO and Contractor entered into an agreement entitled “Services Agreement,”
dated October 2, 2024 (“Agreement”) for the purposes of developing a customized database
and to provide ongoing licensing and ancillary support services.
B.LAFCO and Contractor now desire to amend the Services Agreement to extend
the number of hours for development and testing of the platform from 24 to 34 hours, and to
increase the compensation amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, LAFCO and Contractor agree
as follows:
1.Amendment. Exhibit A-2 of the Services Agreement is hereby replaced with the
amended Exhibit A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. From and after
the date of this First Amendment, all references to “Exhibit A-2” shall mean Exhibit A-2 as
amended by this First Amendment.
2.Continuing Effect of Services Agreement. Except as amended by this First
Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall
govern the actions of the parties under this First Amendment. From and after the date of this
First Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the
Agreement as amended by this First Amendment.
3.Severability. If any portion of this First Amendment is declared invalid, illegal, or
otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall
continue in full force and effect.
[Signatures on following page]
ITEM # 9
Attachment A
Page 2 of 3
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT
(TO DEVELOP A CUSTOMIZED DATABASE AND
PROVIDE ONGOING LICENSING AND ANCILLARY SUPPORT SERVICES)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LAFCO and Contractor have executed this First Amendment to
the Agreement as follows:
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Sylvia Arenas
LAFCO Chairperson
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Malathy Subramanian, LAFCO Counsel
Date
ASSURA SOFTWARE, LLC
Hamish Howard
Managing Director/CEO
Date
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A-2
RATE SCHEDULE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CUSTOMIZED DATABASE AND ONGOING LICENSING AND
ANCILLARY SUPPORT SERVICES
There are two costs: (1.) for configuring the database platform as detailed in the Scope of Work
(Exhibits A and A1), and (2.) an ongoing monthly fee to cover the license, hosting, updates and
support.
1. The cost of developing the custom database platform prior to the launch shall not exceed
$9,800 as detailed below, at a rate of $200 per hour.
Deliverable Hours Rate
USD
Amount
Project Management 5 200 $ 1,000.00
Environment Setup and Branding 4 200 $ 800.00
Development and Testing 34 200 $ 6,800.00
Data Migration 4 200 $ 800.00
User Training 2 200 $ 400.00
Total Services $ 9,800.00
2. Licensing access and operational upkeep including hosting, updates and support will be
billed at a rate of $750 per month for 36 months, following the launch date. After the initial
36-monťh period the monthly rate may be increased by the percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose for the
previous calendar year.
3. Any live support and consultation beyond 2 hours per month will be billed at a rate of $200
per hour.
4. The total cost shall not exceed $25,000 per year.
From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com
To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org
Subject:FFF Follow Up from May 23 (Week #176)
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 8:29:22 PM
Attachments:image003.pngimage005.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
It was another beautiful, but slightly chilly day in our long fight against fascism. George kicked us off with a land acknowledgement reminding us that we
are on unceded lands of the Muwekma Ohlone and that we have a kinship with the land, water and air of this place. Thanks, George!
Mimi reported on the upcoming rallies in Sacramento for issues that she is tracking in her role with Indivisible. A couple of us decided to join her for the
rallies. More on that later. Also, she reports that ICE activities targeting immigrants and people of color are being thwarted by a strong mutual aid network
in our county. If you see any ICE presence, please report it to (408) 290-1144. ICE agents have become the “brown shirts” of the Trump regime, so we
need to track their activity and give aid to their targets. Thanks, Mimi, for highlighting this and for staying on top of state legislation.
Robin has been staying away from news this week – it’s becoming all too much to bear. Thanks, Robin, for joining us -- we will always give you an earful!
Matt remains energized by the weekly #teslatakedown rallies on Wednesday and Saturday with the Tesla Takedown Wolves and the Raging Grannies.
He is also looking forward to the upcoming Stand Up For Science and Sanity Rally on June 6 and 5PM in Lytton Plaza, and the No Kings Democracy Fair
on June 14 at 3PM in Rinconada Park, with a march to Rinconada starting a 2PM from Town and Country. Also, there is now a petition to encourage the City
of Palo Alto to disengage with all Musk-controlled businesses. Please sign the petition here: https://www.mobilize.us/thewolves/event/794842/
We welcomed first-timer Sven, long time green activist. He plans to speak at city council and discourage the city from using hydrogen as a fuel source
since it is mostly derived from fossil fuels. He also thinks that SB540 is a good idea, so we continued the debate on that bill. Also, he is looking for a
metal drum for an art exhibition he is planning for the Democracy Fair. If you know where to get one, please let me know.
Stanford is hosting a green-washing, Gaza-washing climate conference with an Israeli climate liaison this week. Curiously, Councilmember Vicki
Veenker agreed to speak at the conference despite city council last year voting to stay out of international affairs. If she really does speak at this event, we
hope she reminds the Israeli official that there can be no Climate Justice without Social Justice, especially when a country is actively engaged in
ethnocide. If she plans to break the rule, go against council and speak, we hope she does it for the right reasons. Depending on how it goes, we will go to
city council and let her know what we think. Stay tuned.
Mimi, Teddy, Robin and Matt headed up to Sacramento for TWO rallies. The first was to encourage legislators to vote NO on AB942 and not break solar
contracts with 2 million California residents. The second was to encourage legislators pass the Make Polluters Pay bill and create a Climate Superfund
funded from oil company profits to pay for the damages that they knowingly inflict on us with their dangerous products. We had a fun full day of rallying
and lobbying. Here is an amazing speech from a youth climate leader from Fridays for Future Sacramento here. Please remember to contact
Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov and Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov and let them know that you would like them to endorse the Make Polluters Pay bill and have the
city endorse the bill, too. Thanks, Mimi, for organizing this fun trip to the Capitol!
Carol, Emma and the Stand Up For Science and Sanity (SUFSAS) team are preparing another terrific rally, this time in the late afternoon of June 6 at
5PM in Lytton Park. Thanks, Carol, Emma and team!
Also, Emma is organizing a Rally to Defend Education and Research at Stanford’s White Memorial Plaza this Friday May 30 from 12:00 to 1:30PM. We
will attend this rally in solidarity with the teachers and students at Stanford.
David P. is organizing a 101 Bannering event on Friday (5/30) morning from 8AM to 9:30AM. This action is coordinated with a national banner action
taking place. Thanks, David, for organizing it. We will be there! RESIST!
Friday is a busy day. First the bannering action in solidarity with Indivisible at 8, and then the rally at Stanford at noon. See you on the streets!
Keep Up the Fight!
STAND UP! FIGHT BACK!
Upcoming Events
Friday, May 30, Noon to 1:300: Rally to Defend Education and Research –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Friday, May 30, 8 to 9:30 Bannering 101–– overpass near Adobe Creek Loop trail head.
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/ipaplus/
Every Saturday, Noon to 2PM, Tesla Showroom at Stanford Shopping Center: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover.
https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/
This message needs your attentionSome Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Every Saturday, see link for time, Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real . Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover.
https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/
Friday, June 6, 5PM to 7PM: Stand up for Science and Sanity –– We meet at Lytton Plaza for the rally followed by a performance by Mitchell Park
Band. https://www.scienceandsanity.org/
Friday, June 13, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Saturday, June 14, 3 to 5PM: No Kings! Democracy Fair in Rinconada Park –– Organized by Indivisible Palo Alto Plus.
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
Last week’s pictures: https://photos.app.goo.gl/rd9JFHmAgN4zn37a7
Groovin’ with Pedro at Wednesday Tesla Takedown: https://youtube.com/shorts/1KdeJ8AFDVE?feature=share
What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to:
U.S. Rep. Pramilla Jayapal has created Resistance Lab with resources and training for organizers. Check it out here:
https://www.pramilaforcongress.com/the-resistance-lab
Harvard on how 3.5% of the population engaged in non-violent, peaceful protest can make a dramatic social change:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rule-how-small-minority-can-change-world
Tech-oligarch run Instagram is taking down any posts by people organizing a general strike. This is an important movement and may be one of our best
chances to activate 3.5% of the population to stand up to the oligarchy. You can learn more about it here: https://generalstrikeus.com/
Reporting by Democracy Now! here
Commentary by The Majority Report: here
Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update
As of:5/1 3/31 2/28 1/31
HPWH full-service interest list
signups 1364 1333 1323 1307
Site assessment agreements (SAA)
sent 1364 1333 1323 1307
Signed SAAs 1127 1013 1093 1075
Completed site assessments 1040 1023 1013 996
Installations
Total Full Service HPWHs installed 421 414 402 393
Total DIY HPWH installed 126 115 114 98
Total Emergency HPWH installations 19 19 18 11
Total HPWHs installed 566 548 534 502
Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000
Monthly Installation Rate
Monthly Installation Rate 18 14 32 7
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:Lynn Chiapella
To:Robustelli, Sarah
Cc:Council, City; PRC@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:Parks & Rec Commission Inquiry
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 6:26:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I attended the recent meeting of Parks and Rec Commission. I asked if there were other
expenses in addition to those shown in the Golf Operating budget, such as CIPs.
Please email a copy of the relevant CIPs that that was asked for by one of the commissioners. I believe you mentioned a date of December 2024 for one of the CIPs.
I have used the CITY web site to search for the relevant 2024 budget for Capital Improvement
Projects. After an hour of searching I have given up and am writing to you for theinformation which you said was available.
I did check the current CIPs for golf related CIPs and noted that there are one or two in thecurrent 2025 budget. It appears that CPA, as owner and landlord of the golf course, needs to
infuse the golf course with approx. $120, 000/year for the next 5 years for improvements toturf and netting. How many dollars per year are needed to monitor the degraded natural
areas on the golf course to meet the required mitigation?
I also could not find any information on the water meter problem which reduced the incomefrom $1,000,000 in 2023 to $500,000 in 2024. Do you know what the correct "refund" is
once the meter problem is solved?
The presentation at the meeting was excellent and the course management and youth programssound stellar. Is the volunteer program for EPA youth still ongoing and allowed to use the
practice areas as they did before the course improvement project?
I look forward to visiting the course and maybe even playing again.
Sincerely,
Lynn Chiapella
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Raymond White
To:emily.yarsinski@mv.gov; kimbra.mccarthy@mountainview.gov; City Council; phinternet@phd.sccgov.org; Boardof Directors; Council, City
Subject:Fluoride is not safe
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 3:59:59 PM
Attachments:Fluoride letter Post V-28-2025.pdf
Fluoride Science 2025b.rtf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Fluoride in public water supplies poses a risk to the developing brains of the fetal babies of
women who are otherwise exposed to sources of fluoride and who drink the water or use it tocompose formula. Both the friends and the enemies of water fluoridation have done statistical
tests, attempting to identify any threshhold effect --- below which fluoride levels would beconsidered safe, Neither have found one. Hence, a little fluoride, a little damage. As is the
case for lead and mercury.
If your organization (Valley Water, Palo Alto, or Mountian View) continues to deliverfluoridated water, I would like you to notify your customers of the existence of risk and the
lack of safety. If you choose not to do that , please explain to me why not.
If there is some impediment to your doing so, please start the argument with whoever providesthe impediment and explain the situation to me.
Enough of false claims of water safety and ignoring science.
Sincerely yours,
Raymond R. White
2468 Whitney DriveMountain View, CA 94043
rrweditha@yahoo.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Fluoride Science 2025
By 2022 one could refer to some 85 peer-reviewed, published papers, nine out
of ten of which showed lower IQs in children whose mothers had been exposed
to more, rather than less, fluoride. The review of fluoride by the National
Toxicology Program was available in draft form, concluding that fluoride was a
developmental neurotoxin in humans, but public health officials
(Richard/Rachel Levine, undersecretary of Health and Human Services) were
preventing its release in final form for political reasons. Well, the CDC
wouldn’t want a formal report by actual scientists (toxicologists) stating that
too much fluoride could interfere with human brain development, contradicting
the CDC’s mendacious claim that water fluoridation was “safe” over about 70
years. That would tend to erode public trust in CDC leadership and honesty.
Science, with some federal court help, has progressed awesomely in recent
months. A case initiated in 2017, before federal judge Edward Chen, forced the
release of the formal, final version of the report by the National Toxicology
Program. You may download the entire monograph here:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08
The NTP report says to expect damage to children’s IQs at concentrations of
1.5ppm in fluoridated water. Water is supposed to have a concentration of
0.7ppm or less, but the public has other, variable, sources of fluoride and
dosages by water are also variable.
Testimony in the case has the CDC, FDA, EPA, and the suppliers of the
chemicals that are used to fluoridate public water supplies admitting that they
cannot provide a numerical concentration level for a safe level of fluoride in
water supplies.
Examining this (NTP) review of the science and other testimony, Judge Chen
(Obama appointed) ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to produce
regulations for fluoride in drinking water to eliminate the risk to child IQs.
The full court ruling is here:
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
There are three quality published studies showing ADHD to double where
water is fluoridated (Mexico City done by US scientists, Canada, and Los
Angeles).
Women intending to become pregnant or already pregnant should avoid
fluoridated water, toothpaste with fluoride, and black, green, and rooibus teas,
decaf or not.
The CDC and other proponents of fluoridation have asserted with or without
evidence that the treatment was “effective”. The Cochrane Collaboration
confirmed an ~20% reduction in filled, missing, & damaged teeth in children
(2015). An Oct. 4, 2024 review by the Cochrane Collaboration found a benefit
of 4% in children. A UK study on adults shows a 2% benefit. The modest
benefit (~20%) has vanished over time. The UK study also shows the gap
between rich and poor to be the same whether water is fluoridated or is not.
Mothers’ milk is nearly fluoride-free, but mothers’ blood delivers whatever her
ingested concentration is to the fetus, where it freely circulates into the
developing brain. There is one study of formula prepared with fluoridated
water vs. with fluoride free water. It shows reduced IQ. Confirmation (or not)
studies are needed.
Fluoride is the most reactive element on the periodic table, hence it is nuts to
think that it will confine its activities in the human body to strengthening tooth
enamel, becoming part of bone, and accumulating as brain sand in the pineal
gland.
The FDA announced on Tuesday May 13, 2025 that it is starting the process to
“remove concentrated ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for
children from the market.”
Utah and Florida (effective July 1, 2025) have banned water fluoridation.
Until the EPA provides regulation for fluoride in water, the cautious thing to do
for public health is to suspend adding fluoride to public water supplies. If, as
a city or water provider, you are constrained by unscientific laws originating in
Sacramento, you can send a letter of objection to responsible parties AND A NOTICE OF RISK TO ALL OF THOSE RECEIVING FLUORIDATED WATER THROUGH YOUR WORK/PIPES/ETC. Why not? Raymond R. White, Ph.D. rrweditha@yahoo.com
References
1. Bashash et al. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in
Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico, Environmental health
Perspectives, Sept. 19, 2017, https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/
2. Till et al. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride
Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada,
Environmental Health Oct. 10, 2018
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP3546
3. Brian Bienkowski, We Add It to Drinking Water for Our Teeth - But is
Fluoride Hurting Us? Environmental Health News, Oct 10, 2018
http://www.chn.org/we-add-it-to-drinking-water-for-our-teeth-but-
is-fluoride-hurting-us-2611193177.htm1
4. Green et al., Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure Daring
Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, Journal of the American
Medical Association Pediatrics, Aug. 19, 2019
https://www.ncbi.nhn:nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704756/
5. Ben Guarino, "Study Raises Questions About Fluorite and Children's IQ,"
Washington Post, Aug. 20, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost_com/science/2019/08/19/study-raises-questio
ns-about-fluoride-childrens-iq/
6. Riddell et al., Association of Water Fluoride and Urinary Fluoride
Concentrations with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Canadian
Youth, Environment International, Dec. 2019
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019315971?via
%3Dihub
7. Bashash et al., Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6-12 Years of Age in
Mexico City, Environment International, Dec. 2018
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814?via
%3Dihub
8: Malin et al., Exposure to Fluoridated Water and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the
United States: An Ecological Association, Environmental Health, Feb. 27, 2015
https:/ /www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4389999/
9. Till et al., Fluoride Exposure From Infant Formula and Child IQ in a
Canadian Birth Cohort, Environment International, Jan. 2020 (first issued
online in 2019)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articie/pii/S0160412019326145?via%
3Dihub
10. National Toxicology Program, Draft NTP Monograph on the Systematic
Review of the Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health
Effects, Sept. 6, 2019 Released in final form by court order 2024.
http:I/fluoridealert.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019.ntp_.draft-fluoride-systemsti
c-revicw.Online-Oct-22.pdf
The full formal report on fluoride by the National Toxicology Program is at:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08
A long court battle initiated by the Fluoride Action Network 2017-2024 resulted
in Edward Chen, Federal judge, ordering the Env. Protection Agency to produce
regulations for fluoride in drinking water to reduce risk to child IQs. Also
sworn testimony of CDC, FDA, EPA, and providers of chemicals providing F to
water that they do not know what the safe level of fluoride would be.
11. FAN Court Case Press Release IX-24-2024
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PDF2-TSCA-Victory-p
ress-release-1.pdf
12. Full court ruling
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf
13. The Cochrane Coalition of Australia released a review X-4-2024 of
literature, finding a decline of effectiveness of water fluoridation in children, to
4% vs the 18-25% previously being claimed.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pu
b3/full
14. The LOTUS study; UK effect of water fluoridation on adults (2%
benefit); No more gain in poor vs rich where water is fluoridated vs not.
Massive Government Study Finds Virtually No Benefit From Fluoridation.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fluoridealert.o
rg/wp-content/uploads/moore-2024.pdf
15. The CATFISH Study. Goodwin et al. 2022. Public Health Research.
CWF less benefit than previously thought.
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr/SHMX1584#/full-report
https://doi.org/10.3310/SHMX1584
16. Osmunson & Cole. 2024. Community Water Fluoridation a
Cost–Benefit–Risk Consideration. Public Health Challenges 3:
Analysis of cost of water fluoridation including dental fluorosis and
developmental neurotoxicity. Net loss from CWF is estimated at $556 per
person per year.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/puh2.70009
17. EPA announces expeditious review of water fluoridation:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-will-expeditiously-review-new-science-
fluoride-drinking-water
18. CDC will cease recommending fluoridation of public water supplies:
During his presentation, the HHS Secretary [RFK, Jr.] condemned fluoridation
and called on state legislators to pass laws banning it, reflecting a major
positive change within HHS leadership on this issue. April 7, 2025.
From:Patricia L Devaney
To:Council, City; planning.commision@paloalto.gov
Subject:request for public meeting to discuss plans to add bike lanes and remove some parking from Middlefield Road
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 1:54:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Transportation leaders and City Council members,
I was surprised and disappointed to learn that Palo Alto Transportation planners were taking a major transportation
proposal to the City Council for approval without first informing and meeting with those Palo Alto residents most
likely to be affected by the proposed actions. That is, I understand that a proposal to add bike lanes and remove
some parking spaces from Middlefield Road is going to the City Council for approval without first informing and
discussing the proposed actions with the Palo Alto residents, especially those who will be most affected. That
process lacks the transparency that we have come to expect from our City leaders. A single article in the Palo Alto
Weekly is not a sufficient way of informing the public.
Therefore, I ask that a public meeting be widely announced and held before City Council is asked to vote on the
proposal.
My concerns are primarily those related to safety. The number of cars and trucks driving on Middlefield has
increased a lot in recent years, as has the speed with which drivers drive. There have been an increasing number of
auto accidents with cars crossing Middlefield at such intersections as Lincoln. How can adding more bikes to
Middlefield not make the street even more dangerous? Why are we not looking for more bike lanes on less traveled
roads such as Webster or Waverly?
Safety is also an issue for cars trying to get in and out of their driveways on Middlefield. It’s already hard enough to
get through auto traffic to get out of/into my driveway safely. Adding more bikes to the road just increases that
danger. Also, where will we put our recycling bins for weekly pickup? Furthermore, the proposed actions will put
pedestrians in more danger. This includes people 65 or older (true for 20% of Palo Alto residents) going to
TheaterWorks and children going with their parents or nannies to the park, Children’s Museum, pool, theater, and
tennis courts, etc. How about their safety among people flying by in their bikes??
I really think that residents need to be better informed of these plans and have a chance to provide input before the
proposed actions are approved. Thanks for considering this request.
Sincerely, Patricia Devaney
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Aram James; Reifschneider, James; Gardener, Liz; Sean Allen; Daniel Kottke; Human RelationsCommission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; chuck jagoda; Chris Colohan; Council, City; ladoris cordell;Ruth Silver Taube; Templeton, Cari; Jeff Rosen; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California DemocraticDelegate, Assembly District 23; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; GRP-City Council;Bill Newell; Enberg, Nicholas; Jeff Conrad; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Roberta Ahlquist;Emily Mibach; Dave Price; Pat M; Sheree Roth; sharon jackson; Yolanda Conaway; Donna Wallach; DougMinkler; Julie Lythcott-Haims
Cc:Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; Gennady Sheyner; Sheriff Transparency; Greg Tanaka
Subject:Re: Get Up or We Will Slam You’: Florida Deputies Body Slammed Unarmed Black Man After Paralyzing Him. ThatMan Just Received a $5.5 Million Settlement
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 9:19:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 9:09 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Get Up or We Will Slam You’: FloridaDeputies Body Slammed Unarmed BlackMan After Paralyzing Him. That Man JustReceived a $5.5 Million Settlement
Timmie Lee Knox, a then 17-year-old Black teen, was on his way to a kids' partywhen he ended up Tasered and paralyzed by a Palm Beach County sheriff’s
Source: Atlanta Black Star
https://share.google/WciECBqvgDlYBzvAr
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Aram James; Reifschneider, James; Gardener, Liz; Sean Allen; Daniel Kottke; Human RelationsCommission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; chuck jagoda; Chris Colohan; Council, City; ladoris cordell;Ruth Silver Taube; Templeton, Cari; Jeff Rosen; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California DemocraticDelegate, Assembly District 23; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; GRP-City Council;Bill Newell; Enberg, Nicholas; Jeff Conrad; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Roberta Ahlquist;Emily Mibach; Dave Price; Pat M; Sheree Roth; sharon jackson; Yolanda Conaway; Donna Wallach; DougMinkler; Julie Lythcott-Haims
Cc:Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; Gennady Sheyner; Sheriff Transparency; Greg Tanaka
Subject:Get Up or We Will Slam You’: Florida Deputies Body Slammed Unarmed Black Man After Paralyzing Him. ThatMan Just Received a $5.5 Million Settlement
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 9:09:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious
of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Get Up or We Will Slam You’: FloridaDeputies Body Slammed Unarmed BlackMan After Paralyzing Him. That Man JustReceived a $5.5 Million Settlement
From:formanynotfew
To:vicki.venkeer@paloalto.gov; Council, City
Subject:Concerns re: Stanford Conference this week
Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 7:01:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To: Vice Mayor Vicki Venkeer & Palo Alto City Council
Re: Upcoming conference at Stanford —
“Climate Resilience and Local Governmental Policy: Lessons from Los Angeles and
Tel Aviv” May 29-30
Organized by: Alon Tal, an Israeli politician and environmentalist
https://events.stanford.edu/event/climate-resilience-and-local-governmental-policy-
lessons-from-los-angeles-and-tel-aviv
May 29, 2025
Dear Vice Mayor Vicki Venkeer and Council Members,
What values does the City of Palo Alto uphold? How does the city want to be viewed by
the rest of the world?
I am writing to you out of deep concern that you will be participating as a speaker at a
conference that violates any sense of human decency and justice. Please withdraw your
participation and any possible funding.
Participation in this conference is particularly galling, given that the Palo Alto City Council
ruled that they would not participate in any matters of “foreign policy,” so your participation
in the conference would violate your own council’s ruling.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
To call the upcoming conference at Stanford University one that promotes “Climate
Resilience” is preposterous, given the past decades of destruction of Palestine and the
ongoing destruction that has been denounced by human rights and religious groups around
the world. It is outrageous that while Israel is committing genocide, ethnocide, scholasticide,
and ecocide—bombing hospitals, schools, and refugee centers, while targeting journalists
and their families—that Alon Tal would present himself as an “environmentalist” to talk
about Israel’s accomplishments. Note the article by the University of California Global
Health Institute, listed below.
Here are just a few examples of the current environmental destruction committed by Israel,
which most of the world recognizes as genocide and ecocide:
1) The ongoing bombing of Palestinian lands has created a nightmarish landscape in which
nothing can live, and the contamination from the bombing and resulting fires is polluting the
air, water, and soil to the extent that it is even harming Israeli regions when the wind blows
the dust.
2) The Israeli government has targeted water and sewage treatment plants,
and settlers have poisoned wells, leaving Palestinians with no sources of
potable drinking water, forcing people to drink contaminated water that
spreads illness among starving, weakened civilians.
3) The policy of “shoot anything that moves” has meant that dogs, cats, and
birds are killed, and the crucial migratory flyway for birds has been
disrupted.
4) The destruction of the olive groves and orange orchards has left people
with no way to sustain themselves, and created more desertification.
5) The draining of the Jordan River has turned a beautiful river known from
antiquity into a dirty trickle.
6) The Israeli practice of spraying pesticides on Palestinian land has poisoned
Palestinians, whose protests are ignored, while Israeli farmers who suffer
when these pesticides drift onto their land are compensated financially by the
Israeli government.
We are witnessing a live-streamed genocide being committed against Palestinian civilians,
perpetrated by the Zionist Israeli government, and funded by the U.S., against the wishes of
many Israelis and many Jews around the world, as well as protested against by people in the
U.S. Today the greatest threat to Jews is the genocide being committed to keep a racist,
colonizer government in power— a government run by a prime minister who tried to
undermine Israel’s own judiciary, and who turns the police against demonstrators when they
protest over the failure to secure the release of all hostages, or even protect those hostages
who manage to escape. Note that three Israeli hostages were shot by the Israeli Defense
Force and killed, though they carried white flags and called out in Hebrew for help.
Not one Palestinian voice will be allowed in the program. This is a mockery of “free
speech” and the purported goals of Stanford University to educate and promote analysis and
discussion.
Any participation in the upcoming Israeli greenwashing conference will send a terrible
message to the rest of the U.S. and the world — that Palo Alto is a place where hypocrisy
reigns and human life is valued only when it is politically expedient. Supporting the
conference would be an insult to all residents of Palo Alto who value human rights and
justice.
Note that Jewish organizations across the country are demanding a ceasefire and an end to
the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank— Rabbis for Ceasefire, Jewish Voice for Peace,
Not In Our Name, etc. Many Jewish leaders have spoken out against the bombing, and in
one single protest, 50 rabbis were arrested. To take a stand against the genocide is not anti-
Semitic, it is supported by the majority of Jewish students, including the students at
university encampments across the U.S., with Jewish students making up one third of the
protestors.
I strongly urge you to withdraw from the conference and withdraw any funding associated
with the conference. If you fail to do this, the resulting furor will draw worldwide
opprobrium against the City of Palo Alto, and damage your own political careers. History
will remember.
If you would like further information, below I appended a list of books and articles written
by Israeli Jews as well as Palestinians.
Sincerely,
Nicole Sault, Ph.D.
Palo Alto resident and registered voter
PO Box 60580, Palo Alto, California 94306
Recommended reading:
Ecocide in Gaza: Israel's genocide in Gaza will create an unprecedented environmental health crisis. By Noor
Badri June 04, 2024. University of California Global Health Institute. https://ucghi.universityofcalifornia.edu/
news/ecocide-gaza-israels-genocide-gaza-will-create-unprecedented-environmental-health-crisis/
Israel’s War Decimated Gaza’s Farmlands and Killed Most of its Livestock.
The bombing has destroyed agricultural land and poisoned the soil, while
Israel’s sweeping blockade has made water scarce for farmers who once
provided a third of Gaza’s food needs. Rasha Abou Jalal. Mar. 5, 2025. Drop
Site News
Haim Bresheeth-Zabner (Jewish Israeli) Professor of film studies, School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS), London. Author of An Army Like No Other: How the Israeli
Defense Force Made a Nation.
Rashid Khalidy - acclaimed author whose ancestors played historic roles in Palestine. The
Hundred Years War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–
2017 by Rashid Khalidi
Christ at the Checkpoint:
A Call for Solidarity: Come to Christ At the Checkpoint
Now is the time to show where you stand; Palestinian Christians extend a bold invitation to
come be with us in Bethlehem. Conference Dates: May 21-26, 2024,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baGOXzc6CQs
Ilan Pappe, (Jewish Israeli), Professor of History at the University of Exeter. The Ethnic
Cleansing of Palestine and Gaza in Crisis (with Noam Chomsky). He writes for the
Guardian and the London Review of Books. A History of Modern Palestine.
Preview YouTube video A Cal
Video: "Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s PR War in the U.S."
Media Education Foundation 2016, Narrated by Roger Waters, Produced in Norway and
Sweden
War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine,
by Norman Solomon
Dr. Penny Rosenwasser Ashkenazi Jewish educator and activist, author of
the award-winning book “Hope into Practice: Jewish Women Choosing Justice Despite Our
Fears.” Cambridge University Press
Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? The
Guardian Fri 29 March, 2024
“I couldn’t wear a uniform that symbolizes killing and oppression” – Israeli activist who
refuses to serve in the Israeli army. By Itamar Greenberg, 20 March 2025,
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2025/03/i-couldnt-wear-a-uniform-that-
symbolizes-killing-and-oppression-israeli-activist-who-refuses-to-serve-in-the-israeli-army/
What’s the connection between Israeli wildfires and ‘green colonialism’?
https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2025/5/4/whats-the-connection-between-israeli-
wildfires-and-green-colonialism
Researchers say Israel’s worst wildfires were exacerbated by non-native tree species that
Israel has been planting for decades to cover dispossessed Palestinian villages with forests. 4
May 2025
Israel boasts at having planted around 240 million trees since 1948
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From:Aram James
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;
assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Binder, Andrew; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Conrad; Jeff
Rosen; board@valleywater.org; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; chuck jagoda;
Friends of Cubberley; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Human Relations Commission;
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City;
city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; GRP-City
Clerk; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Bains, Paul; Figueroa, Eric; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley,
Michael; h.etzko@gmail.com; Templeton, Cari; Cribbs, Anne; Lori Meyers; Gennady Sheyner; Sheree Roth
Subject:Israel Bombs Home of Gaza Pediatrician, Killing 9 of Her 10 Kids, in Latest Attack on Health Workers
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 9:37:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Israel Bombs Home of Gaza Pediatrician, Killing 9 of Her 10 Kids, in Latest Attack on HealthWorkers | Democracy Now!
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/27/dr_alaa_al_najjar_gaza
From:Sarah Burgess
To:Council, City; Gaines, Chantal; Alamos, Lupita
Subject:May 28 P&S meeting; Non Profit Grants
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 6:53:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am sorry not to be able to attend and comment at the P&S meeting this evening - we have adelegation from our new Friendship City, Narok, Kenya, in and an event for them.
I did want to comment about the policy currently being made for non profit grants. As a long
time citizen of Palo Alto, I appreciate making policy for spending and the time which has beenspent in getting to this point. As the president of a non-profit who recently found out about
this process and it’s potential effect upon our organization, I must point out the lack of clarityin the process to date.
I found out about the grant process Thursday, May 8 at 4:30 pm, when I recieved a call from
Ms. Alamos, who was seeking the contact person for another non-profit. I asked whether thisnew process would affect Neighbors Abroad, who has both a contract for services with the city
and a line item in the budget for reimbursement of some expenses, historically separate fromthe contract. Ms. Alamos was not certain whether it would or not and advised me to go ahead
and complete the form. I contacted our LIaison, Chantal Gaines, who also could not be certainwhether we should be applying, but agreed applying was the safest way to go. With what I
learned later was less than 24 hours to complete the application, and both my treasurer and avice president out of town AND another delegation with events in town, I completed it myself
with the information avaialable to me and got it in as quickly as I could. In that time I did notsee that there was a 3:00 pm deadline, and assumed like most grant applications, it went to
11:59 pm. I learned later I submitted less than 15 minutes after the deadline and was thereforelate.
Even more than the lack of notice and lack of certainty about who this grant process applied
to, I am concerned about the concurrent creation of process and application for grants. If thistime and year were taken to create a process, there would be notice to all affected parties, the
opportunity to establish clear guidelines for what funding would come within the process, aswell as time to create guidelines for council to use in determining what to fund. Non-profit is
a tax characterization - not a type of organization. The services provided and benefit to PaloAlto are widely varied. Some, like Neighbors Abroad, provide a service in lieu of staffing for
the city, and are composed of all volunteers with no salaries paid to the board. Others are runin quite different ways and have varied effects upon our community. What are the standards
to be applied to each? How can they be judged against each other? These questions have notbeen answered before the applications have come in, or in fact, before the application was
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
created.
I also note that all but 2 of the organizations which applied already receive funding from thecity. Did the departments which carry these organizations in their budgets have input into who
should go forward? What will happen to the budgets already allocated?
Giving time to create the process with clear guidelines BEFORE having organizations applywould allow for the creation of thestandards I believe this committee wishes to generate. It
would give the transparency to funding the community desires. And hopefully, a processcould be create
Sarah BurgessPresident
Phone 650-996-3331Web www.neighborsabroad.org Email sarah.burgess@neighborsabroad.org
355 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California 94301
From:D Martell
To:Van Der Zwaag, Minka
Cc:adriana@eberlaw.com; michellekraus@yahoo.com; Shikada, Ed; Ed Lauing; Hoyt, George; Council, City
Subject:for Minka Van Der Zwaag... Your Violation of Promised Confidentiality as the City Liaison to Human RelationsCommission (HRC)
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 4:54:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
MINKA – FORWARD TO HRC COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Kate Stimmler, Chair
Sridhar Karnam
Katie CauseyDon Barr
Minka Van Der Zwaag
City Liaison to Human Relations Commission (HRC)
City of Palo Alto
Dear Minka,
I have been exposed to some extremely tragic experiences and was referred to and
approached HRC for discrete help and direction.
On May 12, Monday, you, HRC Commissioner Michelle Kraus, and I met at a downtowncoffee shop to discuss a private issue, which involves the city.
At that time, you assured me that we were having a confidential meeting and you would notviolate my privacy; you said to trust you.
You asked for, and I gave permission to speak with ONLY City of Palo Alto Building
Code Official George Hoyt re my personal business.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Immediately after our meeting, I met with Mr. Hoyt and summarized thismeeting.
I told him to expect your call.
I stressed to you to NOT talk with anyone else at City Hall, and was assured you wouldnot, without going through me first.
Yet, on May 27, during our follow-up phone conversation yesterday, you confessed you
approached and shared what was said at our meeting with another department at City Hall.You refused to tell me with whom you spoke, stating it was "a colleague", as though that made
it okay .. of course it does NOT, and of course all city employees are your colleagues!
In fact, you spoke to a department that I specifically singled out and emphasized to NOTspeak to, and further detailed why, at length.
I am shocked and mortified that you lied and betrayed my trust.
I demand you tell me with whom you spoke and what transpired.
The good citizens of Palo Alto's tax dollars pay your salary, plusoutstanding benefits.
You forget that you are a servant of the hard-working citizens of PaloAlto.
Again, I need a recap of all your conversations with all at City Hall, with whom you
spoke, and a copy of all correspondences and notes taken.
I consider you unethical, unprincipled, dishonest, and not worthy of working for
my great city.
Please forward this email to ALL the HRC Commissioners so they have a clearunderstanding of how unprincipled you operate.
I demand you immediately identify the supervisor who evaluates your work
performance, and send me that employee's contact information.
Danelle MartelldmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Residentialist – Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
C’Vonzell Dondrico
C’Vonzell Dondrico
Founder & Chief Visionary Officer
(213)999-8292
Tech In Black And White
Atlanta, Georgia | Los Angeles and San Francisco, California
From:TIBAW, LLC Tech Media & Production CompanyTo:Council, CitySubject:Transformation & Growth In Palo AltoDate:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 10:36:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Tech In Black And White
Hello City Council
After living in Palo Alto for a year in Midtown. It was a very enlightened experience to witness how abeautiful city The Birth Of Silicon Valley! We all have a different beginning and for me the choices Imade taught me a mantra " If your apart of the problem you gotta be the solution "
For the last 10 years I worked to transform my life https://www.cvonzell.com/ as a self taughtdesigner and technology storytelling artist https://techinblackandwhite.com/
Moving to Palo Alto was a dream come true. Coming from Jacksonville Florida Reentering society in2016 as a justice impacted citizen Cedrick Vonzell Collins https://www.insideprison.com/state-inmate-search.asp?lnam=collins&fnam=cedrick%20vonzell&county=&st_abb=FL&id=1638669Technology was my biggest barrier to a successful career and employment. So I decided to create acompany and brand to empower myself and teach others and myself as I learned about SiliconValley's network and industry. I worked studying and developing relationships. I'd like to meet someone in your office to offer advice on how to best grow in Palo Alto. I've worked with Sean Ward at ReEntry Resource Center in Santa Clara County. I've did everything in my powerand others to grow.
C'VONZELL DONDRICOExecutive Producer of TECH IN BLACK AND WHITEVisionaryFilmmakerATL@gmail.comIG: @VisionaryFilmaker LinkedIn: C'Vonzell Dondrico 213-999-8292
www.techinblackandwhite.com
Tech In Black And White
From:Jeanne Fleming
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Middlefield Road bike lanes
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 7:14:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of City Council,
I am writing to ask you to permanently remove from consideration any plan to add bike lanes to Middlefield Road,or to otherwise encourage cyclists to use this road.
As many others have written to you, it is dangerous for cyclists on Middlefield Road. Moreover, cyclists pose adanger to cars trying to avoid them on this narrow, busy street, and to residents trying to back out of their driveways.
Please scotch this bad plan.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Sent from my iPhone
From:Tony Lee
To:Council, City
Subject:El Camino Real Parking Changes: Impact on Stanford Coin Wash and other small businesses
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:34:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council member,
I am writing to you regarding the recent changes to parking regulations on El Camino Real,
specifically the implementation of "No Parking" in front of my laundromat, Stanford CoinWash, located at 2045 El Camino Real. I understand that these changes are related to the
Caltrans El Camino Real Pavement Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements project.
While I understand the importance of these infrastructure improvements, I am deeply
concerned about the severe impact this "No Parking" regulation is having on my business andmy ability to serve my customers, as well as other small businesses.
Unlike many retail establishments, a laundromat's business model relies heavily on customers'ability to load and unload bulky and heavy items – in this case, laundry. Customers often
arrive with multiple large bags or baskets of laundry, and the "No Parking" restriction makes itextremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, for them to access my business.
The lack of convenient parking directly translates to:
Loss of Customers: Many of my regular customers, particularly those who are
elderly, disabled, or do not have assistance, are finding it too challenging to use myservices without the ability to park briefly. I am already seeing a decline in customer
traffic.
Reduced Revenue: The decrease in customer volume is directly impacting my
revenue and threatens the viability of my business. As a small business owner, this isa very serious concern.
Operational Inefficiency: Even for customers who are able to manage, the "NoParking" rule forces them to park at a distance and carry heavy loads, creating
inconvenience and delays, and potentially causing safety issues.
______________________________________________________________________
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Observations on "Delivery Vehicles Excepted" Signage
In addition to the immediate impact on my business, I've observed a related issue that I believe
highlights the need for more nuanced parking solutions. I've noticed specific signs displayedprominently in front of several car dealerships along El Camino Real, including Tesla, Volvo,and McLaren, that state "delivery vehicles excepted" under the "No Parking Any Time"sign.
This observation raises a few important questions relevant to our parking discussions:
Ordinance or Justification: What is the specific ordinance or justification behind these
"delivery vehicles excepted" signs? Are these standard for all commercial properties orunique to certain business types? Understanding the legal framework for these
exceptions could offer valuable insight into how we might approach the uniqueloading/unloading needs of other businesses like mine.Balancing Needs: If certain businesses are granted exceptions for their logistical needs,it suggests there's a precedent for accommodating specific operational requirements. I
believe laundromats, with their reliance on customers loading and unloading heavyitems, warrant similar consideration to ensure equitable access and business viability.
______________________________________________________________________
I urge the City of Palo Alto to consider the unique needs of businesses like mine that require
customers to load and unload items. I respectfully request that you consider the followingpotential solutions:
Designated Loading/Unloading Zone: A designated loading/unloading zone, even iflimited to a short duration (e.g., 15-30 minutes), would provide a practical solution
for my customers to access my business.
Short-Term Parking Permits: Explore the possibility of issuing short-term parking
permits for customers of businesses like mine, specifically for the purpose of loadingand unloading.
I am eager to work with the City of Palo Alto to find a solution that addresses the needs of theEl Camino Real Improvement Project while also ensuring the survival of local businesses like
my laundromat. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter further with you atyour earliest convenience. You can reach me at 650-224-2230 or leetony@gmail.com.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Tony Lee
Stanford Coin Wash
650-224-2230 cell
From:David Page
To:Council, City
Subject:suit v. Trump administration
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 9:54:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/city-government/2025/05/27/palo-alto-moves-to-join-suit-against-white-house/
This is great news; thank you!
David Page
Stephanie Troyan3115 Avalon Ct.
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:James Porter
To:Council, City
Subject:5/27 City Council Palo Alto Commons
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 6:44:41 PM
Attachments:Screenshot 2025-05-27 at 3.03.32 PM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the concerns of residents in Palo Alto about the
Palo Alto Commons a couple weeks ago. I wanted to summarize some of the feedback of
the neighbors.
Palo Alto Commons has been and continues to be a bad neighbor. Despite
many times issues were raised throughout this process, they have continued to notcorrect their behavior. As recently as 3 days ago, they are continuing to illegallyblock parking in their parking lot (see below image). Only support the 7 interior units per PTC recommendation. While the Palo Alto
Commons has failed to uphold their promise from 40 years ago, we acknowledge theneed for senior housing in our community. But it should not be on the backs of theneighbors. This compromise allows for more units while having minimal disruptionson the neighbors. Third Party Assessment of Parking Monthly. The previous PC required annual
reporting of staff and visitor parking numbers to the city, but this requirement wasnever fulfilled. Given this ongoing non-compliance, we are requesting monthlyreporting to ensure proper monitoring of their parking operations and adherence tocity regulations.
Looking forward to hearing your decision on this issue shortly.
Sincerely,
James Porter, 4080 Wilkie Way
From:Civil Grand Jury
To:Council, City
Subject:2025 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Ceremony
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 2:36:43 PM
Attachments:2025 CGJ Ceremony Flyer.pdf
Palo Alto City Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Please find attached a letter from Presiding Judge Julie A. Emede and the flyer for the 2025
Civil Grand Jury Ceremony, which will be held on Wednesday, June 18, at 4 pm. This year,
attendees have the option to join remotely via Zoom or in person in Department 17 of the
Old Courthouse.
We do ask that you register to attend by June 10, 2025, by submitting the registration form
linked here. The registration form will ask how you plan to attend.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed. Thank you!
Best,
Britney
Britney Huelbig | she, her, hers
Deputy Court Manager | Temporary Judge Administrator
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San José, CA 95113
(408) 882-2721 | bhuelbig@scscourt.org | https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/
Confidentiality Notice: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the review and/or use of the
individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. Grand jury records are
not subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. If you think you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this and any copies of the message.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
J U N E 1 8 , 2 0 2 5 , A T 4 P M
F OR MO R E IN FO RMAT I ON, PLEASE CO N TAC T
C GJ@S CSC OURT .O R G
408-882-27 21
I N V I T E S Y O U T O T H E
T H E S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
C O U N T Y O F S A N T A C L A R A
P R E S E N T E D B Y T H E H O N O R A B L E
J U L I E A . E M E D E
P L E A S E R E G I S T E R B Y J U N E 1 0 V I A T H E L I N K
B E L O W A N D I N C L U D E H O W Y O U W I L L
A T T E N D (I N -P E R S O N O R R E M O T E ).
register here
Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San José, California 95113
(408) 882-2700
Chambers of H O N . J U L I E A . E M E D E , Presiding Judge
May 21, 2025
Members of the Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Sent via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for your continued support of the Court’s annual recruitment efforts for the Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury. Your assistance plays a vital role in sustaining this independent body, which is essential
to promoting transparency, accountability, and good governance in our community. The grand jurors
generously volunteer their time and talents throughout the year, providing an invaluable service to the
residents of Santa Clara County.
To honor their service, please join us for the Discharge and Empanelment Ceremony of the Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. The Discharge of the 2024-25 Civil Grand Jury
will commence at 4 p.m., followed by the Empanelment of the 2025-26 Civil Grand Jury immediately
thereafter. A flyer with the ceremony information is also attached.
I hope your schedule will permit you to join us to thank and congratulate the outgoing and incoming Grand
Jury, respectively. In order to register to attend either online or in person, please submit your response
via the following link on or before June 10, 2025: https://tinyurl.com/2025CGJ
If you do plan to join in person for the live ceremony at the Old Courthouse, parking validation will be
offered at the Victory Lot located at 64 N. Market Street.
Should you have any questions about the ceremony or the work of the Civil Grand Jury, please contact
Britney Huelbig, Deputy Court Manager, at 408-882-2721 or CGJ@scscourt.org.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge