HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-16 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: 6/16/2025
Document dates: 6/9/2025 - 6/16/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Virginia Tincher
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Meeting - Letter related to Agenda Item 22 - PUBLIC HEARING & PROPOSITION 218 HEARING:
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 11:34:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto City Council Members,
As a resident of Palo Alto and a member of Tuolumne River Trust I am concerned the SFPUC is using
overly conservative water supply planning that could adversely and unnecessarily affect Palo Alto’s water
supply planning. I am also concerned about the health of the Tuolumne River, our main water supply, and
how the water is managed by the SFPUC using the overly conservative assumptions which have resulted in
hoarding water during dry years and being forced to dump it in wet years to avoid overflows with overall
negative impacts to the river.
I appreciate the ongoing efforts by Councilmember Stone as Palo Alto’s member of BAWSCA to get the
SFPUC to look closely at their assumptions. The assumptions with the biggest impact on users are the
design drought and the daily use figures which harm the ratepayers with higher rates and the environment
with poor management of water flow in the river.
As Tuolumne River Trust wrote in their letter to the SFPUC -
The 50% rationing figure espoused by the SFPUC is based on the manufactured Design Drought, which
might occur once in 8,000 years. Furthermore, it’s based on unrealistic demand projections, acknowledged
in the SFPUC’s own document – “Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections” (July
5, 2022) – as “an outside bound.”
Through it’s membership in BAWSCA I urge the Council to support
BAWSCA’s Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Study process – engaging
stakeholders and doing a sensitivity analysis.
Encourage Strategy 2050 to start by identifying how much water might really be needed. Question
the design drought – what is its return period? Consider supporting the ”alternative design drought.”
Scrutinize the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan.
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
Encourage a study session on the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement (TRVA).
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Regards,
Virginia Tincher Van Kuran
879 Garland Drive,
Palo Alto 94303
From:Sarah
To:Council, City
Subject:Please VOTE YES Newell Road Bridge
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 11:15:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers,
The fear every year of a major storm flooding our home could be hugely alleviated with your
YES vote for the Newell Road Bridge Project. We knew when we built our home that we werein the flood zone and we followed all FEMA guidelines. The current bridge structure makes
the situation worse.
I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011). There is a number of reasons tomove forward with this opportunity to modernize the bridge and contribute a crucial
component of the on-going flood protection improvements to Reach 2 of San FrancisquitoCreek:
The current bridge is very old and outdated, constructed in 1911, and is in need ofmodernization under current CA state and federal guidelines
The current bridge has limited flow capacity because its abutments and structureobstruct SFC creek flows, limited to ~6000 cubic feet per second. This is below the
design goal of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority effort to improvethe Reach 2 capacity to 7200 cfs, the flow seen in the 1998 flood of record. The new
Newell Road bridge would contain this peak flow protecting residents in Palo Altoand East Palo Alto.
There has been extensive public discussion about many design alternatives and theplanned upgrade represents a fine compromise to meet the desires of Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto residents and traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian constituencies. Some havebeen concerned about changes to traffic patterns with the wider modern design, but
traffic can easily be controlled as needed with simple interventions, such as speedbumps, police oversight, and signage.
The cost of the bridge upgrade will be shared between Caltrans/Federal sources(~89%) and local Santa Clara Valley Water District sources (~11%), greatly reducing
Palo Alto's contribution.
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
I believe these reasons are compelling for approving and executing these plans to replace theNewell Road bridge so that construction can start this summer, 2025.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sarah Sands
1331 Hamilton Ave--
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:FW: No confirmation
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 10:46:45 AM
Dear City Council Members,
Please see the below public comment letter submitted to our office.
Best,
City Clerk’s Office
Subject: Item 22: Proposed Credit to Businesses Will Harm the City and the Environment
Dear City Council Members:
One part of item 22 on tomorrow’s agenda is whether small- and medium-sized businesses in
Palo Alto should receive a one-time credit of about $820 and $200, respectively, on their gas
utility bill. This credit attempts to approximate the savings they might have received for six
months had the City adopted the 2025 COSA rate structure.
The staff report indicates that paying this credit to those businesses will cost the City about
$1.1 million.
There are several important reasons to not provide this credit.
First, in no way are these businesses entitled to the credit. The 2025 COSA represents one
possible fee schedule, but our existing fee schedule has also been determined to be fair and
appropriate and is in fact the one we’ve adopted for 2025. Under it, the businesses should
not receive this credit.
Second, there’s no reason to think that any of these businesses were relying on this credit. It
will be a modest adjustment to their overall utility bill, which for most businesses is itself
generally a small portion of their overall expenses compared to labor and rent.
Third, artificially lowering gas bills for businesses discourages conservation. The
approximately 2,076 businesses receiving the credit will be less motivated to look for ways to
reduce their gas usage, whereas we want them to be working hard to do exactly that.
Fourth, the staff report doesn’t mention a huge hidden cost of these credits. The City wants
customers to switch from gas to electric. Therefore, if you are to subsidize anything, you
should subsidize use of electric power, such as with a gas disconnect rebate. By instead
subsidizing gas, you’ll then need to lower the cost of electric power to match the gas subsidy
in addition to any other incentive. In other words, for every dollar spent on the proposed
subsidy to businesses, you may need to spend another dollar on additional electric subsidies.
So the $1.1 million proposal could actually end up costing the City over $2 million.
Fifth, the credit will tap into the Cap and Trade auction revenues intended instead to reduce
our City’s carbon footprint and improve the environment. The staff report does indicate that
the proposed credits to small- and medium-sized businesses will be paid first from interest the
City receives, but that interest will only cover a fraction of the credits. Most of the money for
the credits will come from Cap and Trade auction revenues, which were never intended to
lower utility bills.
Using such funds to lower rates and disincentivize conservation rather than funding
environmental improvements clearly delays the vital changes our City needs to combat
climate change. It moves us backwards rather than forwards. It conflicts with City policy and
sends a very wrong message about our intentions.
For all five of these reasons, I urge you to hold to your pledge to advance sustainability and
therefore reject the proposed $1.1 million credit to small- and medium-sized businesses. As a
compromise, you might allow that interest can be used for a smaller temporary credit to the
businesses, but not any Cap and Trade auction revenues.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky
1682 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto
From:Sarah Burgess
To:Council, City
Subject:Non Profit is not a Budget Category
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 10:40:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Neighbors Abroad would like to thank the City Manager’s office, the Policy and Services
Committee, the Finance Committee and all of Council for the efforts they have made towardsensuring that the process for giving non-profit grants is fair, equitable and aligns with
Council’s priorities. In particular, we are appreciative of the recognition given by the Policyand Services Committee in recommending that we receive $12,500 on a reimbursement basis
for FY 2026 for meeting our responsibilities on behalf of the city in hosting delegates from ourSister Cities. I have had the responsibility of evaluating and recommending grants in the past,
albeit on a smaller scale, and know the difficulty in weighing the needs of various worthy andimpactful organizations, and am grateful for the hours spent by Policy and Services
Committee members in doing the same.
Cognizant of all of the efforts that have been made, as well as appreciative of therecommendation made for us, I, and the Board of Directors of Neighbors Abroad remain
concerned about the process which has gotten us to this point.
I have previously written about the confusion over whether we needed to apply through thisprocess. While we have a contract for rendering services for the city, that contract is exclusive
of the funds for hosting mayors, city staff members, Consul Generals, governors, andprospective business partners on behalf of the city. These needs have been covered, on a
reimbursement basis, first from Council funds and most recently, in the budget from the CityManager’s budget, rather than as part of our contract. For this reason, when less than 24 hours
before the deadline for the application for this process the new process became known to me, Isubmitted our application.
On paper and by the strict definition, these funds should go through the NonProfit Partnership
Workplan. In practice, however, this funding is far different than the grant funds primarilyrequested through this process.
Lumping together all non-profit requests does not make sense in application. The term “non-
profit” is an IRS taxation category, and has little to do with the organizations or theirpartnership with the city. By way of example, Neighbors Abroad is an organization which
would not exist but for its partnership with the city - it was created over 60 years ago tofacilitate the Sister City relationships for the City of Palo Alto. The vast majority of cities have
dedicated staff members who serve this purpose, and all of the expenses for staffing andhosting and everything else come out of the city budget. In fact, in the past the City of Palo
Alto provided an administrative staff member, office space, mail service, and storage space atCity Hall for Neighbors Abroad. The contract we have with the city is to recompense for the
loss of these services. We provide what is a full time staff position at most other cities. Inaddition, however, the city has recognized that we cannot provide all the hosting necessary
and has allotted us these funds to do so on an inexpensive, carefully managed reimbursementbasis.
All of this goes to show how the previously existing system works for Neighbors Abroad anddoes so in an extremely cost effective manner for the City of Palo Alto. What doesn’t work,
however, is to toss our funding into a pot with grant requests by non-profits who provideservices for the unhoused, for those needing mental health services, for those with disabilities,
with funding for services for children who need educational help, with funding for seniors, etc.Particularly not where the amount set aside for all of these grants is a fraction of the funds
which were in the budget for all the non-profits making these requests.
We are all for fiscal economic management on behalf of the city. In our eyes, that wouldrequire setting aside a certain amount for services for mental health; a certain amount for
helping the less abled, a certain amount for seniors, a certain amount for sustainabilityprojects, a certain amount for educational projects, etc, etc, etc. With those amounts set, the
non-profits seeking funding could assess the total amount available, and make intelligent grantrequests cognizant of their anticipated place in the total. Given a little more time, grant
guidelines could also be provided. For example, P&S stated in evaluating several of theserequests that they were not going to provide grants for staffing - unfortunately, that was not in
the application. I personally agree with that position, but also feel the applying organizationsshould be aware of this when submitting their request. Following this process would also
make clear that Neighbors Abroad’s funding request does not belong in the workplan, despiteour non-profit IRS categorization.
We at Neighbors Abroad cannot represent our city well without the funds that are
recommended - in fact, the recommendation made is approximately 2/3 of what wasrequested. In hosting, we align each year with Council Priorities. We arrange seminars for
businesses on sustainability, attended by professors, Nobel Prize winners, multi-nationalcompanies interested in doing business in Palo Alto, and diplomats from our Sister City’s
countries. We have outreach events attended by all of the community, aimed towards lesserrepresented populations. We negotiate discounts at local businesses to host the delegations,
and house them in local hotels.
These funds for an already existing obligation of the city, however, should not be taken fromsocial programs which council has recognized as benefitting our community.
In short, we request that Neighbors Abroad be removed from this process, and the funds
requested be returned to the budget, preferably made part of our existing contract. Doing sowould be a step towards a fair management of non-profit grant requests, as opposed to funding
requests by non-profits.
Respectfully,
Sarah BurgessPresident
Phone 650-996-3331Web www.neighborsabroad.org Email sarah.burgess@neighborsabroad.org
355 Alma Street, Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Carl Van Wey
To:Council, City
Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com; carl.vanwey@comcast.net
Subject:Newell street bridge
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 10:25:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council,
Please consider all the factors and approve the proposed Newell Street bridge
replacement project.
thank you,
Carl Van Wey, MD
1425 University ave.
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:Carolyn Held
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item 24, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 9:47:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011), which needs to start this summer.
Thank you.
Carolyn Held
719 De Soto Drive
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:Council, City
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 9:11:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff
recommendations to support the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridgereplacement project (PE-12011)
Thank you. My very patient neighbors in Crescent Park also thank you.
Jo Ann Mandinach
From:jon richards
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 8:44:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Moving forward without further delays is important for us. We were flooded 20+ years
ago. Time flies, life is short. Let's get this done.
--Jon and Carol Richards
1031 Hamilton Ave.
Palo 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:Aram James
To:Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Vicki Veenker; Reckdahl, Keith; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for CaliforniaDemocratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Lauing, Ed; board@valleywater.org; board@pausd.org;BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission;Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Zelkha, Mila; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash,Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Clerk, City; Council, City; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz;Lotus Fong; Doug Minkler; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Daniel Kottke; Sean Allen; Rose Lynn; sharon jackson;Greg Tanaka; Bryan Gobin; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Jessica Speiser; Rowena Chiu; Jeff Conrad; JeffHayden; Friends of Cubberley; Dennis Upton; dennis burns; Binder, Andrew; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>;Foley, Michael; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; District10@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov;District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; Baker,Rob; Roberta Ahlquist; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Gennady Sheyner;Diana Diamond
Subject:A people whose entire existence depends solely on military might is destined to end up in the darkest corners of
destruction, and ultimately, in defeat.
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 8:27:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious
of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Israel’s greatest threat isn’t Iran or
Hamas, but its own hubris
A people whose entire existence depends solely on military might is destined to end up in thedarkest corners of destruction, and ultimately, in defeat.
Source: +972 Magazinehttps://share.google/f36luUNjqOxkY0ahS
From:Anne Email
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote yes to replace Newell Road/ SFC Bridge
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 5:37:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to support the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge
replacement project (PE-12011). Modernizing the bridge is a crucial component of the on-going flood protection improvements to Reach 2 of San Francisquito Creek.
Anne McGee
1290 Dana Avenue Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Anne Email
To:Council, City
Subject:Please vote yes on Newell Road/SFC Bridge Replacement Project
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 5:32:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011). Modernizing the bridge is a crucial component of the on-going flood protection improvements
to Reach 2 of San Francisquito Creek
Sent from my iPad
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:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Cc:"Lara Anthony"; "Melissa Oliveira"
Subject:The Budget & Safe Routes to School
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 11:12:26 PM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable City Council,
As you discuss the budget Monday night, I’m writing to ask you to please direct staff to fill the vacant
Safe Routes to School FTE position as soon as possible—ideally, before school starts this Fall. You
will note that the position is funded in the FY 2026 budget before you. It also was funded in the last
budget, but Transportation has not been allowed to hire someone to fill the gap. This has made it very
challenging to roll out quality, consistent programming at a critical moment when staff and
volunteers are working to regain ground lost during the pandemic.
One staff person has been working more than 60 hours a week through most weeks and as many as
80 hours in weeks when education and encouragement activities are being organized and when
events arise that need special attention, like e-bike problems, injury collisions, etc. This has been
going on well over a year. It started when the previous employee in the now-vacant role was assigned
to a project that prevented him from fulfilling his regular SRTS duties. When he eventually left the
city, he was not replaced. The remaining FTE has been doing her best to do her work and his work all
that time. Continuation of this situation is untenable.
School is out for the summer, so parents, including SRTS leadership, are out of town and don’t know
that there is continuing uncertainty about hiring to fill this role. We may lose parent volunteers if we
cannot get back to normal levels of city staffing.
Parent volunteers previously reached out to you about this position. Here are some examples posted
on the city web site:
Meeting letters submitted on 4/21 April 21, 2025 City Council Emails . See letters on
pages: 2,3,12,23,28,172, 204.
City Council In-Person Meeting Statement by Lara Anthony, Chair, Palo Alto Council of
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
PTAs Transportation Safety Committee Meeting See 54:12.
Other speakers attempted to speak at this meeting, but they were not admitted via
Zoom. Here is a copy of a letter written by one of those frustrated parents after the
meeting.
Please direct staff to fill this position as soon as possible—ideally, before the start
of school in August.
Safe Routes to School has been a shining example of what the city can do when it works in
partnership with citizens and the school district. Let’s please make sure this important
program gets the staffing it needs to regain ground lost during the pandemic and to reinvigorate
our community culture of walking and bicycling for more trips more often for healthier, happier
minds and bodies, a safer community and a greener planet.
Thank you for your recent update and Resolution in support the Safe Routes to School
Partnership Consensus Statement. Filling this vacant position will be an important step to
realize the renewed commitment you made to your partners in the PTAs, PAUSD partners and
to our community’s intrepid foot-powered young people.
Thank you for giving my comments your usual thoughtful attention.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
(former 17-year PTA Safe Routes to School volunteer leader and organizer)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Daniel Hulse
To:Council, City
Subject:6/17 Meeting, Item 17, Car-Free California Avenue
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 10:56:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to support the Car-Free California Avenue. Living in the Del Medio area, this
area is closer and more “home” than the downtown of my own city of Mountain View. I often
come here by train or bike for restaurants, farmers markets, and just to hang out. It is
already a nice place!
In your implementation of this plan I hope that you avoid Mountain View’s mistake that we
made when we banned cars from our downtown. For some reason, in Mountain View
banning cars meant banning bikes. This robbed bicycles of a key transportation corridor
while also limiting our point-to-point access to downtown businesses who we would
otherwise like to frequent. This limitation has always made me prefer California Avenue,
because it doesn’t seem like an area that is telling me that I’m a bad person for the crime of
biking where I need to go. Of course, the sometimes cited safety issue was not actually
resolved because people bike in the “bikes banned” area anyway–after all, anyone with
eyes can see that it is safe and these days giving people tickets for pretend crimes has
fallen out of fashion.
To convince you to avoid making this mistake, I want to stress some key reasons why you
really want to make sure Cal Ave stays open to bikes:
1.
It’s a really important transportation corridor for cyclists. You should probably
know this better than me, but California Avenue is a key route because it connects
the train station, as well as the path under the train line, across El Camino to Stanford
Research Park as well as the southern parts of Stanford. The proposed “parallel
route,” of Cambridge Avenue, while necessary for days and times when California
Ave will be crowded and occupied, simply doesn’t provide the same through-access,
instead terminating one block north of El Camino. It also isn’t closed to cars currently,
and given that I doubt whether it can be brought to the same standard (read: All Ages
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
and Abilities) that California Avenue has already achieved today. There are still
reasons to improve this street, but it is mainly useful as a detour, not the main route.
Additionally, if this plays out like it did for Mountain View, the “alternative
route” may not materialize for years after the bike ban goes into effect, leaving
bikes with worse connectivity than before, when it was open to cars.
2.
Businesses benefit from the visibility and access. Your businesses will often talk
about how car access makes it easy for people to see businesses and “pop in” when
they need to.. This argument is doubly true for cyclists, because walking is such a
drag. One of the major advantages of bikes over any other mode is its ability to
rapidly move directly from start to destination. Moving bike access off of California
Avenue encourages skipping this area entirely. As a cyclist, you’re a lot less likely to
stop for coffee at a business you don’t know exists, and you’re marginally less likely
to stop if it means you have to walk your bike. For me, I like being able to have a line
of sight to my bike when I frequent a business so I don’t have to worry about it being
stolen. Enabling cyclists to feel comfortable biking to businesses is worth
encouraging, whether business owners understand it or not.
3.
Cycling is a part of California Avenue’s identity. This argument is more of a
feeling, but I would guess a lot of people who actually frequent California Avenue on
a regular basis understand it. California Avenue has cycling-related businesses like
Terun and Summit Bikes right on the street. Some rather famous bike routes like
Page Mill spit you out right here. On weekends, you often see a whole (cargo bike-
assisted) family of cyclists and the vibe is just tremendous. Isn’t it lovely to sit, sip
your coffee, and hear the occasional “ding ding” of a bike bell? What a vibrant place!
In summary, I don’t understand the need to get rid of all this fun, barring there being
substantive crash data (not anecdotes or near-misses) that tell us otherwise.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hulse
Mountain View (Del Medio)
From:milo
To:Council, City
Subject:Keeping California Avenue open for bicycles
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:50:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Special Council of the City of Palo Alto:
I hope this message finds you well. My name is Milovan Kovacevic, your neighbor from the College
Terrace, and I am writing to express my strong support for your decision to maintain the bicycle lanes on
California Avenue - the decision I hope to see you'll uphold. The word is out that a group of our neighbors
are looking for ways to change your position. I am sure they have their reasons, ill-advised they may
be. Cycling is an integral part of Palo Alto’s transportation fabric: with 9.5% of residents biking to work—
the highest share in the Bay Area—Palo Alto has long stood out for its forward-thinking approach to
bicycling infrastructure. Preserving safe, dedicated bike infrastructure on California Avenue is vital to
upholding this legacy.
By keeping these lanes in place, the Council is:
1. Prioritizing public safety—protected bike lanes reduce conflicts between cyclists and vehicles,
helping all users feel safer.
2. Supporting local businesses—car-free access invites more walking and cycling shoppers,
contributing to a livelier California Avenue district.
3. Aligning with broader BPTP goals—this step dovetails with the City’s ongoing Bicycle &
Pedestrian Transportation Plan update and Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee discussions.
Your vision and foresight has already brought a great deal of quality of life improvement to College Terrace
and surrounding neighborhoods. I respectfully urge the Council to continue championing complete streets
and protected bike infrastructure across Palo Alto. California Avenue sets a bold example: a street that is
safe, community-focused, and accessible for all.
Thank you for your leadership and for your unwavering support of sustainable transportation. Please don’t
hesitate to reach out if I can assist in any further efforts to enhance Palo Alto’s bicycle network.
Warm regards,
Milovan Kovacevic
980 College Ave, Palo Alto, CA
milovan.kovacevic@pm.me
+1(650)272-9864
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; Mesterhazy, Rose; Smith, Audrey
Subject:"Why don"t they just go around?"
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:33:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Item 17 on Tuesday’s agenda may just be about crossing a few T’s and dotting a couple I’s, but if I am right aboutsome of my neighbors, there is going to be an attempt to hijack that item. There’s a sabotage/whisper campaignafoot to pressure the council into barring all bikes from car free Cal Ave. They are going to say to you, “why can’tthe kids just go around?” To this I would respond,, “if Page Mill was closed to cars at El Camino, could the cars‘just go around?’ “ It is astounding to me that anyone would put their desire to stroll without a care whenever thyliked over the safety of kids biking to school.
And about that:
1) There is a horrendous class TWO Ebike problem. Put the kibosh on those motorcycles masquerading as bikes andyou probably won’t have problems with bikes on car free Cal Ave.
2) I used to visit Castro St shops and to eat at their restaurants regularly. But they have closed Castro to bikes so Isimply go elsewhere. If people think blocking bikes from Cal Ave will improve commerce, they’ve got anotherthink coming.
Thank you for your consideration - Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., Palo Alto
From:MELISSA FROLAND
To:Council, City
Subject:Please vote yes 6/16/25 agenda #24 Newell Bridge Approval
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:08:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To Our Councilmembers,
I am writing to ask for your approving votes for the upcoming Newell Road bridge
replacement project known as PE-12011. My home was flooded in 1998, and since then hasexperienced several further near misses with winter storms. The annual threat of flooding is
very stressful for many community members, including myself, all while solutions are at hand.
With the principal cost of replacing the Newell bridge covered by CalTrans, Federal funds andthe Santa Clara Water District, why wait any longer? Let’s get this done immediately, and
move toward correcting the Chaucer Bridge asap.
Thank you for considering my plea.
Regards,
Melissa Froland
1200 Hamilton Ave
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:dolok@comcast.net
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Street Bridge
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 7:45:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers,
We urge your YES vote to approve the staff recommendations supporting the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011).
As articulated by other community members, there are a number of reasons to proceed with
this opportunity to modernize the bridge, a crucial component of the ongoing flood protectionimprovements to Reach 2 of San Francisquito Creek, which runs along our back fence.
The current bridge is in need of modernization
The current bridge has limited flow capacity of ~6000 cubic feet per second, a flow that
is below the design goal of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority effort toimprove the Reach 2 capacity to 7200 cfs; that was the flow seen in the 1998 flood of
record. The new Newell Road bridge would contain this peak flow protecting residentsin Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.
The design alternatives and the planned upgrade represent a compromise to meet thedesires of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto residents and traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian
constituencies. Changes to traffic patterns will happen with the wider modern bridgedesign, but we agree that traffic can effectively be controlled as needed using speed
bumps, police oversight, and signage.
The cost of the bridge upgrade will be shared between Caltrans/Federal sources (~89%)
and local Santa Clara Valley Water District sources (~11%), thereby reducing PaloAlto's contribution.
We believe these reasons are sound. Please approve plans to replace the Newell Road bridgeso that construction can start this summer of 2025, and please help our neighborhood feel safe
as we face future rainy seasons.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dolores and Bill Kincaid
1643 Edgewood Drive
From:ReDoing 2020
To:Council, City
Subject:"PALO ALTO CANARIES, VICTIMS OF UNREPORTED TOXIC SPILL" FOLLOWUP 6-15-25 7:35pm
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 7:35:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
"PALO ALTO CANARIES, VICTIMS OF UNREPORTED TOXIC SPILL"
FOLLOWUP 6-15-25 7:35pm (Original to Council sent 4-15-25 see attached)
One year ago, toxic chemical levels dangerous to humans and the environment, were
distributed through the water system by the Palo Alto utilities department.
Even after the staff became aware of the contamination, they chose to keep the toxic
spill a secret from the residents who unknowingly used the water from their taps for a
variety of purposes.
The City Council was sent a report of this discovery on April 15,2025. (See enclosed
below) but no response was received, only silence. This failure to take the toxic
event seriously has triggered steps to escalate the examination of the municipalfailure and its cover up.
It is unacceptable to permit EPA violations to go unnoticed, especially in safety and
health matters related to critical public utilities. Since the local staff employees madethe bad decision to not alert water users to the potential harm they faced, it is critical
that the administration along with elected officials thoroughly investigate the toxic
event to ensure confidence that public information will not be withheld in the future.
For those people who are tempted to say that the high chemical disinfectant levels
were not dangerous enough to require a public alert, take note that water employees
confirmed that they planned to add a neutralizing ingredient to the polluted water that
was being flushed from the pipes to the Bay, in order to protect the environment. (Surely humans are as important as local waters, and deserved to be given equal
protection.)
The failure to inform the public has sullied the reputation of the City of Palo Alto, andbrought into question the policies and judgments of the City administration, along with
that of the municipal Utilities department.(We'll leave determinations of negligence or
criminal intent to others.)
To wit: City Utility officials are often accused of using captive resident customers as
commodities for increased cash production, rather than serving a human population
that depends on the department for essential services in a time of escalating
domestic energy bills.
No wonder the line staff in the water department may have taken their cue from the
higher ups, when they disrespected customer needs in favor of shielding their
department's errors and reputation.
Certainly, the time is now for Palo Alto leadership to undertake a serious effort to
refocus its governance in favor of true public service as a priority, rather then continue
the long standing genuflection to insiders and favored private business interests.
What follows is the original report sent to all Council members that was ignored,
reflecting a lack of accountability or perhaps confirming a structural weakness - theirinability to control the department heads, employees, and consultants that actually
operate the government.
Please know that the questions will continue indefinitely since there is no statute oflimitations for actions as reported here that were stupid or crooked or something in
between.
-------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message - original report
From: ReDoing 2020 <redoing2020@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2025, 3:08 PM
Subject: "PALO ALTO CANARIES," VICTIMS OF
UNREPORTED TOXIC SPILL
To: <City.council@paloalto.gov>
*WHAT ELSE ARE THEY NOT TELLING US? #1*
"PALO ALTO CANARIES," VICTIMS OF UNREPORTED TOXIC SPILL
Report to the Palo Alto City Council, April 15, 2025, pm. Northern
California, USA
Silicon Valley's Palo Alto residents were faced with an unreported toxic
spill in the municipal tap water, caused by lax unprepared utility managers operating
an antiquated system that failed to protect residents from the risk of harm by
undetected chemicals...who then covered up their badbehavior.
We suggest that the California State Attorney General and the Santa Clara County
District Attorney look into this "canaries in the coal mine event,"as the D.A. hadannounced he would do regarding the Tesla spill in Palo Alto that was also kept from
the public till the reclusive City Manager was
forced to apologize for secrecy.
Here's what happened, and why it's important:
On June 14, 2024, about 8:30am in the morning, a call came in to the
utility department (from a patriotic water user inspired by Flag Day)
reporting that their kitchen sink smelled like a swimming pool, a possible
hint that a toxic level of a dangerous chemical might be in the tap water
pipes in the City of Palo Alto.
Unbeknownst to the water utility staff (that said initially,) an illegal
overdose of a disinfectant chemical was later blamed by them as a malfunction of the
equipment of the City's wholesale supplier, the City of San Francisco water
department (with an outpost on Arastradero Rd.)
It's not clear whether San Francisco was aware of the intrusion or understood that the
product they were selling was poisoned. But what is known is that its customer, the
Palo Alto water utility, was uninformed and in the dark, while city residents wereblindly using a harmful resource to drink, wash, prepare food, make ice cubes, mix
baby formula, dress wounds, brush teeth. etc.
Incidentally, the version of chlorine used in the City is "CHLORAMINE" a mix ofchlorine and ammonia, whose chemical vomponents don't boil off or dissipate into the
air easily as chlorine alone does. (Read more about
drawbacks to this disinfection alternate that lacks long-term term safety
tests.)
Think of it this way: the same horrific chemical weapon, chlorine, at
higher strengths was used as far back as World War 1 to kill enemy soldiers, while
modern Russia is said to be using Chlorine in its currentbattle with Ukraine.
In the United States, currently a weaker Chlorine version is approved as a
water disinfectant as long as it conforms to *very strict concentrationlimits. But on the day when the water tap smelled bad, the toxic chemical load was
later deemed to be a violation of the safety limits, and was tragically being passed off
by hapless Palo Alto employees as a safe
product when in fact it was not.
Anyone familiar with the habits of bureaucracy knows that there was no way that
these public servants were going to admit such an error.
Desperate to cover up a mistake, they said that they contacted the California State
bureaucrats, presumably hopeful of securing advice that
would protect the City from having to publicly reveal what had happened.
Bingo! It turns out that the rules regarding disclosure of dangerous levels of
chemicals in the water supply are modified in the statute to protect water operators
who are too poor or too dumb to regularly conform to safe standards.
In fact, as the Palo Alto utilities staff pointed out, they would have had
to contaminate the water supply many days for a year to be compelled to
disclosure their failures.
That's the bureaucrat's dream scheme known as "rolling averages." All the
good and bad performance indicators are rolled into one in the annual report.
Impossible to deny at this point, but during the crisis, Palo Alto staff knowingly chose
moral cowardice--they refused to tell its residents about the tap water contamination--
the City spokesperson even lied to reporters:
"There was no problem," she said.
The municipality hid behind a bureaucratic procedural smokescreen that they
interpreted as allowing dangerous levels of toxins to pass without alert
into homes, businesses, schools, parks, and municipal facilities. And
consequently into humans, pets and through any lead pipes on the premises,where chlorine increases the danger of ingesting horrific leached lead
due to its corrosive effect on the piping system.
The City policy is not to report the exact data that reveals the daily water quality. Instead, it approves adding together all the measures over
a year's time, and issues the results in a single number as if it was in
effect for the fact full year.
For example, in the summertime when cancer causing trihalomethanes levels rise
above the federal maximum, the City leadership decided that there's no legal need to
warn the public to take precautionary measures, as long as the lower carcinogen
levels in the cooler months are averaged into the annual municipal report to thecommunity.
Rolling averages policies, as a politically contrived convenience, are
keeping the public from knowing when, how, and to what extent they shouldbe protecting themselves from harmful consequences. (i.e. get faucet filters, water
treatment pitchers, bottled water, whole house systems, lab tests, etc.)
The despicable performance of the bureaucrats at the time of the spill was based onthe choice they made between decades old Federal rules
promulgated in the 1970's that facilitates business practices of water
suppliers, and otherwise the absolute obligation of public employees to
protect residents from unsafe and unhealthy conditions.
There should have been no doubt about which path to take on Flag Day,
especially when there was still time to warn the possible victims so they
could take steps to lessen their risk (not use nor store the water.) But the Palo Altorepresentatives elected to hide the truth from the public in
favor of hoping to save their jobs and reputation or employing whatever
twisted motive was on their minds at the time .
Returning to the water contamination event: The City employees were
unprepared for such a calamity, despite the fact that pipe intrusions are
possible. They had no workable emergency plan or equipment to be able to
detect that residents were being put in harm's way.
Only an alert resident who phoned in to say that their sink water stinks, saved the
day. The damage caused by the lax utility controls was limited at that point, after
rushed water lab tests confirmed the EPA violation
committed by Palo Alto.
Some emergency procedures were partially instituted--the noxious liquid was flushed
from the piping system at the building location of the original report, but not at otheraffected properties.
Oddly, no other sites that were fed by the same polluted wholesale water
source were contacted, including schools, private homes, businesses andmultifamily residences, according to the City's utility officials who made
excuses for neglecting to alert all the other vulnerable water users.
Sorry to say, anyone present in those other locations at the time no longer meritedthe protection of their government, decided the staff. As a result,
most of the dangerous water was permitted to remain in place, to be used by the
unprotected community, despite the fact that the insiders, (City
officials and staff,) knew that the contaminated water was prohibited forhuman or environmental use.
Needless to say, the polluted water that was sent to customers, and the
gallons wasted in the flushing of the pipes, was also billed for by themunicipal revenue department, trained to to never let a drop go to waste in their zeal
for soaking residents.
Some Federal EPA water rules history:
It's interesting to note that when the original drinking water standards
were first drafted, the scientists called for more stringent requirements.
But strong lobbying efforts from municipalities and water companiesthroughout the country succeeded in watering down the levels that must be met.
Ignoring health protections. Acting on behalf of the water systems, it allows them to
violate safety standards as long as as their cumulative
annual records conform to the requirements for averaging (described above).
Therefore, the water customer will not know the actual health risks they
face because of this bureaucratic and political escape hatch. Since the
water quality records offered to the public are only issued once a yea,rusually as a marketing piece, a local water company can boast of winning results that
in fact are only averages; despite the truth that may be
different.
As a result, residents, as water customers are not getting an actual picture of the
consequences of their daily water intake and use.To compound
the sorry lack of the public's information, the Palo Alto utility
department won't even come to homes anymore as they once did, to test
repulsive or funny looking water from the tap. The modern response is for
callers to be told that they should hire a lab at their own expense.
Moreover, the City doesn't even bother to automatically mail the slick
annual report to all residents. You need to call or go online.
And in the case of a potential water accident Palo Alto hadn't incorporated
the capability to use real time equipment to monitor or measure chemical
pollution before it entered buildings and customer faucets. Poorly trainedyet highly paid City employees were satisfied to rely on calls that might
come from customers when the tap water looked bad.smelled funny, or
tasted awful...already too late to protect users.
The cost savings for not purchasing available monitoring technology was
measured against the inevitable risk to human health when older water
systems stumble or fail...as happened on Flag Day.
By the time the public reads of the event described in this report, tie City will have
allegedly already purchased the monitoring equipment after the fact, to install the
technology at a few locations. But by December 2024, six months after the intrusion
catastrophe, staff said it was not yet activated, still casually displaying their lack ofurgency in their mandate to protect resident health and safety.
We hope that disclosure of the secretive operating practices of the Palo
Alto Utility department and the skewed focus of the Utilities AdvisoryCommission, coupled with irresponsible City administrators, is a wake-up call for
urgent action necessary to strengthen public service to the
community, especially in light of the current reported authoritarian chaos
of the Federal government that aims to dismantle service protectionswithout concern for individual rights, safety, or well being.
Telimtu Gedidun, Editor
Note: The comments in this report are first hand observations made at the
time of the toxic spill event, and from contemporaneous notes made during
conversations with government staff. The City representatives may have
additional information to clarify their actions that a followup hearing canreveal.
Corrections or updates to:
Redoing2020@gmail.com (please first read notes below)
--------------------------------------------
NOTE TO READERS: If you are a working reporter or government
investigator, or not-for-profit organization, that wants to followup on
this reported incident, please send your professional credentials, contact information,
and an idea of your interests, and we will contact you. Ditto
for City or State or County officials that have jurisdiction.
ABOUT US: We are a volunteer source for original important civic and
consumer facts designed to help combat a variety of fraudsters that
unjustly profit from taking advantage of the public's naivety and/or lack
of knowledge.
From:jay whaley
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Bridge
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 6:52:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear members of The Palo Alto City Council,
As residents of Crescent Drive for 51 years, we support and recommend acceptance of the staff recommendations
for replacing the current Newell Bridge structure.
Please do not delay the project any longer.
Thank you,
Sallie and Jay Whaley
24 Crescent Drive
650-575-5117
Sent from my iPhone
From:Sandy Smith
To:Council, City
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 5:55:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011). Untold hours of effort have gone
into studying the problem, preparing and studying possible solutions, and preparing this
recommendation. I hope you will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and will
approve what your staff has recommended.
Sincerely,
Cecelia Smith
685 Wildwood Lane
Palo 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:herb
To:Switzer, Steven; Raybould, Claire; Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:400 Mitchell Lane [25PLN-00006]
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 5:36:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
400 MITCHELL LANE [25PLN-00006]
June 15, 2025
I accessed the entry for 400 MITCHELL LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94301Application Number:25PLN-00006 onhttp://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning.
The last entry reads: Jun 09, 2025 - DECISION:Tentative Approval w/Conditions.
I then clicked on the button on the bottom of the page toaccess "Attachments" under the pull down menu "Record Info".
There is no entry for the approval letter for the June 9, 2025decision.
Instead, there is an entry dated June 10 for the plans relatedto the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval.
I need to review the actual CUP approval letter to be able todecide whether to request a hearing before the Planning andTransportation Commision.
Otherwise, I can only decide whether to request a Commissionhearing based on the fact that there was an approval, butwithout knowing the text and conditions of the approval.
Please make available the approval letter on Monday June 16,2025 in each of the following ways:
1. Post a link to the approval letter in the Attachmentsunder Record Info on the buildingeye site.
2. Email me a copy of the approval letter toherb_borock@hotmail.com.
3. Mail me a copy of the approval letter to Herb Borock, P. O.Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302.
I knew how to look for the approval letter because of myknowledge of how other applications were processed.
However, when I visited the project site, there was noinformation posted on the site to indicate that there was aplanning application pending for the site.
I look forward to being able to read the approval letter onMonday, June 16.
Thank you.
Herb Borock
.
From:Mel Kronick
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Mel Kronick; Karen Kronick
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 5:02:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011). As Palo Alto residents since 1975, we are
well aware of the many reasons to move forward with this opportunity to modernize the bridge and contribute a
crucial component of the on-going flood protection improvements to Reach 2 of San Francisquito Creek:
The current bridge is very old and outdated, constructed in 1911, and is in need of modernization under
current CA state and federal guidelines
The current bridge has limited flow capacity because its abutments and structure obstruct SFC creek
flows, limited to ~6000 cubic feet per second. This is below the design goal of the San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority effort to improve the Reach 2 capacity to 7200 cfs, the flow seen in the 1998
flood of record. The new Newell Road bridge would contain this peak flow protecting residents in Palo
Alto and East Palo Alto.
There has been extensive public discussion about many design alternatives and the planned upgrade
represents a fine compromise to meet the desires of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto residents and traffic,
bicycle, and pedestrian constituencies. Some have been concerned about changes to traffic patterns with
the wider modern design, but traffic can easily be controlled as needed with simple interventions, such as
speed bumps, police oversight, and signage.
The cost of the bridge upgrade will be shared between Caltrans/Federal sources (~89%) and local Santa
Clara Valley Water District sources (~11%), greatly reducing Palo Alto's contribution.
I believe these reasons are compelling for approving and executing these plans to replace the Newell Road bridge sothat construction can start this summer, 2025. Your support of the project will be greatly appreciated by the residentsof our city.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
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
From:Mary Dimit
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Please approve the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011)
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:41:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creekbridge replacement project (PE-12011).
Our family was here on February 4, 1998 when the San Francisquito Creek overflowed ontoour street. We called our neighbors to warn them of the flooding & then helped them place
sandbags by their driveways, etc. in the early morning hours of the night. We were luckierthan others whose homes were flooded. However, every time there are heavy rains we still
worry, especially as the SF Creek overflowed again on January 1st, 2023 & on March 22, 2023almost overflowed again.
There have been too many delays in the project work already. And, we understand that PaloAlto’s funding will be reduced due to cost-sharing with Santa Clara Valley water district and
Caltrans/Federal.
February, 1998 was a long time ago. Please don’t make our wait longer than this summer for
more progress (this current replacement of the Newell Rd. bridge) toward getting closer to usbeing able to sleep better during the rainy season.
Thank you for considering our request,
Mary Dimit & Mark Sauer
Long-time Palo Alto residents
From:Maurice L Druzin
To:Council, City
Cc:Thomas C Rindfleisch
Subject:Newell Street Bridge
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:12:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Maurice Druzin, I live at 1408 Pitman, and was flooded out of our house for 4
months in 1998, and again experienced flooding in 2022.
I urge you to move forward and approve the Newell Bridge project .
Mr Rindfleisch has outlined the rationale for the project very accurately.
It is 27 years since the catastrophic flooding experience for many of us in Palo Alto,and it is
time to address this problem!
Thank you,
Maurice Druzin
Get Outlook for Mac
From:Suzanne Redfern-West
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Road Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 4:01:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Crescent Park I urge you to approve the proposed Newell Road Bridge /San Francisquito Bridge
Project with due haste, so that we may not have to face another winter in fear of being flooded.
Yours truly,
Suzanne Redfern-West
1350 Forest Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
From:cct25569@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 3:41:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Councilmembers,
I support a positive vote on the upgrades of the San Francisquito Creek….and the Newell bridge
replacement as part of that effort. While this will increase some traffic which will impact the
neighborhood, it is far less of an impact than a recurrence of the 1998 flood (over twenty years
ago!). Whatever one thinks of climate change it is unlikely that it will have changed to reduce the
likelihood of another similar event and the time has finally come to deal with the problem.
Regards
Craig Taylor
1415 Hamilton Avenue
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Barbara Riper
To:Council, City
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 3:38:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council members,
To have arrived after all these years at a program acceptable to so many interests feels almost like a gift. Please
accept it.
Sincerely,
Barbara Riper
1670 Edgewood Drive
From:Irina Loseva
To:Council, City
Subject:vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge
replacement project (PE-12011)
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 2:54:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
Please vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to support the Newell Road/SanFrancisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011).
--
Sincerely,Irina Loseva
Palo Alto Ave
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:Christy Telch
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote YES on Newell Road bridge replacement project!!!
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 2:08:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
It is imperative that you vote YES to approve the staff recommendations to support
the Newell Road bridge replacement project! This project is essential to the safety
and protection of citizens and their property! It has been almost 30 years since the
San Francisquito Creek flood waters ravaged our home on Hamilton Ave in February
1998 and flood waters again surged onto our property and up to our doorstep during
the 2022 New Year's Eve flooding! We, as citizens, should not have to live with the
anxiety of being flooded every year and with an increase in atmospheric rivers thisanxiety grows more intense.
Please, it is your primary job to protect Palo Alto citizens. 30 years is way too long to
have waited for relief. Please vote YES to start this project NOW!
Respectfully,
Christy Telch
1130 Hamilton Ave
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:Charles Munger
To:Council, City
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 2:01:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Members of the City Council,
My name is Charles Munger and I live at 1423 Hamilton Avenue and have for 34 years. Mywife and I dragged furniture up the stairs of our two-story home in the big flood of 1998,
wrote off a car parked on the street, and have repeatedly over the years sandbagged the lowerapproaches to our home. Widening the capacity of the Newell Street bridge is a long overdue
contribution to fixing this problem.
Yes, the proposal is a compromise and isn't perfect. I would prefer a narrower rather than awider bridge at Newell, for example. But I bow to the process and support this remedy. Yes,
the flooding risk to my neighborhood is dominated by the narrow throat of the bridgeupstream from the Newell road bridge, and I would prefer that upstream bridge to have been
tackled first. But both bridges need to be rebuilt, and there is a sufficient consensus to get thisone done. I do not believe I would be any better pleased if the review process were further
drawn out, and frankly, I would have accepted a worse bridge 10 years ago rather than havewaited that 10 years to get this bridge instead.
In a word, go. -- Charles Munger, Jr.
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:Aram James
To:Council, City; Sean Allen; h.etzko@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew
Subject:Watch "“This Was in 1967… And We’re Still Here in 2025.” | Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. STILL Speaks Volumes" on
YouTube
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:34:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://youtube.com/shorts/bi9G5yqSqXI?si=CYv2KIJGGcSmLbUE
From:Donna Griffit
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent plea from a constituent stuck in Israel under attack
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:08:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Burt and esteemed colleagues,
I am writing to you with an urgent and deeply personal plea for help. I am a United Statescitizen currently in Israel with my family. As you are no doubt aware, war has broken out
between Israel and Iran, and the situation is escalating rapidly. Israeli airspace is currentlyclosed, and commercial flights have been suspended indefinitely. We, along with many other
American families from the California Bay Area, are stranded and increasingly fearful for oursafety.
We are law-abiding citizens, parents, and professionals. We have young children with us. Our
lives are at risk, and we have no clear path to return home. We are imploring you to act swiftlyand decisively to ensure our safe passage out of the region. Whether by airlift, sea evacuation,
or coordination with allied governments, we need our government to prioritize the evacuationof its citizens from this increasingly dangerous situation.
We are not alone. There are hundreds of US citizens, including members of our local Silicon
Valley community, currently stuck in Israel without a way out. We are looking to you, ourrepresentatives, for leadership, action, and assurance that we have not been forgotten in this
time of crisis.
Please escalate this matter to the highest levels. We are counting on your advocacy to bring ussafely home.
Sincerely,
Donna GriffitPalo Alto, CA, 94303
U.S. Passport Holder650-665-3858
donnajabraham@gmail.com
Have you Checked out my #1 Best Seller Book yet?
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
DonnaGriffit.com
M: 650-665-3858
E: Donna@DonnaGriffit.com
Chat with me 24/7!
Tap to Schedule an Introductory Call
Want me to check your deck?
See What my Clients are Saying
From:Peter Phillips
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Upcoming AGENDA ITEM 24 - Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:00:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers,
We urge you to vote 'Yes' to approve the staff recommendations in support of the NewellRoad/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011). There are a number of
reasons to move forward with this opportunity to modernize the bridge and contribute a crucialcomponent of the on-going flood protection improvements to Reach 2 of San Francisquito
Creek:
The current bridge is very old and outdated, constructed in 1911, and is in need of
modernization under current CA state and federal guidelines;
The current bridge has limited flow capacity because its abutments and structure
obstruct SFC creek flows, limited to ~6000 cubic feet per second. This is below thedesign goal of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority effort to improve
the Reach 2 capacity to 7200 cfs, the flow seen in the 1998 flood of record. The newNewell Road bridge would enable this peak flow, protecting residents in Palo Alto
and East Palo Alto;
There has been extensive public discussion about many design alternatives and the
planned upgrade represents a fine compromise to meet the desires of Palo Alto andEast Palo Alto residents and traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian constituencies. Some have
been concerned about changes to traffic patterns with the wider modern design, buttraffic can easily be controlled as needed with simple interventions, such as speed
bumps, police oversight, and signage.
The cost of the bridge upgrade will be shared between Caltrans/Federal sources
(~89%) and local Santa Clara Valley Water District sources (~11%), greatly reducingPalo Alto's contribution.
We believe these reasons are compelling for approving and executing plans to replace theNewell Road bridge so that construction can start as soon as possible - summer of 2025.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
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
Peter and Lesley Phillips
434 Guiinda St.
From:Robert Ruskin
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Bridge replacement
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 12:51:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
PA city council,
Please vote to move forward to start the bridge replacement this year. My home was flooded I February 1998.
Robert Ruskin
174 Walter Hays Dr
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From:Rhoda Nutik
To:Council, City
Subject:newell Road-San Francisquito creek bridge
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 12:41:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote yes to approve PE-12011, the Newell Rd-SanFrancisquito bridge replacement project. Our home and many of our neighbors homes have
been flooded or nearly flooded numerous times in the past 30 years and many surveys andrecommendations later, it is time for action on this project. Thank you for your consideration.
Rhoda and Stephen Nutik, Forest Ave.
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:TC Rindfleisch
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad
Subject:[6/16/25 AGENDA ITEM 24] Please Vote YES on Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Project
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 12:06:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to vote Yes to approve the staff recommendations to
support the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge replacement project (PE-12011).There is a number of reasons to move forward with this opportunity to modernize the bridge
and contribute a crucial component of the on-going flood protection improvements to Reach 2of San Francisquito Creek:
The current bridge is very old and outdated, constructed in 1911, and is in need ofmodernization under current CA state and federal guidelines
The current bridge has limited flow capacity because its abutments and structureobstruct SFC creek flows, limited to ~6000 cubic feet per second. This is below the
design goal of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority effort to improve theReach 2 capacity to 7200 cfs, the flow seen in the 1998 flood of record. The new Newell
Road bridge would contain this peak flow protecting residents in Palo Alto and EastPalo Alto.
There has been extensive public discussion about many design alternatives and theplanned upgrade represents a fine compromise to meet the desires of Palo Alto and East
Palo Alto residents and traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian constituencies. Some have beenconcerned about changes to traffic patterns with the wider modern design, but traffic can
easily be controlled as needed with simple interventions, such as speed bumps, policeoversight, and signage.
The cost of the bridge upgrade will be shared between Caltrans/Federal sources (~89%)and local Santa Clara Valley Water District sources (~11%), greatly reducing Palo
Alto's contribution.
I believe these reasons are compelling for approving and executing these plans to replace the
Newell Road bridge so that construction can start this summer, 2025.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards, Tom Rindfleisch
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Thomas Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
From:Cindy Goral
To:Council, City
Subject:California Ave parklet requirements
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 11:36:00 AM
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I strongly recommend you not approve the plans for California Ave
restaurant parklet requirements as proposed. In particular, the
requirement that they must use umbrellas and can't use other overhead
structures. Businesses were hurt by covid and struggled to stay open
during that time. Then when they were trying to get back on their feet,
the city continued to shift requirements on the parklets (e.g., changing
fence heights, whether they could have heaters or not, what kind of
tents they could use) which continued to be a financial burden on the
restaurants. Now the city wants to change requirements again, adopting a
particular look, after all the money the restaurants have already put
into complying.
Umbrellas only are not a good solution. They don't work in the wind,
rain, and cold weather, and limit outdoor dining to fair weather. If a
restaurant wants to use umbrellas, that's ok, but tent structures are a
much better solution and should also be allowed. If you impose this
requirement, some restaurants will chose not to keep the parklet. In
that case, they reduce capacity, will lay off workers, and no longer
provide outdoor seating. Reducing capacity while building lots of new
apartments nearby doesn't seem like a good idea. I only eat outside or
take-out since covid due to health reasons. If there's no parklet or
umbrella only, this limits outside dining drastically for me and others
like me, and reduces capacity for all.
Please do not restrict tent usage!
Respectfully,
Cindy Goral
Laguna Way, Palo Alto
From:Aram James
To:city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Sean Allen; DuJuan Green; GRP-CityCouncil; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; board@valleywater.org; Jessica Speiser;Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Doug Minkler; Senator Becker; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations
Subject:No Kings Day Photos
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 10:50:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Bundle - June 15
Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:53:23 AM
Attachments:Re Someone defecated in front of my house.msgRE request for public meeting to discuss plans to add bike lanes and remove some parking from MiddlefieldRoad.msgRE Walk sign broken at Sand Hill and ECR.msgRE Parks Rec Commission Inquiry.msgRE for Minka Van Der Zwaag... Your Violation of Promised Confidentiality as the City Liaison to Human RelationsCommission (HRC).msgimage001.pngimage002.pngRE Fire not reported to neighbors.msgRE Mayor.msgRE California Avenue.msgRE Fluoride is not safe.msgRE FORMAL NOTICE of Unlawful Permitting Fees Systemic Non-Compliance with State Law - Permit 25BLD-01610.msgFW Urgent Elwell Court Palo Alto Encampments and Safety Issues.msg
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in
the City.Council inbox through June 15, 2025.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Bryanna Whitney
Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; Council, City; City Mgr; Ellson, Penny; Frank Viggiano; Smith, Audrey; Police; Mesterhazy,
Rose; Nordman, Eric
Subject:Driver trying to run over you and your baby
Date:Saturday, June 14, 2025 8:13:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Bryanna - I just read your Nextdoor post - copied on this email. I have taken the liberty ofcc’ing some of the people who work for the city in transportation and safe routes to school, a
couple members of PABAC, the city manager, the city council and PAPD.
The laxity with which PAPD considers motor vehicle moving violations is a huge pet peeve ofmine. Granted, I grew up in a Palo Alto where drivers stopped at stop signs, used their turn
signals and drove the speed limit on Alma, Oregon and Middlefield. If you didn’t, you’d get aticket. I’m at a loss as to what to do to get the city to take this problem more seriously.
Two days ago, as I was carrying my infant granddaughter across a street at an intersection. An
oncoming driver - going forty in a twenty-five - crossed over the center of the lane andswerved into the oncoming traffic lane for the express purpose of trying to scare me. This
morning, my nephew, Evan, after making a full stop at a stop sign and started to proceed intothe intersection into what should have been a safe crossing when a truck, approaching on his
right, ran the stop sign while making a left turn and cut the turn so close that he hit Evan,smashed his bike and broke his hand. Evan was all of five feet into the intersection.
The two events I have recounted happened in Sunnyvale and San Jose, respectively. But still,
there’s been a recent sea change with drivers. As you can see, something has to be done aboutupping moving violation enforcement. It would also help if Palo Alto would get on the ball
with policing Ebikes. I suspect a good deal of the aggravation of drivers is associated with theWild West of Ebikes and scooters we have across the city. City of Los Altos PABAC started
the process of policing Ebikes about a year. Los Altos city council is poised to enactordinances that will curtail the madness.
In the meantime, good thing you are moving to East Palo Alto. The drivers a so much nicer
over there and a lot of the teens ride bikes because their parents can’t afford to buy them cars.
Deb
Do you have a teen boy who drives a bright blue
Honda civic in Midtown?
nextdoor.com
From:Aram James
To:Council, City; Ed Lauing; h.etzko@gmail.com; Rosen, Jeff; Lewis James; Raj Jayadev; dcombs@menlopark.gov;Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; board@valleywater.org; board@pausd.org; Jessica Speiser; Sean Allen; sharonjackson; Baker, Rob; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; GRP-City Council; Friends of Cubberley;city.council@menlopark.gov; Jeff Conrad; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider,James; Lotus Fong; sean james; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; james pitkin; Holman, Karen (external); DennisUpton; Doug Minkler; Daniel Kottke; Rodriguez, Miguel; Dave Price; Damon Silver; Supervisor Otto Lee;Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Councilmember Chappie Jones; District10@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov;District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; DuJuan Green; Dennis Upton;Human Relations Commission; San José Spotlight; Gennady Sheyner; Enberg, Nicholas
Cc:Foley, Michael
Subject:“ No Kings” March & Rally -In Mountain View- 6-14-25
Date:Saturday, June 14, 2025 7:22:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
View this email in your browser
Stand Up for Democracy – join us on June 14 at the
Democracy Fair!
From:League of Women Voters of Palo AltoTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA: Know Your Rights for Peaceful Protesting on June 14Date:Saturday, June 14, 2025 11:21:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear friends,
The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental part of American democracy.
On "No Kings Day," (Saturday, June 14, 2025) LWVPA invites you to exercise this
right through peaceful demonstration, and by joining us at the Democracy Fair at
Rinconada Park, 3–5 PM.
The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views
through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place
certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights.
Learn your rights before you go — here’s helpful information from the ACLU on
protest rights, including a downloadable version you can set as your phone's lock
screen so you always have it handy!
Let’s stand together for democracy!
Sincerely,
Lisa Ratner & Hannah Lu
Co-presidents, LWV Palo Alto
(Español)
The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express
your views through protest.
However, police and other government officials are allowed to place
certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights.
Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before
heading out into the streets.
Select a scenario: (click, or read below)
1. I’m attending a protest
2. I want to take pictures or shoot video at a protest
3. I was stopped by the police while protesting
4. I want to share this information on social media
5. I’m organizing a protest
1. I’m attending a protest:
Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public
forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the
right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of
government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the
government building or interfering with other purposes the property was
designed for.
Private property owners can set rules for speech on their property.
The government may not restrict your speech if it is taking place on your
own property or with the consent of the property owner.
Counter-protesters also have free speech rights. Police must treat
protesters and counter-protesters equally. Police are permitted to keep
antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within sight and
sound of one another.
When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to
photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the
police. On private property, the owner may set rules related to
photography or video.
You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as
long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a
permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or
sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.
What to do if you believe your rights have been violated
When you can, write down everything you remember, including the officers'
badge and patrol car numbers and the agency they work for.
Get contact information for witnesses.
Take photographs of any injuries.
Once you have all of this information, you can file a written complaint with
the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
What happens if the police issues an order to disperse the protest?
Shutting down a protest through a dispersal order must be law
enforcement’s last resort. Police may not break up a gathering unless there
is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or
other immediate threat to public safety.
If officers issue a dispersal order, they must provide a reasonable
opportunity to comply, including sufficient time and a clear, unobstructed
exit path.
Individuals must receive clear and detailed notice of a dispersal order,
including how much time they have to disperse, the consequences of failing
to disperse, and what clear exit route they can follow, before they may be
arrested or charged with any crime.
2. I want to take pictures or shoot video at a protest:
When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to
photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the
police. (On private property, the owner may set rules about photography or
video.)
Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your
photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data
under any circumstances. However, they may order citizens to cease
activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement
operations.
If you are videotaping, be aware that there is an important legal
distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and
the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to
regulate under state wiretapping laws.
What to do if you are stopped or detained for taking photographs
Always remain calm and never physically resist a police officer.
Police cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion that you have or
are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so.
If you are stopped, ask the officer if you are free to leave. If the answer
is yes, calmly walk away.
If you are detained, ask the officer what crime you are suspected of
committing, and remind the officer that taking photographs is your right
under the First Amendment and does not constitute reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity.
What to do if you believe your rights have been violated
When you can, write down everything you remember, including the officers'
badge and patrol car numbers and the agency they work for.
Get contact information for witnesses.
Take photographs of any injuries.
Once you have all of this information, you can file a written complaint with
the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
3. I was stopped by the police while protesting:
Stay calm. Make sure to keep your hands visible. Don't argue, resist, or
obstruct the police, even if you believe they are violating your rights. Point
out that you are not disrupting anyone else's activity and that the First
Amendment protects your actions.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly walk away.
If you are under arrest, you have a right to ask why. Otherwise, say you
wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don't say anything
or sign anything without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call, and if you're calling your
lawyer, police are not allowed to listen.
You never have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings. If
you do explicitly consent, it can affect you later in court.
Police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect you have a weapon
and may search you after an arrest.
Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your
photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data
under any circumstances. However, they may order citizens to cease
activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement
operations.
What to do if you believe your rights have been violated
When you can, write down everything you remember, including the officers'
badge and patrol car numbers and the agency they work for.
Get contact information for witnesses.
Take photographs of any injuries.
Once you have all of this information, you can file a written complaint with
the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
4. I want to share this information on social media:
If you want to share this information with others, we’ve created graphics
outlining your protest rights that you can download and share on social
media. We’ve also created a version that you can download to your phone
and save it as your lockscreen background, so you can easily see your rights
during a protest without unlocking your phone. Preview all the Know Your
Protest Rights graphics here and download the graphics here.
5. I’m organizing a protest:
Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public
forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the
right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of
government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the
government building or interfering with other purposes the property was
designed for.
Private property owners can set rules for speech on their property.
The government may not restrict your speech if it is taking place on your
own property or with the consent of the property owner.
Counter-protesters also have free speech rights. Police must treat
protesters and counter-protesters equally. Police are permitted to keep
antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within sight and
sound of one another.
When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right
to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the
police. On private property, the owner may set rules related to
photography or video.
Do I need a permit?
You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as
long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a
permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or
sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.
Certain types of events may require permits. These include a march or
parade that requires blocking traffic or street closure; a large rally requiring
the use of sound amplifying devices; or a rally over a certain size at most
parks or plazas.
While certain permit procedures require submitting an application well in
advance of the planned event, police can’t use those procedures to prevent
a protest in response to breaking news events.
Restrictions on the route of a march or sound equipment might violate the
First Amendment if they are unnecessary for traffic control or public safety,
or if they interfere significantly with effective communication to the
intended audience.
A permit cannot be denied because the event is controversial or will
express unpopular views.
If the permit regulations that apply to your protest require a fee for a
permit, they should allow a waiver for those who cannot afford the charge.
What to do if you believe your rights have been violated
When you can, write down everything you remember, including the officers'
badge and patrol car numbers and the agency they work for.
Get contact information for witnesses.
Take photographs of any injuries.
Once you have all of this information, you can file a written complaint with
the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
CONTACT INFO:
Our mailing address is: LWVPA, 3921 E Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Email: communications@lwvpaloalto.org
Subscribe to our newsletters: Sign up using the subscription form
Want to change how you receive these emails?You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
From:Hamilton Hitchings
To:Council, City; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Thank You for the Newell Bridge Replacement
Date:Saturday, June 14, 2025 9:49:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I want to extend my sincere thanks to the dedicated city staff whose hard work and
determination have brought the Newell Bridge project to the point of being ready to
begin construction. I also want to thank the city council members for their continued
support in moving this long-awaited project forward.
This project is the first step that unlocks much needed flood protection in San
Francisquito Creek Reach 2 for about 3,000 parcels in the Duveneck / St. Francis,Crescent Park and Greer Park neighborhoods as well as for over 1,200 homes in
East Palo Alto still in the flood zone. The devastating flood of February 1998
rendered over 400 homes uninhabitable—this project is another step towards
ensuring that history does not repeat itself.
In addition to its flood control benefits, the new bridge replaces a structurally outdated
one that forced pedestrians and cyclists—many commuting to Stanford or accessing
Eleanor Pardee Park—to share a narrow single vehicle lane bridge, even pushingstrollers in traffic. The new design includes a dedicated pedestrian sidewalks and bike
lanes, making the route safer and more accessible for all. Good bridges make good
neighbors.
Finally, it's worth noting that the majority of the project’s cost is being funded from
outside the city: Caltrans is covering approximately 85% of the expenses, with an
additional $2.5 million contribution from Valley Water. This is a fiscally responsible
investment that benefits our entire community.
Thank you again to everyone who helped bring this transformative project to fruition.
Hamilton Hitchings
From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 22 Public 218 Public Hearing
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 10:20:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on Monday’s Public Hearing and Proposition 218
Hearing.
According to Palo Alto Online, rate hikes are about to add $32 to our monthly utility bills.This will have a big impact on fixed-income households, and inflation is already adversely
impacting middle and lower income families.
I understand the need to invest in projects like retrofitting our wastewater treatment plant, butthere must be a way to reduce rate increases. For example, I’ve heard that one of the main
reasons our water bills continue to skyrocket is that the San Francisco Public UtilitiesCommission has taken on a huge amount of debt, and as a customer, Palo Alto has to cover a
proportion of the debt service. Is this something City Council is monitoring?
Please do not approve water rate hikes until Council holds a study session on our water rates.Palo Alto residents need to get a better understanding of our relationship with the SFPUC. I’ve
read about the about corruption at the SFPUC, including the prosecution of a former GeneralManager: could there be more problems with the SFPUC that are ripe for discovery?
Thank you for your service
Sincerely,
Cybele nee Judith LoVuolo-Bhushan 3838 Mumford Place
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
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:Mehran Ebrahimi
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: BMR
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 6:28:51 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image004.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Clerk, City" <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>Date: June 13, 2025 at 5:00:38 PM PDTTo: "Clerk, City" <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, Mehran Ebrahimi<mehranebrahimi90@yahoo.com>Subject: RE: BMR
Dear Mehran,
It’s my understanding that a letter from the appropriate City department will be sent to
you today. The City Clerk’s Office does not have anything additional to add.
If you wish to contact the City Council, you are welcome to do so by emailing
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov.
Thank you,
Christine Prior
Deputy City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
(650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->
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: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 4:21 PM
To: Mehran Ebrahimi <mehranebrahimi90@yahoo.com>; Clerk, City
<City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: RE: BMR
Dear Mehran,
Thank you for your email. If you are trying to contact the City Council, the best email is
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov.
The City Clerk’s Office will try to find a City staff member better situated to respond to
your request.
Thank you,
<image001.png>Christine Prior
Deputy City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
(650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
<!--[if !vml]-->
<image004.png>
<!--[endif]-->
From: Mehran Ebrahimi <mehranebrahimi90@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 2:28 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: BMR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi, want to mention about my 20 years being in waiting list for purchasing
a below market rate housing
for my family of 5, 2 kids & a grandpa, After all these years finally it's our
turn but Alta housing unfortunately denied our application just because ofmisunderstanding couple questions, try to appeal & talk to them in a
meeting but they are always ignoring & don't answer my emails, this is my
20 years of life being in waiting list & i can't just give up, we are US citizen
Tax payer we have right to appeal & talk in a meeting, just for your info, Mr. Robert Feign was in the process, please try to help us, having a house
in Palo Alto is a dream for family like us & after being in waiting list for 20
years a quarter of my life we deserve to get one, please Thank you.
Mehran Ebrahimi
650-483-6674
From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Sar Peruri; Ted O"Hanlon; Yang, Albert
Subject:Public Comment on Item 20 for June 16th Council hearing
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 5:02:29 PM
Attachments:Creekside Letter to City Council 6-13-2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good evening Council Members,
On behalf of our client SF Creekside, LLC, attached please find stakeholder comments on agenda
Item 20 in front of you on June 16th, the second reading of amendments to the El Camino Real Focus
Area.
Thank you,
Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE
She/Her/Hers
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910
genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you
properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in
confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach
#523307400_v1
June 13, 2025
City Council of the City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 20 Regarding Amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use, and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
As you know, the Applicant provided comments on the first reading of the Ordinance that is in
front of you on June 16 for a second reading, amending the El Camino Real Focus Area. We deeply
appreciate the Council’s careful consideration of our comments during its March 26 hearing. We also can appreciate that the City is faced with a Housing Element deadline to complete these amendments, by June 30. However, the Applicant has remaining concerns with development standards in the El Camino Real Focus Area, which (absent any other flexibility such as a reduction
in fees, which we understand the City will be considering in connection with Housing Element
implementation, but the details of which are not yet available) may keep the Applicant from being able to proceed under the standards instead of relying on the Builder’s Remedy, and will likely impact the success of the adoption of the El Camino Real Focus area in that these are concerns other applicants share. The concerns we specifically want to highlight for Council are as follows:
1. 45 Degrees Daylight Plane
A 60-degree daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Without a 60 degree daylight plane, this Project’s Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3 bedroom units. Because the current regulations would disallow additional height, and the Project
May 24, 2025 Page 2
#523307400_v1
site is impacted by the Creek, there is simply no other space on this site to accommodate the proposed density. Applying a strict 45-degree daylight plane requirement may keep this Project from proceeding under the El Camino Real Focus Area.
2. 10 Foot Upper Story Step Back
We estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by 4-5%, an impact that may keep it and other similarly situated projects from proceeding under the El Camino Real Focus Area. We are aware that this standard in particular is one that the 3150 El Camino Real project communicated in detail with the City on, and that the previous 6-foot requirement was applied in
large part because they represented that a 10-foot stepback would result in an infeasible project.
We feel the City should recognize the same with regard to the Applicant’s Project and others like it, so that all developments that hope to take advantage of the El Camino Real Focus Area standards have the same considerations applied to them.
Thank you for considering the Applicant’s concerns and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
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; Human Relations Commission
Subject:PLEASE RESPOND - for Sandra Blanch ... Who is YOUR Supervisor?
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 3:24:10 PM
Attachments:image003.pngimage001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ms. Sandra Blanch, Director | Human ResourcesCity of Palo Alto
Ms. Blanch,
It has been nearly two weeks since I emailed you. (See appended email)
I deserve a reply.Please do your job as I need you to do it.
At the very least, give me your supervisor's name and contact information.
You do not work for a hidden organization.You are a public servant.
You are paid by the good citizens of Palo Alto, and work for us.
I await your response.
Thank you.
Cordially,Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.comResidentialist – Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>Date: Sat, May 31, 2025 at 12:30 AMSubject: for Sandra Blanch ... Are you Minka Van Der Zwaag's Supervisor?To: <Sandra.Blanch@paloalto.gov>Cc: <adriana@eberlaw.com>, michellekraus@yahoo.com <michellekraus@yahoo.com>, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>, Ed Lauing<elauing@equitysearchpartners.com>, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>, Van Der Zwaag, Minka<Minka.VanDerZwaag@paloalto.gov>, <Kristen.O'Kane@paloalto.gov>
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, Director | Human ResourcesCity 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 inthis issue?
Are either of you one of Ms. Van Der Zwaag's supervisors?(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 HRCcommissioners.Else, forward Ms. Van Der Zwaag's supervisor's name and contact information as soonas 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 tobe 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 shespoke, 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 Building
Code 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 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 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:Ah Yun, MahealaniTo:Council, CitySubject:Comcast Letter: Items 15 and 22 for June 16th City Council MeetingDate:Friday, June 13, 2025 3:14:30 PMAttachments:Comcast Ltr to Palo Alto 6 2025.pdfimage001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.png
Hello Councilmembers,
Please see attached letter from Comcast California regarding City Council Meeting June 16th Agenda Item Numbers #15 and #22.
Mahealani Ah YunCity Clerk Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2379 | E: Mahealani.AhYun@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
June 13, 2025
Ed Shikada
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Shikada:
Since purchasing the original Cable Co-op in 2000 under an entity which was acquired by
Comcast, we have been proud to provide the City of Palo Alto with world class services which
has evolved over the past 25-years to meet the needs of our customers and expand through
advances in technology and entertainment.
Comcast is proud to serve the City of Palo Alto, operate a Xfinity Customer Store on the El
Camino Real near Page Mill Road, and partner with City staff on our efforts to continue to
upgrade our infrastructure throughout the city with the goal of providing existing and new
customers with a next-generation broadband network that continues to get smarter, faster, and
more reliable.
As the City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department staff, Utilities Advisory Commission, and City
Council continue to evaluate the implementation of a Fiber to the Premise pilot program, our
Comcast team would like to ensure that all City stakeholders are informed about Comcast’s
commitment to our customers in Palo Alto and our goal to grow our customer base through
strategic competition, excellent customer service, and investments in our network and services.
Below are several updates which we want to share directly with you and the City Council:
• On April 17, 2023, Elad Nafshi, Chief Network Officer of Comcast Corporation, visited
California to help rollout the new Xfinity 10G network across our footprint. Elad
presented to a group of local officials, which included representatives from the City of
Palo Alto Utilities Department.
• On August 15, 2023, Comcast becomes the first Internet Provider to offer a product
designed to maintain connectivity when a storm hits, trees are down, or a customer
experiences a local outage, with the launch of Storm Ready Wifi.
• On December 15, 2023, Comcast announced that it has begun to introduce the first
residential customers in the world to next-generation Internet powered by DOCSIS 4.0
technology. The latest version of DOCSIS technology is a giant leap forward in Internet
connectivity that can deliver multi-gigabit symmetrical speeds to customers over the
connections that already exist in tens of millions of homes in Comcast markets across
the country. As a part of the launch, Comcast has introduced a new portfolio of
symmetrical products for residential customers which we intend to begin rolling out in the
City of Palo Alto and the Bay Area within the next 24 months.
• And recently, consistent with our mission is to provide fast, reliable, and secure internet
to customers at prices that are clear and consistent – for the first time, new Xfinity
Internet customers get the same monthly price for 5 years. The 5 Year Price
Guarantee includes unlimited data and the best-in-class Xfinity Gateway at one simple,
monthly price. There’s no annual contract required. Customers have the freedom and
flexibility to cancel at any time without penalty.
On behalf of the Comcast team, I would like to thank you and the City of Palo Alto for your
exceptional governance and partnership in supporting our continuous investments in our
broadband network serving our Palo Alto customers.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information or
briefings from Comcast technical team members. I will also continue to share updates and new
information directly with you moving forward.
Sincerely,
Lennies M. Gutierrez
(she/her/ella)
Director of Government Affairs – Comcast California
South Bay & Southern Peninsula
Email: lennies_gutierrez@comcast.com
Cell: (408) 465-6979
From:Tran, Joanna
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City; Executive Leadership Team
Subject:Update: Council Questions for June 16 and June 17 Council Meetings
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 2:43:51 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage002.pngimage010.png
Hello Mayor and Council Members,
I am sending an update as we’ve received an additional question from Mayor Lauing regarding Item 12
on the agenda for Monday’s Council Meeting.
Please see the updated link below for the revised Staff Responses:
Staff Responses to June 16 Consent Items 9, 7, 12 and June 17 Consent Item 14
Thank you,
Joanna
Joanna Tran
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Tran, Joanna
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 5:54 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Council Questions for June 16 and June 17 Council Meetings
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for staff responses to
questions submitted by Council Member Lu:
June 16 Amended Agenda
June 17 Amended Agenda
Staff Responses to June 16 Consent Items 9, 7, and June 17 Consent Item 14
Thank you,
Joanna
Joanna Tran
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Yang, Albert
To:Laura Bowser; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 1:04:04 PM
Hi Laura,
Understood and sorry for the misunderstanding.
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait,
Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Albert,
Thanks for your note. Sand Hill has worked with the City for multiple years to include 3300 El Camino
in the Housing Element and to develop Focus Area standards. Our intent has always been to pursue a
code-compliant project in collaboration with the City – not a builder’s remedy project that bypasses
zoning and public process. Therefore, 3300 El Camino does not have a pending builder’s remedy
application.
It is unreasonable for 3300 El Camino to be held to a 20% on-site LI requirement (which has
previously been deemed infeasible by the City) because we chose to work with the City, while other
neighboring sites who submitted builder’s remedy projects must only provide 13% on-site LI. Our
letter requests that, at a minimum, we be held to the same 13% LI BMR requirement as sites with
pending builder’s remedy applications for consistency and fairness.
We still recommend the City allow all sites in the Focus Area the option to follow existing PAMC
Chapter 16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, which allows in-lieu fee payment
instead of providing units on-site. The City has proven this is a feasible standard, which will allow
developers to move forward projects to create much needed housing in the Focus Area.
Let me know if you’d like to have a call to discuss further.
Best,
Laura
From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan
<Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
018002.0006 4916-8308-0267.7
June 12, 2025
Jonathan Lait Director, Planning & Development Services Email: Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org
Councilmembers of the City Council, City of Palo Alto City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Jennifer Armer
Asst. Director, Planning & Development Services City of Palo Alto Email: Jennifer.Armer@CityofPaloAlto.org
Re: Second Reading of Ordinance to Amend El Camino Real Focus Area (City Council Hearing June 16, 2025 – Agenda Item 20)
Dear Jonathan, Jennifer, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), I am writing to follow up on our May 22, 2025
letter regarding the pending amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area regulations to reiterate
the importance of removing the 20% on-site inclusionary requirement.
We largely support the proposed revisions to the El Camino Real Focus Area as reflected in the draft Ordinance. These changes are a meaningful step toward making housing development in the Focus Area more feasible, increasing the potential for much-needed housing production in
Palo Alto.
However, the on-site BMR requirement greatly compromises the feasibility of delivering a viable project, and we strongly urge the Council to address this issue before the Ordinance is adopted on second reading.
Option to Pay BMR In-Lieu Fee
Our prior letter raised the serious concern that a 20% on-site BMR requirement will render projects
in the El Camino Real Focus Area infeasible. Unlike other parts of the City, the Focus Area requires on-site affordable units with no option to pay an in-lieu fee. We request that the City Council allow payment of an in-lieu fee consistent with the citywide inclusionary housing ordinance. The City has proven through studies that the current in-lieu fee is feasible and allows
housing projects to move forward.
The proposed Focus Area Ordinance gives relief to sites that have submitted builder’s remedy projects, requiring them only to provide 13% BMR on-site. We question why the City is requiring a more burdensome 20% BMR on-site requirement for sites that did not submit builder’s remedy projects and instead worked with the City throughout the housing element process. This unfairly
2
burdens certain sites in the Focus Area, especially as the City has not provided any analysis demonstrating that the 20% on-site requirement is financially feasible. At a minimum, the City
should reduce the on-site requirement for code-compliant projects to 13% BMR – this is a simple
request to be treated the same as other sites within the Focus Area.
Under State law, the City is at risk that HCD will require the City to perform an economic study to prove that a 20% on-site BMR requirement is financially feasible if the Ordinance passes in its current form. Under Government Code § 65850.01(a), HCD can require such a study for any
jurisdiction with an inclusionary housing rate of more than 15% if that jurisdiction has not met at
least 75% of its above-moderate RHNA requirement over the past five years. As of its 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Palo Alto no longer meets this requirement. As a result, if the Ordinance is enacted as currently drafted, we expect that HCD will require the City to prove that a 20% on-site BMR requirement is economically feasible. The City would likely be unable to
make that showing, as the City’s own 2020 Financial Feasibility Report prepared by Strategic
Economics already found that a 20% on-site BMR requirement was not financially feasible, and market conditions have not improved since that time. If the City cannot demonstrate that its 20% requirement is feasible, it cannot enforce it. The likely outcome will be that this Ordinance is ultimately deemed unenforceable but reaching that conclusion would require a formal process with
HCD and the preparation of a new study. That process can be avoided by revising the Ordinance
now.
We respectfully request that El Camino Real Focus Area standards be revised to allow for the option of paying an in-lieu housing impact fee consistent with the City’s PAMC Chapter 16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, as allowed in the remainder of the
City, rather than mandating 20% BMR units on-site. This change, along with the revised development standards in the Focus Area, would make housing projects feasible, and allow developers like us to move forward, contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals. If the City decides that BMR units must be provided on-site, we request that the BMR requirement for code compliant projects be made equal to sites with previous Builder’s
Remedy projects at 13% LI.
* * *
Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with Planning staff and decisionmakers to implement the El Camino Real Focus Area, all in the aim of creating a more vibrant, diverse and sustainable El Camino Real corridor.
Sincerely,
Laura Bowser Director, Development Sand Hill Property Company
From:Laura Bowser
To:Yang, Albert; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 1:00:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Albert,
Thanks for your note. Sand Hill has worked with the City for multiple years to include 3300 El Camino
in the Housing Element and to develop Focus Area standards. Our intent has always been to pursue a
code-compliant project in collaboration with the City – not a builder’s remedy project that bypasses
zoning and public process. Therefore, 3300 El Camino does not have a pending builder’s remedy
application.
It is unreasonable for 3300 El Camino to be held to a 20% on-site LI requirement (which has
previously been deemed infeasible by the City) because we chose to work with the City, while other
neighboring sites who submitted builder’s remedy projects must only provide 13% on-site LI. Our
letter requests that, at a minimum, we be held to the same 13% LI BMR requirement as sites with
pending builder’s remedy applications for consistency and fairness.
We still recommend the City allow all sites in the Focus Area the option to follow existing PAMC
Chapter 16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, which allows in-lieu fee payment
instead of providing units on-site. The City has proven this is a feasible standard, which will allow
developers to move forward projects to create much needed housing in the Focus Area.
Let me know if you’d like to have a call to discuss further.
Best,
Laura
From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan
<Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Stepbacks in ECR expansion area
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 10:49:14 AM
Attachments:Letter to Planning and Transportation Commission-3_12_25_Meeting (3).pdf
Creekside Letter to City Council 5-26-2025 FINAL (1).pdf
Mrn View resi.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff,
I have followed the ECR expansion discussions and note the 2 attached letters from owners.
I believe we are at risk not only from losing units toward our housing goal, and possibly
making projects no longer feasible, and also note that currently these mixed use projects
are our lost likely and feasible
opportunities to increase our stock of deed restricted BMR units, given the enormous
funding challenges facing 100% BMR projects.
I support approaches that allow applicants to address the concerns about massing without a
rigid 10 foot stepback.
Both the letters from Giovanotto and Creekside letters identify ways to meet the goals ofthe stepbacks without the rigid requirement.
And the attached report from Mountain View identifies another flexible approach.
The potential loss of valuable units is very concerning to me especially considering how far
behind our multiple housing goals we are currently.
I know it is a long shot but I encourage council to move this item from consent and add
flexibility to addressing the concerns about massing.
Stephen Levy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Page 1 of 4
Letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission
March 12, 2025, 6pm
To the Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
My name is Alex Giovannotto and my family owns several parcels which are under
consideration for inclusion in the El Camino Real Focus Area expansion. We have owned many
of these parcels for over 30 years. We recognize the City's urgent need for housing and share
the vision for a more vibrant, housing-available El Camino Real. To help contribute to this goal,
we have active applications in process to develop two multifamily projects at 3606 and 3781 El
Camino Real, which in total would create over 500 new housing units for Palo Alto.
Our projects are vested under SB330 and Builder’s Remedy. We worked hard to create a project
plan that is viable, can actually be built, and will provide housing for people within the next few
years. That said, the economic challenges facing privately funded housing construction in Palo
Alto are substantial, so much so that, even with our longstanding ownership, an effective
design, and a 13% low-income component under SB330 and Builder’s Remedy, the project only
narrowly crosses the threshold of economic feasibility.
We are excited about being included in the Focus Area expansion, and thank you for
considering our sites. Along with our enthusiasm for being included, we have concerns that
two of the proposed objective design standards would significantly reduce the housing that our
project could provide: (I) the 70% lot coverage maximum, and (II) the 10’ stepback above 55’
along the El Camino Real frontage. We respectfully request the following sensible adjustments
to the proposed standards, which we believe will enhance the community benefit and the
feasibility of our projects within the expanded Focus Area.
Requests for your consideration:
I. Consider an increase of maximum lot coverage from 70% to 80%.
II. Consider that instead of the 10’ step-back requirement, explore the use of material
changes or a smaller step-back to break up the building massing.
Below is a description of the challenges to our project posed by these two currently proposed
objective design standards, along with our recommendations to ensure that the Focus Area
supports housing development and construction feasibility.
I. Lot Coverage Maximum
It is our understanding that the proposed maximum lot coverage is 70%. We are concerned that
this limit significantly reduces the amount of developable space, and the number of achievable
housing units. For example, our proposed project at 3606 ECR, currently designed with 79% lot
coverage, would see a reduction in the number of housing units by 45 if restricted to 70%
coverage. Below is a diagram illustrating how this change would impact the design of 3606 ECR,
which is a 7-story building.
Page 2 of 4
Recommendation for Consideration: We recommend that the City adopt an objective design
standard allowing for up to 80% lot coverage. Our design team has demonstrated that 80% lot
coverage accommodates all C3 stormwater requirements, required setbacks, and additional
exterior building amenities such as bike racks. Given the City’s goal of creating an urban corridor
along El Camino Real, adopting an 80% lot coverage standard would provide sufficient space for
effective stormwater treatments, urban-scale setbacks, and additional on-site housing, all while
aligning with the City’s housing objectives.
II. El Camino Real Stepback
We understand that one of the objective design standards under consideration would require
75% of the building facade along El Camino Real to be set back 10 feet from the primary facade
plane above 55 feet. While we appreciate the intent to create articulated facades with
appropriate massing, this requirement severely impacts the upper-floor units, reducing the
achievable unit count and increasing construction costs, thereby threatening project feasibility.
Stepbacks introduce internal design challenges. A typical unit in a double-loaded corridor
building has a depth of approximately 30 feet. A required stepback forces significant design
changes, reducing the usable depth of affected units by 10 feet or more. Additionally,
introducing substantial setbacks necessitates a transition from wood-frame to the
incorporation of steel, which is significantly more expensive. Given the scale of these impacts,
the financial feasibility of projects that must conform to these stepback is challenged.
At 3606 El Camino Real, requiring a
maximum of 70% lot coverage
would result in a loss of 45 units. 7
units would be affected on 5 stories.
Note there are 5 stories of housing
over 2 stories of parking.
Page 3 of 4
Recommendations for Consideration: We recognize and support the goal of designing visually
interesting and appropriately scaled buildings along El Camino Real. However, given the width
of the corridor and the nature of the traffic, we believe this area fundamentally supports an
urban condition without the need for significant setbacks.
1. Exterior Material Change: At ‘The Huckley’, a building designed by Studio T Squared in
Redwood City and located on El Camino Real, a transition from brick to stucco at the
third floor along El Camino Real creates the appearance of an upper-story setback
without reducing unit count.
2. Smaller Setback: The minimal 2-foot setbacks used at ‘The Martin’ in Sunnyvale
effectively break up the building volume while preserving the number of achievable
housing units.
3. Tiered Stepback Approach: If a building extends to the property line, a larger stepback
could be required to reduce visual impact and maintain proportionality. Conversely, if a
building is set back from the property line, a smaller stepback could be applied.
At 3606 El Camino Real, a 10-foot setback
on 75% of the façade above 55 feet will
affect 24 units.
Page 4 of 4
We are enthusiastic about the Focus Area expansion and believe it is the right tool to transform
El Camino Real into a vibrant corridor that supports the City’s housing goals. Objective design
standards are a powerful tool for guiding design and creating great places. However, to fully
realize the vision set forth by the City, we urge you to consider a property owner’s perspective
and assess how the proposed lot coverage maximum and the El Camino Real stepback
challenge the feasibility of projects that could otherwise provide substantial housing
opportunities along El Camino Real.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alex Giovannotto
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach
#522110181_v2
May 26, 2025
City Council of the City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 7 Regarding Amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use, and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
The Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the
“Builder’s Remedy” and was also applied for under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”).
While the Applicant has used these processes to safeguard its rights under the law, the Applicant has a track record of listening to City feedback about development on this Property, much of which has shaped the Project as it exists today. The most significant feedback the Applicant has heard and implemented is to maintain the existing hotel use, proceeding with a mixed-use project. City
feedback also influenced circulation design – since 2022 the Applicant has shifted proposed
driveway access away from Matadero and instead placed this access on El Camino Real, resulting in a three-fold benefit to the adjacent R1 properties: (1) shifting the primary access, (2) maintaining the integrity of Matadero as a Safe Route to School, and (3) breaking up Project massing. The creation of this break is achieved by shifting the primary access to El Camino Real that splits the
residential and continued hotel uses. Finally, to address feedback about this Project potentially
creating a “food desert”, the Applicant is maintaining at least two existing food and beverages uses that will serve future residents, hotel guests, and the neighborhood.
The Applicant remains open to City feedback and specifically to transitioning its Builder’s Remedy Project to an alternative City process, so long as it is feasible and beneficial for both the
May 26, 2025 Page 2
#522110181_v2
City and the Applicant. Specifically, the Applicant team is hopeful that it may be able to use the El Camino Real Focus Area development standards while still providing the requisite low income housing, and taking advantage of the City’s “Streamlined Housing Development Project Review
Process.” We understand that the City has a preference for applicants to pursue this route, rather
than using the “Builder’s Remedy.”
On May 27th, the Council will be considering amendments to its Zoning Code and Building Regulations to modify the El Camino Real Focus Area. While the Applicant’s team is still evaluating overall feasibility of transitioning to the Focus Area standards for the Project, we have
identified four of the specific recommended updates that would certainly jeopardize the
Applicant’s ability to transition its Project away from the Builder’s Remedy.
On behalf of the Applicant, we therefore request that Council consider modifying these specific four items during its hearing on the 27th, or delaying its decision until a later date while it further considers our requested changes. Further details on each of the four items follow.
1. Daylight Plane – 60 Degrees Instead of 45 Degrees, or Consider Averaging/Allowing
Encroachments
We request that a 60-degree daylight plane be applied – this commonly used standard is critical to achieving enough residential units to maintain the economic feasibility of the Project. A 60-degree daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Alternatively, we request that if
Council does impose the 45 degree requirement, that it consider allowing some mitigation factors,
such as: (1) that the daylight plane be averaged over a site; (2) that certain development features be permitted to encroach into the daylight plane; or (3) allowing a greater than 45-degree daylight plane even where a site is adjacent to R1 parcel, so long as the applicant can demonstrate negligible differences in solstice and equinox shadowing over the adjacent parcels.
For sites like this Property (and any others within the Focus Area that are similarly affected by the
Creek), there are development limitations already imposed by the Creek, and an additional 45 degree daylight plane would greatly compromise efficient utilization of the Property and others, including ability of this Project to meet parking requirements and usable open space requirements. The Applicant has thus far determined that without a 60 degree daylight plane, this Project’s Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3 bedroom units. There is simply no
other space on this site to accommodate the density needed to maintain the Project’s feasibility.
2. Maximum FAR (Non Residential) – Modify/Reconsider this Restriction
Since receiving City feedback in 2022 to continue a hotel use on this Property, the Applicant returned with a formal application in 2024 with a mixed use, residential and hotel project that
follows the at least 2/3 residential requirement to qualify for HAA protections. As proposed, the
Project’s hotel component is a combination of new FAR and 2 reused buildings, and together encompasses less than 1/3 of the proposed FAR.
May 26, 2025 Page 3
#522110181_v2
However, the staff report’s proposal to limit non-residential use to underlying zoning (for this Property that translates to a 2.0 FAR and 50 foot height limit), would significantly reduce the proposed hotel FAR for this Project by 40%. As the Project’s feasibility is dependent on both the
residential and hotel uses (and City feedback thus far has been to maintain the hotel use), we
hereby request that the City consider one of a few options to modify this restriction.
First, the restriction on non-residential use could be narrowed to specific commercial uses such as office use (which we understand to be the intended target of this restriction). Hotel is an existing use on the Property, and an active revenue generator for the City. Hotel uses are also quasi-
residential in nature, offering transient habitation, thus not entirely a non-residential use of the
property, when compared to other non-residential uses. Forcing a dramatic reduction in the Project’s hotel use to qualify for use of the Focus Area standards, would not allow the Applicant to do its part to support expanded food and beverage offerings at this site either, as the assumption that such uses could be supported is underpinned by the proposal for a specific density of hotel
beds.
Alternatively, Council could reconsider imposing this requirement at all, and instead maintain the overall 4.0 FAR requirement for the Focus Area, perhaps while instead requiring a 2/3 residential to commercial balance, to better align proposals with the HAA while achieving the intent of this restriction.
3. Upper Story Step Back – Consider Alternatives to the 10 Feet
The staff report proposes a 10 foot step back at 55 feet in height – this will greatly reduce density, whereas other considerations, which could offer a wider variety of solutions while maintaining “objective” language, can provide similar visual variation but maintain density. For example, we estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by approximately 4-5%, an impact that would effectively make the Project economically infeasible in this financial
environment. Further, when combined with a building taking advantage of the full, allowable 85’ limit beginning the step back at a relatively lower 55’ also results in an awkward building proportion.
Alternatively, to maintain needed density we propose that the City either (1) instead of imposing a one-size stepback, provide a menu in the Focus Area standards of specific design elements and
articulation methods that achieve visual breaks in the upper floors, such as balconies and other variations; or (2) imposing a stepback that is more shallow than 10 feet and that only applies if a building is higher than 5 stories, and only applies to the top 2 stories of any given project, because of the more harmonious proportions associated with the resultant upper and lower stories.
Finally, the City could consider relaxing this requirement where a building “reads” as transparent,
such as with the use of glazing, glass or otherwise open railings in upper stories. In the Applicant’s case, the Project designs can be enhanced to feel light despite its number of stories, through generous use of glazing and balcony articulation.
May 26, 2025 Page 4
#522110181_v2
4. Open Space
The Focus Area standard for open space of 100 square feet per unit is cumbersome. The Project has already incorporated very large balconies and decks, which add to building articulation across
El Camino Real as well as the sides and rear building facades. The Project goes out of its way to
maximize open space for the enjoyment of all residents by concentrating open space at the Creekside and on the ground level, and by pushing parking underground. We believe these qualities are worth far more than meeting an open space standard and will therefore be a more marketable and successful project when we dedicate project development area to private living
space.
Accordingly, we request that the Focus Area standards allow a “credit”, or usable open space reduction of 1:1 but no more than 50% of the total requirement, where improvements such as vegetated areas, park space, naturalized creeks, or other community areas are improvements made as part of a project. The intent of this language is to acknowledge that the Water District’s creek
will be naturalized as part of the Project (and any others on sites affected by the presence of the
Creek), and that this creates a public benefit and satisfies the intent of the open space requirement.
Thank you for considering our requests and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com
Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
103City of Mountain View
Chapter 4: Design Guidelines
1. Residential Integration. Where new
residential uses are built in close proximity
to employment uses, the site and building
orientation, setbacks and building materials
should establish buffers (e.g. streets,
landscaping, setbacks, and building design
considerations) to improve land use
compatibility and to avoid and mitigate
potential land use impacts such as noise, light,
and hazardous materials.
2. Ground-Floor Frontages. Residential
frontages should provide moderate
transparency, unit articulation, and clear
distinction between public and private space.
Examples of appropriate frontage types
include: Stoop, Entry Patio, Lobby Entry, and
Forecourt. Guidance for these residential
frontage types is located in the Building
Frontage Types section later in this chapter.
3. Ground-Floor Unit Access. All ground floor
units should have direct pedestrian access to
the adjacent street, sidewalk, path, or open
space. Doors are strongly encouraged to face
public spaces. Units without direct access
should have patios, balconies, or porches.
4. Common Spaces. Lobbies, common amenity
spaces, leasing offices, or similar spaces should
have transparent windows or storefronts.
These spaces should have direct access to
the adjacent street, sidewalk, paths, public
open space, or other publicly accessible areas.
Common spaces should be well lit and inviting.
5. Transparency. Ground floors of residential
buildings should include windows and doors
overlooking the street, sidewalk, common
areas or public spaces. Ground floor common
rooms such as living, dining, family, or foyers
should be oriented towards these public or
common areas to allow visual interaction
between the unit and the sidewalk while
providing an appropriate degree of privacy for
ground-floor residences.
Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with
porches and other architectural interest
Direct pedestrian access between units and adjacent sidewalk
Well-lit and inviting ground floor residential lobby with direct
access to public space
6. Privacy. Landscaping, grade separation,
and interior shades or blinds should be used
to provide privacy for ground-floor units.
Residential frontages may provide landscaped
areas, stoops, terraces, and/or porches along
the sidewalk to delineate the transition from
public to private space.
4.1.3 Residential Design Guidelines
104 east whisman precise plan
7. Building Bottom, Middle, and Top. Buildings
should be designed with a defined base; middle
or body; and a top, cornice or parapet cap.
Building ground floors should provide a solid
base and strong frontage design. The middle
floors should provide well-proportioned sets
of windows and other elements framed within
the building’s top and bottom. The cornice or
top of the building should provide a strong
architectural termination, definition and visual
interest, and in some cases may include roof
terraces.
8. Façade Articulation. Residential buildings
should have more fine-grained articulation
than office buildings, and/or should include
design features at regular intervals along their
façades to reflect a residential rhythm and
scale. Long building facades should be visually
separated into smaller elements with major
massing breaks, offsets, recesses, staggered
walls, stepped walls, pitched or stepped
rooflines, and other elements as discussed
below.
a. Regular Massing Breaks. Breaks at
least 25’ across should be provided
approximately every 200’ of block face.
A “massing break” should be at least 15’
deep (behind the front façade) and may
include significant building articulation
or a common space such as a forecourt,
courtyard, paseo, or mews. Taller
residential buildings should have fewer
building façade increments than mid-rise
residential buildings.
b. Separate Masses. The mid-rise portion
of buildings should articulate into smaller
massing with breaks in the facade and
changes in the roof line in conjunction
with color and/or materials changes.
Each façade section should be visually
distinguishable from others. Vertical
projections and minor stepbacks at least 3’
deep should be used to visually separate
long facades into smaller intervals (at
intervals of 50’ to 100’).
c. Individual Unit Articulation. In low-rise
buildings, facades may be articulated
through unit-sized increments to express
the scale of individual residential units and
to reduce the apparent mass of the overall
building.
Separating building facades with articulation and design features
d. Roofline Articulation. Buildings should
avoid having a long unchanged roofline.
Building roofs should include regular
horizontal and/or vertical articulation and
varying materials. This can be accomplished
through architectural elements such as
parapets, varying cornices, reveals, and
varying roof height and/or form.
e. Vertical Massing. Residential building
massing may be accentuated with smaller-
scale vertically-oriented elements such as
bays or balcony stacks, emphasizing their
height and access to light and views while
providing a clearly residential building
scale and character.
9. Visual Variation. Variation in color and
materials should be used to create visually
engaging building facades. Projects should
generally use between two and four colors
and/or materials on facades facing streets,
public parks, and public access areas. Colors
and materials must be complimentary and
consistent with the overall architectural style
or theme of the project.
10. Roofs. Rooftops may be composed of common
usable space such as roof decks or terraces, or
cool roofing materials.
105City of Mountain View
Chapter 4: Design Guidelines
Vertical massing of residential buildings is accentuated with
smaller scale vertical elements, emphasizing their height and
access to light and views
Landscaping, low walls and stairs delineate public from private
areas
Appearance of separate massing achieved through change in
colors, materials, and vertical massing breaks
General design guidance for residential frontages
Cre
d
i
t
:
V
a
n
M
e
t
e
r
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
P
o
l
l
a
c
k
From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com
To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org
Subject:FFF Follow Up from June 6 (Week #178)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 10:34:02 AM
Attachments:image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
i
Carol and the Stand Up for Science and Sanity team organized another amazing rally! Thanks so much to all the
speakers, including Carol, David, Mimi, Rick, Granny Ruth, and Scott. Thanks to all the music from the Raging
Grannies, Judy, and Mitchell Park Band. Thanks to John Weekes and Pro Bono Photo for the stunning photos:
https://www.probonophoto.org/2025/6Jun25PAScienceSanity. Mark your calendars – the next rally is scheduled for
Tuesday July 8 at 5PM. Thanks again, everyone!
Everyone is busy planning for NO KINGS DAY. The 101 Bannering Teams will be out in the morning starting at 9AM.
The Tesla Takedown Wolves will be at Stanford at Noon. Indivisible Palo Alto Plus is organizing a march from
Town & Country at 2PM which will arrive at Rinconada Park where the Democracy Fair is held from 3PM to 5PM.
Congressmember Licarrdo will speak, and Joan Baez will perform! After the rally, Mitchell Park Band along with
the Raging Grannies plan to sing, dance and perform for anyone who wants to hang out and have more fun. Thanks,
everyone, for organizing an extraordinary NO KINGS DAY!
Saturday, June 14 morning bannering: https://www.mobilize.us/?q=bannering
Saturday, June 14: Noon to 2PM: Stanford Mall Rally: Tesla Takedown - Stanford Mall · Mobilize
Saturday, June 14, 2PM to 3PM: March from Town & Country to Rinconada Park (6/14, 2PM to 3PM)
Saturday, June 14, 3PM to 5PM: No Kings Democracy Fair at Rinconada Park (6/14, 3PM to 5PM)
This Friday (6/13) we meet at King Plaza for a “normal” climate strike. Come share your recent experiences and tell us
your plans for NO KINGS DAY. See you on the streets!
Keep Up the Fight!
STAND UP! FIGHT BACK!
Upcoming Events
Friday, June 13, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
Saturday, June 14 morning bannering: https://www.mobilize.us/?q=bannering
Saturday, June 14: Noon to 2PM: Stanford Mall Rally: Tesla Takedown - Stanford Mall · Mobilize
Saturday, June 14, 2PM to 3PM: March from Town & Country to Rinconada Park (6/14, 2PM to 3PM)
Saturday, June 14, 3PM to 5PM: No Kings Democracy Fair at Rinconada Park (6/14, 3PM to 5PM)
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 attention
Some 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 20, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall.
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 by John Weekes and Pro Bono Photo:
https://www.probonophoto.org/2025/6Jun25PAScienceSanity
What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to:
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal has created Resistance Lab with resources and training for organizers. Check it out here:
https://www.pramilaforcongress.com/the-resistance-lab
Reporting by Democracy Now! here
Commentary by The Majority Report: here
Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update
As of:6/2 5/1 3/31 2/28
HPWH full-service interest list signups 1385 1364 1333 1323
Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 1385 1364 1333 1323
Signed SAAs 1149 1127 1013 1093
Completed site assessments 1055 1040 1023 1013
Installations
Total Full Service HPWHs installed 427 421 414 402
Total DIY HPWH installed 131 126 115 114
Total Emergency HPWH installations 22 19 19 18
Total HPWHs installed 580 566 548 534
Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000
Monthly Installation Rate
Monthly Installation Rate 14 18 14 32
Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83
Matt Schlegel
Schlegel Consulting
650-924-8923
Author: Teamwork 9.0
Website: evolutionaryteams.com
YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q
From:Yang, Albert
To:Laura Bowser; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 9:17:45 AM
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.Best,LauraLaura BowserSand Hill Property Company2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410Palo Alto, CA 94306Tel. +1 650
i
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Powered by Mimecast
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
From:Stephen Reller
To:UAC; Council, City
Cc:Mark Moragne
Subject:2575 Bayshore Purchase
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 9:00:00 AM
Attachments:1020 O"Brien Dr Flyer (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To Whom it may Concern:
Hello. I am a Palo Alto resident and am concerned about the property at 2575 E. Bayshore that the City
Council will consider purchasing on Tuesday. $8.5m for 14,640 sf equates to $580 per sf. This is well
above market.
Case in point, I have a property for sale at 1020 O'Brien in Menlo Park, just three miles from 2575 E.
Bayshore (see attached.) The property is larger (1.1 acres,) with a 20,000 sf secured yard, and the
building is much larger (20,000 sf.) If the city/utility can bear traveling a mere 3 miles (the distance from
2575 E. Bayshore to 1020 O'Brien) and would like to save $1,500,000, with very flexible terms, please let
me know.
Irrespective of 1020 O'Brien (and my biased opinion that it's a better option to be considered,) $580 per sffor an industrial/warehouse building seems well above market. For $7,000,000, 1020 O'Brien would be$350/sf. Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Reller
SIMON CLARK
Executive Vice President
dre license #01318652
| 650.577.2938
| simon.clark@cbre.com
JAMES MARZONI
Senior Vice President
dre license #01248525
| 650.787.0798
| james.marzoni@prprop.com
For Lease / For Sale
1020 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA
±20,000 SQ. FT. R&D BUILDING
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
P R E M I E R02
propertyoverviews
Address:
APN:
Building Size:
Parcel Size:
Zoning:
Parking:
1020 O’Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA 94025
055-422-060
±20,000 Sq. Ft.
±48,003 Sq. Ft. / 1.10 Acre
LS (Life Sciences)
±60 spaces (3.00/1000)
Premier Properties and CBRE present a prime opportunity to lease or acquire a versatile
industrial property in Menlo Park, CA. 1020 O'Brien Drive is suitable for industrial, lab, R&D,
or office applications. The ±20,000 SF building is available immediately and features a
16.5-foot clear height, one roll-up door, and 400 amps of power. This is a great site for
investors, developers, or owner-users seeking immediate occupancy or redevelopment
opportunities. The property is positioned near Meta's planned Willow Village--a 59-acre
mixed-use development featuring offices, homes, and retail spaces--and surrounded by
approximately 534,000 square feet of planned office / R&D projects along O'Brien Drive,
placing it at the heart of a thriving innovation hub.
1020 O'Brien Drive represents a great opportunity to purchase or lease an ideally situated
warehouse available for immediate occupancy and with redevelopment potential.
P R E M I E R03
1020 o’brien floor plan 1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
P R E M I E R04
1020 O’BRIEN DR,
MENLO PARK, CA
innovative neighbors MAP
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
101
101
82
82
84
84
84
STANFORD
RESEARCH
PARK
109
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
SFO - 17.5 miles
SJC - 19 miles
PLANES
OAK - 27 miles San Francisco - 1 h 38 min
San Jose - 1 hr 21 min
Milbrae - 1 hr 17 min
TRAINS
San Francisco - 29.1 miles
Downtown San Jose - 21.1 miles
AUTOMOBILES
Downtown Oakland - 32.3 miles
Downtown
San Carlos
Bair Island
P R E M I E R05
10182
(74,000 VPD)(74,000 VPD)
(26
,
8
3
0
VPD)
(26
,
8
3
0
VPD)84
84
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center
Baysh
o
re Fwy (16
8
,
0
0
0
VP
D)
Baysh
o
re Fwy (16
8
,
0
0
0
VP
D)
Downtown
Redwood City
TRANSPORTATION MAP
1020 O’BRIEN DR,
MENLO PARK, CA
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
P R E M I E R06
DEMOGRAPHICS
ONE-MILE POPULATION: 25,507
MEDIAN AGE
34.1
AVEAGE HOUSEHOLDSIZE FAMILIES
3.81 4,877
Average Household Income
$173,9214,877FAMILIES
Average
Household Size:3.81 Owner Occupied
Housing Units:3,079 Renter OccupiedHousing Units 3,577 MedianHousehold Income $119,615 AverageHousehold Income $173,921
MAJOR EMPLOYERS:
Data for all businesses in area
Total Businesses:
Total Employees:
Total Residential Population:
Average Household Size:
1 mile
480
7,399
25,507
3.8
3 miles
5,861
85,759
102,966
3.0
5 miles
13,185
181,926
239,639
2.8
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
P R E M I E R07
CONFIDENTIALITY& DISCLAIMER
The information contained in the following Marketing Brochure is proprietary and strictly
confidential. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from Premier
Properties and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the
written consent of Premier Properties. This Marketing Brochure has been prepared to
provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a
preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a
substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. Premier Properties has not made any
investigation, and makes no warranty or representation, with respect to the income or
expenses for the subject property, the future projected financial performance of the
property, the size and square footage of the property and improvements, the presence or
absence of contaminating substances, PCB’s or asbestos, compliance with State and
Federal regulations, the physical condition of the improvements thereon, or the financial
condition or business prospects of any tenant, or any tenant’s plans or intentions to continue
its occupancy of the subject property. The information contained in this Marketing Brochure
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however Premier Properties has
not verified and will not verify any of the information contained herein, nor has Premier
Properties conducted any investigation regarding these matters and makes no warranty or
representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information
provided. All potential buyers must take appropriate measures to verify all of the information
set forth herein.
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
1 0
2
0
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
D
r
,
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
A
For Lease / For Sale
1020 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA
±20,000 SQ. FT. R&D BUILDING
SIMON CLARK
Executive Vice President
dre license #01318652
| 650.577.2938
| simon.clark@cbre.com
JAMES MARZONI
Senior Vice President
dre license #01248525
| 650.787.0798
| james.marzoni@prprop.com
From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org
To:Council, City
Subject:June 2025 Members" Early Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 4:08:01 AM
BOOK SALE
NEWSLETTERTHIS WEEKEND ATCUBBERLEY
Visit our web site
CUBBERLEY USED
BOOK SALES
Saturday June 14Main Room Members' Early Sale 9am -11amMain Room General Sale 11am - 4pmBargain Room 9:30am - 4pmChildren's Room 10am - 4pmPopup Music Sale 10am - 2pm(outside Main Room)
Sunday June 15
All Rooms 1pm - 4pm
FEATURED IN
JUNE
Easton Press &
Franklin Library
Darwin & Biology
ReferenceDVDs & Blu-
Ray sets
FMR magazines
4000 Middlefield RoadPalo AltoNE corner of the Cubberley
Community Center
(650) 213-8755
www.fopal.org
Maps and Directions
More information on the sales
Donate your used books, DVDs, &c
ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO
ALTO LIBRARIES
Main Room
In our Main Room, prices are way belowwhat used book stores charge.Hardcover books start at $3 andsoftcover books start at only $2.
NO NUMBERS WILL BE ISSUED FORNON-MEMBERS FOR THIS SALE. IF YOUARE NOT A FOPAL MEMBER SIMPLYSHOW UP AT 11AM.
Please note that due to crowding during
the first two hours of the Book Sale, no
strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be
brought into the Main Room. This is for
the safety of shoppers and volunteers
alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins
out and shoppers are welcome to bring
these items into the sale.
Children's Book Sale
The Children's Room is located in the
portable next to the soccer field near
Greendell School. It is entirely filled
with children's books and toys. You'll
find picture books, school age fiction
and non-fiction, fiction for teens, award
winners, non-English titles, CDs and
DVDs, and books for parents and
teachers, many for 50 cents or $1.
Strollers are welcome in the Children's
Room at any time.
Bargain Books in H-2
The Bargain Room is located in RoomsH-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley maincampus, between our Main Room andMiddlefield Road. On Saturday,paperbacks are $1, hardcovers are $2,
and children's books are 50 cents each.
The room also contains many records,
CDs, and DVDs at $1 each. On Sunday,
the room opens at 1 pm and all prices
are half off. Or, save even more on
Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable
bags from us for $4/ea (or bring your
own grocery-size reusable bag) and
stuffing them with any items in the
room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at
$5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE!
Library News
Our Mitchell Park item mentions the Library's Summer Reading Program whose theme this
year is "Book A Trip", which started on June 1 but goes until August 1 so there's yet timeto get started, and you can find out more about it from the Library's web site.
It's Pride month, and the Library is celebrating LGTBQIA+ stories and voices.
And Independence Day on Friday, July 4, on which day all Library branches will be closed.
Plan accordingly!
You could find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner by
subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per
month, more usually one.
You can find out about other things they want you to know from the Palo Alto City LibraryBlogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader.
-Frank McConnell
Members' Early Sale This Month
This month is a Members' Early Sale in our Main Room which means some early openings
on Saturday for FOPAL members.
At 8am, members can pick up tickets for early admission to the Main Room. Non-members
can also join at this time. Expired memberships can also be renewed. Bringing your
membership card can help us find you in our database but is not required.
At 9am, the Main Room opens to Life Members and Sponsors. At 10am, the Main Room
opens to other Members.
At 11am, the Main Room opens to everyone (as usual, but the line is usually shorter).
The Bargain Room and Children's Room open at their usual times.
There's more info on our web site.
-Frank McConnell
Computers
Interesting new books on AI prompts, Rust, and Ruby. Plus comp.sci. classics from the
1970s.
-David Cortesi
Home & Crafts
This June in Fashion, it's all about the accessories, from Caroline Cox's Vintage Shoes to
John Peacock's Fashion Accessories: The Complete 20th Century Sourcebook. So you want
that Parisian look? Try How to be a Parisian Wherever You Are, or Parisian Chic: A Style
Guide. Then there's HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style by Elizabeth Holmes. Looking
for unique gifts for Father's Day? Just for you: Life Hacks: Any Procedures or Actions that
Solve a Problem, Simplify a Task, Reduce Frustration, Etc. in One's Everyday Life. Just a
little more humor for Dad: Dave Barry's Homes and Other Black Holes. Home decorating
ranges from Michael Taylor Interior Design to Zona Home Essential Designs for Living, and
Sarah Nettleton's The Simple Home, plus many titles for kitchen and bath. For a complete
catalog of textiles and sources check out Judith Miller's The Style Sourcebook. Designs by
region feature San Francisco: A Certain Style, and John Finton's California Luxury Living: A
Private Tour, plus the beautiful Italia: The Art of Living Italian Style.
This month in Floral Arts look for Flowers for Weddings by Pamela McNicol. You'll also find
The Five Minute Flower Arranger by Jane Newdick, and Colleen Mullaney's Faux Fabulous
Florals. There are two new floral resources: Flower Color Theory and Flower Color Guide. In
Fabric Arts this June you'll find a new array of knitting styles: Strands of Joy: 20
Colourwork Knitting Patterns for Calm, Knitting Lingerie Style, and Sweaters from the
Seaton Collections, to name a few. Look for sewing, crocheting, embroidery, and
needlepoint guides. Quilting titles include The Weekend Quilter and Mini Quilts from
Traditional Designs. In Crafts there are several books on Origami and many new mandala
coloring books.
eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>.
-Virginia Perry
Antiques & Collections
In the month of June we received multiple titles on Depression Glass: Elegant Glassware of
the Depression Era, Very Rare Glassware from the Depression Years, and Bedroom &
Bathroom Glassware, among others. There are two copies of The Au Hang Collection of
Chinese Snuff Bottles. You'll find Classic Dolls by Marco Tosa, photographed by Graziella
Pellicci. Another find: Frank Lloyd Wright: Interiors and Furniture. And don't miss Radio
Flyer: 100 Years of America's Little Red Wagon. Look for stamps, coins, antique guides,
and other resources for your collecting reference.
eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>.
-Virginia Perry
Poetry
Ring slender bells an elfin tune
To summon all the elves of June -
Say Poetry's found another space
And now presents a brand new face.
Where Drama once did reign supreme
Now Poetry forms a different theme.
You'll find us by the exit door,
Shelves filled from ceiling to the floor.
https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html
-Mandy MacCalla
Children's Room
Five weeks since our May sale means that our shelves are unusually full for June. Don't
miss the books for Father's Day, graduation, and the Fourth of July. And Non-fiction is
having a 50% off sale on select Lego books this month--plenty of ideas to keep builders
busy this summer.
On the counter under the front windows is our bountiful collection of board books, pop-ups,and flap books, full of eye-appeal and entertaining stories, some classic and others unusualand original. The Picture Books sections offer many series, including Froggy, CuriousGeorge, Peppa Pig, Pete the Cat, and Sesame Street, among others. We are also wellstocked with giftable hardback and paperback picture books. There are four box sets ofNinja Life Hacks (8 books per set): Mover and Shaker, Growth Mindset, Emotions andFeelings, and Leadership.
The World Languages section offers books in numerous languages, including a large
donation of books in French this month. Asian languages are also well represented.
Check out our School-age Fiction section for some great finds. Featured in the entry area
to the section is a Special Edition of The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann Wyss ($25 on
Amazon, $8 at FOPAL). On the Classics shelves there are a number of excellent book sets:
The Naughtiest Girl by Enid Blyton, a Dick King Smith story collection, and two boxed
collections of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. Also look for several gift-quality classic books; fans of
Greek mythology will love the two beautifully illustrated books by Rick Riordan: Greek
Gods and Greek Heroes. And don't miss The Odyssey: A Pop-Up Book. Help your children
maintain their reading skills with some of our popular early chapter book series: Captain
Underpants, Dragon Masters, I Survived, Ivy and Bean, Stink, and Magic Tree House.
Finally, in the Award Winners section, look for Brian Selznick's stunningly illustrated books:
Wonder Struck, The Marvels, and The Invention of Hugo Cabret.
We have a huge selection of Beginning Readers books, including lots of Henry and Mudge
paperbacks and small sets of books, all for great prices. Love Elephant and Piggie? We
have many of those, too. And for teachers, many early readers on science, history, and
biography that are perfect for classroom library shelves.
It's Garfield galore! This month, our Graphic Novels section features dozens--yes, dozens--of Garfield comic books. And if you're a fan of Dog Man or other Dav Pilkey titles, we havethose in English and several other languages. At the opposite end of the room, ourMath/Science table is overflowing with mathematics books, perfect for summertimereviewing and previewing. Our offerings include K-12 textbooks and workbooks (includingseveral from the Beast Academy series), as well as Math Olympiad problem books. Be sureto peruse our new "Logical Reasoning" bin, too. On the Activities island and Giftablesshelves you'll find games for all ages, with several in brand-new packaging. And on ourpuzzle shelves we have a first for the Children's Room--a set of "Uncle Goose" woodenblocks decorated with pictures and rhymes.
-Carolyn Davidson
Sociology/Anthropology
For the upcoming sale, the Sociology/Anthropology section features 433 books. The
largest sub-section--Theories and Methods--includes 112 titles, ranging from classics ofsociological thought by Max Weber, Erving Goffman, Georg Simmel, and C. Wright Mills toseveral introductory books on sociology. This section also highlights Juvenescence (2015)by Robert Pogue Harrison, Professor Emeritus of French & Italian at Stanford University. Inan interview with KQED, Harrison reflects on our youth-centric culture, observing that "the
older generation aspires to be young, while the young live as if born into a vacuum ofhistory."
Another notable title is The Belt and Road City (2024), co-authored by Simon Curtis,
associate professor of international relations at the University of Surrey and senior fellow
at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and Ian Klaus, founding director of Carnegie
California. Their 2023 Foreign Affairs article, "China's Path to Power Runs Through the
World's Cities," serves as a compelling prelude to the book. This book can be found in the
Foreign Affairs and Immigration sub-section.
-Natalia Koulinka
Humor
We have a first appearance in Humor of the late, lamented Louise Rennison with eight
volumes from her ten volume series Confessions of Georgia Nicolson all in perfect
condition. It's a bumper month for cartoons with over 70 books, ten from the New Yorker.
Another first are two volumes from the irrepressible Don and Phil also in perfect condition.
However the most peculiar book of the month is Kafka Sud AB [translated into English as
Kafka for Beginners] containing humorous essays about Kafka. It is illustrated by one of
the greatest cartoonists of all time, Robert Crumb, and if that's not enough, it's in French.
Shelf photos may be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/humor.html>.
-Nigel Jones
Philosophy
Usually Philosophy gets 4 or 5 boxes of donation but this month we received around 20!
This means that the shelves are mostly full of new arrivals and many will be in nextmonth's sale. Also many have gone to our Bargain Room - you should definitely check outwhat is on sale there!
This month's sale includes Aristotle (10), Kierkegaard (6), Plato (6 including the Collected
Dialogues), Thoreau (5), and Wittgenstein (11, the most we have ever had). The Kant
collection (12) has been moved to the left case, bottom shelf, and all repriced for the
Members' Early Sale.
Next month's specials will be Dewey and Ontology.
Shelf photos may be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/philosophy.html>.
-Nigel Jones
Nature
As we start the summer months and the days get longer, it's a perfect time to pick up
guide books so you can keep your cell phone in your pocket and enjoy analogue beauties
of books and nature. This month we have many, many guide books for local wildflowers
and trees in California and nearby states. Don't sleep on the laminated pamphlets for as
little as $1, or books about learning to use the bounties of the land, from coastal foraging
to wilderness survival to living off grid.
-Serena Bramble
Judaica
Browse the Judaica section for books on the Jewish religion and culture including editions
of the Torah and other basic texts, Kabbalah, Jewish history, the Holocaust, memoirs,
Israel, Jewish Women, the Jewish American Experience and other related subjects.
Special interest this month:
My Israel Trail: Finding Peace in the Promised Land
Stolen Words: The Nazi Plunder of Jewish Books
The Beast That Crouches at the Door: Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel and Beyond
The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context
The Gazelle: Medieval Hebrew poems on God, Israel, and the Soul
Aharon Appelfeld: From Individual Lament to Tribal Eternity
Sacred Trash: the Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza
Most fiction with Jewish themes will be found in Modern Literature/Classics or Current
Fiction. Books entirely in Hebrew are shelved in the European Languages section.
Shelf photos at <https://fopalbooks.com/judaica.html>.
-Charlotte Epstein, Judaica Section Manager
Music Pop Up Sale
This month the Music Pop Up Sale will be featuring a wide selection of Pop and Jazz vinyl
from a large estate donation. In addition, a carefully curated group of CDs will be offered
as well as some classical laser discs. Stop by our tents outside the Main Room entrance for
a closer look!
-George Chaltas
European Languages
In European Languages, we received a large donation of Italian books, including lots of
Sciascia, Moravia, and Calvino, and other serious fiction. Some are from the collection of aprofessor of Italian who wrote the literary prize(s) the book won on the flyleaf.
We also received a lot of books in Polish, generally fiction or history.
-Susan Strain
Children's Vintage
It might be the June sale, but we are already thinking ahead to July 4th, Independence
Day! We have many, many books celebrating our country's birthday and founding ideals.
What better time than today to check them out and remind ourselves of how much we owe
our forebears and how much we have to lose! Paul Revere, George Washington and the
Star-Spangled Banner all figure prominently! On a lighter note, the vintage toy sale was
such a big hit last month that we have restocked the shelves with vintage toys again. Quite
an eclectic collection ranging from a vintage Mille Bornes card game to a record caddy for
45s to remote control fighting drones.
In addition, for younger readers, we have created a new section specifically for fairy tales
and myths written especially for those not quite ready for some of the more gruesome
stories of Grimm and Andersen. And we have an entire section this month of behavioral
guides written for the younger set: books with names like Handling Your Ups and Downs,
Making Up Your Own Mind and the like. Never too young for self-help!
Older readers are in for a treat with a nice Oz book (Lucky Bucky in Oz) carrying on the Oz
tradition but written by his illustrator, John R. Neill, and/or an entire selection of Freddy
the Pig hardbacks, one in dust jacket.
Finally, FOLLOW FOPAL ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM! We're trying to increase ouronline visibility on Facebook, eBay and Instagram so we can highlight some of our
wonderful offerings and generate more sales to support our public library. One of ourchildren's vintage books is the star of Instagram this month (@friendsofthepaloaltolibrary).
John Brown, Rose and the Midnight Cat by Jenny Wagner tells the gentle story of love,acceptance and adapting to new circumstances as John Brown (the dog) struggles to letthe Midnight Cat into the life of his Rose. You can find this title prominently displayed inthe vintage section next to the collectibles.
Shelf pictures are available for all of these items at fopalbooks.com. And you can find even
more children's vintage books at our eBay store.
-Lisa Heitman
Self-Help/Personal Growth
June is BIG BARGAIN month in Self Help/Personal Growth! Look for a top shelf with a
row of books priced more than 50% OFF of the cheapest on-line price, including multiple
copies of Every Man a Hero, Every Woman a Coach. There are 4+ shelves of 'Popular on
Amazon' books including multiple copies of The Prism (2025). Featured books, Popular on
Amazon, include: Searches: Selfhood in the Digital Age; The Next Day (both 2025); The
Right Kind of Wrong; and The 5 Types of Wealth. All these Awesome Books are up for
grabs! Browse the 4 shelves of New Arrivals and the 2 bays of Sub-Sections, including
some recent ones like: 'Books with Workbooks', 'Narcissism', 'Melody Beatty books' and
'NLP (Neurolinquistic Programming)'. May you have a Joyful June and beyond.
-Marnie
Mitchell Park Library Store
If you are unable to make it to our monthly sale the FOPAL store in the Mitchell Park library
is a very good shopping alternative. The store is open seven days a week during library
hours. It is located on your left as you enter the library. Our shelves are restocked every
day except Sunday. Our entire stock is rotated regularly so that customers always have
new items to peruse. Prices are comparable to the Main Room with most books priced at
$2 and $3 unless marked otherwise on the front cover of the book. We love to find unique
books that surprise our customers.
We stock most of the major sections of the Main Room including Art, Business, History,Politics, Cooking, Mystery and Fiction of all genres i.e. Classic, Historical, Sci Fi, Romance.You will also find the smaller sections represented such as Health, Entertainment,
Psychology etc. We also sell DVDs, CDs, Puzzles, Children's books and the FOPAL Book
Bags to carry your purchases home.
Every month we feature a special on our kiosk. This month we have two specials. Our
main special on the front side of the kiosk is Travel. We are featuring Travel narratives
about countries world wide as well as books on travel activities closer to home such as
hiking, visiting national parks, etc. Since the library Summer Reading program theme this
year is "Book a Trip" you will be able to find many "trip" related books at the MP store.
The second special is Knitting. FOPAL recently received an extremely large donation of
knitting books. We have both hardback and paperback books on every knitting item that
you can think of. Beginning on Saturday, June 14 all knitting books will be sold on a two
for the price of one. If the books are priced differently the sale price is based on the higher
priced book. Knitting is on the back side of the kiosk and also on a black cart located at the
entry of the store. Both of these specials will probably continue until the end of June.
A FOPAL volunteer staffs the store every day except Sunday for two hours in the mid tolate afternoon. Payments are on the Honor System. You can pay with cash in the cashbox(preferred) or using a QR code for Zelle or PayPal. If you use either of these please add MPfor Mitchell Park in the description line.
If the Mitchell Park Store is not convenient for you the Downtown and Rinconada Libraries
each has a kiosk store where you will also find great books at comparable prices to the
Main Sale. Of course, they are also available for sales whenever the library is open.
See more information about our in-library stores on our web site.
Happy shopping,
-Suzanne Little
Sheet Music
Donations have been very brisk in this subject. Thus, we have refreshed most of the stock
with new quality material. That means also that there will be plenty material in the bargainroom to choose from.
-Edwin El-Kareh
STEM
We have been given nothing short of a flood of materials this month. All subjects have
older books priced down and all the new books added at half the lowest Bookfinder price.
Biology has been especially strong this month with overflow wrapping around to the
specials area. The bargain room will also have plenty of STEM so come early to shop there
too. We now send regular packages of Popular Science books to all three FOPAL Library
Stores, so there will be plenty books to acquire all across the city.
Special on Darwin -- A noted bio-historian has given us a broad and deep collection of
books on Darwin. Prominent in the selection is books of letters of Darwin. This collection
also includes material from his contemporary Victorians Wallace, Cuvier and others. There
is a whole bay of shelves bulging full of Darwiniana on the right as you enter the main
room. All books have been looked up and are at half the lowest Bookfinder price. Most of
the books are uncommon and not likely to be available again at our sale.
-Edwin El-Kareh
Donations
We accept donations on Monday through Saturday from 3-5 pm in the Main Room. But we
close to donations in the week before the sale so that we can prepare the Main Room for
the sale, which means that we are closed for donations from Sunday June 8 through
Sunday June 15. Please hold your donations until Monday June 16.
Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us.
Suggestions?
We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please
email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org.
This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were
felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online.
Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcomingbooks sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not
share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than tosend you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply withthe words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text.
From:jfleming@right-thing.net
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Lait, Jonathan; Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George;
Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com
Subject:Regarding Jonathan Lait
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:13:33 PM
Attachments:Email_#_and_%_of_utility_poles_IN_ROW_within_Residential_Zoning_Districts_distance_to_bldg_structures_analysis.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-
Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone:
This coming Monday, you will be considering raises for City department heads.
I am writing to ask you to not only not approve a raise for Planning Director Jonathan
Lait, but to consider whether Mr. Lait’s employment with the City of Palo Alto should
be terminated. Why? Because in addressing you at Council meetings, he has
repeatedly and unambiguously been untruthful.
Although you know me from the cell tower issue, this letter is not about cell towers. It
is about a city employee who does not tell the truth when asked direct questions by
Council. More specifically, Mr. Lait has over and over, on the public record, madefalse statements to City Council, to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC)
and to the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
By “false statements,” I do not mean that Mr. Lait has misspoken about minor points. I mean that he has been repeatedly untruthful when Council, the PTC or the ARB has
asked him questions central to core issues, and in doing so given answers that
completely misled the panel he was speaking to. I will give you three examples:
1. At the December 16, 2019, City Council meeting, Council asked Mr. Lait
how many City poles were available for use as a cell tower at distances
greater than the 20 feet from a residence City Staff recommended Council
approve, but less than the 100 feet from a residence residents sought. (At
issue was whether Council needed to allow cell towers be located as close
as 20 feet to a residence in order to comply with the provisions of the 1996
Telecom Act.)
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
In response, Mr. Lait said he only had information for the number of poles
at 20 feet and 100 feet. This, to be direct, was a bold faced lie.
Attached is a memo obtained through a Public Records request. As youcan see, the memo was sent to Mr. Lait by the Planning Department’s
Roland Rivera and it includes data on a minimum 35-foot setback from
residences—data that Mr. Lait specifically said he didn’t have, data that
showed there were more than enough poles available at 35 feet toaccommodate all cell tower applications.
As you can also see, the memo was sent at 5:34 on December 16, 2019—
i.e., well before Council took up the cell tower issue later that evening.
As a result of Mr. Lait’s denying he had the data they sought, a frustrated
Council voted to approve the 20-foot setback Staff recommended.
This is not be the only time Mr. Lait was asked, on the public record, for the
same information, and not the only time he falsely asserted that the data he
was hiding did not exist. Specifically he was asked for it:
On December 13, 2020, by the Planning & Transportation
Commission as it considered revisions to the wireless ordinance;
On November 21, 2021, by City Council, the Planning &
Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board,
meeting in a joint study session to consider revisions to the wireless
ordinance; and
On January 12, 2022, by the Planning & Transportation
Commission, once again considering revisions to the wireless
ordinance.
On each occasion, Mr. Lait falsely stated that he only had information for 20
feet and 100 feet.
In short, Mr. Lait has, over a period of years, looked you and other City
officials in the eye and told you he didn’t have information he in fact did
have, presumably to support an agenda of his own.
2. At the October 24, 2024, City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker
asked Mr. Lait if any standards for cell tower siting and design existed other
than those expressed in the so-called “objective standards” Resolution
passed on December 16th, 2019. (At issue was whether, if Council were to
overturn the Resolution, Palo Alto would still have guidelines in place for cell
towers.)
In response, Mr. Lait said “No.” That was unequivocally not true. And at
your recent May 19th Council meeting, United Neighbors provided you with
documentation that it was not true—documentation in the form of a Staff
Report prepared for an ARB meeting prior to passage of the “objective
standards” Resolution that included a written list of Palo Alto’s standards for
cell towers.
3. At a February 4, 2019, City Council meeting, Director Lait told Council that
he had bypassed the step of sending the University South cell tower
application to the Architectural Review Board and approved it without
consulting them because of “shot clock” pressure. (At issue was whether
Mr. Lait had a good reason for ignoring the procedure called for by Palo
Alto’s wireless ordinance when he eliminated ARB review and a public
hearing for this application.)
What Mr. Lait said was not true. The telecom company’s lawyer who was
in attendance when Mr. Lait made this assertion stood up and said Crown
Castle wished to state, for the record, that Mr. Lait had refused their offer to
stop the shot clock for 30 days in order to make time for an ArchitecturalReview Board public hearing.
Because cell towers are the only issue I follow closely, I can only document Mr. Lait’s
years-long pattern of deceiving City Council, the PTC and the ARB when it comes tothis issue. But given his indifference to telling the truth, I hope you will consider
investigating whether he has told you material falsehoods regarding other issues.
More importantly, I hope you will consider terminating Mr. Lait’s employment. His lieshave wasted a great deal of everyone’s time and manipulated Council, the ARB and
the PTC into making suboptimal decisions for Palo Alto.
If you do not terminate Jonathan Lait’s employment, please consider making him takean oath at the start of every Council meeting to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhDJFleming@Right-Thing.net
650-325-5151
From:Rivera, Roland
To:Atkinson, Rebecca; Lait, JonathanSubject:# and % of utility poles IN ROW within Residential Zoning Districts distance to bldg structures analysis
Date:Monday, December 16, 2019 5:34:49 PM
Here you go…
# of Utility Poles in ROW within
Residential Districts that are
WITHIN
% of Utility Poles in ROWwithin
Residential Districts that are
WITHIN
20 ft of building structures 223 8%
35 ft of building structures 1,898 71%
100 ft of building structures 2,572 96%
Total # of Utility Poles IN ROW within Residential Districts 2,682
Let me know if you have any questions.
Roland
From:Laura Bowser
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Yang, Albert
Subject:Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17:12 PM
Attachments:SHP Letter re ECR Focus Area - June 12 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
From:Tran, Joanna
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Questions for June 16 and June 17 Council Meetings
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 5:54:05 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for staff responses to
questions submitted by Council Member Lu:
June 16 Amended Agenda
June 17 Amended Agenda
Staff Responses to June 16 Consent Items 9, 7, and June 17 Consent Item 14
Thank you,
Joanna
Joanna Tran
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Arthur Keller
To:Council, City
Subject:New Metrics on Hybrid Gray-Green Levees
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 3:59:41 PM
New Metrics on Hybrid Gray-Green Levees From
UC Santa Cruz
kneedeeptimes.org
From:Thea Bella
To:Council, City
Subject:Mayor Ed Lauing, re: June 14
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 3:16:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Lauing:
This regards the scheduled No Kings parade and later event in Rinconada Park on
Saturday, June 14, 2025.
I support our 1st Amendment and freedom of speech, particularly to those I otherwise
support in no way. So while until recently happy to have never heard of No Kings,
they should have their full and rightful public forum.
However, you should know that the perpetrators of this movement bear nothing but ill
will toward America and her citizens. Their goal is insurrection and the destruction ofthis nation. A group and influence one would never hope to see in their community.
Given what has and is presently occurring in Los Angeles and other cities, I trust that
you will insure a suitable police presence at these events. As well, in conjunction withthe sheriff and other agencies, should need arise for backup.
Hopefully every one has a fine time and even learns something. However, should me
or mine be negatively affected then Palo Alto bears the responsibility and liability.Excuses of if only we had known, we did all the could, will not suffice.
All best.
Yours,
Thea Bella
Palo Alto, California
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:ReDoing 2020
To:Cecelia.magana@paloalto.gov
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: "SHOCK: CRONY CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN IN PALO ALTO" (followup 6/11/25 7:00pm)
Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 7:07:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: Cecilia Magana, Chief: Please define your role in Contract Administration that can enableyour team to watch out for "favoritism" & manipulation in multi-millions in public. monies as
outlined in the report below.
If not your department, who reviews the awarding process for fairness, legality, honesty, &potential violations of conflict of interest as highlighted in the report sent to the council
referring to IRS "insider" prohibitions.(see below .) Were any questions raised by anyone?
All three groups mentioned are closely linked to the City, operate on City owned land, & areoverseen by a Council liason. Can we assume you oversee their contracts as well when City
funds are involved? If not, who does? Is there a mandate for transparency in the entireprocess?
Did anyone seek advice or an advance ruling about the appropriateness of giving millions to
their own membership (albeit a fleeting contractor?) Or ask about justifying a "sole source"contract to avoid competitive bidding? Is there a record of such discussions for the IRS to
examine regarding a possible violation of federal law by 501c3 entities to whichcontributions are tax deductible?
Please reply, or else identify the party responsible answer the questions raised.
Thank you for your courtesy. Telimtu Gedidun, Editor
What follows is the report sent to the Council that was never acknowledged nor repliedto, or questioned... so we are following up till they feel compelled to respond.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: ReDoing 2020 <redoing2020@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 18, 2025, 4:57 PMSubject: SHOCK: CRONY CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN IN PALO ALTO:
To: <City.council@paloalto.gov
5/18/25 4:55 pm
UPDATE 5/18/2025 with new information
Palo Alto, Northern California USA
What else are they not telling us? #3
SHOCK: CRONY CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN IN PALO ALTO:
MILLIONS MORE AWARDED TO "INSIDER" WHO COZIED UP AS OFFICIAL ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER TO PROFIT HIS COMPANY
The Palo Alto History Museum's approximately $12.500,000 brings the builder's take to approximately
$50 million (see below) in public funds and tax deductible charitable donations as he manipulated
nonprofit volunteers and hapless Council liaison members to believe he was the only logical choice for
their projects.
Take Note: An Internal Revenue Service provision for 501c3 charitable organizations is meant to prevent
"self-dealing," but enforcement relies heavily on Board Members and executive staff to self monitor theirbehavior to keep things honest as part of their legal fiduciary responsibilities.Otherwise penalties canresult.
In the case of our research, the History Museum, the Zoo, and the Avenidas Senior Center, (on land
owned and contributed to by the City) it is crucial that City officials (and enforcement agencies) seek whatjustification if any. is in the record to justify the "sole source selections" and to certify that all partiesinvolved in the awarding of these contracts recognized their obligations to the public for fairness andhonesty.
In the unlikely event that the well compensated 3rd generation builder considered his involvement as"public service" and donated back the millions to the City, naturally that may put these events in adifferent light but we found no mention to that effect.
We look forward to a thorough examination of the City's contract bidding processes for communityorganizations to assure residents and taxpayers that the government's practices are lawful and weighted towards conserving residents' resources (and not aimed to line the pockets of favorite sons andchummy politicians.)
Our contact information is below-we invite your comments.
-------------------------------------------------------------Original mailing: Sent to the Palo Alto City council 4/22/2025 4:53pm
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: ReDoing 2020 <redoing2020@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 4:53 PM
Subject: AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO GIFT "OLD BOY NETWORK" NON-PROFIT "INSIDER" $40 MILLION PLUSIN PUBLIC FUNDS.
Palo Alto, Northern California USA 4/22/2025 4:52 p.m.What else are they not telling us? #2
AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO PAY THEIR OWN NON-PROFIT BOARD MEMBERS MULTI-MILLIONS IN PUBLICMONIES TO CONSTRUCT EXPANSION PROJECTS.
There is a curious pattern behind more than $40 million in constructioncontracts given to a local builder, with questions of whether procedurescomplied with the mandated fiduciary responsibilities of staff and board members of an IRS 501(c)3 charity to whom financial contributions are tax deductible.
From publicly available sources,It seems that a well known neighborhood businessman developed awinning marketing strategy to gain the confidence of nonprofit boards in order to influence their decisions regarding allocation of public monies. He targetedgroups with upcoming construction projects that could reward him with tens of millions of dollars forworking on City projects.
Keep in mind, the questions being asked here are not about the technicalqualifications of the favored construction business to do the work.Instead, this inquiry relates to the contract award process and whether the public interest in the spending
of public monies was honest and fair.
Here is how the corporate strategy likely worked:
First, a member of the business joins a non-profit board of directors as a
"selfless" volunteer.
Next, the corporate representatives, from this company recognized for it'slong time construction activity, offers advice and guidance that is gratefully accepted by the other board members.
The deliberations continue, steered by the friendly corporate representatives until not surprisingly, theirfirm is formally recognized as the logical choice to build the organization's new project. Even the CityCouncil, guided by its liaison (now the Mayor) chips in millions of taxpayer funds to support thecollaboration.
In two latest property expansion plans, the builder snared about $25million and $15 million for the Palo Alto Zoo, and Avenidas, the City'ssenior center. There is a third project that has also been awarded (thePalo Alto History Museum) to the same builder, but its process history was not collected for inclusion inthis current report. In fact, there may bemore examples.
Third, once the monies were awarded, the corporate representatives leavethe board positions,don their hard hats, and resumes their professional entrepreneurial roles to supervise the construction work.
It all seems a pretty simple procedure, and was likely celebrated by manyas a job well done.
Even the City Council liaison assigned to monitor each agency likely gotmuscle spasms patting himself on the back for facilitating the process thatgranted major municipal contracts to that familiar business well known to politicians and government employees.
But wait, there is an element in the Federal Internal Revenue Servicestatute that seems to deal with situations as described above, where a board member of a tax deductibleorganization is prohibited frombenefiting financially due to their "insider" status. It is clear thatboth the staff leadership and the individual board members are responsible to enforce these conflict ofinterest rules.
So far, no action has been identified as having been made by either thenon-profit agency or the City Council representative to explain the apparent conflict created by that construction company's scheme to jump on and subsequently off the charity boards once a multi million dollar windfall is won.
For example, to protect the taxpayers' interests, is there a record ofcompetitive bidding, given that scores of construction companies thatoperate in California and the U.S. are capable of performing under the contract requirements, perhaps ata lower cost to the public?
However, if in fact no other bidders were sought, is there documentationthat ascertains that the local company was justified as a "sole source." (other than that the builder/owner,a third generation member of the hometown's "old boy network" was just that, a familiar entity withpersuasive influential friends, and clever charm offensive techniques.
One more thing: In the case of the Avenidas senior center, the group's
CEO, after having steered the charity's millions to her builder board
member, reportedly resigned her position as he did, to take on coordinating the construction andexpansion project.
Perhaps a review by the Council or other enforcement bodies delegated with responsibility to protect thepublic interest, will reveal if other special benefits accrued to individuals as a result of the granting of millions to their on but then off "insider" board member, despite the flouting ofFederal conflict protections.
Note:Our main interest is improving the governing behaviors of themunicipality, having observed that in many interpretations of law,rules,administrative and enforcement practices in the City of Palo Alto, results seem to skew in favor of theprivate sector and away from an evenhanded approach that good governance demands.(More about thisin future reports.)
____Telimtu Gedidun, Editor
Corrections or updates to:Redoing2020@gmail.com (please first read notes below)
----------------------------------------------
NOTES TO READERS If you are a working reporter or government
investigator that wants more information in order to followup on reported issues, please send yourprofessional credentials, contact information, and an idea of your interests, and we will contact you viaemail and/or telephone. Ditto for City or State or County officials authorized to followup to protect thepublic or track wrong-doing.
ABOUT US: We are a volunteer source for important civic and consumer
facts designed to help combat and overcome the relentless conduct by aself-serving variety of fraudsters that unjustly profit from takingadvantage of the public's naivety and/or lack of knowledge.
WE DON'T OPEN ATTACHMENTS Please don't send attachments, images, or long stories of suffering,
including abusive practices at the hands of Palo Alto government or its landlords (a common source ofstress for about half thepopulation that are renters.)
WE CANNOT ACCEPT UNREQUESTED MATERIALS. However, if you have welldocumented evidence of Palo Alto municipal misdeeds similar to our report, send a short paragraph in100 words or less, with your confidential contact information and permission for us to connect you withprofessionals and investigators who are following up. Otherwise, if coverage of consumer orrenter or municipal ethics and favoritism issues in our planned futureeditions is related to your specific knowledge we may contact you.
From:Jamie Evangelho
To:Jamie Evangelho
Cc:Sanjay Bagade; David Levine; Johney Han; Nicole Nurisso
Subject:Change of Address for Levine Bagade Han LLP
Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 4:57:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
We wish to inform you that, effective immediately, our new mailing address is as follows:
Levine Bagade Han LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 195
Palo Alto, CA 94303
United States of America
All other contact information remains the same.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Jamie Evangelho
Jamie L. Evangelho | Administrative/Accounting Assistant | jevangelho@lbhip.com
LEVINE BAGADE HAN LLP
***We Have Moved***
2479 E Bayshore Road, Suite 195
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.646.2571 Direct | 650.242.4210 Main | 650.284.2180
www.LBHIP.com
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the use of the intended
recipient. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, then any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
attachments thereto) by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately and please delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments. Thank you.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Notice - Adopted LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:27:06 PM
Attachments:Notice - Adopted FY2026 LAFCO Budget..pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To: County Executive, City and Special District Managers, Other Officials/Staff and Stakeholders:
Please see attached memo regarding Adopted LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
Thank you,
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
View this email in your browser
League of Women Voters Condemns Use of Federal Force on Peaceful
Protestors
Dear members and supporters of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto,
In these quickly changing times, keeping you informed is our top priority.
Here is the League's position on the use of the National Guard and other military forces in
peaceful protests:
League of Women Voters Condemns Use of Federal Force on PeacefulProtestors
LOS ANGELES, CA; WASHINGTON, DC — League of Women Voters of California Executive
Director Helen Hutchison and League of Women Voters of the US CEO Celina Stewart issued
From:Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu, Co-PresidentsTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA: League"s stance on use of federal force on peaceful protestorsDate:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 9:53:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
the following joint statement in response to the deploying of National Guard troops against largely
peaceful protestors in Los Angeles County.
“The President villainizing protestors is nothing but a performance to direct violence
against the American people.
"By deploying the National Guard, against the wishes of state officials, the administration intends
to cause fear and distract from their inhumane immigration raids.
“This administration is assaulting concerned Americans to silence voices of dissent. The
President's overreach signals a larger crackdown on protests across the country meant to
intimidate us from speaking out.
“The President declared the protests as rebellion against the United States, a characterization he
uses as his basis for overstepping his presidential powers to subvert the First Amendment right to
association and protest.
“A functioning democracy must ensure that we the people can hold our government
accountable without fear of violence from the government.
“The League of Women Voters condemns these actions and calls on the Secretary of Defense to
call back the National Guard. We will not be intimidated into silence.”
###
Read the release online at League of Women Voters Condemns Use of Federal Force on
Peaceful Protestors | League of Women Voters
JOIN US AT THE LWVPA TABLE ON SATURDAY, JUNE 14
AT THE DEMOCRACY FAIR
3-5PM AT RINCONADA PARK, 777 EMBARCADERO, PALO ALTO
CONTACT INFO:
Our mailing address is: LWVPA, 3921 E Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Email: communications@lwvpaloalto.org
Subscribe to our newsletters: Sign up using the subscription form
Want to change how you receive these emails?You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
From:Aram James
To:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky
Cc:Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Sheree Roth; Lori
Meyers; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Ed Lauing; Zelkha, Mila; BoardOperations;
board@pausd.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com;
h.etzko@gmail.com; DuJuan Green; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Vara Ramakrishnan; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF
Peninsula Palo Alto
Subject:Turkish foreign ministry says Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound ship is a clear violation of international law
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:31:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and
clicking on links.
Turkey calls Israel 'terrorist state'over seizure of Gaza aid shipMadleen
Turkish foreign ministry says Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound ship is a
clear violation of international law
Turkish foreign ministry says Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound ship is a clear violation ofinternational law
Source: Middle East Eye
https://share.google/dG3qn4aQjXgzZGI7Q
From:stephanie wansek
To:police@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Subject: Follow-Up on 72-Hour Tow Notices – East Meadow Circle RVs
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:56:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto Police Department,
My name is Stephanie Wansek, and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I’m writing to follow up on aseries of 72-hour tow warnings that were posted on RVs in the area of East Meadow Drive and
East Meadow Circle on or around June 3, 2025.
It has now been more than seven days since the notices were issued. As of today, themajority, if not all, of the RVs appear to still be parked in their original locations, inviolation of the terms stated on the official warning. The notices clearly specify that vehicles
will be towed unless they are driven at least half a mile within the 72-hour period. No furtherwarning is to be given.
This is not a one-time occurrence. Notices like these have been posted on RVs in this samearea repeatedly over the past several months. Despite this, the RVs remain in place and visibly
occupied, with no evidence of compliance or enforcement. This ongoing pattern sends a clearmessage that these warnings are not taken seriously and are not being enforced in any
meaningful way.
Given the clarity of the notice and the time elapsed, I would like to request a response to the
following:
1. Were the vehicles re-inspected after the 72-hour deadline?
2. Have any been towed or cited?
3. If not, what is the explanation for the lack of enforcement?
I’ve attached a photo of one such notice for reference.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. As a resident observing ongoing violations without
visible follow-through, I am seeking clear information on how the department enforces thesewarnings once issued.
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
Sincerely,Stephanie Wansek
931 Mallard LnPalo Alto, CA 94303
stephanie.wansek@gmail.com(650) 776-7101
From:Nick Pelly
To:City Mgr; Stump, Molly
Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Corpos, Orshi; Council, City; ZEV.Permitting@gobiz.ca.gov; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:FORMAL NOTICE of Unlawful Permitting Fees & Systemic Non-Compliance with State Law - Permit 25BLD-01610
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:05:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mr. Shikada and Ms. Stump,
I am providing formal notice that the City of Palo Alto is imposing unlawful fees on my EVcharger permit (25BLD-01610) as a matter of standard policy. This policy, confirmed in
writing by the Project Coordinator (email chain attached), is in direct violation of theCalifornia Government Code.
The City has assessed a total of $695.44. The Project Coordinator justified this by stating:
"These are standard fees charged on every EVCE permit. The $167.39 is the base
fee charged on every permit. The $227.62 is the reviewer’s fee for the time spentrevieing your project, also standard. And the $224. 41 is the fee charged for the
EV charger. The fees are correct."
This fee structure and the policy it represents are illegal, most notably for the following
reasons:
1. The Review Process Was Unlawful in Both Procedure and Substance. The fee for
"time spent reviewing" is a direct charge for a review process that violated state law.The process was unlawful first in its procedure, as my application was subjected to five
separate deficiency notices. This violates California Government Code § 65850.71(b)(1), which mandates a single, comprehensive correction notice. Second, the process was
unlawful in its substance. The items in these repeated notices consisted almost entirelyof administrative minutiae (e.g., adding a cover page, correcting file names, including
page numbers), not substantive issues. This violates the clear legislative intent ofCalifornia Government Code § 65850.7(d), which limits the scope of review by
stating a permit can only be denied for a "specific, adverse impact upon the publichealth or safety." Charging a fee for time spent on a procedurally illegal review that was
focused on non-substantive issues is indefensible.
2. The Total Fee is Excessive and Unreasonable. The total of $695.44 is a direct
violation of California Government Code § 65850.7(h), which states:
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
"The total amount of the fees imposed by a city or county on an applicationfor a permit issued pursuant to this section shall not exceed the estimated
reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged."
3. This is a Systemic Violation. The admission that these fees are "standard on every
EVCE permit" confirms this is not a clerical error, but an official policy to violate theaforementioned state laws.
I request an immediate correction of my permit invoice. All duplicative and punitive fees mustbe removed. The only legitimate charge is the City's established flat fee of $224.41, plus the
minor records ($25.02) and state-mandated ($1.00) fees, for a correct total of $250.43.
Please confirm that this correction will be made today. However, if we are unable to resolve
this matter, I am prepared to pursue all available remedies to ensure the City's compliancewith state law.
Sincerely,
Nick Pelly
Forwarded Conversation
Subject: 385 LELAND AV/25BLD-01610: Fees / Items Due for Permit Issuance, ActionNeeded------------------------
From: PDS City of Palo Alto <DoNotReply@paloalto.gov>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 8:45 AMTo: <npelly@gmail.com>
Record ID: 25BLD-01610
Opened Date: 6/5/2025
Address: 385 LELAND AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306
Project Type: Project - Building Permit
Work Description: Res: Install new EV Charger with 50A 240V circuit.
Project Update: Department reviews are complete; however, outstanding items are needed to issue your permit.
Balance Due: $695.44
Outstanding Items Due:
- Please pay fees indicated above.
Once fees are paid and/or outstanding items submitted, your permit will be processed for issuance. You will receive
an email notification to let you know when the permit is issued.
How to Pay Fees:
1. Do NOT send checks/money through the mail. Navigate to the City of Palo Alto's Online Permitting System2. Click on the “Building” tab and search for the permit site address
3. Locate the permit number in the search results, double check that it is the correct permit number, and select
“Pay Fees Due” to access the payment page directly
How to Upload Outstanding Documents:
1. Log in to your account on the City of Palo Alto's Online Permitting System2. Search for your permit under the "Building” tab or select “My Records” and click on your permit number
3. Go to the “Record Info” drop down and select “Attachments”4. Click on the green “Add” button at the bottom of the window and upload the new document.
If you need assistance please contact your Project Coordinator, ORSHI CORPOS-650-329-2234 at
orshi.corpos@PaloAlto.gov.
Thank you for using our online permitting system and we look forward to working with you.
City of Palo AltoPlanning and Development Services285 Hamilton Avenue, 1st FloorPalo Alto, CA 94301(650) 329-2496
----------
From: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:08 AM
To: Corpos, Orshi <orshi.corpos@paloalto.gov>
Hi Orshi Corpos,
Could you please take another look at the fees, they do not look correct.
Nick
----------From: Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov>
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:12 AMTo: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>
Nick,
The fees are correct. these are standard fees we charge on EVCE permits?
Best
Orshi Corpos
Project Coordinator II
Planning & Development Department
(650) 329-2234 | orshi.corpos@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:08 AM
To: Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: 385 LELAND AV/25BLD-01610: Fees / Items Due for Permit Issuance, Action Needed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
----------From: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:20 AMTo: Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov>
Hi Orshi,
$224 is the all inclusive fee, by your own cities fee schedule. $167 is duplicative, and the $277appears non-standard & punitive. Please advise.
Nick
----------From: Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 9:36 AMTo: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>
Nick,
These are standard fees charged on every EVCE permit. The $167.39 is the base fee chargedon every permit. The $227.62 is the reviewer’s fee for the time spent revieing your project,also standard. And the $224. 41 is the fee charged for the EV charger. The fees are correct.
best
Orshi Corpos
Project Coordinator II
Planning & Development Department
(650) 329-2234 | orshi.corpos@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Nick Pelly <npelly@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:20 AM
To: Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: 385 LELAND AV/25BLD-01610: Fees / Items Due for Permit Issuance, Action Needed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Orshi,
$224 is the all inclusive fee, by your own cities fee schedule. $167 is duplicative, and the $277appears non-standard & punitive. Please advise.
Nick
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025, 09:12 Corpos, Orshi <Orshi.Corpos@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Nick,
The fees are correct. these are standard fees we charge on EVCE permits?
Best
Orshi Corpos
Project Coordinator II
Planning & Development Department
(650) 329-2234 | orshi.corpos@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From:Aram James
To:Dave Price; Emily Mibach
Cc:Council, City; Ed Lauing; Stump, Molly
Subject:irresponsible to take summer break
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 8:34:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
June 9, 2025
Dear Editor,
Given the current national crisis, the protests in the streets, and Trump's military overreach, itwould be irresponsible for our city council to take a summer break and go on extravagant
vacations. The council needs to remain present and engaged during this critical time.
Sincerely,
Aram James
From:Aram James
To:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Lori Meyers; JessicaSpeiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Sheree Roth;board@pausd.org; Bill Newell; Raymond Goins; Doug Minkler; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James
Subject:Re: ICE, LAPD, LASD, Zionist Wack Jobs, etc.,
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 7:33:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 6:06 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Aram’s notes for oral communication for city council June 9, 2025
Dare say tipping point in this country—fascism and racism—state-sponsored
violence have already arrived for many.
First, they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, I was NOT a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then
they came for the ( Palestinians ), and I did not speak out because I was not a Palestinian. And then they
came for me AND THERE was NO one left to speak out for me.
By Pastor Niemoller
( with slight alterations by me) 6/9/25 Political Leaders, Leaders of the immigration rights movement in Los Angeles–seetoday’s broadcast of Democracy Now-Amy Goodman—interviewed-Ron Gochez-Commmunity organizer with Union del Barrio- who helped organize some of the anti-ice demonstrations in LA this weekend. ICE, LAPD, and LASD all came for brownskinned immigrants—indigenous people of the community –those who have been onthe land for centuries. Organizer Gochez –connected the dots between the oppressorsof the brown skinned people being terrorized in LA—and the brown skinned
Palestinians being exterminated in Gaza in Palestine –by Zionists the likes of Josh
Becker, Mark Berman, and our own Ed Lauing.
Sickened me to hear Becker’s words, read Berman’s words in print, speaking out
for the brown skin immigrants in our state and against the use of military and
police force against these same immigrants —-while cheering on the IOF (Israel
Occupying Forces) while the Zionists continue their Genocide in Palestine. I charge
Becker, Berman, Lauing, and Reckdahl with complicity in Genocide. None of them
should be allowed to hold public office, and each of them should be charged with
war crimes.
PAPD all white command staff—our chief lives in MH known as a bastion of
white supremacy—law enforcement a majority Trump supporters—naïve they
will be here for us when the national guard sent in, the US Marines sent in.
PAPD all white command staff—with an alleged race-baiter in the command staff.
From:mingxia zhang
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:about palo alto pickleball club need more courts
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 6:57:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi, I post PAPC club need more courts on nextdoor, some neighbors responded:
Penny E.
·Greenmeadow ·4h
The Palo Alto Pickleball Club is functionally a Peninsula Pickleball Club that is using
out-of-town players to lobby our City Council for more courts paid for by citizens of
Palo Alto. They should start lobbying other cities to provide permanent pickleball
courts. They can organize play and advocacy across city lines. They've already
demonstrated that. I live near Mitchell Park a block away from the south side of
Charleston Road, and pickleball is LOUD, much louder than tennis. I can hear the
thwap of pickleball rackets on the balls in my house with the windows closed. We
should build enough courts to serve our local citizen needs for play. The club should
organize their members from other cities to ask their City Councils to build courts.
they can organize across cities. Our City Council should ask every speaker to state
into the record the town they live in...and keep track. I am very bothered the city is
spending my tax dollars this way.
Walter Murray
·Adobe Meadow ·5h
How annoying. It is hard enough now to find a vacant court. In the
mean time no lights are planned for the courts in Cubberley.. No
plans to put Pickle ball courts in Northern PA. They don't like the
noise. In the meantime the parking lots in Mitchell are full and the we
get players from elsewhere creating traffic in this neighborhood. I
use to play 3 times a week I am now reduced to once due to court
availability and even that sometimes is not possible. In the
meantime the City thinks it fine for organizations to block book the
courts at a very low cost. I was bounced recently from the Cubberley
court by a teacher from the private Middle school instructing a single
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
pupil. Previously a teacher from Castilleja bounced me when using 4
courts for children attending Castllieja. Apparently in that case the
school makes them all member of the USTA. Cheaper than the
school providing their own courts. The City allows the USTA to block
book courts. They frequently don't show up but you cannot reply on
that. Complaints are ignored.
From:Rajeev Kelkar
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue proposed changes
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 6:14:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,Thank you for all the work you do for Palo Alto and the community.
I am a Sunnyvale resident but very connected to Palo Alto, and grateful to Palo Alto.
Specifically, my daughter and I have been provided the opportunity to play music at ThirdThursday, Terun, the 414 California Music Series (we have played on Saturdays in April,
May, June), Italico, Vino Locale, and other venues in Palo Alto.
I heard that there was a proposal that would result in the removal of permanent outdoor diningspaces and/or amenities on California Avenue. As someone who has had the first-
hand pleasure and joy of sharing music with strangers and friends, seeing little childrendancing to songs, seeing friendships being developed in front of my eyes, as a result of there
being this safe pedestrian space, I write to say that I believe it would be a big loss to thecommunity if these outdoor dining spaces were lost, and vehicles replaced the pedestrian
traffic that is so much more conducive to building community. I often meet people at concerts,restaurants, parks, who I initially met on California Avenue. At a time when things are getting
ever more isolating, having places like California Avenue open to build community iscritically valuable (in my opinion).
I request that you please consider the loss the community will face should these outdoor
dining spaces and amenities be removed.
Thank you for your timeRajeev
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:Melanie Griswold
To:Council, City
Cc:Raybould, Claire; Yang, Albert
Subject:Agenda Item AA1
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 5:59:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
My name is Melanie Griswold and I am developing 4103 Old Trace Road. I support the adoption of
the ordinance to implement SB 684. It promotes modest development that the City can control
through its objective design policies and it also requires developers to build on-site affordable
housing, which is critical to creating complete communities.
I want to encourage City Council to consider two small changes to the recommended ordinance:
1. Allow for private street width to be the minimum necessary for fire code (versus what is set
forth in the municipal code). Currently, the code requires a 32' width, which is substantially
larger than what is needed for health and safety. Minimizing street width will allow for
additional landscape and greenery and prioritizes beauty over asphalt.
2. Allow for the overall square footage of the development to exceed 1,750 SF if the project
otherwise meets the FAR limitations set forth in the proposed ordinance. Limiting home size
to 1,750 SF is unnecessary on larger parcels like Old Trace where the resulting lots will be
close to typical lot sizes elsewhere in Palo Alto. The FAR limitation already acts as a
gatekeeper and a FAR limitation as the maximum allows developers to provide slightly larger
homes on larger parcels, which will in turn create more comfortable living situations for larger
families.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope this ordinance receives City Council support tonight.
Kind regards,
Melanie Griswold
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Barbara Dunn Cherry
To:Council, City
Subject:June 17 Agenda, Approve a Resolution to Allow Dining and retail Encroachments on Cal Ave
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 5:38:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,I’m a long time Palo Alto (College Terrace) resident and would like to heartily voice my
support for maintaining/allowing restaurants and retail establishments on Cal Ave to continueto have ample outdoor dining areas in front of their businesses along the street. I can’t tell you
how much I enjoy outdoor dining on Cal Ave and feel that it is an integral part of the joyfulpedestrian experience that’s been a part of Cal Ave since it became car-free 5 years ago. Do
not take away the outdoor restaurant/sidewalk cafes on Cal Ave!Thank you,
Barbara Dunn Cherry
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:LYNN SANCHEZ
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Fire at 3428 South Court
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 4:18:13 PM
Attachments:9-29pm.mov
9-30pm.mov
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Dear Council Members,
On the evening of May 23, there was a fire at 3428 South Court. The occupants were in the house
and smelled smoke. They left the house and called 911. We are directly across the street and heard
a loud explosive sound and saw our large front window light up orange. I suspect what we heard was
the garage door exploding outward. There were two Teslas parked in the driveway. The explosion
ignited one of them and damaged the backend of the other one.
I called 911 at 9:25 and they said a call had just come in and an engine was on its way.
9:29 shows fire personal already on the scene laying hose.
Powered by Mimecast
9:30 shows water being sprayed on the fire.
On May 30, I emailed the city clerk for the fire report. I did not want to wait any longer before
sending this email since there was another fire, a last week involving an Eichler, which was
completely destroyed.
Not having the report, I can’t say for sure, but I believe the fire truck from Fire station 4 was the first
on the scene and the fire was successfully contained to the garage. In my opinion, it’s because we
had a fire truck close by that was able to get water to the fire 5 minutes after I called, and probably
7-8 minutes after the first call.
If Fire truck 64 had been unavailable because of a medical emergency, there would have been no
local truck available to respond to this fire? I have heard about the 8 minute window response time
that has been repeated at meetings, but how long would it have taken a truck from Barron Park to
get water on this fire? Would they have been able to prevent it from spreading to the interior of the
house, or next door?
If this fire had happened on a weekday, during rush hour, and fire truck 64 was unavailable we
would have to depend on trucks coming from the other side of Alma. If you have driven these
routes, you know how the traffic backs up, especially with the new train schedule. That is why we
need, and I support a fully staffed Firehouse in South Palo Alto.
Thank you,
Lynn Sanchez
3427 South Court
From:Aram James
To:Ed Lauing; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; h.etzko@gmail.com; Emily Mibach; Diana Diamond;Doug Minkler; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Gerry Gras;GRP-City Council; Paul Joseph; Paul George @ PPJC; Raymond Goins; cromero@cityofepa.org; Bains, Paul;Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Steve Wagstaffe
Subject:Hundreds gathered in downtown San Francisco as the National Guard was deployed to LA.
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 3:57:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
San Francisco police arrest more anti-ICE
protesters than Los Angeles
Hundreds gathered in downtown San Francisco as the National Guard was deployed to LA.
Source: SFGATE
https://share.google/lWjk8vPUTLGgIWqJw
From:Mark Andrew Algee-Hewitt
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on Outdoor Activation Program for California Ave
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 1:16:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in regards to the proposed “outdoor activation program” that has been proposed as a
replacement for the parkade program on California Avenue. As a resident of the University Terrace
development, California Avenue’s proximity makes it the locus of my dining in Palo Alto. I have
strongly supported the efforts to make and keep the street pedestrian only (and, in fact, would
support increasing the pedestrian only area); however, I would like to urge the council to vote no on
the outdoor activation program. Although well intentioned in some ways, it would fundamentally alter
the character of the avenue in ways that would be detrimental to the outdoor dining experience which
is a central feature of the new California Avenue.
The café-type seating allowed for in the activation program, although suitable for a café-type
experience, does not meet the needs of the restaurants on California Avenue, most of which are full-
service dining experiences. These types of service require more substantial tables and chairs than
the typical European-style café. Allowing restaurants to construct fixed seating areas would
substantially improve the dining experience at most of these establishments and encourage greater
usage of the avenue by local residents. Similarly, although the relatively mild California weather
allows for year-round dining, there are large parts of the year where weather and temperature is a
large concern. Rain, wind, and cold conditions can make outdoor dining unpleasant – constructed
outdoor seating areas with heaters, solid walls and roofs make year-round dining a reasonable
proposition. The type of outdoor seating proposed by the outdoor activation plan could only make
sense for a streetscape in which the weather is already mitigated by the architecture. A European city
street (such as those in the photos from Madrid and Paris presented in the proposal), is narrow and
partially sheltered from the elements by the surrounding buildings. California Avenue is wide and,
thanks to local ordinances limiting the building height, is surrounded by low buildings that do nothing
to mitigate the weather. The faux small rural town streetscapes that Palo Alto seeks to maintain is
incompatible with outdoor experiences designed for urban environments. Instead, fixed seating
installations are much more appropriate for the environment: the city cannot have it both ways.
Fixed outdoor dining would further solidify California Avenue as a pedestrian-only thoroughfare. It
would improve the outdoor dining experience for local residents and increase revenue for the
restaurants that make up the bulk of the business space. To this end, I would like to strongly
encourage the city council to reject this proposition.
Yours,
Mark Algee-Hewitt
Associate Professor of Digital Humanities
2024-25 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences, Stanford University
Director of the Stanford Literary Lab (on leave 2024-25)
Department of English