The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-09-29 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: 9/29/2025 Document dates: 9/22/2025 - 9/29/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Cynthia Fan To:Council, City Subject:Request for Improvements to Turf Study Process Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 12:01:22 PM Attachments:2025 09 03 - feedback on palo alto turf study draft report 2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you consider steps to improve the turf study process. The draft report received substantial public feedback questioning its credibility and usefulness. For example, the consultant did not gather sufficient information on native-soil grass fields built and managed by other public agencies—fields which,according to case studies, have demonstrated significantly higher capacity than PaloAlto’s grass fields while still meeting safety and performance thresholds. A sample of this written feedback, including my own, is attached. Staff have indicated that the final report will be published just before the Parks & Recreation Commission’s meeting on October 28. This schedule leaves little timefor the public to review the revisions or for commissioners to consider publicfeedback before advising you. The process feels rushed. I urge you to weigh in on the process to ensure the turf study is credible and provides the information necessary for informed, long-term decisions. Thank you for your consideration,Cynthia Fan Powered by Mimecast Recommended Revisions to Palo Alto’s 8/13/25 Turf Study Report Draft Table of Contents: 1: Consult Dr. Battam — soil scientist with proven expertise in high-use native soil fields. 2: Correct the math errors that considerably mischaracterize El Camino’s field usage demand. 3: El Camino’s artificial turf could be replaced with natural grass without reducing current programming. 4: Circulate revised report for public feedback after updating usage hours and lifecycle costs since these underpin report’s main conclusion. 5: Document for the record that installing artificial turf when grass is feasible violates state’s waste management law. 6: Caution City that infill-free systems can triple the environmental hazards. 7: Recommend City develop policies for preventing and responding to heat illness. 8: Provide substantiated evidence supporting the hours used to calculate “cost per hour”. 9: Provide the usage hours and lifecycle costs for fields built and managed with best practices and do the same with the City’s practices. 10: Break down lifecycle costs and cite sources. 11: Provide substantiated evidence to support your claim of new recycling facilities. 12: Add plastic turf’s greenhouse gas emissions to environmental hazards. 13: Quantify reductions in emissions with modern grass maintenance technology 14: Don’t give synthetic turf industry credit for reducing PFAS, or working on it, without evidence they deserve it. 15: In Executive Summary, report “Cost to Own” a grass field or a synthetic field, 16: Don’t underfund grass maintenance. It makes grass look and perform bad. 17: Be honest — The carrying capacities of the City’s synthetic turfs have been exceeded for years. 18: Disclose that overused artificial turf increases concussion risk. 19: Encourage City to disclose to users when synthetic field surface testing reveals danger (i.e. >165 GMAX). 20: Recommend City start following best practices for testing artificial turf surface hardness 21: Recommend that City close fields when surface hardness exceeds 165 GMAX. 22: Neither synthetic nor natural fields support unlimited use. Specify limits for both. 23: Substantiate claim that a synthetic field has “3–4×” the carrying-capacity of grass. 24: Complete your task to assess equity by reporting on environmental health equity. 25: In Executive Summary, emphasize micro- and nano-plastic pollution is a major concern even for artificial fields without plastic infill. 26: Increase the fiber loss estimate by a factor of 6. 27: Recommend maintenance practices, field design, and stormwater capture devices to reduce the amount of plastic pollution. 28: Add in-text numbered references to source material. 29: Account for microplastic pollution from artificial turf carpet backing also. 30: City Council asked you to study organically-managed fields. Start here. 31: Explain or correct inconsistencies in Executive Summary. 32: Unbury the lead: Report’s data supports conclusion that El Camino’s synthetic turf is unnecessary. 33: Show math that 1 synthetic field should be replaced with 8 grass fields instead of 2 grass fields. 34: Describe the recommended “staff training.” 35: Recommend City transition 2 grass fields to organic management. 36: Add field sizes and date of last renovation to field descriptions. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 1 37: Add Cubberley field description so all 3 of the City’s artificial turf sites are detailed. 38: Explain how 4 of the City’s grass fields support over 2,000 hours of use per year when you say grass can only support 400-600 hours. 39: Educate readers that eliminating water from urban landscapes is detrimental. 40: Where’s the part of the report that covers artificial turf in playground settings? 41: Disclose conflicts of interest. 43. Disclose in Executive Summary that best practices for field maintenance aren’t followed by City. 44: Don’t assert that hours of use data from native soil grass fields that could have handled more use with best practices represents the hours of use grass can support. 45: Advise how the City should choose between PFAS-reduced products. 46: Don’t recommend City buy any more artificial turf systems without first confirming products exist that meet City’s expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability. 47: Define thresholds of City’s health and environmental criteria. 48: Don’t promote unnecessary plastics. It’s inconsistent with report’s conclusion. 49: Review relevant research published in the time since the county drafted its report. 50: Advise City not to recycle PFAS-laced artificial turf into new products. They’ll be contaminated with PFAS. 51: Itemize Appendix D’s 600 pages of unindexed resources. 52: Disclose how long Field Turf has been withholding test data from the City. 53: Correct typos. 54: Clarify references. 55: Fix broken and missing links. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 2 1: Consult Dr. Battam — soil scientist with proven expertise in high-use native soil fields. This report could be far more useful if the authors would arrange a phone call with Dr. Mick Battam and conduct an in-depth interview with him to evaluate the extent to which the methods he uses for field construction and management could dramatically increase the carrying capacity of a native soil grass athletic field in Palo Alto. I outlined the reasoning in my earlier comments: https://tinyurl.com/2025-08-21-fan-to-palo-alto To further pique your interest, check out this study he produced on “usage, wear and carrying capacity of sporting fields”, evaluating over 1,000 fields: https://tinyurl.com/2022-05-battam. On page 23, he summarizes characteristics of 12 grass fields that handle 40 to 60+ hours of use per week of use, handling high or extreme levels of wear yet maintaining acceptable turf cover and requiring minimal or no turf patching. On page 10, your report lists the consultant team responsible for the City’s turf study. While these firms and City staff are represented by well qualified, experienced professionals with highly relevant expertise in the topics of soil science, surface safety and field durability, their knowledge and first-hand experience likely does not completely overlap with Dr. Battam’s. Dr. Battam has studied the carrying capacity of hundreds of fields, informing the approach he advises for field construction and management. View his approach, not as a competing ideology to that of your team members and City Staff, but rather as a set of complementary data-backed best practices for enhancing field carrying capacity. He has demonstrated measurable outcomes — reduced compaction, faster recovery after rain, and healthier turf under heavy use — via his input and supervision of the field construction and management of the Middle Head Oval field, the case study I previously shared with you. If the City’s consultant team is confident that their knowledge and first-hand experience encompass and exceed Dr. Battam’s, then the report should identify which individual on your team has been directly responsible for a municipal native soil grass athletic field with a carrying capacity greater than Middle Head Oval. In that case, please also include a case study of that field to demonstrate how your team has successfully applied the science at that level — because knowing how to do it is not the same as proving it can be done. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 3 2: Correct the math errors that considerably mischaracterize El Camino’s field usage demand. The report’s El Camino Park artificial turf field hourly usage data adds up to less than half of the field usage total asserted in the report. In the report, please explain why. Please provide in the next revision of the report the evidence supporting the report’s claim (found on pages 13 and 84) that El Camino Park’s artificial turf field is used 4,300 hours per year. The field programming data included in the report itself indicates that in Calendar Year 2024, this field was used for far fewer than 4,300 hours. In fact the actual total represents fewer than 2,000 full-field equivalent hours (FFH)—sometimes referred to as “wear hours.” If actual FFH are under 2,000 per year—less than half the 4,300 hours stated in the report—the report’s Executive Summary substantially exaggerates the impact of replacing El Camino’s turf with natural grass. Let’s break it down… The Executive Summary (pages 13–14) states: “If [El Camino] field is converted to natural grass, the City should strongly consider adding six to seven additional native soil natural grass fields to its inventory to accommodate the approximately 4,300 annual hours of displaced use.” On the basis of this statement, the report recommends that the City “use synthetic turf at high-use, high-capacity fields such as El Camino Park to support current programming.” However, the field booking data you provided for El Camino’s artificial turf doesn’t add up to the figure you cite. When the itemized reservation data for El Camino Park’s artificial turf field in Calendar Year 2024 (found on pages 286–313 of the report) is tallied, it adds up to: • 1,111.5 hours of reservations for “Turf” (the full field), • 790 hours of reservations for “Turf North” (the field’s north half), and • 851.75 hours of reservations for “Turf South” (the field’s south half). Summing these three figures totals 2,753.25 hours of programmed use per year, which is already well below the report’s 4,300 cited. Making the discrepancy even larger, the total is actually significantly further below the 4,300 once the methodological error in summing the reservations is corrected. The methodological error is that sum treats each half-field reservation (i.e. each “Turf North” and “Turf South” reservation) as if it were a full-field reservation. In professional practice, field use is measured in Full-Field Equivalent Hours (FFH), which adjusts for the fraction of the field actually reserved. For example, the Wellington Region Sports Field Strategy (2013 https://tinyurl.com/full-field-equivalent-hours) states: “2 hours demand on a junior field that is the size of a half-full field is expressed as 1 hour demand on a full-size equivalent field.” By this accepted method, the 2024 programmed use of El Camino’s artificial turf field is 1,932.375 FFH (i.e. 1,111.5 + (790 + 851.75)/2). Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 4 In other words, El Camino Park’s artificial turf field is used fewer than 2,000 FFH per year—not 4,300. This discrepancy reflects not only a misstatement of fact in the report, but also a methodological flaw in the report’s analysis, and it warrants significant revisions to the report’s Executive Summary and recommendations. Even if the carrying capacity of a natural grass field were only 500 FFH, the report’s conclusion that 6–7 natural grass fields would be required to replace a single artificial turf field that is, in actuality, being used less than 2,000 FFH per year is a dramatic exaggeration. Since adequate usage hours are really the only valid reason for the City to even consider tolerating the environmental sacrifices that come with artificial turf, it’s critical that the report assess the field’s true usage hour needs and the potential to offer significantly more hours (potentially 2000+) on native soil grass fields (by building and managing the field via the modern methods I suggested the City explore in the comments I submitted earlier https://tinyurl.com/2025-08-21-fan-to-palo-alto). Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 5 3: El Camino’s artificial turf could be replaced with natural grass without reducing current programming. In my 8/21/25 feedback (https://tinyurl.com/2025-08-21-fan-to-palo-alto), I shared information supporting the potential for a grass field to sustain 2,000+ hours per year with Dr. Mick Battam’s methods for natural grass field construction and field management. In the comment preceding this, I explained why the data in your report supports the conclusion that El Camino Park’s artificial turf is used fewer than 2,000 hours per year. That means El Camino’s artificial turf could be replaced with natural grass without reducing current programming. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 6 4: Circulate revised report for public feedback after updating usage hours and lifecycle costs since these underpin report’s main conclusion. Because the data and details regarding field usage and lifecycle costs are deeply consequential to the turf study’s main conclusion, report revisions related to this information warrant additional public scrutiny. I urge the City to share for public comment a revised report draft for additional public comment before releasing a final report, because it’d be more productive to sort out these details well in advance of a City Council presentation. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 7 5: Document for the record that installing artificial turf when grass is feasible violates state’s waste management law. Sarah Robustelli found reason to dismiss this concern when I shared it earlier but indicated the City would be open to reviewing new information if I had any. So I have done some more research and strengthened my argument below. The City should now revisit this. If the City disagrees with my conclusions, I respectfully request a fresh explanation. The turf study report should inform the reader that it is illegal for the City to install an artificial turf field when grass is feasible because artificial turf, being a disposable product, generates waste. It’s a violation of California’s waste management law to generate waste when it’s feasible to avoid doing so. Here are the supporting facts: ● In order for the City to comply with California’s solid waste management statute, Public Resources Code (PRC) §40051 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=30.&chapter=1.&part=1 .&lawCode=PRC&article=2.), the City must, when feasible, opt for source reduction over recycling, composting, transformation, and landfilling. ○ Specifically the code mandates, in §40051(b), that the City “shall… maximize the use of all feasible source reduction… options” and mandates, in §40051 (a), that the City “shall… promote… source reduction”, prioritizing it over recycling, composting, pyrolysis, or landfilling. ○ In this statute, “promote” does not mean “advertise” or merely encourage; paired with “shall” and with the phrase “in order of priority”, it means the City is required to choose source reduction first whenever feasible. ○ The use of “shall” makes clear that source reduction is a statutory mandate, not merely a recommendation. ● Installing a new or replacement artificial turf field creates a permanent obligation: every 8–12 years, the City must landfill or attempt to recycle 20 to 40 tons of plastic carpet (https://tinyurl.com/40-tons-of-virgin-plastic). By contrast, installing natural turf prevents this recurring waste stream altogether. In solid waste law, this prevention is called source reduction—and, as stated above, California law (PRC §40051) mandates that jurisdictions maximize source reduction whenever feasible. Therefore this mandate applies even if the City could make all of the following claims, since none erase the fact that installing artificial turf creates 20-40 tons of additional plastic waste on a fixed cycle — and choosing natural turf avoids generating all that waste in the first place: ○ The used infill removed from an artificial field will be recycled or composted. ○ The new plastic carpets contain recycled content. ○ The new infill contains recycled content. ○ The project complies with CALGreen §5.408 by diverting 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. ○ The project does not interfere with the City’s compliance with AB 939 waste diversion mandates. ○ There is sufficient landfill capacity available. ● Grass fields need not generate any alternative waste streams of greater magnitude. ○ For example, it is unnecessary to add grass clippings to the waste stream. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 8 ○ For natural turf athletic fields, the standard and recommended practice is to leave grass clippings in place (“grasscycling”). ○ This practice is not only common, but is actively encouraged by the state (CalRecycle, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/507?opt=dln) and by professional guidelines (Sports Field Management Association’s best practice guidelines https://www.sportsfieldmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FINAL-BMP-SFMA- reduced.pdf), in part because it returns valuable nutrients to the soil and reduces fertilizer requirements. ○ In the context of waste management, the state explicitly classifies the practice of leaving grass clippings in place as source reduction. (https://calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/paris/codes/) ● A natural turf field could support 2,000+ hours of use per year. (https://tinyurl.com/2025-08-21-fan-to-palo-alto) El Camino Park’s existing plastic turf field is not used more than 2,000 hours per year. (I explained in another section of this document that you added wrong.) Therefore it is feasible for the City to meet the community’s usage needs with a natural turf field at El Camino Park. ● Because it is feasible for the City to meet the community’s usage needs with a natural turf field at El Camino Park, the City would be violating California’s solid waste management law if it replaces El Camino Park’s artificial turf with a new artificial turf rather than converting it to natural turf. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 9 6: Caution City that infill-free systems can triple the environmental hazards. In the conclusion of the “Health Hazards” chapter of the report, page 111, the report recommends that “Where synthetic turf is used, preference should be given to… inﬁll-free or alternate inﬁll systems” Please explain why you would recommend infill-free artificial turf systems given that they potentially involve the production and installation of three times as much plastic as artificial turf systems with non-polymeric infill. Tripling the plastic being produced, used, and disposed of exacerbates the health and environmental hazards. In 2017, before infill-free systems were commonly available, the Synthetic Turf Council (the industry’s main trade group) estimated that the average turf field contained about 40,000 pounds (20 tons) of plastic carpet (https://tinyurl.com/2017-synthetic-turf-council). In contrast, a modern infill-free system can more than double that amount. For example, TenCate’s infill-free “Pivot” product, the model with 1.5” pile, has a listed total weight of 147.5 oz/yd² (https://tinyurl.com/2023-tencate-pivot-tech-report). On a standard 80,000-square-foot soccer field, that translates to 41 tons of plastic carpet. (Calculation: 80,000 sq ft × 1 yd²/9 sq ft × 147.5 oz/yd² ÷ 32,000 oz/ton) That’s double the amount of plastic. And here’s the evidence it could even be triple the amount of plastic… A representative of TenCate, the manufacturer of Pivot, an infill-free artificial turf product, stated “Pivot, depending on the version, contains between 90 and 120 ounces of PE yarns per square yard. A traditional infilled system typically uses 46 to 60 ounces of PE yarns per square yard. This is a x2 to x3 depending on the system.” Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 10 7: Recommend City develop policies for preventing and responding to heat illness. The tragic loss of NFL player Korey Stringer due to heat stroke highlights how dangerous heat can be for athletes (https://koreystringer.institute.uconn.edu/about-us). The risk of heat-related illness increases significantly when athletes are on artificial turf on warm, sunny days, as surface temperatures can exceed 200°F. These risks are growing as climate change brings hotter, longer, and more frequent heat waves. Heat risk is not limited to athletes. Earlier this summer, “Uncle Mitch,” an umpire for a youth softball tournament, died of heat stroke on artificial turf with air temperatures in the 90s and turf exceeding 180°F (https://people.com/umpire-dies-during-youth-softball-tournament-amid-heatwave-11762098). It is therefore critical that the City address heat illness risks exacerbated by artificial turf. As part of the Health Hazards chapter, please recommend the City: 1. Analyze Current Policies – Review existing City policies and emergency action plans (EAPs) for preventing and responding to heat illness on artificial turf. 2. Develop Policies if Absent – If these policies do not exist, the City should establish heat illness prevention and response policies and procedures consistent with best practices (https://koreystringer.institute.uconn.edu/hsssp-california/) and templates (https://koreystringer.institute.uconn.edu/resources/). The policies should cover all activities on City artificial turf, including athletic practices, games, summer camps, and events, regardless of management. Recommended Policy and Procedure Components: ● Environmental Monitoring ○ Clear designation of responsibility for monitoring environmental conditions using WBGT devices, beginning 15 minutes before activity (to allow for device acclimitization) and every 30 minutes thereafter while air temperatures exceed thresholds. ○ Position WBGT devices in direct sunlight on the artificial turf where the activity occurs. WBGT measurements should be taken on the actual turf surface rather than relying solely on National Weather Service data, which can underestimate local heat stress, particularly on synthetic surfaces (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5737042/). ○ Establish region-specific activity guidelines and at least four levels of activity modification (e.g., adjusting practice times and work:rest ratios). ● Hydration and Rest ○ Provide shaded rest areas and ensure unrestricted access to fluids. ● Decision-Making and Logging ○ Clear designation of responsibility for modifying or canceling activities based on WBGT readings. ○ Maintain logs documenting monitoring location, time, WBGT readings, WBGT flag levels, activity modifications. ● Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) ○ Detailed procedures for responding to heat illness. ○ Post venue-specific EAPs physically at each field and online (https://www.nata.org/sites/default/files/emergency_action_plan_development.pdf). Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 11 ○ Identify locations of emergency equipment, including a cold-water immersion tub that will be easily and quickly accessible for rapid treatment. ○ Rehearse responses regularly and track participation. (https://www.cifstate.org/sports-medicine/emergency_action_plan/EAP_1-pager.pdf) ● Training ○ Require annual training for all stakeholders, including paid and volunteer coaches, field renters, and athletes, covering: ■ WBGT device setup and calibration ■ Hydration and other heat illness prevention strategies ■ Recognition and management of heat illnesses (heat cramps, heat syncope, heat exhaustion, exertional heat stroke) ■ Use of rectal thermometry to obtain core body temperature ■ Management of heat illness including use of cold-water immersion tub for aggressive, whole-body, cold-water immersion before transport to the hospital. ○ Maintain logs of participants, training dates, and signed acknowledgments from each of the participants, (a) acknowledging exertional heat stroke is one of the top 3 causes of sport-related death, (b) acknowledging his/her role in preventing and responding to exertional heat stroke, even when qualified healthcare professionals are present, and (c) acknowledging s/he has been given the opportunity to get all questions answered. The above align with best practices (and newly enacted California laws for schools participating in interscholastic athletics.) As the NFHS notes, a policy is only as effective as the procedures in place to carry it out. “To make a policy but then not have the established way of doing the act has no merit.” (https://www.nfhs.org/articles/wet-bulb-globe-temperature-wbgt-why-should-your-school-be-using-it/). By implementing these policies and procedures, the City can protect the health and safety of all participants, including Palo Alto’s kids, kids traveling to Palo Alto for tournaments, adult volunteers like “Uncle Mitch,” and other community members using artificial turf. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 12 8: Provide substantiated evidence supporting the hours used to calculate “cost per hour”. The literal and figurative bottom line of page 99’s lifecycle cost table is “average cost per hour of use.” These figures underpin the report’s conclusion. Therefore it’s critical to be transparent about how you calculated them. Include, in that lifecycle cost table, a row to show, for each field construction type, the “hours of use” you are using as your divisor in calculating “average cost per hour of use”. Be explicit that the hours of use in the table represent hours of actual anticipated use as opposed to hours of field availability. “It is incumbent on decision makers to base sports strategies and expenditure of public funds on sound science as opposed to marketing material and unsubstantiated rules of thumb.” -Dr. Mick Battam (https://sustainablesportsnews.ausleisure.com.au/news/new-study-claims-flaws-in-processes-used-to-just ify-artificial-turf-sports-fields/) In order to reassure readers that the hours of use aren’t “unsubstantiated rules of thumb”, add a footnote explaining, for each field construction figure, how you selected that figure from the many different “hours of use” figures found in this turf study report. Also provide a reference to the substantiated evidence supporting that figure. As shown below, the report identifies a lot of different “hours of use” figures for artificial turf. Don’t make the reader guess which one you are using or why you picked it. ● over 2,000 per year (pages 79, 81, 155) ● 2,500-3,000+ per year (page 139) ● 2,844 per year (page 84) ● up to 3,000 per year (page 158) ● 3,039 per year (page 84) ● 4,300 per year (pages 13, 84) ● 4,500-5,000 per year (page 161) ● 4,532 per year (page 84) ● 5,000 per year (page 137) As shown below, the report identifies a lot of different “hours of use” figures for natural grass. Don’t make the reader guess which one you are using or why you picked it. ● 8-12 per week (page 149) ● 400-600 per year (pages 63, 79) ● 500 per year (page 81) ● 600-800 per year (page 144) ● 900 per year (page 81) ● 800-1,000 per year (page 155) ● 800-1,200 per year (pages 64, 79) ● 1,000 or more per year (page 53) ● 1,000-1,200 per year (page 66) ● 2,055 per year (page 84) ● 2,221 per year (page 84) ● 3,006 per year (page 84) ● 3,061 per year (page 84) Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 13 9: Provide the usage hours and lifecycle costs for fields built and managed with best practices and do the same with the City’s practices. As I’ll cover elsewhere in this feedback document, the City has not followed best practices for field management. The Executive Summary, on page 14, acknowledges that by employing best practices, the City’s grass fields may be able to support more hours of use: “There is potential to increase the performance of the natural grass ﬁelds by implementing a more robust maintenance program tailored to each ﬁeld’s scheduling demands. This would also include engaging agronomy experts familiar with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and incorporating performance testing to support maintenance decisions and better ensure long-term ﬁeld quality.” Quantify this potential increased performance. It is unclear, for the lifecycle cost analysis table, on page 99, whether you are showing readers the cost per hour for fields built and managed according to best practices or whether you are showing readers the cost per hour for fields built and managed according to the City’s current practices. The report should clearly provide, in that lifecycle cost table, the data for both. By presenting this data as part of this lifecycle cost table, Council can make better informed decisions about how to prioritize its investments in: ● best practice native soil grass fields ● current practice native soil grass fields ● best practice synthetic fields ● current practice synthetic fields The motivation to compare all of these in the lifecycle cost table is as follows: If, for example, the City followed best practices for native soil grass field construction and management, it should be able to get more use out of its native soil grass fields than it does with its current practices. While lifecycle costs may increase (perhaps only marginally as Peak Water Consulting illustrated in their analysis: https://tinyurl.com/field-lifecycle-costs), the hours of use may increase significantly, which as a bonus may reduce cost per hour of use significantly. Until these figures are quantified and substantiated, Council should not discount the possibility that a native soil grass field built and managed according to best practices could support hours of use much closer to the number of hours the City uses its synthetic turf and could have a cost per hour of use comparable to or better than synthetic turf’s. As Dr. Mick Battam reminds us, “It is incumbent on decision makers to base sports strategies and expenditure of public funds on sound science as opposed to marketing material and unsubstantiated rules of thumb.” (https://sustainablesportsnews.ausleisure.com.au/news/new-study-claims-flaws-in-processes-used-to-just ify-artificial-turf-sports-fields/) The graph below provides further justification for quantifying and adding to the lifecycle cost table the data I’m requesting. It’s a graph of cost per unit of carrying capacity from a 2022 guide for best practice sports Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 14 fields (page 149 of https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2022-nsw-south). It shows that native soil grass fields built and managed according to best practices have a cost per unit of carrying capacity that is significantly better than synthetic turf’s. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 15 10: Break down lifecycle costs and cite sources. The Executive Summary’s “average cost per hour of use” for each field type underpins the report’s conclusions. These costs are based on lifecycle costs. Therefore, it is critical to provide enough supporting detail to give readers full transparency about how the lifecycle costs were determined. The lifecycle cost table on page 99 is a fine framework but needs to be fleshed out with more detail. Please break down the maintenance and renovation costs to show what is included. Then, for each of the line items in the maintenance costs and each of the line items in the renovation costs, provide the source data from which the figure is derived, either in the appendix or via a link. For example, link to the documents that support spending only $1,966,811 to construct an 80,000 square foot synthetic turf field with sitework, a shockpad, and organic infill in 2025. In addition, please break down the maintenance costs into labor hours and local labor rates like this cost study by the Sports Field Management Association does: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57fe8750d482e926d718f65a/t/594089e0ebbd1ac319473903/1497 401825905/Benefits+of+Natural+Grass+2015+updated+FINAL.pdf. This will make it easier to compare this cost study with cost studies done in other locales and in other years. It will also make this table reusable by City staff and City Council when this report is referenced years from now when labor rates may be higher. To keep an artificial turf field safe for users, to comply with the requirements of the warranty, and to protect the City’s significant financial investment in this asset, there’s a lot more artificial turf maintenance necessary than most people realize. Helpful references for the steps required include the Field Turf Maintenance Manual (https://fieldturf.com/workspace/uploads/files/brochure-maintenance-guidelines-fieldturf-may2025.pdf) and AstroTurf Maintenance Manual https://cms.astroturf.com/app/uploads/2022/05/AT-Operations-Manual-DEC2020.pdf. In the lifecycle cost table on page 99, please ensure the cost of each of the artificial turf maintenance tasks below are itemized: ● specify the maintenance steps and the frequency with which each is performed, along with the cost per event, including but not limited to: ○ measuring infill depth (As explained in the AstroTurf manual, “Infill moves with play and weather, getting kicked out from high use areas to less frequently used areas. Because most AstroTurf fields utilize infill particles to provide shock absorption during play, it is critical for players’ safety to maintain a level, adequately filled turf matrix that is uniform in depth throughout the field. A uniform infill layer will also directly impact the lifespan of the field. (Fields that have uneven infill levels experience higher UV exposure in high wear areas, which leads to premature wear and degradation). Special attention must be paid to high use areas such as: Goal mouths, Teams’ areas, Corner kick areas, Extra point areas, Area between the hashes on a football field, 8 meter fan in women’s lacrosse. You should periodically inspect these areas for fill displacement/thickness and make suitable corrections” ○ inspecting line markings, seams, and inlays ○ performing seam and inlay repairs ○ leaf blowing ○ weeding Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 16 ○ sweeping up loose plastic grass fibers and litter from the field ○ sweeping up loose plastic grass fibers and infill that has migrated outside the field perimeter ○ cleaning up dog, bird, and goose droppings, since they won’t decompose on the plastic ○ emptying drain filters ○ raking to unmat the pile and loosen the infill ○ brushing in multiple directions to level the field surface by redistributing displaced infill ○ top dressing with infill, especially in higher traffic areas ○ aerating the infill to decompact it ○ magnet sweeping to remove metal debris ○ temperature readings ○ spraying of anti static conditioner ○ application of disinfectant ○ logging maintenance for liability and warranty purposes (examples: From TenCate warranty: “This warranty does not apply if the Purchaser fails to clearly and legibly log all use, maintenance, repairs, and/or other upkeep performed on the field and fails to produce the log for inspection by TenCate upon request”; From TenCate manual: “Ensure records of maintenance are maintained throughout the warranty period as claims will be evaluated using these records. Failure to maintain the field and records of operation WILL VOID WARRANTY COVERAGE.” From Field Turf warranty: “This Warranty is expressly conditioned upon the Customer completing and submitting the FieldTurf Maintenance Log provided in FieldTurf’s Maintenance Guidelines.”) ○ field striping and painting ○ drainage cleaning (The TenCate manual explains “All synthetic fields require some form of drainage system. It is essential that the drainage systems are maintained. A system that contains drain pipes running underground may collect residue that will require flushing. If access to these pipe ends is available, TenCate recommends that a pressure washer be used to clear residual dirt and refuse. Some fields feature a surface drain running around the circumference of the field. This type of design may collect residue. These drains should be cleaned by hand or by the use of a pressure washer.”) ● regular replacement of areas of the field that are subjected to, as the Field Turf warranty states, “repetitive training or high-intensity drills” including “soccer penalty mark/spot areas, goal areas, sideline areas”. The TenCate warranty states that “High wear areas such as soccer goal areas and penalty kick locations are warranted for two years”. ● specify the approximate cost and frequency of organic infill replenishments necessary to compensate for its breakdown and its migration off the field. And the cost to replace it during the “full replacement”. (Page 53 states “Fields also require full replacement (synthetic turf & inﬁll) every 8–10 years.”) Some Field Turf maintenance packages replenish cork infill 3 times per year. ● Specify what years carpet replacements are anticipated and how much they are expected to cost. ● Specify what years shockpad replacements are anticipated and how much they are expected to cost. ● Specify the typical cost of subgrade work that according to page 67 of the report may be needed around year 20. (levelling? drainage?) ● Specify fees for carpet removal, recycling and/or disposal. ● Specify fees for infill removal, recycling and/or disposal. ● Specify fees for shockpad removal, recycling and/or disposal. ● Specify cost of installing irrigation for cooling and cleaning the plastic field (mentioned on page 73 of the report). ● Specify cost of irrigated water to clean the plastic field. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 17 ● Specify cost of irrigated water to cool the plastic field. (10.13140/RG.2.2.20797.10721) ● Specify cost of maintenance equipment. ● Specify how often GMAX is tested (SFMA’s guide says it should be at least twice per year for a heavily used field), and how much that costs. (Is it done by staff or by a contracted service provider?) ● It seems a number of studies conclude that the cost of artificial turf maintenance is greater than what you’ve estimated. Please review the studies here to identify what might be missing from your cost breakdown. https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/cost-grass-vs-synthetic-turf The $1.4M cost estimate provided in the 20 year lifecycle cost table only accounts for one renovation. I presume the $1.4M comes from page 29 which states the capital renovations of Cubberley’s artificial turf field are estimated to be $1.4M. That means $1.4M is the cost of a single renovation of a single artificial turf. Over 20 years, with the amount of wear caused by the City’s heavy usage, best practice dictates the synthetic turf would require 2 renovations. Staff shared the City’s basic maintenance practices for synthetic turf on page 725. ● “Trash pick-up daily ● Groomed every 6 weeks depending on use with tow behind broom attachment. ● Dethatched once-twice per year, also depending on use. ● Repairs are done on a “as-needed” basis ● Leaf debris cleaned weekly. Less frequent during spring/summer months. More frequent during fall/winter. ● As the synthetic turf ages, the less grooming is performed. We have noticed continued grooming when ﬁbers are breaking up causes the synthetic to decline at a higher rate.” That does not represent adequate maintenance for retaining the warranty. Maybe that’s why the annual artificial turf maintenance costs in your lifecycle cost table on page 99 look low. The $145,784 in the table, when divided across 20 years, equates to $7,289 of artificial turf maintenance per year. As one example of another local estimate… In 2023, in a presentation to a local high school board, a landscape architect that installs artificial turf at many bay area high schools estimated annual maintenance for synthetic turf at $15,906 / yr, breaking that down into $9,000 for annual synthetic turf repair, $3,306 /yr for “watering cost (use 1,200 units/ac/yr @$4.22/unit)”, $3,600 for “debris / trash pick-up (labor cost estimate).” According to page 725 of the report, Palo Alto only grooms its synthetic turf once every 6 weeks and even less frequently when the field gets old because the grooming itself causes the synthetic turf to “decline at a higher rate.” According to your report, the City’s artificial turfs are heavily used. Heavily used artificial turfs need to be groomed much more frequently than once every 6 weeks in order to reduce microplastic pollution. In the cost analysis on pg 99, you therefore need to account for this in your maintenance costs for artificial turf. The lifecycle cost analysis for annual artificial maintenance should include grooming at the appropriate rate. Six week intervals leave way too much time for the loose plastic grass fibers and microplastic and nanoplastic sized pieces to be blown far from the field by air currents and get rinsed down stormdrains. This isn’t okay. Part of the grooming is sweeping up as much of that plastic pollution as possible before it irretrievably escapes into the environment. It’s a lot of plastic! At the August 26, 2025 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, during public comment, a neighbor said the groundskeepers collected “10 enormous bundles of green plastic strands… tufts of plastic ‘grass.’” And just imagine how much they didn’t collect because it had already escaped. Listen to her full comment here: https://www.youtube.com/live/fmhmSHZPwFQ?si=u3pLW0B5sMM35TOq&t=15013 Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 18 AstroTurf’s maintenance manual classifies annual field usage of 1500-2000 hours as “heavy use” and annual usage over 2,000 hours as “extreme use”. Since the City exceeds 2,000 hours of use per year, AstroTurf recommends sweeping weekly to collect all the plastic grass fibers shedding under that usage intensity and recommends increasing the frequency of grooming to twice a month. So the City of Palo Alto is not following best practices by grooming only “once every 6 weeks” which is the frequency stated by City staff in the report on page 725. Because, on page 725 of the report, City staff admit that grooming the artificial turf at the proper frequency would cause the artificial turf to decline at a higher rate, it is clear that the City is not doing its artificial turf renovations at the frequency with which they are needed in order to minimize environmental harm. Plan to do better. Mayfield’s artificial turf was installed in 2016 and is being replaced now in 2025. That’s 9 years and that was clearly too long. The lifecycle cost calculations (page 99) should include the cost of replacing the artificial turf carpets at a frequency that is no longer than the warranty period. The warranty for the Mayfield complex being renovated right now is only 8 years, so over 20 years, it needs to be replaced at least twice. Actually, the lifecycle cost calculations (page 99) should include the cost of doing renovation even more frequently than that if the city is using the artificial turf more than the number of hours it is meant to support. Artificial turf carpets are only warrantied for the defined period under “normal” wear. Field Turf warranty documents indicate its artificial turf is designed to be used no more than 3,000 hours per year. And page 158 of your report acknowledges El Camino’s artificial turf “is designed to accommodate up to 3,000 hours of annual programmed use.” But then on page 161, it says the field gets “between 4,500 and 5,000 hours of annual programmed use” and on page 137, it says “this field is conﬁgured for up to 5,000 annual hours of programmed use.” Please explain in the report the financial Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 19 consequences of using a field 5,000 hours a year when it’s designed to be used only 60% of that. Using the field more than it’s intended to be used causes the plastic grass blades to deteriorate quicker, meaning the carpet needs to be replaced sooner. It will cause the infill, shockpad, and the leveled subgrade to deteriorate quicker as well. All of these shortened product lifespans need to be factored into the lifecycle cost analysis on page 99. In other words, when you specify what years each of these components are replaced, they should be more frequently than the lifespan warrantied by the manufacturer. As your report explains on page 79-80, by permitting use above the surface limits, capital and operating costs may increase. Compliance with the warranty is important from a lifecycle cost perspective because violating it jeopardizes the City’s significant financial investments in the artificial turf system. A Field Turf warranty does not cover artificial turf systems used for more than 3,000 hours per year or for “repetitive training or high-intensity drills on the same part of the field, especially in the areas including… soccer penalty mark/spot areas, goal areas, sideline areas…. all of which require frequent maintenance in accordance with FieldTurf Maintenance Guidelines and which may require regular replacement.” AstroTurf also states that “Improper maintenance methods…, over-usage in excess of 3,000 hours per year, and/or neglect may void your warranty. Excessive use, especially if combined with insufficient and/or undocumented maintenance practices, may void the warranty.” Tencate artificial turf is also only warrantied for only “normal, ordinary use” which it defines as follows: “For purposes of this warranty, normal and ordinary use shall mean usage up to 3,000 hours per year of regular play.” 3,000 appears to be the common cap among these major artificial turf manufacturers. In the Executive Summary’s general recommendations, on page 14, the report states “Maintain synthetic turf in accordance with best practices, such as regular grooming and sweeping, to help minimize the release of microplastics into the surrounding environment.” It’s also important to maintain the artificial turf according to best practices in order to stay compliant with the warranty. Violating the warranty jeopardizes the City’s significant financial investments in the artificial turf system. Field Turf states that compliance with its Maintenance Manual is a condition of the warranty. This is not unique to Field Turf. The TenCate warranty states “This warranty does not apply… to the extent that any defect or damage is caused by… Failure to properly maintain, protect or repair the turf in accordance with the provided TenCate Maintenance Manual.” On page 53, you write “Routine grooming, inﬁll management, and surface monitoring (e.g. GMAX testing) are required to preserve safety and performance. Fields also require full replacement (synthetic turf & inﬁll) every 8–10 years, which adds capital and disposal costs.” Show that all of these costs are accounted for in your lifecycle cost analysis. Page 114 of your report states “While regular grooming and sweeping should capture a large portion of the ﬁbers, best practices for ﬁeld design and maintenance would need to be compiled and implemented to ensure any level of consistency.” What are the costs to add these best practices? Please document those “best practices for design and maintenance” in the report to ensure they are all included in the lifecycle cost analysis. The “Pure Care 8” maintenance package offered by Field Turf is, according to the Sourcewell discounted Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 20 pricing, $164,296.88 and that only covers 3 maintenance visits per year, which means in order to comply with the maintenance manual, as required by the warranty, there are additional maintenance steps that would still need to be performed. Are you accounting for both sets of maintenance tasks in your cost estimate? The staff report for item 9 of the 6/9/25 City Council meeting says, in regards to the 2025 Mayfield turf installation: “The installation comes with an eight-year warranty and the contract includes a maintenance contract for the duration of the warranty. This specialized service includes one maintenance visit per year for the first three years, and two maintenance visits per year (semi-annually) for the remaining five years. In-house staff perform maintenance duties five days a week by removing surface debris.” Identify the cost of the Field Turf maintenance contract you selected, identify which of the above maintenance steps it includes, and confirm it is categorized in your table under maintenance costs rather than construction costs even though you prepay for it at the time of construction. Please confirm that the cost analysis accounts for all the costs necessary to ensure that at the end of the 20-year time period in the analysis, both the grass field and the synthetic field are in similar condition to the condition they were in after construction. For example, at the end of the 20 years, the grass fields should be safe to play on and the synthetic field should have fresh carpet and a fresh shockpad. It wouldn’t be a fair cost comparison if, for example, in year 21, the grass was in safe condition but the synthetic turf required another $1.4 million in renovations for another carpet replacement, regrading of field subgrade, shockpad replacement, etc. If the grass field was built and managed according to best practices, why would it need the $240K of renovations specified in the lifecycle cost table on page 99? Field longevity was addressed during a webinar hosted in May of 2024 by an elected official in D.C. in which seven national experts were asked to discuss whether properly designed, constructed, and maintained natural grass playing fields are a viable, sustainable, and affordable alternative to artificial turf. Experts Jerad Minnick and Sun Roesselain explained a grass field can last more than 20 years without renovation. If you want to hear the details straight from the sources, a recording of the webinar is available online. (https://tinyurl.com/grassfieldexperts) In follow-up to the webinar, the elected official provided his own synopsis (https://tinyurl.com/grassfieldexpertssynopsis) of the discussion. There you will find the list of national experts, along with their bios. Sun was the recent president of the international Sports Field Management Association. Jerad consults for Major League Soccer. They both are field operators for nonprofits that provide high use sports fields for communities. So these are very credible sources to lean on. At the school district she works for, Sun says she’s never resodded an entire field in 24 years. She did one partial re-sod and it was under $25K. The table has a row called “cost of ownership (20 years)”. Please add a row to the table and call it “cost of ownership (50 years)”. Another municipal sports field manager we spoke with told us that the longer the timeline goes out, the more obvious it becomes that real grass is more cost effective than artificial turf, because periodic major renovations should not be necessary for a grass field built and managed according to best practices, whereas the recurring cost to replace worn out artificial turf never ends. In 2025, there are modern labor-saving technologies available for grass maintenance like smart irrigation controllers, water-management drones, robotic mowers, robotic line painters, etc. that are able Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 21 to significantly reduce grass field labor costs, water inputs, need for sod patching, etc. Consider consulting the experts at https://greensightag.com/sports-turf to learn about some options and to get direct feedback and data from grounds managers leveraging these technologies. Please add to the turf study report an analysis of each technology and whether it is likely to provide a net positive return on investment if used across the city’s portfolio of fields. Where applicable, evaluate the benefit of purchasing the technology versus hiring a service that uses the technology. If the data shows these technologies provide a net positive return on investment, leveraging them needs to be reflected in the grass side of the cost study. Surely the plastic side of the cost study reflects the most modern plastic field solutions. So a fair comparison would also consider the most modern grass field solutions if they can reduce lifecycle costs. With an escalating plastics crisis and over 100 countries demanding legally binding caps in plastics production as part of the United Nations’ Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, escalation factors beyond inflation ought to be accounted for in the artificial turf cost estimates. The local firm that developed cost estimates for plastic fields for the Sunnyvale high school district years ago was brought back after 12 years to do the field replacements. At that time, they informed the district that the project cost had ballooned to 36% more than originally estimated. When the school board inquired why, they were told that the factors included: “escalation factors for petroleum have had extreme impacts on production.” (Fremont Union High School District Q&A dialog between school board and staff in advance of the August 22, 2023 board meeting, page 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r707jxvtZkkI_ORyM7x96ms_vIxnN-aE/view?usp=drivesdk) p 29 - Explain why the Mayfield project increased from $2.7 million to 3.3 million. If a proportional increase does not need to be made to the artificial turf estimates in the table on page 99, explain why. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 22 11: Provide substantiated evidence to support your claim of new recycling facilities. On pg. 113, you state: “the sector is evolving with new recycling facilities coming online.” Clarify whether the “new recycling facilities” you are referring to mechanically recycle artificial turf carpets. If so, identify them and provide substantiated evidence that they are actually processing artificial turf carpets at scale. Manufacturer claims are insufficient given the industry’s track record. If by “new recycling facilities” you are referring to advanced recycling (pyrolysis), you are misleading your readers by calling this “recycling.” Many environmental and regulatory authorities consider pyrolysis an incineration-like process, not a legitimate recycling pathway. Few laymen would classify incineration as recycling. A more accurate and evidence-based statement than the one you wrote would be: “After more than a decade, the sector has evolved very little, with promised recycling facilities struggling to scale up or failing to come online at all. ● As a recent example, the long-promised Re-Match facility in Pennsylvania has failed to secure permits, faced regulatory enforcement, and left waste piling up. As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer (https://tinyurl.com/forever-fields) and Boston Globe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/18/science/artificial-turf-not-being-recycled/), artificial turf waste is piling up around the nation. Some of this plastic turf waste, as local NBC investigative reporters recently shared, has been illegally dumped in our own county (https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/disposal-school-artificial-turf-field-environmental-con cerns/3747744/). ● Please also review the 4-minute 2023 video “Artificial Turf ‘Recycling?’” (https://youtu.be/pzdi2cWWZdw) which directly addresses the industry’s current “advanced recycling” claims. ● Please review the 11-minute 2021 video “Artificial Turf ‘Recycling’: A Decade-Long Deception” (https://youtu.be/9Wndy6dLJGk?si=6c3BKFhhh8mATPSZ), which concludes: “Artificial turf companies have repeatedly misled the public about recycling this unsustainable product. Should we believe them now?” In light of the artificial turf recycling history, it is essential to avoid greenwashing and instead present your readers with clear, verifiable facts. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 23 12: Add plastic turf’s greenhouse gas emissions to environmental hazards. The City, as part of its Climate Action Plan (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/sustainability/policies-and-plans/2022-scap-goals-and-key -actions.pdf), has committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG emissions from plastic turf described below have not been accounted for in your “Environmental Footprint” section . In 2019, oceanographer and plastic degradation scientist Dr. Sarah-Jeanne Royer reported that the amount of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere in the form of ethylene, methane, and propylene by artificial turf carpet and shock pad represent a significant adverse environmental impact (https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/02/20/synthetic-turf-will-contribute-greenhouse-gas-problems/). The expert opinion of Dr. Royer, supported by recent research findings (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200574&type=printable), is that “the environmental health impacts posed by plastic carpets and polypropylene shock pads are likely significant and should be at the forefront of any decision regarding these materials.” Dr. Royer’s research has revealed that the breakdown of plastic represents a significant source of greenhouse gas pollution. The amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by artificial turf is especially significant due to the following: a) The type of plastic from which synthetic turf is typically made is polyethylene. b) GHGs are released during the manufacturing of synthetic turf. (Producing one ounce of polyethylene releases (https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-link-between-plastic-use-and-climate-change-nitty-gritty#:~:text=Car bon%20Calculations,of%20polyethylene%20(PET)%20produce) one ounce of carbon dioxide. c) Plastics emit GHGs when exposed to UV light and air, and polyethylene is the plastic found to release GHGs at the highest rate. This means that significant GHGs continue to be released while the synthetic turf and shockpads are in use and as they degrade. ● Methane and ethylene are among the significant GHGs emitted by polyethylene. Methane has been shown to be 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Ethylene is produced in even greater amounts. ● Land based plastics produce 2 times more methane and 76 times more ethylene than those found in our waterways and oceans. ● While methane and ethylene offgassing is triggered by solar radiation, the offgassing continues in the dark and likely over the lifetime of the plastic. ● The amount of offgassing is based on the surface area of the plastic. Synthetic turf represents enormous surface area because: ○ Synthetic turf occupies significant acreage when all of the City’s synthetic turf systems are accounted for. ○ Each individual blade of plastic grass represents additional surface area. ○ The surface area of the plastic further increases due to degradation from weather, foot traffic, ultraviolet radiation, and resulting fragmentation. As a result, the amount of GHGs emitted accelerates exponentially. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 24 13: Quantify reductions in emissions with modern grass maintenance technology Page 126 covers the carbon footprint of natural grass. Please include an analysis of how much carbon emissions can be reduced using zero emission equipment for grass maintenance. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 25 14: Don’t give synthetic turf industry credit for reducing PFAS, or working on it, without evidence they deserve it. In the Executive Summary, on page 12, you say: “the synthetic turf industry is responding by working to reduce PFAS use in their products” What evidence supports this generous statement besides manufacturer marketing claims? Are you giving the synthetic turf industry undue credit? In doing so, are you helping sway public opinion in the synthetic turf industry’s favor? Staff succeeded in doing so…. At the April 21, 2025 City Council meeting, Council member Pat Burt confirmed with staff that the new artificial turf at Mayfield will be PFAS-free. After the confirmation, he enthusiastically commented that because Mayfield’s old artificial turf had very serious public health and environmental impacts, getting PFAS-free turf there represents a “BIG advancement” and “VERY significant progress”. (https://www.youtube.com/live/p-FfYMte0Hg?si=MPZzd1m3mUrof7oj&t=14995) Is it appropriate for staff and the turf study report to imply that there has been progress? How do you know whether or not there has been progress? Here’s all that I think we know: Independent scientists found PFAS in artificial turf in 2019, and independent scientists continue to find PFAS in artificial turf today. Meanwhile, artificial turf companies have, to my knowledge, never acknowledged that their products contained significant PFAS in the first place, and they still insist the amounts are small. So how do we know they changed anything besides their marketing claims?? Until manufacturers release independent, before-and-after test results, there is no evidence that they’ve reduced PFAS in their products — and no reason to give them credit for doing so. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 26 15: In Executive Summary, report “Cost to Own” a grass field or a synthetic field, The Executive Summary discusses Cost Efficiency but doesn’t disclose the cost to own a synthetic field versus a grass field. It should. The cost to own a field should matter to City Council as much as Cost Efficiency. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 27 16: Don’t underfund grass maintenance. It makes grass look and perform bad. If the City can afford $3.5M for turf, it can afford $3.5M for grass. Why are we pretending grass has to be under-maintained? On page 99, you write “ﬁelds with constrained maintenance, as observed in Palo Alto, may not meet even minimum performance expectations” According to your own lifecycle cost table (p. 99), the City would invest about $3.5M to own a synthetic field over 20 years, but would invest only $1.8M over the same period if it opted for a grass field instead. If “constrained maintenance” leads to poor grass conditions and reduced playability, why constrain maintenance in the first place? If the City has $3.5M available for a synthetic field, then it has $3.5M. If a grass field costs only $1.8M, that still leaves $1.7M unspent. Why can’t those surplus funds be invested back into maintenance to ensure high-quality, playable grass?? And the real question: If the City invested the full $3.5M into grass over 20 years — the same as it budgets for synthetic turf — how much more use could that grass field actually support? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 28 17: Be honest — The carrying capacities of the City’s synthetic turfs have been exceeded for years. In the Executive Summary (p. 11), you state: “A portion of the natural grass ﬁelds frequently exceed their carrying capacity, maximum amount of use a ﬁeld can sustain before its condition declines to a level deemed unacceptable for safe or quality play, while the synthetic turf ﬁelds remain within their carrying capacity.” This is not a fair or accurate comparison. The City’s synthetic turf fields exceeded their carrying capacity years ago. For each of the City’s four artificial turf fields, please identify how long it has been since all ten test areas on the field met the standard of <165 GMAX. That was the last time the artificial turf system could be considered safe for play. Isn’t it true that it has been years since any of these fields met that benchmark? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 29 18: Disclose that overused artificial turf increases concussion risk. p153 “Use often exceeds the carrying capacity of natural grass ﬁelds, resulting in surface degradation, closures, and safety issues.” That doesn’t tell the full story. That should be rephrased as: ”Use often exceeds the carrying capacity of both the natural grass fields and the artificial turf fields, resulting in surface degradation and safety issues. While Palo Alto opts to close degraded, unsafe grass surfaces, Palo Alto leaves its degraded, unsafe artificial turf fields open.” Because the City is, as the report claims, using artificial turf between 3,000 (pg 158) - 5,000 (pg 137) hours per year, then ● Use often exceeds the carrying capacity of artificial turf ﬁelds. (The city’s artificial turf is not warrantied for over 3,000 hours of use per year.) ● This causes surface degradation. Example: “loss of pile height, turf fiber, and infill” (as described on page 726) ● This causes safety issues. Example: dangerously hard surfaces ● While the City does not opt to close the synthetic fields once GMAX exceeds 165, it has been argued by many professionals that this practice is dangerously inappropriate. On p154, “Grass ﬁelds in poor condition contribute to injury risk (uneven ground, weeds, holes), while synthetic turf poses concerns related to heat and, to a lesser degree, surface abrasiveness and microplastics.” This statement also doesn’t tell the full story about synthetic turf. Synthetic turf in poor condition, with a surface hardness exceeding 165 GMAX, contributes to increased injury risk, particularly concussion and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Add that please. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 30 19: Encourage City to disclose to users when synthetic field surface testing reveals danger (i.e. >165 GMAX). Please encourage the City to keep the most recent GMAX test data for its artificial turf systems posted on its website and proactively alert field users whenever GMAX exceeds 165. According to the 2024 test report on pages 713-714, there are multiple areas of the El Camino Park artificial turf that have a surface hardness that exceeds 165 GMAX. For how many years prior to 2024 has that been the case? Field users (or in the case of kids, their parents) deserve to be informed by the City when the artificial turf fields they play or practice on have areas with a surface hardness that exceeds 165 GMAX. Many professionals agree this is dangerously hard and increases the risk of concussion and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Many would recommend the City close artificial turf fields that have gotten that hard until the problem is remediated, but if the City’s going to keep allowing play, at the very least it should be informing users so they can decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of playing on such a degraded, unsafe surface. Because grass can’t thrive in compacted soil, the hard areas in a grass field are easy for athletes and parents to spot. They’re brown. However, with artificial turf, the hard areas are not easy to spot, because the entire field is uniformly green. In fact, athletes may mistakenly assume there aren’t hard areas because artificial turf can look, deceptively, like a thick, healthy stand of soft grass. A soccer player at Saratoga High School published a story in her school newspaper about her experience with this exact phenomenon. She smacked her head on the hard surface. It was her third concussion. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 31 20: Recommend City start following best practices for testing artificial turf surface hardness Recommend the City follow the field hardness guidance from the Sports Field Management Association (https://www.stma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Field-Hardness-Testing-STMAInstitute-logo.pdf): ● “Monitoring field hardness is key.” Not testing on “a regular basis… could put athletes at greater risk for concussions.” ● “According to ASTM Standards, a value greater than 200 Gmax qualifies for the expectation that life threatening head injuries may occur. The Synthetic Turf Council (STC) recommends Gmax does not exceed 164…” ● “Field hardness levels should be tested upon installation of the field, then continue once per year or more… testing once per year is not likely to hold up in a liability court case. To ensure field safety, sports turf managers at all facility levels are advised to test throughout the season.” Prescribe a minimum time the City should wait after major grooming or infill work before doing baseline compliance GMAX testing. This waiting period helps ensure that GMAX readings reflect typical playing conditions rather than temporary post-maintenance softness. Testing right after maintenance can mask genuine safety concerns, giving a misleading sense of compliance. Best practice protocols recommend letting the surface settle before measuring for compliance to ensure accurate, real-world reflection of field conditions. Recommend the City negotiate with Field Turf to delay the GMAX testing the amount of time after maintenance that you prescribe above. The City bought a maintenance package for the new Mayfield artificial turf system. I was concerned to see that the Field Turf Maintenance package described in the Sourcewell pricing guide defaults to testing "right after" a maintenance visit: https://files.sourcewell.org/public/Shared%20Documents/Solicitations/10505/00004321/Additional%20Doc uments/031622-FTU%20-%20Price%20information.pdf Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 32 21: Recommend that City close fields when surface hardness exceeds 165 GMAX. p82 says that if a field has unsafe surface hardness, the guidance is to restrict use until remediation. The bottom table on page 81 indicates a synthetic turf surface doesn’t qualify as hard enough to restrict use until its GMAX exceeds 200, but a grass field is hard enough to restrict use when it reaches 165. Please explain why this report is not recommending that fields be closed or remediated when readings exceed 165 GMAX, regardless of whether they are real grass or artificial grass. Explain why it makes sense to treat them differently. My concern is over surface hardness, also referred to as impact attenuation. Surface hardness develops over time. According to the Sports Field Management Association (SFMA), GMAX testing of fields should be occurring at least annually (https://www.sportsfieldmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Infographic-Nat-or-Syn-Institute-Lo go-FINAL-Heat.pdf), with more frequent testing on heavily-used fields. Since Palo Alto’s artificial turf fields are heavily used, they should therefore be tested at least twice per year. The current ASTM standard of 200 g-max is dangerously misleading. A surface hardness of 200 is not a “safe” limit—it is the threshold at which a head impact can cause a catastrophic or even fatal brain injury. At that point, the field is already far too dangerous for children or athletes to use. In contrast, independent and industry standards alike recommend 165 GMAX as the true upper limit for safe play. Both the Sports Field Management Association (SFMA) and The Synthetic Turf Council (STC) recognize 165 GMAX as the ceiling for safety — the upper limit for acceptable hardness. Anything higher puts players at risk of serious injury. If any points on the field exceed 165 GMAX, the field should be closed until the hardness is remediated. Following is the deeper rationale for 165 GMAX being the upper limit for the acceptable surface hardness of the city’s artificial turf systems and the rationale for discontinuing play on artificial turf systems that fail this safety standard until this safety hazard has been remedied. Repetitive sub-concussive head impacts can cause the brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and derail a child’s future. A single concussion can change the course of a child’s life. ● CTE is a degenerative brain disease that can cause problems with mental health, sleep, and cognition. Advanced CTE frequently causes dementia. ● Recent research has revealed that it is the cumulative force of head hits, even if those hits were not diagnosed as concussion, that is the biggest predictor of developing CTE later in life. ● After a concussion, children are 40% more likely to develop new mental health disorders, require psychiatric hospitalization, and engage in self-harm than children with non-concussive injuries. ● Individuals with a history of concussion are twice as likely to die by suicide. Did you know that one in five high school sports concussions are caused by surface impact? And did you know that concussion risk and severity are partly determined by field conditions? We all need to be very concerned about the heightened risk of concussion and CTE for youth participating in events on artificial turf systems that have become dangerously hard. Many individuals may be unaware that artificial turf systems can become dangerously hard over time, as it is not always apparent from looking at the field. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 33 Impact testing of artificial turf systems is a critical standard safety test. An artificial turf field is essentially a green plastic carpet rolled out over a parking lot of compacted gravel. The field is infilled, often with a mix of sand and ground-up used tires or woodchips or cork pellets, to provide some cushioning. As an artificial turf system degrades through age, ultraviolet rays, heat, weathering, and heavy foot traffic, the plastic carpet fibers detach or get shorter, reducing the carpet's ability to keep the infill contained. Plastic carpet fibers and infill material continually migrate off the field. The sand settles to the bottom of the infill mix and hardens. The tire rubber crumbs and some of the organic infills become tough and brittle. As a result of all these phenomena, the artificial turf system gradually and continually loses shock absorbency. Lack of proper maintenance can accelerate this loss in shock absorbency. As the hardness of an artificial turf surface increases, so do concussion and CTE risks. One turf industry veteran said colliding with hardened turf can be like hitting "frozen Earth or concrete." An artificial turf field designer said not testing for surface hardness is like playing "Russian roulette”. It is the city’s responsibility to ensure the athletic facilities they provide for users are safe and maintained in good repair. This responsibility should include routine testing to monitor degradation of an artificial turf system’s impact attenuation as it ages and discontinuation of play on artificial turf systems that have become dangerously hard. At the very least, the city should notify parents of youth athletes when test results indicate an artificial turf system on which their child plays has reached a level of hardness that constitutes an urgent safety threat. Parents need to be made aware so they have the option to make an informed choice about whether they want their children subjected to the risks that come with doing sport on an artificial turf system that has reached this level of degradation. A visual or casual safety assessment of the artificial turf system is inadequate. The aesthetics of artificial turf can deceptively fool users into expecting the surface to have the cushioning properties of a thick, healthy stand of natural grass atop soft, well-aerated soil. The uniformly green color of artificial turf can also deceptively fool users into expecting the cushioning across the field to be uniform, when in fact the artificial turf system can be much harder in areas from which infill has migrated away due to weather or use (for example goal mouths). GMAX testing is the standard method developed for testing and determining the shock attenuation of artificial turf athletic fields. The higher the GMAX of a playing surface, the harder and more dangerous it is. The testing requires measuring the impact of, at minimum, 10 specifically-identified points on the field. Using an average GMAX score for a field is not considered safe, because field users can hurt themselves on any section of the field that is too hard. Verifying that acceptable impact-attenuation (GMAX) scores are being met, at a bare minimum annually, is important for the safety of field users. Historical records are important when it comes to liability. Neglecting to routinely perform the tests on each artificial turf system, or keeping artificial turf systems open for play once they are found to have unacceptable GMAX scores, both represent serious accident/injury liabilities for the city. According to manufacturer Brock USA, "a good natural grass field (the benchmark for a quality athletic field) will produce a GMAX below 100 and often below 80." On the most extreme other end of the spectrum, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warns that GMAX scores over 200 qualify for the expectation that “Life-threatening head injuries may occur.” Indeed, allowing play on a field this hard would be extremely negligent of the city. The ASTM F1936 test specification for impact attenuation of turf playing systems states that if the average score for any given test point is higher than 200 GMAX then “the turf playing system should be brought into compliance and should not be used in the Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 34 interim.” However, ASTM F1936 goes on to make clear that this specification is NOT intended to keep a school district, league, architect, engineer, or other from establishing more stringent requirements. In the interest of youth athlete safety, more stringent requirements are recommended by sports field managers, manufacturers, and architects/engineers. Here are two recommendations to, based on the sources, take special note of: Source 1: Professional Association for Sports Field Managers (core mission: athlete safety) Sports Field Management Association (SFMA) considers a field unsafe for play above the threshold of 164 GMAX: From SFMA infographic. SFMA is a widely-respected non-profit association for professionals worldwide that manage sports fields. “Core to SFMA’s mission is the safety of athletes of all ages and abilities, from pee wee to professional. SFMA practitioner members implement best practices in field maintenance to ensure safe playing surfaces and minimize the risk of injuries.” Sports field managers, certified by SFMA, can be found employed by school districts, municipalities, and private organizations across the country. Note that, because SFMA’s membership includes professionals that work with artificial turf as well as professionals that work with natural turf, the association very deliberately supports both. Source 2: Synthetic Turf Industry Advocacy Group The safety standard set by the Synthetic Turf Council (STC), the industry's own advocacy group, is that no section of a field yields a score above 165 GMAX for the life of the field. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 35 From the Synthetic Turf Council website. Source 3: Artificial Turf Manufacturer “Over time infill migrates, displaces, and compacts… that means that there is less cushion between the athlete and the stone base underneath the turf (particularly if you didn’t buy a pad…). As players fall on the field, they are at a higher risk of concussion.” - Astroturf “A well-maintained natural grass field is 90-100G’s. New turf fields are usually 100-125G’s, and the Synthetic Turf Council (STC) has a top line threshold of 165G’s. Anything above that level, needs to remediated or replaced. Don’t guess… get the test!” - AstroTurf Conclusion: In accordance with entities promoting safety, a reasonable upper limit for acceptable hardness of the city’s artificial turf systems is no more than 165 GMAX. Please recommend the City discontinue play on artificial turf systems that fail this safety standard until this safety hazard has been remedied. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 36 22: Neither synthetic nor natural fields support unlimited use. Specify limits for both. 1. p79 has a table designed to show the “maximum” amount of use a ﬁeld can sustain before its condition declines to an unacceptable level. For 3 different types of grass fields, it gives a maximum, but for synthetic turf it says “2,000+”. In other words, it gives no maximum. Please specify a maximum or explain why synthetic turf can sustain unlimited use. 2. p81 The upper table shows “use thresholds (annual max hours)”. For grass fields, it gives a max, but for synthetic turf it says “2,000+”. In other words, it gives no maximum. Please specify a maximum or explain why synthetic turf can sustain unlimited use. 3. page 79: “Synthetic turf: 2000+ hours”; page 139: “As a lighted synthetic turf venue, the site can support 2,500 to 3,000+ hours of annual use”. Drop the “+” or explain how readers should interpret it. Does it mean, for example, that the field could sustain unlimited hours? 4. p155 “Current usage records show that synthetic turf ﬁelds in Palo Alto can sustain over 2,000 hours of annual programmed activity per ﬁeld, while most natural grass ﬁelds are capped at around 800 to 1,000 hours to maintain minimum playability standards and avoid safety degradation.” Specify a cap for synthetic turf just like you do for natural grass. Otherwise it’s unclear how far “over” 2,000 hours you are saying synthetic turf could support. Some promoters of synthetic turf claim it supports “unlimited” use. That’s not what you’re implying here, right? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 37 23: Substantiate claim that a synthetic field has “3–4×” the carrying-capacity of grass. In the Executive Summary, on page 11, it says “Generally, a synthetic turf ﬁeld has a carrying capacity that is equivalent to three to four native soil natural grass ﬁelds, thus the conversion of one synthetic turf ﬁeld should be replaced with three to four native soil natural grass ﬁelds.” How can readers be assured that the above 3-4x statement isn’t just a myth that has gone unchallenged and become generally accepted? Policy-shaping assertions in the Executive Summary that could be used to justify multimillion-dollar decisions need to be supported with substantiated evidence. Substantiate the 3-4x carrying-capacity claim by providing the following evidence: ● Identify the specific natural grass field and specific synthetic field this conclusion is based on. ● Provide, or link to, the carrying capacity data for each. ● Provide evidence that the fields were constructed and managed according to best practices. How can readers be assured the above 3-4x statement isn’t based on a grass field that, if built and managed with best practices and fully utilized, could have demonstrated far greater carrying capacity? Absent this information, the statement should not appear in the Executive Summary. Without supporting evidence, the claim risks misleading decision makers and the public into believing natural grass fields are inherently inadequate. As Dr. Mick Battam reminds us, “It is incumbent on decision makers to base sports strategies and expenditure of public funds on sound science as opposed to marketing material and unsubstantiated rules of thumb.” (https://sustainablesportsnews.ausleisure.com.au/news/new-study-claims-flaws-in-processes-used-to-just ify-artificial-turf-sports-fields/) Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 38 24: Complete your task to assess equity by reporting on environmental health equity. Your report was supposed to assess how the City’s artificial turf can impact the City’s vulnerable populations, not just the subset that play soccer. It has not yet done so. Using artificial turf where grass can serve the City’s purposes represents unnecessary use of plastic. Unnecessary use of plastic unnecessarily contributes to climate change by wasting fossil fuels, driving emissions, and leaving behind micro and nanoplastic pollution and chemical pollution that never breaks down and will circulate in our food and water supply essentially forever. A City concerned about the health of its vulnerable populations is foolish not to honor the requests of one of the county’s main providers of drinking water. Local drinking water supplier, Valley Water, supported the county’s proposed artificial turf ban. https://tinyurl.com/water-supplier-supports-ban That should absolutely be mentioned in the Executive Summary of your report. As someone from Flint, Michigan, home to a well-known water crisis that has permanently harmed the health of a very vulnerable population, Flint’s children, I’m incredibly alarmed that the Executive Summary doesn’t even touch on the drinking water topic. The safety of drinking water should be among the highest priorities of a City Council, which is who you are preparing this report for. When Council approved the turf study, it did so in response to a staff report that said: “The study will still assess... alignment with Palo Alto’s sustainability and climate action goals.” Staff were presumably referring to the goals of the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/Sustainability/SCAP). That plan explains the role of equity: “The Role of Equity: We cannot address climate change without also addressing equity. Commonly, climate change disproportionately threatens those who are the least responsible for generating pollution, the most vulnerable to its impacts, and the least able to adapt. This is true globally, and it is also true in Palo Alto. Many climate change impacts will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations - populations with greater vulnerability to climate impacts because of their social inequities, physical characteristics, or baseline conditions.” The turf study report's Executive Summary (p. 11) makes it sound like the authors understood the assignment... “The study informs strategic investment decisions… within the City's broader goals of sustainability, equity, and public health.” However the body of the report limits discussion of equity to equitable field access. That is an overly narrow interpretation of the City’s equity goal. The City’s goal of equity is meant to be much broader than providing equitable field access for vulnerable populations of field users. The City's goal of equity encompasses providing equitable environmental health for *all* of the City’s vulnerable populations. As concluded by the County Public Health Department via their literature analysis which you reviewed in the Health Hazards chapter (p 101) of this turf study report, artificial turf “poses potential risks to human and environmental health” (https://tinyurl.com/turfs-public-health-risks). Environmental health doesn't just impact field users. It impacts everyone in Palo Alto. The turf study report fails to explicitly cover this aspect of equity. In order for this turf study report to assess how artificial turf impacts equity, it must explicitly convey that the environmental health risks from artificial turf on City property impact all of the City's vulnerable populations. The turf study report needs to stress to the decision makers that climate change impacts and contaminated drinking water disproportionately threaten all of Palo Alto’s vulnerable residents. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 39 To truly advance equity, this report should seek out municipalities that have found ways to make grass fields more playable than Palo Alto’s grass fields and report on what can be learned and adapted here. Don’t ignore the field examples you’ve been given by myself and others. Palo Alto can do better than settle for plastic turf fields that risk environmental health. Palo Alto can do better than settle for grass fields with mediocre playability. To settle is a disservice to all of the City’s vulnerable populations, not just the subset that play soccer. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 40 25: In Executive Summary, emphasize micro- and nano-plastic pollution is a major concern even for artificial fields without plastic infill. While eliminating polymeric infill eliminates a source of micro- and nano-plastic pollution, it does not diminish the concern for micro- and nano-plastic pollution from the plastic grass fibers continually degrading and shedding from the carpet. These remain a serious environmental hazard. In 2023, researchers identified that plastic grass fibers make up a significant source of microplastic pollution in river and sea surface waters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094 According to page 725 of the report, Palo Alto only grooms its synthetic turf once every 6 weeks and even less frequently when the field gets old because the grooming itself causes the synthetic turf to “decline at a higher rate.” According to your report, the City’s artificial turfs are heavily used. Heavily used artificial turfs need to be groomed much more frequently than once every 6 weeks in order to reduce microplastic pollution. Six week intervals leave way too much time for the loose plastic grass fibers and microplastic and nanoplastic sized pieces to be blown far from the field by air currents and get rinsed down stormdrains. This isn’t okay. Part of the grooming is sweeping up as much of that plastic pollution as possible before it irretrievably escapes into the environment. It’s a lot of plastic! At the August 26, 2025 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, during public comment, a neighbor said the groundskeepers collected “10 enormous bundles of green plastic strands… tufts of plastic ‘grass.’” And just imagine how much they didn’t collect because it had already escaped. Listen to her full comment here: https://www.youtube.com/live/fmhmSHZPwFQ?si=u3pLW0B5sMM35TOq&t=15013 Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 41 26: Increase the fiber loss estimate by a factor of 6. The Department of Toxic Substance Control estimates 6 times as much plastic grass fiber loss as that stated in your report. Here are some photos of plastic grass fibers shedding from an artificial turf field. These photos are from an eye-opening 4 minute clip (https://youtu.be/A8OLBfWmt7g?si=RRP_ui3xjKw56y_c) of a public hearing in another community between commissioners and a scientist that worked for the artificial turf industry. The decision makers had already decided not to use crumb rubber infill and, in the video, were speaking to the scientist about their obviously quite valid concern that microplastic pollution from artificial turf carpets remains a serious and significant issue. In 2024, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reported that over 3,000 pounds of plastic grass could be shed by a single field over the course of a single year. (https://youtu.be/QzlTDHBYY90?si=MZk0SK9emFKcIme2&t=1802 timestamp 30:02) That would equate to 30,000 pounds over 10 years, which is dramatically more than the 4,800 pounds over 10 years that you asserted in your report (without an in-text citation) on page 114. Even manufacturers admit to serious amounts of fiber loss: ● Some manufacturers will only guarantee that 40% of the artificial turf carpet pile will be retained through the warranty period. For example, AstroTurf states in its maintenance manual that “AstroTurf Corporation does warrant that the product will provide a useful playing surface for a period of 8 years from the date of shipment with a maximum weight loss of not over 60% of the face fiber per square foot.” ● As another example, TenCate’s Pivot warranty states “This Warranty does not cover… fiber loss less than 50% of total field mass.” Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 42 Concerningly, the product purchased for Mayfield in 2025 doesn’t even guarantee/warranty that a measly 40% of the pile mass will be retained through the 8 year warranty period. Instead Field Turf, in its warranty, confesses wear and tear is normal, a function of the product construction and usage intensity. Because Palo Alto’s artificial turfs are subjected to heavy usage intensity, the “normal” amount of microplastic generation is therefore likely quite large. Your report should warn readers that infill-free artificial turf systems could potentially generate double to triple the amount of plastic grass fiber pollution. The carpets for infill-free artificial turf systems are constructed with significantly more plastic than organically-infilled artificial turf systems in order to compensate for the lack of infill. TenCate states “Pivot, depending on the version, contains between 90 and 120 ounces of PE yarns per square yard. A traditional infilled system typically uses 46 to 60 ounces of PE yarns per square yard. This is a x2 to x3 depending on the system.” Pivot is the product, which as mentioned above, the manufacturer’s warranty admits may lose up to 50% of its fiber mass over the course of the warranty period. Therefore, an 80,000-square-foot Pivot field built with carpets that have 120 ounces of polyethylene fiber per square yard contains about 66,700 pounds of plastic fibers at installation. Because the warranty only guarantees that 50% of the fiber mass will remain after the carpet’s warrantied 12-year lifespan, roughly 33,300 pounds (15 metric tons) of plastic fibers are expected to break off and potentially disperse into the environment over that period—an average of nearly 2,800 pounds per year. That may even be an underestimate given that TenCate touts on the product website that “Pivot features 16 times as many individual fibers as competitor’s turf systems”. To summarize, comparing all 3 of the above estimates on a 10 year scale, your source works out to 4,800 pounds of fiber loss, DTSC’s source works out to 30,000 pounds of fiber loss, and TenCate’s would work out to 28,000 pounds, or 14 tons, of fiber loss. City decision makers should be concerned that each of its artificial turf fields could be shedding more than 14 tons of plastic fibers every 10 years, with a significant amount of that plastic pollution potentially being blown off the field and washed into storm drains before the City sweeps it up. This would be concerning even if the City swept up once a week, but it’s even more concerning knowing that the City is only sweeping up once every 6 weeks. (According to page 725 of the report, Palo Alto staff state they only groom the synthetic turf once every 6 weeks and even less frequently when the field gets old.) Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 43 27: Recommend maintenance practices, field design, and stormwater capture devices to reduce the amount of plastic pollution. We already decided to use non-polymeric infill. Now let’s tackle the plastic grass fiber pollution. p 114 says “The amount of plastic that makes it into the environment is likely variable given the maintenance practices and ﬁeld design, specially stormwater capture devices.” Please describe the City’s current practices and how the City should change them. p70 discusses drainage but is light on important details. Please add the following descriptions: ● Describe where the drain typically goes — a creek, sewer system, or elsewhere. Where does it go for El Camino? Mayfield? Cubberley? ● Describe how the microplastics and nanoplastics that shed from the artificial turf carpets fibers are filtered out of the water flowing down that drain. Describe the “stormwater capture devices” you reference above. ● Describe how frequently the filters need to be emptied. ● Describe how fine the mesh is and the concerns about smaller plastic particles escaping down the drain. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 44 28: Add in-text numbered references to source material. One challenge in reviewing the draft is that while the References, starting on page 164, include a list of sources for each chapter, the report does not identify which source supports specific numbers or specific statements in the report. For example, the statement on page 114 that “Synthetic turf fiber loss over the course of a 10-year period… may range between 5%–15% of original fiber mass” is not linked to any citation, which makes it difficult for the public to evaluate the basis of this claim. I recommend that the final report use in-text numbered references (or footnotes/endnotes) so that each statement of fact, statistic, or technical claim is clearly tied to its source in the reference list. This will improve the transparency, accuracy, and credibility of the report and will make it easier for the public and decision-makers to verify the evidence. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 45 29: Account for microplastic pollution from artificial turf carpet backing also. Your report should disclose that the artificial turf carpet backing also degrades into and releases microplastics. “an average turf and an average lifespan of ten years, a 7526 m2 artificial turf would release 271 kg backing material particles annually.” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723048465) Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 46 30: City Council asked you to study organically-managed fields. Start here. At the April 21, 2025 City Council meeting, Council asked for the study to include organically-managed fields: https://www.youtube.com/live/p-FfYMte0Hg?si=o7hHoh51s3Ce7vel&t=15205 Staff responded “We can definitely have our consultant look into that”. However, I’m not finding any analysis of organic management in your report. Please evaluate the set of case studies of organically managed fields provided at https://www.uml.edu/research/lowell-center/athletic-playing-fields/ The hours of use on some of those fields are quite high. I believe the Marblehead, MA case study was done while Chip Osborne was responsible for the fields. He has a lot of experience with organically-managed athletic fields. Contact him via his website: https://osborneorganics.com/about-chip-osborne-jr/ Another resource to check out is field manager Randy Booker. He speaks about his organically-managed fields for about 10 minutes at https://youtu.be/H2A0tto0WLo?si=4zsSH8mbYdmOMok5&t=3069 (start at timestamp 51:09). Contact him via his website: https://www.turfevolution.ca Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 47 31: Explain or correct inconsistencies in Executive Summary. The first sentence below implies converting El Camino’s synthetic field to real grass could require 4 grass fields. The second sentence below implies it could require 8 grass fields. Please fix this inconsistency or make it easier for readers to recognize the difference between these statements. Page 11 says “Generally, a synthetic turf ﬁeld has a carrying capacity that is equivalent to three to four native soil natural grass ﬁelds, thus the conversion of one synthetic turf ﬁeld should be replaced with three to four native soil natural grass ﬁelds.” Page 13 says “If the [El Camino Park synthetic turf] ﬁeld is converted to natural grass, the City should strongly consider adding six to seven additional native soil natural grass ﬁelds to its inventory to accommodate the approximately 4,300 annual hours of displaced use.” Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 48 32: Unbury the lead: Report’s data supports conclusion that El Camino’s synthetic turf is unnecessary. The report buries a crucial fact on page 155 that belongs in the Executive Summary: “Current usage records show that synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto can sustain over 2,000 hours of annual programmed activity per field, while most natural grass fields are capped at around 800 to 1,000 hours to maintain minimum playability standards and avoid safety degradation.” This data supports a very different conclusion than the one highlighted in the Executive Summary (p.13), which claims it would take 7–8 grass fields to support the use at El Camino Park’s synthetic turf field. Simple math shows otherwise: ● Synthetic turf: ~2,000 hours ● Natural grass: ~1,000 hours Therefore, El Camino’s synthetic turf usage could be supported with just 2 grass fields, not 7 to 8. Even better: If Palo Alto’s grass fields can sustain 1,000 annual hours, then the City is sitting on underutilized field capacity right now (page 84). Move some of El Camino’s programmed hours to those fields, and the problem is solved. Solution: Convert El Camino Park’s synthetic turf to natural grass, redistribute excess demand to underused grass fields, and enjoy safer, cooler, healthier play. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 49 33: Show math that 1 synthetic field should be replaced with 8 grass fields instead of 2 grass fields. A lot of readers, perhaps even the City’s decision makers, aren’t going to read the 785-report. They’re going to scan the 4-page Executive Summary, and they’re going to focus on one nugget that will then be repeatedly quoted in conversations, public meetings, in the media, in future turf studies commissioned by other municipalities, and maybe even by the synthetic turf industry. That nugget? The City’s conclusion that it takes 8 grass fields to support the use of 1 synthetic turf. So it’s important to get this story problem right, and it’s important you show your work. In the Executive Summary, on page 13, you write “If the [El Camino Park artificial turf] ﬁeld is converted to natural grass, the City should strongly consider adding 6 to 7 additional native soil natural grass ﬁelds to its inventory to accommodate the approximately 4,300 annual hours of displaced use.” You’re saying it would take 7-8 grass fields to support 4,300 annual hours of use. Please explain how you calculated that and why data in your report supports alternative conclusions. On pg 155 the report says grass fields can sustain up to 1000 hours of annual use. Doesn’t that mean that if the El Camino Park artificial turf were converted to natural grass, the 4,300 annual hours of displaced use could be accommodated on 4-5 grass fields rather than 7-8? On pg 84, the City’s data indicates there are several grass fields in Palo Alto getting over 3,000 hours of use. Doesn’t that mean that if the El Camino Park artificial turf were converted to natural grass, the 4,300 annual hours of displaced use could be accommodated on 2 grass fields rather than 7-8? If so, then the Executive Summary, on page 13, should be replaced with: “If the [El Camino Park artificial turf] ﬁeld is converted to natural grass, the City should strongly consider adding one additional native soil natural grass ﬁeld to its inventory to accommodate the approximately 4,300 annual hours of displaced use.” Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 50 34: Describe the recommended “staff training.” Please elaborate on what you are referring to in the Executive Summary, when you state on page 13 that “achieving long-term durability, safety, and equity in athletic ﬁeld access will require … investment in… staff training”. What topics are they being trained in? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 51 35: Recommend City transition 2 grass fields to organic management. Case studies show that a grass athletic field can support more hours of use if managed organically. From a financial perspective, how can the City afford to pass up the opportunity to see if this is true? Cost per hour of use is one of the main decision-making metrics emphasized in the report. If the City can get more hours of use out of a field, the divisor is bigger and the City’s cost per hour of use goes down. Recommend the City try it. It shouldn’t be that big of a transition since the City is already managing its fields with ITM rather than indiscriminately applying loads of synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. There’s a national program offered by the nonprofit Beyond Pesticides that helps cities transition 2 of their grass fields to organic management over a 3-year period. The program is called “Parks for a Sustainable Future.” https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/power-organic-parks-program It offers training and technical support. The organization raised the funds to pay expert consultants to provide this training and technical support. Because the organization has limited funds, the program is by application only and the City would need to pay for its own soil testing. (Maybe McNitt’s firm would be willing to help the City out with that?) The City’s application has to be approved by City Council. Staff have to be on board. While the program is by application only, Palo Alto likely has a good shot because I think it’d be among the first few northern California cities to participate in the program. The organization doesn’t sell or market products or services. I’m sure that the organization would be more than happy to discuss the details with any members of the turf study consultant team, McNitt or his staff, City staff, Parks and Rec Commissioners, and/or City Council. Anyone interested in learning more should outreach to Rika Gopinath: Rika@beyondpesticides.org In the Executive Summary, you state on page 13 that “achieving long-term durability, safety, and equity in athletic ﬁeld access will require … investment in… staff training”. Please explicitly recommend in the report that the City take advantage of this training program from the Beyond Pesticides. If you want, propose the City participate in this program purely as an experiment. If, after 3 years, it doesn’t prove to provide the expected benefits, then the City can revert to ITM management. However if it meets or exceeds expectations, the City could transition its other grass fields to organic management and reap even greater benefits. If you think about it, who wouldn’t support this? For those who prioritize field access, it can increase field access on the city’s existing grass fields. For those who prioritize environmental concerns, this eliminates synthetic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers from several acres of Palo Alto land. For those who prioritize money, it can ensure the City is maximally utilizing its grass field assets. The potential benefits far outweigh the risks. There’s relatively little to lose. The demand for athletic field access is high, but investing in more real estate for additional fields is expensive. If the City could potentially get more usage out of the City’s existing grass fields, all while supporting its field users and the City’s sustainability goals, zero waste goals, green stormwater infrastructure goals, pesticide reduction goals, etc. this seems like a no-brainer. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 52 36: Add field sizes and date of last renovation to field descriptions. In the benchmarking chapter, please add square footage of each athletic field. For artificial turfs, indicate the last date of major renovation. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 53 37: Add Cubberley field description so all 3 of the City’s artificial turf sites are detailed. Thank you for including details about El Camino and Mayfield in the benchmarking chapter. Please include similar details about Cubberley so that all 3 of the City’s artificial turf sites are profiled. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 54 38: Explain how 4 of the City’s grass fields support over 2,000 hours of use per year when you say grass can only support 400-600 hours. On page 63, you say grass can only support 400-600 hours of use per year, but the City’s actual data, on page 84, lists a dozen of the City’s grass fields getting well over that. A dozen are getting over 1,000 hours per year. Four get over 2,000 hours a year. Two get over 3,000 hours a year. What? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 55 39: Educate readers that eliminating water from urban landscapes is detrimental. There is a widespread misperception that landscape water use, even judicious use, is bad. As indicated on page 200, the City’s own Parks & Recreation Commissioner classifies the water usage of grass and as an environmental concern. To help educate the public, please emphasize in the report’s Executive Summary that the City is judicious with its water use. Please emphasize the benefits of ecosystem services provided by hydrated landscapes. Eliminating water from urban landscapes is holistically detrimental, undermining our urban climate resilience. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) reports that, as California confronts ongoing drought, the relentless attack on landscapes and the water they use are misguided and have hidden costs.(https://ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanHort/files/216568.pdf) Furthermore, according to University of California researchers, against a backdrop of climate change “xeriscaping is wrongminded.” (https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/11/25/drought-friendly-ucr-turfgrass-now-market) If xeriscaping is wrongminded, covering acres of urban land with parking lots and plastic grass carpets is even worse. It turns out that when cities and school districts, as some of the biggest urban landowners in Silicon Valley, opt for living landscapes, it provides invaluable urban benefits by mitigating the heat island effect through evapotranspiration and mitigating flood risk by absorbing stormwater, both thereby driving us closer to the “Sponge City” (https://youtu.be/rMymtjDw-Gw?si=nze0fA_bg9yR7JB4) urban planning model we urgently need to adopt. Therefore, here in Palo Alto, wherever functional turf (https://s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.us-west-1/s3fs-public/Handout%20for%20Non-Fun ctional%20Turf%20Definition.pdf) is needed, legitimate climate-smart urban greening involves judiciously irrigating and sustainably managing real turfgrass. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 56 40: Where’s the part of the report that covers artificial turf in playground settings? The 4/21/25 staff report (https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=166437&repo=r-704298fc) says “Turf application in playground settings… will be evaluated as an extension of the turf study.” Explain what “an extension of the turf study” means. Are playgrounds supposed to be covered in this report or will they be covered later in a separate report? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 57 41: Disclose conflicts of interest. I respectfully request that the City’s turf study consultant team (listed on p10) disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to this study. The report’s conclusion that 1 synthetic turf field can replace the need for 8 natural grass fields is not just a technical detail—it is a powerful and influential narrative that the synthetic turf industry has a strong financial incentive to see repeated. Industry will cite it, as will cities, school districts, and soccer clubs seeking to justify multimillion-dollar purchases of artificial turf, purchases that ultimately result in recurring replacement contracts every 8–10 years. The report’s conclusion can therefore generate recurring revenue every 8–10 years for consultants. By contrast, a well-designed, well-built, and well-managed natural grass field should not require significant future consultancy contracts. So there’s a potential motive for synthetic fields to be promoted. Transparency regarding any potential benefits to be gained by the consultants from the report’s conclusion is therefore essential. Even if no conflicts exist, disclosure will bolster public trust and allow readers to weigh the conclusions with full context. Disclosure is standard best practice in public projects of this scale. As an example of why I’m concerned about potential conflicts of interest, the City’s consultant team includes either Andrew McNitt and/or one of his associates. McNitt previously led a research center supported by the synthetic turf manufacturer Field Turf. The synthetic turf manufacturer provided significant financial backing to help establish the facility and advance its synthetic turf research (per the description at https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/about). This does not mean there are conflicts of interest; it just means it’s reasonable to question whether there may be any. As another example of why I’m concerned is that the other 3 firms on the City’s consultant team all do projects with synthetic turf (http://www.dahogan.com/synthetic-turf-fields/complete-list-synthetic-projects.php, https://www.lloydengineers.com/projects.html, https://strigroup.com/specialism/sports-facilities/). While they also do projects with natural turf, I am concerned that perhaps, over time, they make more money off clients they convert to synthetic turf and may therefore be incentivized to promote it. For example, when these firms persuade a client to choose synthetic turf, the firm may, every 8-10 years after that, have an opportunity to secure another renovation contract. As an example of a landscape architect being hired to replace end-of-life artificial turf systems with more modern systems, Verde Design Inc. was recently hired by Sunnyvale’s high school district to do this to 12 fields. In contrast, a well-designed, well-built, well-managed grass field should not require significant repeat services from these firms. Again, this does not mean there are conflicts of interest; it just means it’s reasonable to question whether there may be any. One other reason I’m concerned about potential conflicts of interest is that there is a public record of a synthetic turf company incentivizing a public agency staff member to help secure a contract. The record does not involve Palo Alto staff, decision makers, or the consultant team. I share this anecdote simply to illustrate that concerns about gifts and kickbacks from the synthetic turf industry are not unfounded. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 58 42: Add to team a consultant that’s never benefitted from synthetic turf industry and that has expertise enabling municipalities to dramatically increase grass field playability. As discussed in the prior section, of the 4 consultancy firms on the City’s turf study report, 3 are firms that do projects with synthetic turf and 1 is a firm with an owner that published research supporting synthetic turf while employed by an organization that was accepting money from a synthetic turf manufacturer. As I acknowledged in the prior section, all 4 of these consultancy firms also have professional expertise with natural grass as well, and I am not aware that any of these firms have an actual conflict of interest. The problem is there is simply no way to know if they could benefit from a conclusion that promotes synthetic turf. A smart strategy to reduce concerns about conflict of interest would be to add at least one firm to the consultant team that: ● is an expert in high carrying capacity municipal natural grass sports fields ● hasn’t ever worked for an entity that was financially supported by the synthetic turf industry ● doesn’t design or build or manage projects with synthetic turf. I would recommend AgEnviro: https://agenviro.com And if, in order to balance adding a consultant that only supports grass, you felt it necessary to add a consultant that only supports artificial turf, that would be reasonable. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 59 43. Disclose in Executive Summary that best practices for field maintenance aren’t followed by City. Your Executive Summary (p.13) states: “Palo Alto’s current maintenance program aligns with industry standards.” If by “industry standards” you meant industry best practices, that statement is inaccurate. While there may be reasons for deviations, the truth is that the City has not consistently employed all best practices. Evidence includes: ● Everything listed in the turf study report’s table on page 91. ● Grass fields have holes. (p. 190, 205, 208, 234). ● Soil testing is not being used to inform soil amendments (p. 91). ● Synthetic fields are not renovated until years after surface hardness exceeds 165 GMAX. ● Synthetic fields are groomed only once every 6 weeks. (p 725) ● Synthetic fields warrantied for 3,000 hours are being programmed for up to 5,000 hours. (p. 137) The above examples clearly demonstrate that the City is not yet following all industry best practices. Perhaps the original statement intended to convey: “Palo Alto’s maintenance program aligns with typical city standards.” Typical city standards often reflect programs with: ● No certified sports field managers consulted on field construction or field management. ● No certified soil scientists consulted on field construction or field management. ● Ancient or faulty irrigation infrastructure ● No soil testing to guide soil amendments ● Inadequate frequency of grass field aeration. ● Artificial turf field replacement not even proposed until years after the surface hardness begins to exceed safe levels ● Overbooking of fields, both natural and artificial, beyond carrying capacity ● Repeated cuts to maintenance and operating budgets ● Staff turnover resulting in limited on-staff knowledge of soil biology, GMAX, and the maintenance required to comply with the artificial turf warranty While not all of these may apply to Palo Alto, they illustrate the gap between typical city practices and industry best practices. Recommendation: Change the Executive Summary statement from: “Palo Alto’s current maintenance program aligns with industry standards” to: “Palo Alto’s maintenance programs for natural turf and artificial turf do not yet align with industry best practices.” This change accurately reflects the City’s current practices and is corroborated by the evidence provided in the report. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 60 The following Best Practices guides were produced with government agency funding and feature Dr. Mick Battam’s evidence-backed success. While they are not local, the science-based principles are transferable. ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2025-nsw ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2022-nsw-south Best Practices recommended by the Sports Field Management Association can be accessed at ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2021-sfma Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 61 44: Don’t assert that hours of use data from native soil grass fields that could have handled more use with best practices represents the hours of use grass can support. Palo Alto’s native soil grass fields are not built and managed with best practices. (I have covered this elsewhere in this document.) Most municipal native soil grass fields are not built and managed with best practices. Therefore data about how much usage those fields support does not tell us how much usage a grass field could support if built and managed with best practices. Claims about grass being unsuitable for a community with high field demand come from examples of grass fields that could have handled more use with best practices. Therefore data about how much use or rain those fields were subjected to before their condition degraded is therefore not representative of how much usage grass can support. The ability to cite an abundance of poor condition natural grass fields throughout a given locale merely indicates that change is desperately needed, not that the change need be to plastic. Similarly, the ability to cite high field access demands and an abundance of extended closures for natural grass fields merely indicates that change is desperately needed, not that the change need be to plastic. The following Best Practices guides were produced with government agency funding and feature Dr. Mick Battam’s evidence-backed success. While they are not local, the science-based principles are transferable. ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2025-nsw ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2022-nsw-south Best Practices recommended by the Sports Field Management Association can be accessed at ● https://tinyurl.com/best-practices-2021-sfma Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 62 45: Advise how the City should choose between PFAS-reduced products. p14 says “In order to minimize potential health and environmental impacts prioritize certiﬁed PFAS reduced products.” Because each manufacturer has the liberty to define “PFAS-free” and “PFAS-reduced” however they’d like, in the turf study report, please advise how the City should choose between a set of “PFAS-reduced” artificial turf products. The 6/9/25 supplemental staff report says the Mayfield artificial turf will be tested for PFAS after installation. Please confirm that the plastic grass samples will be subjected to weathering protocols before the test and that you will require the raw test data and the report from the accredited test lab, not a transcription or summary from the manufacturer. If the City is unwilling to define and justify its own acceptable PFAS thresholds, an alternative approach your report should consider recommending to the City is to plan far enough in advance to solicit a specified suite of test data from different manufacturers and then base product selection on that data. Recommend that the City solicit options for artificial turf carpets, shockpads, and infills via an RFP that requires proposals to include comprehensive raw test data and unedited test reports from an accredited third-party laboratory proving no detectable PFAS. Plan to verify no detectable PFAS is found in the proposed product as follows: Confirm in the manufacturer provided test reports that (a) the testing includes the tests that Ecology Center recommends for PFAS-free certification (https://tinyurl.com/2024-02-Gearhart) and (b) the test results for total organic fluorine or total fluorine show less than 1 part per million (https://tinyurl.com/2024-02-Gearhart) and (c) the test results for analyzing the concentration of individual PFAS chemicals show “non-detect”. Regarding (c), laboratories are capable of detecting individual PFAS compounds at or below 1 part per trillion, so if the manufacturer provides test reports with higher detection limits for individual PFAS compounds, staff should insist the manufacturer order testing that is more sensitive. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 63 46: Don’t recommend City buy any more artificial turf systems without first confirming products exist that meet City’s expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability. On p 14, you state “The proposed product for El Camino Park has a natural inﬁll, though the City would need to conﬁrm if the product meets expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability.” This begs some very important questions: What are the City’s thresholds for PFAS levels and criteria for recyclability? Do both the artificial turf carpets and the infill products chosen for Mayfield fields meet these expectations? If not, can the City identify at least one artificial turf carpet and at least one infill product that meets these expectations? What evidence does the City have to support this beyond a manufacturer claim? This evidence should be disclosed in the report draft so that, if needed, report reviewers can help the City identify how the City is potentially being misled by the manufacturer. Many manufacturer claims related to PFAS levels and recyclability have been challenged by researchers and organizations across the country. These topics therefore deserve examination and coverage in the report well before the staff or Council settle on a decision regarding whether to choose artificial turf or natural turf. Once DTSC develops a standard for an acceptable level of PFAS in artificial turf, the City could consider modifying its PFAS level expectations to comply with the DTSC thresholds. But until then, why shouldn’t the City establish its own PFAS thresholds for artificial turf to protect its water supply? Base it off the April 2024 national drinking water standards, i.e. from before Trump weakened them. If no artificial turf products exist on the market that can verifiably meet the City’s expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability, it would be illogical for the report to recommend artificial turf. The report ought to provide evidence, beyond a manufacturer claim, that at least one artificial turf carpet product on the market and at least one infill product on the market meets the City’s expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 64 47: Define thresholds of City’s health and environmental criteria. On page 12, you state “Selection of synthetic turf manufacturers and their respective products will require further scrutiny to meet health and environmental expectations.” Define the City’s health and environmental criteria thresholds. Then provide evidence to reassure Council and the public that at least one artificial turf product exists that meets these health and environmental expectations. Again, why recommend synthetic fields if no products can be found that satisfy the City’s criteria? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 65 48: Don’t promote unnecessary plastics. It’s inconsistent with report’s conclusion. On page 114, the report states: “When synthetic turf carpets are recycled, they are typically processed into lower-grade plastic products, which can still serve useful functions within sports facilities. Common recycled items include benches and picnic tables. In the UK and US, recycled turf material is converted into plastic boards used as inﬁll containment barriers... Incorporating recycled products back into the facility promotes positive environmental messaging and encourages sustainable practices within the sports community.” That last sentence sounds like it was lifted from an artificial turf marketing campaign. For you to say that this practice promotes sustainable practices is completely illogical and inconsistent with your report’s conclusion that the City should avoid using plastic turf where it is unnecessary. In essence, the main message of the report acknowledges that creating demand for unnecessary plastic products is unsustainable. It is therefore inconsistent to promote purchasing unnecessary plastic products, such as plastic picnic tables, plastic benches, and, for artificial turf infill containment, plastic boards. Please reassure readers that Palo Alto is NOT using those recycled plastic boards, or any plastic boards, in construction of the Mayfield or El Camino artificial turf systems. Isn’t it an option for Palo Alto to construct the system with boards made of actual wood, boards that are plastic-free, PFAS-free, and flame retardant free? Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 66 49: Review relevant research published in the time since the county drafted its report. While your report summarizes key takeaways of the County report, the County’s report was drafted in August of 2024 and relevant research has been published in the period since. Here are several to review: ● Sep 2024 research indicates that the toxicity of plastic turf increases with weathering. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023) ● Oct 2024 research finds that chemicals in artificial turf can harm your endocrine and cardiometabolic systems. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023) ● Dec 2024 research indicates the co-occurrence of microplastics and PFAS may intensify the impact. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749124018505) Both microplastic and PFAS pollution can be generated by artificial turf. ● Jan 2025: results published from testing for toxic chemicals in artificial turf components (carpet, infill, shockpad) by communities around the country. (https://www.testtheturf.org/turf-system-toxics.html) Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 67 50: Advise City not to recycle PFAS-laced artificial turf into new products. They’ll be contaminated with PFAS. Please explain why the City is contracting for recycling of Mayfield’s old artificial turf and may do so for El Camino too. Those carpets have PFAS in them. That PFAS is going to end up in the new products. It is ethically questionable for the City, in the context of the 2025 Mayfield Complex renovation and the potentially upcoming El Camino facility renovation, to recycle artificial turf carpet that was manufactured before 2019—the year scientists first identified PFAS in turf fibers. Industry does not even deny that carpets produced prior to that date were manufactured using processes that included PFAS. Because “forever chemicals” do not break down, PFAS will be present in every new plastic product created from Palo Alto’s 2025 turf carpet waste. By arranging for this recycling, the City is knowingly foisting these toxic hazards on to other consumers rather than taking responsibility for safely handling its hazardous waste. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 68 51: Itemize Appendix D’s 600 pages of unindexed resources. According to the table of contents, Appendix D runs from page 185 to page 785 and includes supplemental resources. These resources are not indexed in the table of contents or anywhere else I could find yet. This would mean Appendix D represents 600 pages of unindexed resources. In the table of contents, please itemize, with page numbers, the resources in Appendix D, so readers don’t have to flip through 600 pages to find out what’s in there. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 69 52: Disclose how long Field Turf has been withholding test data from the City. The last 3 pages of this 785 page report are well done. Thank you to those involved in the due diligence and perseverance involved in working to assess the PFAS found in Field Turf products, the artificial turf manufacturer the City selected to carpet the Mayfield complex. If, by the time the next revision of this turf study report is to be published, Field Turf still hasn’t provided the test data the City requested, please state in the report how long this request has been left unanswered. It means something. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 70 53: Correct typos. p 154 typo: “every 8–10 years10” p110: “drought” is misspelled as “draught” p30 says “chapters 13 and 14”. There is no chapter 13 or 14. Page 28 also references “chapter 13”. p83 ine 2. Forgot word “soil”. p 114 - Change “specially” to “especially”. pg 182 through 184 should be deleted. They are premature duplicates of pages 185, 237 and 654. The proper page numbers for each appendix should then be updated in the table of contents on page 8. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 71 54: Clarify references. p117 references “the products chapter”. what is that? On p14, 2nd paragraph, you write “The proposed product for El Camino Park has a natural inﬁll, though the City would need to conﬁrm if the product meets expectations for PFAS levels and recyclability.” It’s not clear whether the ‘product’ you are referring to is carpet, the infill,, or the artificial turf system. Please clarify that you are referring to the full artificial turf system, which includes carpet, carpet backing, shockpad, infill, and the plastic boards that are, according to Field Turf, made from recycled artificial turf carpet. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 72 55: Fix broken and missing links. For a report costing the city over $100K, the City Council members reading the report should not have to do their own internet searches to find the source documents. Make it quick and easy for the decision makers. At the time the final report is published, all the links should be clickable, not broken, and should take the reader to the specific document being referenced (as opposed to a generic organizational homepage). Example: Since it is not included in the appendix, this turf study report should have a working link to the Santa Clara County Medical Association’s “Artificial Turf Policy Recommendations: Final Report”. The report is referenced multiple times, but no link is provided among the References on page 166. So that you don’t have to do the legwork to find it, here is the link you can cut and paste into your report: https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/Artificial%20Turf%20Policy%20Recommendation%20SCCMA%20Final %20%206824%20.pdf I found that link in this SCCMA index: https://www.sccma.org/programs/environmental-health.aspx In the references on pages 164-171, please add URLs for references that have none. Example: page 167 International Association for Sports and Leisure Facilities. (2020). Life-cycle assessment of natural grass vs. synthetic turf. Technical guidelines for municipal recreation planning. Ensure that links don’t go to the wrong document. Here are a few examples where links go to the wrong document: For example, on page 31, the report says “A reference to the County’s ordinance is provided here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749122010557?via%3Dihub” That’s not the county ordinance. That’s a research paper written years earlier. Another example, on page 91, the report says “Palo Alto’s restrictions on fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, particularly as outlined in its Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy ( https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Public-Services/Palo-Altos-Urban-Forest/Programs-f or-Public-Trees/Tree-Integrated-Pest-Management) That URL is not a link to the City’s IPM policy. It’s a link to a page about how the city maintains the public trees. Ensure links go to the source document being referenced rather than a generic website. Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 73 Here are a few examples where the link goes to a generic website rather than to the source document being referenced: ● page 166 Safe and resilient ﬁelds: Environmental and performance guidance for synthetic turf and natural grass ﬁelds. https://www.epa.gov/ ● page 165 Best management practices for sports ﬁeld construction and maintenance. SFMA. https://www.sportsﬁeldmanagement.org/ ● page 165 Background document on candidate chemicals in artiﬁcial turf. https://dtsc.ca.gov/ ● page 165 Guidance and standards for synthetic turf systems. https://www.estc.info/ ● page 165 Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 of 25 September 2023 on the restriction of microplastics. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eurlex.europa.eu/ ● page 167 Sports Field Management Association. (2021). Maintenance cost benchmarks for athletic ﬁelds. https://www.sportsﬁeldmanagement.org/ ● page 167 Guide to synthetic turf system maintenance and replacement planning. https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/ ● page 170 https://www.miljodirektoratet.no ● page 171 Distinguished facility awards: El Camino Park, Palo Alto, CA ● page 171 City of Palo Alto. "Mitchell Park," https://www.cityofpaloalto.org. ● All the URLS on page 166 Underlined text is meant to be clickable, right? Ensure they are clickable. Here are a few examples where they aren’t: page 91 “Integrated Pest Management” page 101 “Santa Clara County Report” Run the report through a link-checking tool. Here are a few places where I encountered broken links: ● Last URL on page 168 ● page 170 “https://sccgov.legistar.com” ● Page 170 - the link to the Annex XV restriction report ● Page 171 - City of Palo Alto Official Parks and Open Space Directory ● Page 171 - Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan. ● Page 171 - Parks, trails, natural open space & recreation master plan. Community Services Department. Some of the links are broken because they wrap lines. That should be fixable. Examples: ● page 167 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan ● page 167 https://www.activematters.org/wp- ● page 168 EPA’s Proposal to Limit PFAS in Drinking Water ● page 168 Løkkegaard, H., Malmgren-Hansen, B. and Nilsson, N.H. (2018). ● Page 169 https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfas-national-primary- Recommended Revisions to City of Palo Alto’s Aug 13, 2025 Turf Study Report Draft. C. Fan. Sep 3, 2025. — Page 74 From:Nam, Sooji E To:Council, City Cc:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:CBS News Bay Area Inquiry Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 11:52:19 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Palo Alto City Council, This is Sooji Nam with CBS News Bay Area. I hope this email finds you well. I am working on a story about efforts to bring back Track Watch, parent volunteers who would keep watch over tracks in the city to prevent suicides (especially overnight). I was wondering if the city would be able to provide any details, as to whether there are measures in place/planned measures in the future to help detect motion on the tracks, and help prevent deaths by suicide? I.e. would you be able to provide any information on the record about CSC Integrations, what it is, how it’s implemented, etc? Thank you so much, I really appreciate your help. Best, Sooji Nam Reporter KPIX-TV KBCW-TV SAN FRANCISCO O: (415) 765-8601 C: (415) 791-3599 E: Sooji.nam@CBS.com This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Julia Bauman To:Council, City; Transportation Subject:Please approve, fund and expedite Quiet Zones Project Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 11:28:27 AM 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 request the advancement of the Quiet Zone project at the Meadow &Charleston and Churchill crossings. The train horns blasting at all hours of the day and night are a huge nuisance, and it's frustrating knowing that there is an option that spares ourneighborhood the constant noise while also keeping the crossings safe. I hope the Council will prioritize the installation of quad gates to solve this issue. Thank you, Julia Bauman 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:David Bubenik To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Herb Borock; Renzel, Emily Subject:Re: September 29, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #7: Roth Building Grant Application Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 11:18:32 AM I concur with Herb Borock And Emily Renzel. The city has certified since 2021 that the RothBuilding parcel will be used for park purposes. Therefore, if the city charter has any real effect, the city must explicitly permanently dedicate the land to park purposes. You have nochoice. As a practical matter the city has invested millions of dollars to rehabilitate the public RothBuilding. Finish the job. Respect the city charter. Dedicate the land as park. David Bubenik On 9/28/2025 4:55 PM, Emily Renzel wrote: I agree 100% with Herb Borock’s letter requesting that the item be moved fromconsent to the regular agenda for the purpose of dedicating all the parkland that was promised in the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. Thank you for protecting allour parks. Emily Renzel On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:05 PM, herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> wrote: SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #7: ROTH BUILDING GRANTAPPLICATION September 28, 2029 I urge you to remove this item from theConsent Calendar so that it can be an ActionItem on the October 20, 2025 City Councilmeeting agenda to provide the time for you todedicate the property as parkland as requiredby the Palo Alto Charter before approving thedraft resolution that asserts "The Project islocated on land that will be continually usedfor park purposes for a minimum of 20 years". Palo Alto Charter Article VIII "Parks" andAppendix A were adopted by the voters at theMay 1965 election when Proposition 2 wasapproved by a vote of 7,831 in favor of theproposition and 1,356 against the proposition. Palo Alto Charter Appendix A incorporates theState's procedures to be used for publicnotice of a proposed park dedication and fordiscontinuing park dedication. The adopted Charter Article VIII provides that"All lands owned or controlled by the citywhich are or will be used for park,playground, recreation or conservationpurposes shall be dedicated for such purposesby ordinance." When this agenda item is moved to the October20, 2025 City Council meeting Action Agenda,you should also direct staff to initiate theprocess for dedicating the project property asparkland by timely posting the public noticesrequired by Charter Appendix A and by placingan urgency ordinance to dedicate the projectproperty as parkland on the October 20, 2025Action Agenda immediately preceding the agendaitem for the Roth Building Grant Application. The Roth Building property was acquired by theCity after it acted on March 27, 2000 to adoptthe South of Forest Avenue Coordinated AreaPlan Phase I and approved a developmentagreement between the City and the Palo AltoMedical Foundation (PAMF) for PAMF's priorlocation that now includes Heritage Park andthe Roth Building. The adopted PAMF development agreementincluded a provision for PAMF to dedicate 1.00acres for parkland and for the City topurchase the adjacent 1.41 acres for parkland. The City combined the 1.00 acres PAMFdedication with 1.01 acres of the purchased1.41 acres to create the 2.01 acres SOFACoordinated Area Plan Phase I Park that waslater renamed Heritage Park, leaving the 0.40acres Roth Building property undedicated. The PAMF development agreement intended thatthe Roth Building property be used for"neighborhood park and facility purposes iffinancially feasible" but be made availablefor resale by the City for private purposes"if public facility use is not financiallyfeasible." The development of the Palo Alto HistoryMuseum on the Roth Building property and thedesignation by the City that the property willbe continuously used for park purposes meansthat the impediment of financial feasibilityto park dedication for the Roth Buildingproperty has been removed. (For background see Ordinance No. 4815 andOrdinance No. 4838.) When the City leases property from somebodyelse and dedicates that property for park purposes, the park dedication ordinance mustlimit park dedication to the length of thelease. However, since the City owns the Roth Buildingproperty, park dedication for the propertyshould be without time limit. At any future date, the City Council or thevoters can place a measure on the ballot toremove the property from park dedication justas the proponents of Measure E placed ameasure on the ballot to remove ten acres ofthe Baylands from park dedication. City Councils have repeatedly assured theCounty Grant Program that the Roth Buildingproperty will be continuously used for parkpurposes without anyone advising the Countythat the City has not followed the requirementin the City Charter to dedicate the propertyfor park purposes. Should the County Grant Program learn thatPalo Alto has claimed that the property willbe used for park purposes but has failed todedicate the property to park purposes asrequired by the Palo Alto Charter, the Countyis likely to deny the request for grant fundsand demand the return with interest of thosegrant funds previously awarded when the Cityasserted that the property would be used forpark purposes without the City abiding by itsown requirement to dedicate the property forpark purposes. Therefore, I urge you to: (1) move this agendaitem #7 to appear as an action item on yourOctober 20, 2025 agenda, (2) direct staff toplace an urgency ordinance for park dedicationof the Roth Building property on your October20, 2025 agenda preceding the item for thegrant application; and (3) direct staff topost timely notices of the proposed parkdedication pursuant to the procedures inCharter Appendix A. Thank you for your consideration of thesecomments. Herb Borock From:QuietZones PaloAlto To:Council, City; Transportation Subject:Please approve, fund and expedite Quiet Zones Project Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 10:37:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council,Good morning. I am writing this at 5:05 a.m. as I am jolted awake by the first of four train hornblasts—just the beginning of the 832 horn blasts we endure daily, for 20 hours a day, in theFairmeadow neighborhood between East Meadow and Charleston. This relentless noise hastaken a serious toll on our health and well-being, and I am writing to urge you to expedite thelong-delayed Quiet Zone project.For more than a decade—some neighbors say closer to 20–25 years—residents along theCaltrain corridor have pleaded for relief from the train horns. In August 2024, the RailCommittee appeared ready to move forward with Quiet Zones, yet here we are, more than ayear later, still waiting for City Council approval and funding. Meanwhile, Atherton has had aQuiet Zone since 2016 and is preparing for a second, and Menlo Park is credited for advancingthe one coming to Palo Alto Avenue. Palo Alto has fallen behind, and our residents continue tosuffer daily.The most recent report from consulting firm Kimley-Horn (presented to the Rail Committee onSeptember 16, 2025) recommended a quad-gate system. Despite this, time and resources havebeen spent debating outdated Wayside Horns—an option that does not eliminate noisepollution, compromises safety, and could jeopardize Quiet Zone status if it fails. We appreciatethat the Rail Committee members ultimately voted to recommend quad gates to the CityCouncil, but further delays, such as adding a study session to review the two options, areunnecessary. Please read the Kimley-Horn report.On behalf of the thousands of residents impacted by constant train horns, I ask the Council toact without further delay: secure the funding, direct staff resources, and prioritize theinstallation of quad gates so approvals can move forward. Every additional year of inactionmeans years of disrupted sleep, deteriorating health, and diminished quality of life for ourcommunity. We were told a year ago that it could take as many as five years to stop the trainhorns blowing and we are still at month Zero in moving this project along. Please expedite this.I invite you to visit my home for a cup of coffee to experience firsthand the impact of train hornblasts. Please, make this project a priority now.Sincerely,A frustrated and sleepless constituent 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 Melinda McGee From:Monica Yeung Arima To:Adrian Arima; Monica Yeung Arima Subject:Re: Moon Cake Festival/MidAutumn Festival Oct 5 11am-4pm Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 5:02:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Friends, Sorry! I was told that the images didn't come through my last email. Here is my icloud link to my combined flyer, some pictures and somelinks to the music. Hope it goes through this time. https://share.icloud.com/photos/084ydYRoyUmSG7UH-wAZlstGA Best regards, Monica Yeung Arima's Assistant (Ling) Yarkin Realty (LIC 01185969) On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 2:34 PM Monica Yeung Arima > wrote:Dear Friends, Hope you have a wonderful weekend! Just want to invite you to a Mid Autumn Festival celebration on Oct 5at 11am-4pm at Lucie Stern Community Center (1350 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto). This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Free lanterns giveaway. Actually there are much more than 100 lanterns to give away until supplies are all gone. Most of the lanternsneed some kind of assembly. Gold fish is the most challenging one but it's also a good reward afterwards. It comes with LED lights. Thebasic round one perhaps is better ones for younger kids. See attached photos. They also have a mahjong master teaching mahjong in English forwhoever wants to learn. Friends with Children with Special Needs (FCSN) is performing at our event. See below for a sample performance yesterday at our LyttonPlaza. LetsSweet from San Francisco is selling Hong Kong snacks. See attachments for some samples. Lastly, thank you for the tireless volunteers heading this event up.Kudos to our Christina Lee who is the person in charge of this wonderful event. Lily, Ann, Wendy, David, Steven, Grace, Shanshanand many more volunteers to be thankful for. Looking forward to seeing some of you there. Please forward to friends that you think would be interested. Monica Yeung Arima https://share.icloud.com/photos/0675p_JfR5yODzTeMLpnu9pcw https://share.icloud.com/photos/0375fn4isHRl5iiDM9A4AouVw https://share.icloud.com/photos/030dzKb3C78z7gXQk5PPS9dqw Sent from Monica Yeung Arima's iPhone <Ling Resume.docx> From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Herb Borock Subject:Re: September 29, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #7: Roth Building Grant Application Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 4:55:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I agree 100% with Herb Borock’s letter requesting that the item be moved from consent to the regular agenda for the purpose of dedicating all the parkland that was promised in the SOFACoordinated Area Plan. Thank you for protecting all our parks. Emily Renzel On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:05 PM, herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> wrote: SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #7: ROTH BUILDING GRANT APPLICATION September 28, 2029 I urge you to remove this item from the ConsentCalendar so that it can be an Action Item on theOctober 20, 2025 City Council meeting agenda toprovide the time for you to dedicate the property asparkland as required by the Palo Alto Charter beforeapproving the draft resolution that asserts "TheProject is located on land that will be continuallyused for park purposes for a minimum of 20 years". Palo Alto Charter Article VIII "Parks" and Appendix Awere adopted by the voters at the May 1965 electionwhen Proposition 2 was approved by a vote of 7,831 infavor of the proposition and 1,356 against theproposition. Palo Alto Charter Appendix A incorporates the State'sprocedures to be used for public notice of a proposedpark dedication and for discontinuing park dedication. The adopted Charter Article VIII provides that "Alllands owned or controlled by the city which are orwill be used for park, playground, recreation orconservation purposes shall be dedicated for suchpurposes by ordinance." When this agenda item is moved to the October 20, 2025 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 City Council meeting Action Agenda, you should alsodirect staff to initiate the process for dedicatingthe project property as parkland by timely posting thepublic notices required by Charter Appendix A and byplacing an urgency ordinance to dedicate the projectproperty as parkland on the October 20, 2025 ActionAgenda immediately preceding the agenda item for theRoth Building Grant Application. The Roth Building property was acquired by the Cityafter it acted on March 27, 2000 to adopt the South ofForest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan Phase I andapproved a development agreement between the City andthe Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) for PAMF'sprior location that now includes Heritage Park and theRoth Building. The adopted PAMF development agreement included aprovision for PAMF to dedicate 1.00 acres for parklandand for the City to purchase the adjacent 1.41 acresfor parkland. The City combined the 1.00 acres PAMF dedication with1.01 acres of the purchased 1.41 acres to create the2.01 acres SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Phase I Parkthat was later renamed Heritage Park, leaving the 0.40acres Roth Building property undedicated. The PAMF development agreement intended that the RothBuilding property be used for "neighborhood park andfacility purposes if financially feasible" but be madeavailable for resale by the City for private purposes"if public facility use is not financially feasible." The development of the Palo Alto History Museum on theRoth Building property and the designation by the Citythat the property will be continuously used for parkpurposes means that the impediment of financialfeasibility to park dedication for the Roth Buildingproperty has been removed. (For background see Ordinance No. 4815 and OrdinanceNo. 4838.) When the City leases property from somebody else anddedicates that property for park purposes, the parkdedication ordinance must limit park dedication to thelength of the lease. However, since the City owns the Roth Buildingproperty, park dedication for the property should bewithout time limit. At any future date, the City Council or the voters canplace a measure on the ballot to remove the propertyfrom park dedication just as the proponents of MeasureE placed a measure on the ballot to remove ten acresof the Baylands from park dedication. City Councils have repeatedly assured the County Grant Program that the Roth Building property will becontinuously used for park purposes without anyoneadvising the County that the City has not followed therequirement in the City Charter to dedicate theproperty for park purposes. Should the County Grant Program learn that Palo Altohas claimed that the property will be used for parkpurposes but has failed to dedicate the property topark purposes as required by the Palo Alto Charter,the County is likely to deny the request for grantfunds and demand the return with interest of thosegrant funds previously awarded when the City assertedthat the property would be used for park purposeswithout the City abiding by its own requirement todedicate the property for park purposes. Therefore, I urge you to: (1) move this agenda item #7to appear as an action item on your October 20, 2025agenda, (2) direct staff to place an urgency ordinancefor park dedication of the Roth Building property onyour October 20, 2025 agenda preceding the item forthe grant application; and (3) direct staff to posttimely notices of the proposed park dedicationpursuant to the procedures in Charter Appendix A. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:September 29, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #7: Roth Building Grant Application Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 4:06:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #7: ROTH BUILDING GRANT APPLICATION September 28, 2029 I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar sothat it can be an Action Item on the October 20, 2025 CityCouncil meeting agenda to provide the time for you to dedicatethe property as parkland as required by the Palo Alto Charterbefore approving the draft resolution that asserts "The Projectis located on land that will be continually used for parkpurposes for a minimum of 20 years". Palo Alto Charter Article VIII "Parks" and Appendix A wereadopted by the voters at the May 1965 election when Proposition2 was approved by a vote of 7,831 in favor of the propositionand 1,356 against the proposition. Palo Alto Charter Appendix A incorporates the State'sprocedures to be used for public notice of a proposed parkdedication and for discontinuing park dedication. The adopted Charter Article VIII provides that "All lands ownedor controlled by the city which are or will be used for park,playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall bededicated for such purposes by ordinance." When this agenda item is moved to the October 20, 2025 CityCouncil meeting Action Agenda, you should also direct staff toinitiate the process for dedicating the project property asparkland by timely posting the public notices required byCharter Appendix A and by placing an urgency ordinance todedicate the project property as parkland on the October 20,2025 Action Agenda immediately preceding the agenda item forthe Roth Building Grant Application. The Roth Building property was acquired by the City after itacted on March 27, 2000 to adopt the South of Forest AvenueCoordinated Area Plan Phase I and approved a developmentagreement between the City and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation(PAMF) for PAMF's prior location that now includes HeritagePark and the Roth Building. The adopted PAMF development agreement included a provision forPAMF to dedicate 1.00 acres for parkland and for the City topurchase the adjacent 1.41 acres for parkland. The City combined the 1.00 acres PAMF dedication with 1.01acres of the purchased 1.41 acres to create the 2.01 acres SOFACoordinated Area Plan Phase I Park that was later renamed Heritage Park, leaving the 0.40 acres Roth Building propertyundedicated. The PAMF development agreement intended that the Roth Buildingproperty be used for "neighborhood park and facility purposesif financially feasible" but be made available for resale bythe City for private purposes "if public facility use is notfinancially feasible." The development of the Palo Alto History Museum on the RothBuilding property and the designation by the City that theproperty will be continuously used for park purposes means thatthe impediment of financial feasibility to park dedication forthe Roth Building property has been removed. (For background see Ordinance No. 4815 and Ordinance No. 4838.) When the City leases property from somebody else and dedicatesthat property for park purposes, the park dedication ordinancemust limit park dedication to the length of the lease. However, since the City owns the Roth Building property, parkdedication for the property should be without time limit. At any future date, the City Council or the voters can place ameasure on the ballot to remove the property from parkdedication just as the proponents of Measure E placed a measureon the ballot to remove ten acres of the Baylands from parkdedication. City Councils have repeatedly assured the County Grant Programthat the Roth Building property will be continuously used forpark purposes without anyone advising the County that the Cityhas not followed the requirement in the City Charter todedicate the property for park purposes. Should the County Grant Program learn that Palo Alto hasclaimed that the property will be used for park purposes buthas failed to dedicate the property to park purposes asrequired by the Palo Alto Charter, the County is likely to denythe request for grant funds and demand the return with interestof those grant funds previously awarded when the City assertedthat the property would be used for park purposes without theCity abiding by its own requirement to dedicate the propertyfor park purposes. Therefore, I urge you to: (1) move this agenda item #7 toappear as an action item on your October 20, 2025 agenda, (2)direct staff to place an urgency ordinance for park dedicationof the Roth Building property on your October 20, 2025 agendapreceding the item for the grant application; and (3) directstaff to post timely notices of the proposed park dedicationpursuant to the procedures in Charter Appendix A. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:Monica Yeung Arima To:Adrian Arima; Monica Yeung Arima Subject:Moon Cake Festival/MidAutumn Festival Oct 5 11am-4pm Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 2:35:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Friends, Hope you have a wonderful weekend! Just want to invite you to a Mid Autumn Festival celebration on Oct 5 at 11am-4pm at Lucie Stern Community Center (1350 Middlefield Road,Palo Alto). Free lanterns giveaway. Actually there are much more than 100 lanternsto give away until supplies are all gone. Most of the lanterns need some kind of assembly. Gold fish is the most challenging one but it's also agood reward afterwards. It comes with LED lights. The basic round one perhaps is better ones for younger kids. See attached photos. They also have a mahjong master teaching mahjong in English forwhoever wants to learn. Friends with Children with Special Needs (FCSN) is performing at our event. See below for a sample performance yesterday at our LyttonPlaza. LetsSweet from San Francisco is selling Hong Kong snacks. See attachments for some samples. Lastly, thank you for the tireless volunteers heading this event up.Kudos to our Christina Lee who is the person in charge of this wonderful event. Lily, Ann, Wendy, David, Steven, Grace, Shanshan and many more 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 volunteers to be thankful for. Looking forward to seeing some of you there. Please forward to friends that you think would be interested. Monica Yeung Arima https://share.icloud.com/photos/0675p_JfR5yODzTeMLpnu9pcw https://share.icloud.com/photos/0375fn4isHRl5iiDM9A4AouVw https://share.icloud.com/photos/030dzKb3C78z7gXQk5PPS9dqw Sent from Monica Yeung Arima's iPhone From:Robin Kutner To:Lo, Ria; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Request for minor, cheap improvement to existing traffic calming features Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 12:24:08 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2025-09-28 at 12.08.10 PM.png Screenshot 2025-09-28 at 12.17.18 PM.png Screenshot 2025-09-28 at 12.19.06 PM.png Screenshot 2025-09-28 at 12.20.00 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto decisionmakers and street designers, Yesterday I was riding my bike with a group on Park Blvd btwn Cal Ave and Stanford Ave when I swerved to the left to avoid one set of street furniture, and in doing so ended upcrashing into another set of minimally visible street furniture. It occurred here. I rode to the left around the "do not enter sign" and when trying to come back into the traffic lane I struck the curb of that first beige median. Thankfully I am a skilled bicyclist so I slowed/maneuvered in a way that mitigated the 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 possible damages of this crash. But this is a residential neighborhood and a calm street wherewe should make it safe enough for young kids (e.g. unskilled bicyclists) to ride unencumbered. A crash on a curb like this caused by thoughtless infrastructure choices on a marked bicycleroute can cost local governments $200k+ in settlements. I have personal experience in similar litigation. I live in San Francisco. Where we have medians/curbs spring up on bicycle routes, we have avertical element with reflectors in the front of it to improve its visibility in day or night situations. Your transportation design team went halfway on this, adding a vertical/reflectiveelement to the vehicle diverter (below the "do not enter" sign) but not to the medians. Examples: Fell/Divisadero, yellow/black reflective sign Fell/Scott, same 11th/Lake reflective "yield to peds" sign I could go on and on with numerous examples, since this is a standard practice. Please install avertical element on those curb medians on Park Blvd in Palo Alto and anywhere else similar infrastructure appears on a bike route. Just at the start/end of the set of medians. It's verycheap. I and a lot of people who I care about ride in that neighborhood often and I don't want any of them getting hurt (and I don't want to get hurt again). Thanks,Robin Kutner From:Aram James To:Shounak Dharap Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Reckdahl, Keith; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lotus Fong; Linda Jolley; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz; Kaloma Smith; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Palo Alto Renters" Association; Josh Becker; Vicki Veenker; Zelkha, Mila; Peter Drekmeier; Dave Price; Enberg, Nicholas; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Braden Cartwright; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Human Relations Commission; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Sean Allen; Yusra Hussain; Foley, Michael; Binder, Andrew; Anne Cribbs; Templeton, Cari; Patrice Ventresca; Yolanda Conaway; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Wagner, April; Diana Diamond; Gennady Sheyner; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Jasso, Tamara; Steve Wagstaffe; editor@paweekly.com; Doug Minkler; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Seher Awan; Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; Raymond Goins; Rosen, Jeff; Sameena Usman; Zahra Billoo; Reifschneider, James; Bryan Gobin; Donna Wallach; Henry Etzkowitz; Carla Torres; board@valleywater.org; Drekmeier, Peter; Tom DuBois; Riley Cooke; Councilmember Chappie Jones; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Nash, Betsy; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; Bill Newell; city.council@menlopark.gov; Anna Griffin; DuJuan Green; Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Ed Lauing; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; james pitkin Subject:Re: A friend’s comment on Keith Reckdahl Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 11:38:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9/28/2025 Hi Shounak, I've tried multiple times to get Keith to sit down and talk with me, both before the election andafter he was sworn into office. He won't respond to my emails or call-outs at city council meetings to answer my questions. I would be happy to sit down with Keith and cross-examinehim on his views re the critical issues of the day. Did you ask Keith what his stand is on all the innocent children being killed with U.S. bombs in Palestine? Why he has so far refused to call out from the dais the ongoing genocide in Palestine? Call for a cease-fire in Palestine? Has he once expressed sympathy or remorse that so many innocent Palestinian children have lost their entirefamilies? Their limbs? Their chance to grow up with a sense of psychological well- being? Have you asked Keith if during his decades of work for Lockheed Martin if he has assisted in developing weapon systems used by by IDF to exterminate innocence Palestinian children? Their mothers? Their families? These are some ofthe questions I would like to ask Keith. I think the voters, and the community of Palo Alto, should be entitled to know the answers to these questions. Peace, Avram Finkelstein Gunn class of 1967 state-bar # 80215 P.S. Lost my older brother tosuicide here in Palo Alto in 1970 On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 10:36 AM Shounak Dharap <sdharap@pausd.org> wrote: Palo Alto has had a few recent tragic youth suicides. In the past weeks I’ve seen Keith thoughtfully and openly engage in conversations about youth mental health. None of those youths pay property taxes. Most don’t vote. He’s also been quick to approach me for insight and conversation about the issue—even though I’m also not a homeowner, and there are a least a few folks who’ve called my own policies a suburban blight degrading property values! Keith, for that, I appreciate you. We should disagree on things--often and vociferously. But I wonder if we don’t limit our ability to effectively advocate for issues important to us by attacking people as proxies for policies, usually before sitting down in a room and getting to know them. I’ve certainly been no stranger to that, and I’m always striving to do better on that front. That’s all I’ll say without risking a Brown Act violation with so many quora of elected bodies on this thread. Hope you all have a great rest of your Sunday. Best, Shounak From: board@pausd.org <board@pausd.org> on behalf of Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2025 at 3:59 PM To: Roberta Ahlquist <finnroberta@gmail.com> Cc: keith.Reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org <keith.Reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org>, Henry Etzkowitz <H.Etzko@gmail.com>, Lotus Fong <lyfong@pacbell.net>, Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com>, city.council@gilroy.org <city.council@gilroy.org>, citycouncil@mountainview.gov <citycouncil@mountainview.gov>, CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lori Meyers <meyers.lk@gmail.com>, Sheree Roth <ssroth29@gmail.com>, assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov <assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov>, Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23 <jessica@speiser.net>, Gerry Gras <gerrygras@earthlink.net>, Liz Gardner <Gardnerjaqua@gmail.com>, Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>, planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg>, ParkRec Commission <ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, Palo Alto Renters' Association <info@paloaltorenters.org>, Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>, Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@gmail.com>, Mila Zelkha <mila.zelkha@gmail.com>, Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org>, Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>, Enberg, Nicholas <nicholas.enberg@cityofpaloalto.org>, Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>, EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>, Braden Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>, board@pausd.org <board@pausd.org>, Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>, Jeff Rosen <info@jeffrosen.org>, Jeff Conrad <jeff_conrad@msn.com>, Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, Nicole Chiu-Wang <nicole@dreamcatchersyouth.org>, Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>, Yusra Hussain <Yusrahussainmd@gmail.com>, michael.foley@cityofpaloalto.org <michael.foley@cityofpaloalto.org>, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, Anne Cribbs <acribbs@basoc.org>, Cari Templeton <cari@caritempleton.com>, Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>, Yolanda Conaway <yconaway@pausd.org>, BoardOperations <BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org>, boardfeedback@smcgov.org <boardfeedback@smcgov.org>, eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org <eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eric.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org <Eric.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org>, April Wagner <april.wagner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>, Burt, Patrick <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>, George.Lu@cityofpaloalto.org <George.Lu@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@cityofpaloalto.org>, Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>, editor@paweekly.com <editor@paweekly.com> Subject: Re: A friend’s comment on Keith Reckdahl Indeed! You've hit the nail on the head! On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 3:47 PM Roberta Ahlquist <finnroberta@gmail.com> wrote:Just the kind of leadership qualities that ordinary people don’t need!! Sent from my iPhone On Sep 27, 2025, at 2:16 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: A friend’s comment on Keith Reckdahl My impression of the likes of Mr. Reckdahl is that a) they seek to serve the community by improving real estate values and thus the tax base available to fund municipal services and b) they wish to facilitate this by excluding from "the community" people who tend to not vote, who tend to not pay property taxes, and whose presence is regarded by their neighbors as suburban blight degrading proprty values. From:Logan Robert Lindstrom To:Cubberley Cc:O"Kane, Kristen; Imprivecubberley@paloalto.gov; Police; Council, City Subject:CCC homeless night loiters and bicycle thief Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 1:46:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Re Cumbberley Community Center loiters and thieves To whom it may concern: I do late night walks as a form of exercise. Sometimes, I do a rotation around or through thecommunity center. I saw two strange men that seem to be loitering late at night at the community center. Man #1: A tall, skinny black man In Thursday night at around 11pm, I spotted a tall, black man walking along the east hallwayof the community center. I was at the drinking fountain by the administration courtyard. When I heard him and looked in his direction, he pretended to look through the wooden fence intothe preschool. Within a few seconds, he disappeared. He seemed to be walking around but with no legitimate business at this community center. I think there's that same tall, skinny black man sleeping by the Stroke Program area in plainview. He had some device plugged into the outlet by the free book shelf. Man #2: A young, bearded Caucasian man This last Saturday, I did my usual walk late at night. When I decided to swing by Cumbberely, I noticed the bikes by MakeX (by the north side of the administration office) were gone orparts were stolen. The only thing that remained of these bikes were things locked into a U- lock. Everything else was gone. This theft probably happen between 10pm and 12 midnightbecause I was walking by this area around 9:30pm (when there were other people around enjoying events there). The bikes were there and in tact. As I made my way towards the hallway after noticing the bikes had been stolen or vandalized,I saw a light coming from a laptop at one of the tables in the courtyard to the west of the administration office (with the plum trees and all). I walked to the light. It was past midnightso it was easy to see light coming from a computer. 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 The man sitting there had light eyes, blond shirt cut hair, blind stubbing beard growth and was slender in build. I asked hims some questions and he seemed to take a very long time torespond. And he sounded like he was making things up. Here's how the conversation went: Me: Hi. It's really late; what are you doing here all by yourself? I am here because I sometimes make my way to this community center as part of my late night walking exercise. Him: Just getting something done. In my computer. M: Past midnight at this community center? H: Um ...................... yes. M: I noticed some bikes just around the corner was vandalized or stolen. A few of those bikesbelong to the kids at MakeX or some other community programs here at Cumbberly Community Center. Did you see or hear anything? H: Well .................... um ..................... no. M: How long have you been here. (Looking at my watch.) It's already 12:10am. It's pitchblack right now. H: Um ............................ I .............. uh .................. don't know. M: You don't know how long you've been here? It's past midnight. (He just looked around avoiding eye contact and playing with his new growth of blond beard hair.) M: You didn't see or hear anything that was related to someone taking bicycle a parts, didyou? The fast and efficient way those bikes were stolen involved hardware tools. Sounds could be heard if the hardware dropped or hit against the metallic bicycle rack. H: Well .................... no, I didn't. I went running for a bit. M: When did you go running and where? It's pitch black once 9:30pm arrives. H: Around ...................... the ............... track.M: Which one? H: Any track.M: Any track? All the track I know of have all their lights out by 9pm and especially on a Saturday night. Which track did you run at. (No answer from this young man (he looks like he was in his late 20s or early 30s with a buzzcut hairstyle.).) H: Well ................... around ........... the neighborhood. M: Where is the neighborhood? It's dangerous to run in the middle of the night with very little or no street lights. You could twist an ankle or fall from poor visibility. So where did you run? (No answer.) H: Why are you up so late?M: I already told you. I'm a night owl; I also walk around at night to get my exercise in. It's cooler and more quiet at night - makes fir good exercising conditions for someone like me.But this is not about me; this is about if you have information about a bicycle thief. You seem to have great difficulty telling me normal, simple things. Like you have to think really hard about what you will say. You contradicted yourself by saying you stepped awayfrom this table with your laptop and this big bag full of whatever to run around the track then changed your mind and said you were running around the neighborhood. Both times you couldnot identify which track or which neighborhood. Sounds like you are lying to me. (He stares at me and, again, using his hands to brush against his beard stubbies like he was being very careful about what to do or say next.) H: I ................ um .................. left my computer and stuff here when I stepped away. No onetook anything. So .............. M: That's because there's no one hanging around this community center this late at night. Except, maybe, on this Saturday night, bicycle thiev(es). You're the only one here. (He and I locked eyes. I just stood there. My instincts suggested that this young, white manhad something to do with the bicycle being vandalized and stolen.) M: You're telling me that you just left your computer and personal belongings on this table, in plain view, and went running at some mystery location? H:Yes. M: How long did you step away to go running? (No answer.) H: Why are you asking me all these questions? Do you think I stole all those bikes? M: How many bikes did you think was stolen? You are sure you didn't see it hear anything?The window of time for when these bikes were stolen - just 15 feet away from this very table in this courtyard - was only 1.5 to 2 hours from now. Did you talk to anyone since you came tothis very spot? H: No. (He stared at me. And said nothing else.) I walked away. Out towards Middlefield Road and northward. ~ There's much talk about what to do with this community center or how to "improve" it. Regardless of what the community wants, SAFETY should always be considered. Maybe the Police should occasionally do a patrol walk-through throughout Cubberlyfrom10pm to midnight. Stealing bicycles is not something any adult or kid expect to have happen when they occasionally park them overnight at their friendly Cubberley CommunityCenter. It wouldn't surprise me if other things got stolen, too, besides bikes. Keep safety, family and culture in; keep riffraffs and criminal element out of this community center. No community can truly serve the community if the people or their property is not safeat Cubberley Community Center. From:Aram James To:h.etzko@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner; Braden Cartwright; Brandon Pho; BrianGood; Sean Allen; Seher Awan; Yusra Hussain; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council,City; Binder, Andrew; Mark Turner; Donna Wallach; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jay Boyarsky;Jeff Rosen; Roberta Ahlquist; Dave Price; Bill Newell; Ed Lauing; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader forCalifornia Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; DuJuan Green; Dennis Upton; dennis burns; Nicole Chiu-Wang; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Stump, Molly; Emily Mibach; PatriceVentresca; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Daniel Barton; Dan Okonkwo; Baker,Rob; Lotus Fong; Bains, Paul; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Palo Alto Free Press; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan;EPA Today; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Peter Drekmeier; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George;gstone22@gmail.com; Veenker, Vicki; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg;ParkRec Commission; Wagner, April; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; Zelkha, Mila; Enberg,Nicholas; Doug Minkler; Kaloma Smith; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; PD Kristina Bell; james pitkin;editor@paweekly.com Subject:“Arrest the War Criminal”: Thousands Protest Netanyahu in NYC as He Addresses U.N. Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 12:01:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/26/netanyahu_un_protest_nyc From:Aram James To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lotus Fong; Linda Jolley; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz; Kaloma Smith; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Palo Alto Renters" Association; Josh Becker; Vicki Veenker; Zelkha, Mila; Peter Drekmeier; Dave Price; Enberg, Nicholas; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Braden Cartwright; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Human Relations Commission; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Sean Allen; Yusra Hussain; Foley, Michael; Binder, Andrew; Anne Cribbs; Templeton, Cari; Patrice Ventresca; Yolanda Conaway; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Wagner, April; Diana Diamond; Gennady Sheyner; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Jasso, Tamara; Steve Wagstaffe; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Re: A friend’s comment on Keith Reckdahl Date:Saturday, September 27, 2025 3:59:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Indeed! You've hit the nail on the head! On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 3:47 PM Roberta Ahlquist <finnroberta@gmail.com> wrote:Just the kind of leadership qualities that ordinary people don’t need!! Sent from my iPhone On Sep 27, 2025, at 2:16 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: A friend’s comment on Keith Reckdahl My impression of the likes of Mr. Reckdahl is that a) they seek to serve the community by improving real estate values and thus the tax base available to fund municipal services and b) they wish to facilitate this by excluding from "the community" people who tend to not vote, who tend to not pay property taxes, and whose presence is regarded by their neighbors as suburban blight degrading proprty values. From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Doug Minkler; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Human Relations Commission; city.council@gilroy.org;Barberini, Christopher; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council;city.council@menlopark.gov; CityCouncil Cc:The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Supervisor Betty Duong; Councilmember Chappie Jones; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; District9@sanjoseca.gov; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; Kaloma Smith; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Lu, George; Gardener, Liz; Gennady Sheyner; Braden Cartwright; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Jennifer Morrow San José Spotlight; Brian Good; Brandon Pho; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Sean Allen; Palo Alto Renters" Association; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Zelkha, Mila; Templeton, Cari; Anne Cribbs; Anna Griffin; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Peter Drekmeier; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; editor@paweekly.com; editor@almanacnews.com; Diana Diamond; Stump, Molly; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; Wagner, April; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Enberg, Nicholas; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers; Riley Cooke; Raymond Goins Subject:Re: After acrimony over homeless issues, a new partnership proposal could mean new solutions Date:Saturday, September 27, 2025 12:33:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 12:23 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: One other thought. I have reminded Palo Alto City Council member Keith Reckdahl, both at council meetings and in writing, of the following quote by Justice Stanley Mosk. Moskserved honorably on the California Supreme Court for 37 Years. ” The City cannot solve its homeless problem simply by exiling a large number of its homeless citizens to neighboring localities.” Stanley Mosk, in his dissenting opinion in Tobe V. City of Santa Ana (1995). Certain members of the Palo Alto City Council have a mindset that deeply troubles me as a lifelong resident of Palo Alto. These particular council members prefer to see Palo Alto as a closed community—a gated community, if you will. We all have an obligation NOT to allow the city of Palo Alto to push its homeless population to already overburdened, less- resourced towns in Santa Clara County. I, for one, will keep a close eye on Palo Alto City Council member Keith Reckdahl. For now, I have placed Mr. Reckdahl on probation and will not hesitate to revoke his probation if I see him acting against the interests of our homeless neighbors here in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 7:21 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 9/27/2025 Keith Reckdahl: Palo Alto City Council Member Hi Keith, I remind you yet again that your dehumanizing rhetoric regarding our unhoused neighborsand RV neighbors here in Palo Alto has to stop. I for one will not tolerate your divisivehateful speech directed at the most vulnerable members of our community. Aram There’s an opportunity here to take our work to the next level, to close the gaps that exist for our most vulnerable residents in the face of this humanitarian crisis that continues to grow every day,” she said. “I can’t let the federal threats to our budget stop us or slow down progress.” After acrimony over homeless issues, a new partnership proposal could mean newsolutions https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=e3c281e6-5fab-48c3-95b9-c7f84d768628&appcode=SAN252&eguid=ffdaf9d2-1bf2-4f89-89ae-6f39e5b9cdd0&pnum=3# For more great content like this subscribe to theThe Mercury News e-edition app here: From:Stephen Rock To:Council, City Subject:Please support the suit against cutting federal grants Date:Saturday, September 27, 2025 12:06:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I strongly urge you to support joining the suit challenging the Trump Administration/s imposition of new conditions on federal funds. The funds are urgently needed by cities to support vital programs, and imposing anti-DEI requirements is a huge overreach of federal power. Be brave, please join the other cities in resistance. thank you,Steve Rock -- Stephen Rock This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:matt@evolutionaryteams.comTo:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com Subject:FFF Follow Up from Sept 19 (Week #193)Date:Saturday, September 27, 2025 9:15:50 AM Attachments:image003.pngimage006.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Please note that this update is from last week (Friday 9/19). On Friday 9/19, we rallied in solidarity with Stand Up for Science and Sanity in Lytton Plaza. We heard an update from a nurse on the devastating impacts to the Santa Clara County health system due to budget cuts imposed by the “Big Beautiful Bill.” People are going to die, he tells us. Also, he highlighted the outrageous way that Stanford Hospital treated Aleyda, keeping a spotlight on Stanford's shameful behavior and complicity with ICE. Both Ingrid and I performed songs – listen to Ingrid’s here and my debut performance of Nature’s Truth here. Indivisible Palo Alto Plus’s JoAnn and Melissa also spoke. Before we marched around the block, Kim reminded us about the importance of persevering and staying in the fight. When we returned from the march, Mitchell Park Band performed as rally participants networked. Thanks to Pro Bono Photo’s Jim Katzman, pictures here. Thanks, Carol and the SUFSS, Indivisible Palo Alto Plus, FFF and MPB teams, for another successful community-building rally. On Sunday, we attended the Sun Day rally downtown in San Jose. It was terrific to see so many in the Palo Alto Climate Community attend this inspiring event. We marched from St. James Park to San Jose City Hall chanting and singing climate songs and songs of solidarity. At City Hall, about 100 people gathered to hear encouraging speeches about the ongoing fight to preserve a habitable planet despite elites’ and oligarch’s efforts. We agreed that we can continue to make progress at the local level despite what is happening at the national level. Thanks to Hilary, 350 Silicon Valley and all the organizers for another community-building event. On Tuesday, the Wolves paid a visit to the office of our congressman, Sam Liccardo, to express our dismay and disgust with his yea vote to memorialize the divisive and hate-filled young man Charlie Kirk. Some Democrats have delusionally convinced themselves that by promoting a white supremacist who fomented hate against LGBTQ+ and people of color that they are voting against political violence. Who are they fooling? Not us! We will continue to demand that Sam Liccardo fully explain himself. Also, we will also ask Liccardo to join us in nationwide commemoration of George Floyd, whose birthday is coincidentally the same as Kirk’s, on October 14. Sakura Schlegel shared a photo of the mural she made commemorating George Floyd in Seattle during the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020. The Wolves continue apace to keep the focus on public displays of resistance with regular weekly events on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday. Likewise, Steph and the 101 Banner team are out at the Adobe Creek overpass on Wednesday and Friday mornings. Thanks, everyone, for your incredible strength and perseverance! Happy Rosh Hashanah year 5786! Scott is very impressed by this sermon and encourages us all to listen to this important message starting at 2:26:20 here. Please listen to this important Democracy Now! Interview of Little Red Barns author Will Potter whose 10 year research project led him to the surprising conclusion that animal agriculture, a major contributor to environment and ecological collapse, leads to fascism and authoritarianism. If ever there were evidence that fascism and climate collapse are intimately intertwined, this is it. Potter concludes the interview with this statement: The only response to fascism is direct confrontation, solidarity and movement building. And I think that’s what we have to double down on right now and recognize that all of us are at risk. This is not about some group of anarchists or people you might disagree with their tactics. This is an all-out attack on everyone who’s speaking up for democracy and freedom right now. Listen to the entire interview here. I would be remiss not to mention the important work that Fridays for Future founder Greta Thunberg is doing. She is on a flotilla aimed to deliver aid to Gaza and break the blockade on aid delivery. The flotilla has been attacked by drones compelling both Spain and Italy to deploy navy ships to protect the flotilla. I am so grateful for the moral clarity and courage of all on this mission. Read the latest here. On Friday 9/26 we returned to King Plaza for a “normal” climate strike. I will share our thoughts, feelings and stories in the next update. KEEP UP THE FIGHT! ❤️ SEE YOU IN THE STREETS ❤️ Upcoming Events Friday, Oct 3, Noon to 1:00: Climate March! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall and march through downtown Palo Alto Tesla Takedown Rally and March :: Stanford Shopping Center, Every Saturday, Noon to 2PM. Details here. Tesla Takedown Rally :: Tesla El Camino Real Showroom, Every Saturday, 1 to 3PM. Details here. Vigil4Gaza, Every Sunday, 5 to 6:30PM, Town & Country. Details here. Tesla Takedown Rally :: Tesla Engineering HQ, Every Monday, 5 to 6PM. Details here. Anti-ICE rally and march, Every Tuesday, 5 to 6PM, Courthouse Square, Redwood City. 101 Bannering: Every Wednesday, 8 to 10AM. At Adobe Creek bike and pedestrian bridge. Details here. Tesla Takedown Rally :: Tesla El Camino Real Showroom, Every Wednesday, 4 to 6PM. Details here. Saturday, Oct 18, 5 to 6:30PM: Fascist Crawl through downtown Palo Alto with stops at Valor, Whole Foods, Amazon, Palantir and Apple. Details here You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting From:Judy Rock To:Council, City Cc:Rock, Steve Subject:please support the suit against cutting federal grants Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 9:25:06 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 strongly urge you to support joining the suit challenging the Trump Administration/s imposition of new conditions on federal funds. The funds are urgently needed by cities to support vital programs, and imposing anti-DEI requirements is a huge overreach of federal power. Be brave, please join the other cities in resistance. thank you, Judy Rock 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:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 10/1/25 Meeting Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 4:03:00 PM Attachments:October 2025 Meeting Agenda Packet..pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The agenda packet for the October 1, 2025 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-10-01-201500. Best regards, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Justine Burt To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Clerk, City Subject:RSVP: Oct 6 group bike ride to Caltrans ECR ribbon cutting Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 3:38:28 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers and Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I am writing to invite you to join us for a group bike ride to the Monday, Oct. 6 ribbon cutting for the Caltrans El Camino Real Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Bike ride meeting location: Palo Alto City Hall Plaza Time: Meet at 12:45pm, leave at 1:00pm (17 minute ride at a leisurely pace) Low-traffic route: south on Bryant, right on Homer, cross under the Caltrain tracks, take the bike path behind Palo Alto High School, right on Churchill, left onto the protected bike lanesof El Camino Real then arrive at the ribbon cutting at 3000 El Camino Real. If you would RSVP by Fri., Oct 3 at noon, I would be appreciative - justine@paloaltotma.org. Thank you and I hope you can join us to arrive at the ribbon cutting in style. Justine Burt This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast -- Justine BurtExecutive Director, Palo Alto Transportation Management Associationjustine@paloaltotma.org From:Christopher A Kantarjiev To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Ave rail crossing Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 11:32:54 AM Greetings - I'm writing today in response to the outreach email about the Churchill Avenue rail crossing process. I've lived in Southgate for almost thirty years. I know that this is an unpopular opinion among my neighbors, so it feels important to speak out: I'm disappointed that we continue to spend millions of dollars investigating this alternative, rather than taking the obvious action: Close Churchill at the railway crossing. This eliminates the horns, reduces congestion at the entrance to Paly, and removes one point of access for suicide attempts. The Seale Avenue overpass designs don't seem unreasonable, but I would suggest that since the majority of bike traffic on Churchill is headed to Paly High, there should be an undercrossing or overcrossing at Churchill, after closing the crossing. Thank you, Christopher Kantarjiev Portola Avenue From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - September 26, 2025 Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 10:25:10 AM Attachments:image008.pngimage009.pngRE Strongly Opposed Tennis Court Conversion at Mitchell Park.msgRE Parking.msgFW Concern About Increased Utility Bill (Floura NainiNayebi).msgRE We need to know the house number of acquisitions for underpass options.msgRE Urgent Plea for Reconsideration of Parking Policies on El Camino Real and the Impact on SmallBusinesses.msg Importance:High Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through September 26, 2025. Please note staff responded to 7 emails regarding the Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park. I have enclosed one for your awareness. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office | Human Resources | Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov View this email in your browser. Three Invites for You!Join us for the Water Symposium, Fall Kick-off and the Candidate & Ballot Forum From:LWV Palo Alto VOTERTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA Invites You! Water Symposium, Fall Kick-off & Candidate/Ballot ForumDate:Friday, September 26, 2025 7:26:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. REGISTER HERE REGISTER HERE REGISTER HERE Watch for your mail-in ballot starting October 6! Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Doug Minkler; Shankar Ramamoorthy;Carla Torres; Pacific GrovePD; GRP-City Council; GRP-City Clerk; PD Kristina Bell; Ed Lauing;editor@paweekly.com; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District23; Ruth Silver Taube; Zahra Billoo; Sameena Usman; Jennifer Morrow San José Spotlight; EPA Today; SeanAllen; Pat M; sharon jackson; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz Cc:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Zelkha, Mila; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Raymond Goins; Baker, Rob; Reifschneider, James; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; Binder, Andrew; james pitkin; Council, City; Cait James; Tim James; Human Relations Commission Subject:Palestinian Statehood and the Race to Stop the Gaza Genocide | Democracy Now! Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 11:25:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Over 150 countries now recognize Palestine as a state, including 14 of 15 members of the United Nations Security Council. The only outlier: the United States, which consistently wields its Security Council veto power in defense of Israel. https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/25/palestinian_statehood_and_the_race_to From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Kandikuppa, Nishita; Council, City; Clerk, City; jfleming@right-thing.net Subject:United Neighbors letter re AT&T 1661 Page Mill Road Tier 2 application (24PLN-00278) Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 6:33:18 PM Attachments:2025-09-18- Handout to ARB.pdfUnited Neighbors Letter to ARB re 1661 Page Mill.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Architectural Review Board: Attached, please find a letter on behalf of United Neighbors with feedback on the hearing held on September 18, 2025, concerning AT&T’s application for a Tier 2 Wireless Facility at 1661 Page Mill Road. United Neighbors greatly appreciates the Board’s attention to this application and its diligence applying the City’s design standards to wireless facilities in the right-of-way. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________ 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law, P.C. 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner. September 18, 2025 Estimate of Antenna Associate Equipment at 1661 Page Mill Road (24PLN-00278) FCC regulations and the City’s ordinance define a “small wireless facility” to mean a facility where “[a]ll antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume.” (PAMC §18.42.110(b)(12)(C).) The ordinance defines “associated equipment” to mean any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. (PAMC § 18.42.110(b)(2).) Tier 2 Checklist (p.3) requires the application include “the dimensions and volume of the antenna and the dimensions and volume of other additional equipment and the overall facility.” But this is not tabulated or calculated. The application also does not describe the dimensions of the AT&T above-ground cabinet that the plan states is “to remain.” We have measured the cabinet and pad. Height (inches) Length (inches) Width (inches) Total Volume (inches) Cubic Feet (÷ 1,728 inches) Cabinet 62.75 27 22.75 38,544.19 22.31 Cabinet Pad 3 35 24 2,520 1.46 Radio Shroud 1 28.89 14.38 10 4,154.38 2.40 Radio Shroud 2 28.89 14.38 10 4,154.38 2.40 Radio Shroud 3 28.89 14.38 10 4,154.38 2.40 Disconnect Switch 20.5 8.69 4.38 780.28 0.452 Connectors, Mounts & Brackets ? ? ? ? ? Cabling & Wiring ? ? ? ? ? Total: 31.42 cubic feet With over 28 cubic feet, this is not a “small wireless facility.” As a result, the FCC shot clock period is 90 days, not 60 days. ARIEL STRAUSS, Of-Counsel 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94703 Phone: (510) 900-9502, x 702 Email: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com September 25, 2025 United Neighbors Comments on AT&T Tier 2 Wireless Communication Facility, 1661 Page Mill Road (24PLN-00278) Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Member Hirsch, Member Jojarth and Member Rosenberg: I am counsel to United Neighbors, a Palo Alto community group advocating for smart cell tower planning. My practice focuses on land use and telecommunication law. Thank you for your careful consideration of AT&T’s application at the hearing on September 18, 2025, listening to our concerns and issuing a decision recognizing that AT&T did not establish a need to mount radios on the side of the streetlight pole and that AT&T was required to calculate the total volume of the facility, including the utility cabinet serving the existing cell tower. As this is the first application reviewed by the Board under the City’s reinstated discretionary standards, I wish to provide additional feedback on the hearing and AT&T’s application. 1. AT&T’s assertion that the positioning of radios is restricted by GO-95 is incorrect. We are concerned by several very basic misstatements by AT&T’s representative, Justin Giarritta. One is that Mr. Giarritta asserted that the location of the radios is restricted by “GO-95.”1 GO-95 is a reference to California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 “Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction.” GO-95 is applicable solely to utility poles carrying energized power lines. It has no bearing on attachments to light posts. 1 See recording of September 18, 2025, ARB hearing at timestamp 3:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0gSHnd5Vgg. ARIEL STRAUSS, Of-Counsel 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94703 Phone: (510) 900-9502, x 702 Email: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com 2 Mr. Giarritta also incorrectly asserted that the position of the radios on opposite sides of the post is limited by required “climbing space.”2 “Climbing space” is a GO-95 pole attachment spacing rule to enable lineman to scale wooden utility poles to service the lines. But, in addition to GO-95 not applying to light posts, any work on the antenna atop this light post must be performed with a bucket boom truck; its slick surface and less robust structural standards dictate that it cannot and should not be climbed by anyone. As a matter of law, any AT&T objections predicated on inapplicable GO-95 requirements must be rejected. We also recommend that AT&T be instructed going forward to clarify whether any standards cited are mandatory or not. 2. AT&T’s assertion that the location of the disconnect switch is restricted by PG&E standards is not correct. Mr. Giarritta stated that there is “a PG&E standard that the disconnect switch is not shrouded with the radios.”3 Like GO-95, PG&E standards are not relevant to this light post. PG&E standards only apply to utility poles owned by PG&E. PG&E does not own light posts. Even utility poles in Palo Alto are not owned by PG&E. For over a hundred years, electric service has been provided by the City’s own municipal utility. It may be more convenient for AT&T to use the same standards for wireless facilities that apply in other Bay Area cities, but in Palo Alto, it has considerably more flexibility to reduce the conspicuousness of cell tower installations. Unfortunately, AT&T is hiding behind inapplicable jargon as an excuse for refusing to invest in a sleeker, more stealth designs. 3. Contrary to what AT&T stated, undergrounded of radios is required by the Palo Alto Code. Mr. Giarritta acknowledged that AT&T could underground the radios if required to do so, but claimed, as an excuse, that it is not “explicitly written in your code.”4 First, Tier 2 facilities, such as 1661 Page Mill, must be designed in a manner that enables the Board to meet all the design review findings in Code Section 18.76.020(d) and the generally applicable wireless facility standards in Code Section 18.42.110(i). AT&T is on notice of these requirements. It is obvious that undergrounding is a more appropriate approach to comply with both these provisions. Second, the wireless ordinance is explicit that AT&T does have to underground its radios. Section 2 Hearing Timestamp 3:20. 3 Hearing Timestamp 3:25. 4 Hearing Timestamp 3:30-3:31. 3 18.42.110(j)(8) states: “Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume.” AT&T apparently has not bothered to read the City’s Code. 4. If AT&T is allowed to install side-mounted radios on the post, inevitably AT&T will cite the decision as a precedent to gain approval for side-mounted radios on other light posts. We appreciate the statements by Board members and staff that the precedent set by a Board decision is highly contextual and necessarily narrow. Each application must be reviewed on its own merits based on the information available at that time to the Board from the applicant, staff and the public. Similarly, what is technically feasible for one application might be infeasible in another situation. And, finally, what is appropriate in one setting may not be in another. However, we also see applicants frequently asserting that the City must allow a substandard approach in a new case because of past conduct. In fact, right now, AT&T is arguing that a side- mounted radio design should be approved for 1661 Page Mill to “match” its dozens of Tier 1 projects,5 even though this is a Tier 2 project subject to ARB review. To be clear, what AT&T is citing as precedents are installations none of which ever passed muster with the ARB. Imagine how much more aggressive their assertions would be if the ARB actually did approve moving the radios that are currently hidden in an equipment cabinet at 1661 Page Mile to the side of the light pole. We applaud the Board seeking to demand the highest standards available in each instance to avoid applicants’ one-way downward ratchet. 5. As a matter of law, the standard for cell tower equipment is higher than the standard for City-owned utility equipment. I also want to respond to the point that the Board may be applying standards to Tier 2 wireless facilities, such as 1661 Page Mill, that are more restrictive than the standards that exist for city utilities and traffic control lights. In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order dictating precisely that standards for small wireless facilities in the right of way be “no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments[.]” 5 See Hearing Timestamp 2:36. 4 Many cities immediately sued the FCC to challenge this restriction and, in 2020, the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the highest federal court for our region, ruled in favor of cities, expressly concluding the FCC requirement “must be vacated” as inconsistent with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which protects traditional, local zoning authority. (City of Portland v. U.S., 969 F. 3d 1020, 1041 (9th Cir. 2020).) Consequently, the Board has full authority to impose the standards set in the City’s wireless ordinance and design review findings, even if they are more demanding than those applicable to other types of infrastructure in Palo Alto. Relatedly, the Ninth Circuit struck down the FCC’s restriction that regulations of small wireless facilities be “objective” as illegally “arbitrary and capricious” because it did not allow cities to address the “intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments.” (Id. at 1042.) As a result, subjective standards are entirely lawful and the City Council specifically responded to this court decision by repealing mandatory objective standards and reinstating ARB review of Tier 2 applications. The City’s existing ordinances inform applicants of the methodology it will apply, as is the case for many discretionary permits. No additional notice to cell tower applicants is required. Cumulatively, the installation of dozens or hundreds of antennas, radios and switches protruding from poles across the City will have a negative visual impact. We hope that the Board will attempt to make all projects that come before it be of “high aesthetic quality” and harmonize with the surrounding. The Board is not required to set the lowest common denominator on account of the unideal condition of other infrastructure, but rather should incrementally improve the City where it has the power to do so. More specifically, the City’s wireless ordinance sets demands for Tier 2 facilities such as 1661 Page Mill, standards which apply regardless of the standards for other utilities. 6. The State statutory franchise does not limit ARB review. The Staff Report (p. 2) notes that AT&T has a franchise to use the public right of way under Public Utilities Code section 7901. However, it does not mention that, in 2019, the California Supreme Court specifically analyzed this section as applied to wireless providers and held that it does not limit a city’s “authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.” (T-Mobile West LLC v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1118.) AT&T seeks to use the City’s light pole, which is in the public’s right of way. Unlike private property owners building on their land, AT&T has no creative license or design discretion for wireless facilities installed on the City’s property. AT&T’s sole right is to meet its reasonable coverage objectives with any method 5 that is technically feasible and compliant with the City’s reasonable aesthetic standards. Logic and law dictate that it must do so in a manner that minimizes clutter and visual obtrusiveness. 6 7. If the Board approved side-mounted radios for 1661 Page Mill, it would no longer be a stealth facility. This means that, if AT&T, or another carrier, decided to add equipment in the future, it could override the City’s design and zoning standards on its own, and without oversight by the ARB (i.e., it would file a Tier 1, rather than a Tier 2, application). Boardmember Rosenberg commented that she worried about the light post being “infested with these little things sticking off of it all over the place” if AT&T’s application were approved. Staff reassured the Board that approving AT&T’s application, with side-mounted radios, “here doesn’t mean we necessarily have to allow a second one to locate on the same pole.”7 I disagree. If the City is not careful, uncontrolled visual clutter is exactly what approval will mean. The only reason that the Board is reviewing this modification application for 1661 Page Mill under Tier 2 is specifically because a prior ARB required that there be no side-mounted radios. As a result, staff concluded that adding them, as AT&T now wishes to do, “defeated the concealment element” of the current permit. If this is no longer a stealth site—if the ARB allows radios to be side-mounted on the pole—the City will lose discretion over all design of future modifications to the facility. To explain further: Federal law dictates that a “local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” (47 U.S. Code § 1455(a)(1).) FCC regulations interpret “eligible facilities request” to be one that does not defeat the concealment element of a wireless facility. Once the radios are not concealed, as a matter of right, under federal law, any wireless carrier may expand an already-permitted facility up to 10 feet horizontally and 10 feet vertically to upgrade or add as many additional attachments physically supportable by the pole, as well as add four ground cabinets, regardless of any local height restrictions or permit conditions, and without further local discretionary design 6 While not typical for other design review applications, it would be reasonable for the Board to demand that wireless facility applicants specifically provide a range of concealment options. This is similar to the common practice of cities requiring wireless applicants to demonstrate smart planning and present for consideration photo simulations of all feasible alternative locations. Providing options at the ARB hearing will make it easier for the Board to recommend the most appropriate design. 7 Hearing Timestamp 3:27. 6 review. (47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)(i),(ii),(iii).) If the ARB now approves radios mounted on the side of the light post at 1661 Page Mill, the City will have ceded its legal authority to stop future applications and will have to rely on the good will of cell tower applicants to avoid unsightly installations. The staff presentation emphasized the need for the Board to consider wireless ordinance “generally applicable design standards” (1) through (4) but did not discuss standard (5) that “[a]n antenna, base station, or tower shall be of a ‘camouflaged’ or ‘stealth’ design[.]” (Code §18.42.110(i)(5).) Federal regulations define a “base station” to mean a “structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications [,]” which includes light posts. (47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(1).) Enforcing the standard that the present facility be stealth is the only way to protect against the City permanently ceding its design review authority to future applicants. The Board should be proactively mindful of the federal co-location rights of future applicants on non-stealth facilities and demand that facilities be stealth whenever feasible. 8. Palo Alto’s ordinance demands that AT&T remove unnecessarily equipment from a cell tower facility. The wireless ordinance dictates that a facility a) be the smallest necessary to meet the applicant’s service objective, b) be downsized or undergrounded as new technology becomes available and c), within 90 days, remove any unused equipment. (See Code §18.42.110 (i)(1), (h)(8), (l).) As a result, if it is true, as asserted by Mr. Giarritta, that with the new design, the utility cabinet will be 100% used for AT&T wireline service and not serve the wireless facility at all,8 then the portion of the cabinet that currently houses the radio and other associated equipment must either be used for the new radios and switch, or the obtrusiveness of the large cabinet be downsized to only fit whatever will actually be inside of it. It should be noted, however, that the written record does not support the contention that the cabinet is irrelevant to the modified facility. First, the application does not make such a claim. Second, Street Light Single Line Diagram 3 on Sheet D-1 shows new “(N)” wires and fuses running to the AT&T cabinet, and the Electrical and Ground Diagram for the antenna shows the shut-off running to the “ground rod in AT&T cabinet” that is “to remain” per Enlarged Site Plan 8 See Hearing Timestamp 3:11. 7 on Sheet A-1.9 AT&T is routing new electrical to the cabinet in connection with this Tier 2 application, rather than only to the underground vaults, and is continuing to use the cabinet based on the submitted plans. Therefore, the cabinet is not solely for AT&T’s wireline service and its volume must be—but is not—included in the facility calculation. 9. City staff should require that AT&T either concur that the FCC shot clock is 90 days or enter into an agreement extending the shot clock; otherwise, the Director should deny the Application as incomplete. The shot clock timeline of 60 or 90 days is set based on the character of the application that is initially submitted. (47 CFR § 1.6003(c).) In this case, the application included the cabinet, and it is my opinion that this facility is too large to qualify as a “small wireless facility” as explained in the handout provided at the hearing (see attached). The application was clearly deficient for failing to include “the dimensions and volume of the antenna and the dimensions and volume of other additional equipment and the overall facility” as required by page 3 of the Tier 2 Checklist, and which is submitted under penalty of perjury. The Staff Report notes that September 18, 2025, was the 21st day of the shot clock period. The next ARB hearing will be on October 16th, which will be day 49. The Director then must make a decision within five business days, which is October 23rd, the 56th day of the period. (Code §18.77.070(d).) Because decisions are not final for 14 days to allow any residents to file an appeal (Code § 18.77.070(d)(3)), even if the Director makes a decision the same day as the ARB issues its recommendation, the permit process will not be concluded within 60 days, regardless of whether an appeal is filed. If an appeal is filed, it will also be impossible for a City Council appeal hearing to be noticed, scheduled and concluded within 60 days. My understanding of staff’s suggestion to hold a hearing on October 16th was that it reflected an implicit determination that the shot clock is in fact 90 days. While I support this conclusion, to avoid the potential for a dispute with AT&T about the shot clock, I recommend that staff request that the applicant either agree that the shot clock period is 90 days or enter into a voluntary tolling agreement, as allowed under the FCC regulations, to afford sufficient time for the City’s review process to play out. Shot clock tolling agreements are entered into routinely and 9 Diagram 8 on Sheet D-1 shows the radio shroud with the notation “supported by cabinet” and the Fiber/Coax Diagram notes “fiber jumpers to feed each 6503 dual support cabinet”. This use of “cabinet” is ambiguous and may refer to the sun-protecting shroud around the radios. 8 staff are familiar with them from past applications. In fact, applicants frequent request extensions due to their own difficulty presenting complete applications within FCC shot clock timeframes. In the unlikely event that AT&T does not cooperate, the Director should consider independently rejecting the application as incomplete prior to the continued hearing on account of the deficiencies identified by the ARB. (See ExteNet Sys. v. City of Cambridge, 481 F. Supp. 3d 41, 51 (D. Mass. 2020) (holding that a city may deny ROW wireless applications for incompleteness without waiting for end of the FCC shot clock).) This would avoid the potential for AT&T claiming the City failed to make a final decision within the shot clock period and invoking state-law deemed-approved provisions in Government Code section 5964.1(a).10 We appreciate the Board’s re-engagement in cell tower review and applying its expertise to protect the visual quality of Palo Alto public spaces. We hope that we can serve as a resource to assist the Board in this task. Sincerely, ___________________ Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel Greenfire Law, PC Cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov) Nishita Kandikuppa, Project Planner (Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov) City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov) City Clerk (City.Clerk@paloalto.gov) Jeanne Fleming, PhD, Chair, United Neighbors 10 In the future, it may be advisable for the Board to request applicants come to hearings authorized to toll the shot clock and, in the event that the appeal process cannot be completed within the most restrictive interpretation of the deadline and the Board views the application as deficient, recommend denial to the Planning Director rather than hold a further hearing risking potential shot clock violations. From:Prior, Christine To:Council, City Subject:Dignitary invitations to Bike Rodeo Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 2:49:47 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png Hello Council Members, I am forwarding the below invitation from the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. Would you please let me know if you plan to attend so staff can be properly prepared? Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Honorable City Council Members, Palo Alto's Safe Routes to School Partnership invites you to join our upcoming Third Grade Bike Rodeo at Addison Elementary on Friday, October 10. Come see both children and parents practicing the critical bike handling and safety skills needed to share the road safely. Please arrive around 9:30 a.m. The 'tour' of the event will last about 15-30 minutes. You don’t have to ride a bike or make a speech, but please bring a smile and all of the encouragement you can offer our intrepid mini-riders. A volunteer will send a follow-up email confirming and sharing any additional details you may need. As always, we're grateful for your ongoing partnership in support of Safe Routes to School. Sincerely, Lara Anthony and Rachel Vazquez-Reina Palo Alto Council of PTAs Transportation Safety Committee Co-Chairs Thank you, Christine Prior Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Linnet Kwok To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Cc:Howard, Adam; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Palo Alto Rotary Commends Palo Alto Pickle Ball Club’s Community Leadership Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 1:24:38 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i September 25, 2025 Dear Honorable Council and Commission Members, My name is Linnet Kwok, and I serve as a Board Member and Membership Chair of the Palo Alto Rotary Club. On behalf of our Club, I would like to commend the Palo Alto Pickleball Club (PAPC) for its outstanding partnership with us in building community here in Palo Alto. Our collaboration began last October with the inaugural pickleball fundraising tournament, From Court to Community. This successful event brought people together for fun, fellowship, and the shared purpose of raising funds to support Rotary’s work locally. On October 4 and 5, we are excited to partner once again with PAPC for our second annual fundraising tournament, Putting the “Fun” in Fundraising, at Mitchell Park, home of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. We value this partnership not only because PAPC brings expertise in pickleball and tournament organization, but also because of their extraordinary commitment to community building. PAPC leads fundraising efforts for Ability Path, an educational institution serving children and adults with developmental challenges and continues to provide volunteer support for citywide events—most recently contributing 200 volunteer hours, 60 volunteers to the Senior Games. This fall, PAPC will also host youth pickleball events to help inspire the next generation to stay active, learn teamwork, and connect socially in a healthy, welcoming environment. Through weekly on-court activities and a variety of cultural social gatherings, PAPC creates meaningful This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast opportunities for people to connect, build friendships, and celebrate diversity. The Rotary Club of Palo Alto deeply appreciates this spirit of partnership and community service, and we look forward to continuing this meaningful collaboration with PAPC in the years ahead. Sincerely, Linnet Kwok Board Member & Membership Chair Rotary Club of Palo Alto From:Scott Hassan To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Support for more pickleball courts in Mitchell Park Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 12:29:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: CC: ParkRec.Commission@paloalto.gov,City.Council@paloalto.gov, papc.secretary@gmail.com I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts atMitchell Park. I started playing pickleball at Mitchell Park in early 2021 during COVID. It was a great way to get out in the sunshine and get some exercise. Over the years, I have taught my family andmany of my friends how to play pickleball at Mitchell Park. Now, I play pickleball many timesa week. I have met and played with so many Palo Alto residents; many of which I had no easy way of meeting and now, we are on a first name basis. Pickleball is more than a game. I have played pickleball all around the world. In my opinion,no place does pickleball better than Palo Alto. Somehow, the culture of the game and how the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park were architected, really promotes social and inclusive play. Ihave not seen many activities that are close. Most other activities, I have to spend time organizing with people to find a time to play; many times weeks in advance. With pickleballno reservations are required, I just show up in the morning, afternoon, or at night, and there are always lots of friendly Palo Altans to play with. There is something truly special aboutwhat is happening at Mitchell Park. Something that should be spread throughout the world; a model ofexcellence. Cities and towns where people are insular and have few connections to others become fragile, disassociative, and weak communities. Communities where people have many connectionsand bonds are strong, resilient, and vibrant places; lots of friendships and people looking out for each other; happier and healthier. Pickleball in Palo Alto at Mitchell Park is a genesis of agreater good for all of Palo Alto and the entire Bay Area. Adding more courts as close as possible to the current courts is absolutely necessary to fuel This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast this social building and activity. Adding more courts anywhere else would fragment the peopleand limit the social connections. I support adding more pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Sincerely yours, Scott Hassan ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Scott Hassan <scotthassan@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 21:32Subject: Support for more pickleball courts in Mitchell Park To: <ParkRec.Commission@paloalto.gov>, <City.Council@paloalto.gov>,<papc.secretary@gmail.com> Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: Attached is a letter of support for more pickleball courts in Mitchell Park. Sincerely, Scott Hassan From:Shannon Griscom To:Council, City Cc:Shannon Close Griscom Subject:Bathrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 11:21:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members:I have been writing to you for well over 2 years about the need for a bathroom at Eleanor Pardee Park. I am 82 yearsof age, and have lived in Palo Alto since 1965. I know that if you as Council members decide to do something, it canget accomplished in a short time. However, you are clearly dragging your feet on providing bathrooms at this largeCity owned park and community garden.You are making it difficult for families and older people to use the park; you are also contributing to an unhealthysituation where families must take children behind bushes to relieve themselves.DECIDE TO PUT IN THE BATHROOMS, EVEN TEMPORARY BATHROOMS, AND JUST DO IT! Shannon Griscom From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil Subject:Home | Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 12:36:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/ From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Peter Drekmeier; h.etzko@gmail.com; Sean Allen; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Kaloma Smith; Roberta Ahlquist; Palo Alto Free Press; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Dave Price; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; ladoris cordell; Raymond Goins; Bains,Paul; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; james pitkin; EPA Today; WILPFPeninsula Palo Alto; editor@almanacnews.com; Lait, Jonathan; Ed Lauing; editor@paweekly.com; Jasso, Tamara;Paul Bains; Lotus Fong; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Gardener, Liz; Liz Kniss; Senator Becker; JessicaSpeiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Reifschneider, James;city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Nash, Betsy; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Dave Price; Emily Chapman; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright;Gennady Sheyner; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; GRP-City Council; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Clerk, City;CityCouncil; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Zelkha, Mila; Anne Cribbs; Templeton, Cari; Friends of Cubberley;Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov Subject:Webinar: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness | Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Date:Thursday, September 25, 2025 12:18:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. September 25, 2025 Hey Keith, Given your far-right-wing reactionary views on the unhoused here in Palo Alto, I am requesting that you review/listen to this comprehensive study on our current unhousedsituation in California. Although I have grave doubts that you will change your fixed, reactionary views, I still request that you and your colleagues listen to this webinar before thecouncil next takes up the issue of RV dwellers and homelessness generally in Palo Alto. Best regards, Avram Finkelstein https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources/videos/webinar-california-statewide-study-people- experiencing-homelessness From:Aram James To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; PD Kristina Bell; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; h.etzko@gmail.com; Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; Robert. Jonsen; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Figueroa, Eric; Lee, Craig; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Gerry Gras; Gennady Sheyner; city.council@gilroy.org; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Human Relations Commission; editor@almanacnews.com; EPA Today; Stump, Molly; Sean Allen; Pat M; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Taylor, Cecilia; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Josh Becker; Ed Lauing; Palo Alto Free Press; Lotus Fong; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Dennis Upton; editor@paweekly.com; Nicole Chiu-Wang; board@pausd.org; Raymond Goins; Vara Ramakrishnan; Liz Kniss; Kaloma Smith; Gardener, Liz; Linda Jolley; Roberta Ahlquist; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Doug Minkler; Dana St. George; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jeff Conrad Subject:Re: From the archives of Avram Finkelstein-when a city manager tries to chill the first amendment rights of alocal police watchdog Date:Wednesday, September 24, 2025 5:13:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9/24/2025 Hey Ed, Please confirm when you can set upa tour for me at the new slave catcher headquarters, also known as the not-so-public safety building. We can also discuss the disgrace of a police chief we have in Palo Alto, Andrew “Community Policing” Binder. You know the guy who lives an hour away in Morgan Hill. I know you admire the guy almost as much as I dislike the guy. One of the core principles of theFirst Amendment is the right of community members to express their views vehemently. The right to disagree on core principles of our democracy. You’re still welcome for coffee at myplace, about seven minutes from city hall. Best regards, Avram Finkekstein On Sat, Sep 20, 2025, at 9:48 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 2:48 AM : City manager shouldn’t be giving his personal opinion on your public records request. What is this? - some kind of frat house? Good job on keeping folks accountable. On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com > wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:52 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov > wrote: Hello Aram, I don’t know what’s caused you to feel the need to jump on our police chief, but rest assured that he is doing an extraordinary job. For what it's worth, I will tell you that I have been consistently impressed with Andrew’s dedication and commitment to Palo Alto and his role as police chief. He is among the best people I’ve ever worked with, and I greatly admire how he performs his duties. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada, City Manager ICMA Credentialed Manager (650) 329-2280 |ed.shikada@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 2:58 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com > wrote: 9/16/2025 Hi Ed, I have a very different opinion of Andrew than you do. And whatever opinion you have I totally respect but am doubtful we would agree on much when it comes to Andrew. When Andrew first came to Palo Alto from the SJPD I welcomed him to Palo Alto.I think we became friends and we both enjoyed talking about a wide range of community issues with a particular focus on something we were both interested in, police practices. We met multiple times at a midtown coffee shop long before he became chief. I thought i knew Andrew fairly well but turns out I saw a differentface to Andrew when he became police chief. BTW: just last week I met for several hours with my friend and former Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns at the same coffee shop. I grew up in Palo Alto and been a close observer of the PAPD for close to 60 years. Grew up with a mom who was a very active member of the NAACP. I now volunteer with the NAACP. I spent my entire career as a public defender, here in Santa Clara County as a front line public defender mostly, almost daily, cross examining lying cops who were bent on being the judge, jury and executioner of my clients, mostly poor and marginalized POC. Also one year in the Compton Branch of the Los Angeles Public Defender’s Office in 1988-1989. A topic of discussion by itself. After listening to lying cops for so many years I could feel the lies coming out their mouth almost before they said their first word. Just like you can read a city council person before they even step on the dais for the first time. All cops all citizen council members very predictable. Soon I knew how to control cops just like you know how to manage all most every type of city council type. City Manager Play Book 101. Right? Of course I am. It’s all about managing the conversation. I usecross-examination to keep cops on a very short leash. Admit it, you do the same with city staff and council. I watch you closely so I know. When I see you step too far out a line with a new council member I let you know. We in the same business, managed conversation. If you want to know why i have such a strong dislike for Andrew just ask him. He knows. Sure enough he know less he lying to you and himself. 1. Can you tell me how I can get a tour with a non aggressive professional member of the PAPD of the new jail? Sure don’t think Andrew has the capability of acting professionally towards me. He has already proven that. 2. Can we discuss the California Public Records Act and some concerns re how it is being implemented? *** Your invited to my house for coffee anytime if you which to discuss Andrewor related city issues pretty much anytime. Okay, my tax dollars contributed to pay for the new cop center so please let me know how I can get that tour. Peace, Aram James aka Avram Finkelstein. P.S. Call me anytime at 415-370-5056 From:Hartmut Sadrozinski To:Council, City Cc:Shaila Sadrozinski; Ashok Sadrozinski Subject:Update Churchill Avenue Railway Crossing Date:Wednesday, September 24, 2025 2:48:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council (city.council@paloalto.gov) Here are four important reasons which argue for the closure of the Churchill Avenue railway crossing SOON: 1. Prevention of suicides at the crossing close to Paly High 2. Minimize bike - car collision at the crossing Churchill Ave - Castilleja Ave (already 2 thisFall) 3. Elimination of excessive noise a) from crossing bells and b) from the train horns on the long stretch of train tracks (from California Ave to University Ave) 4. Saving the very large expenses of alternative train separation A simple extension of the existing track fence across Churchill Avenue coupled with the planned Seale Ave underpass could achieve this in a short time. Sincerely Shaila, Ashok, Hartmut Sadrozinski This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:REMINDER: RSVP Requested by 9/26: Athena Awards Date:Wednesday, September 24, 2025 10:33:27 AM Attachments:image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage011.pngimage012.png Good morning Council Members, Friendly reminder to please send me your RSVP’s for the Athena Awards by this Friday 9/26. Responses were received so far by: Council Member Greer Stone and Council Member Lythcott- Haims. After this Friday, we will release the remaining tickets to our Executive Leadership Team. Thank you! Best, 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: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 3:28 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: RSVP Requested by 9/26: Athena Awards Hello Council Members, This year’s Athena Awards will take place on October 9, 2025 at the El Prado Hotel. If you are interested in attending this year’s ceremony, please let me know by Friday, September 26. After that date, we will open the remaining tickets to our Executive Leadership Team. More details of the event are provided below: The ATHENA® award is given to honor exceptional woman leaders who demonstrate the highest levels of professional excellence, give back to their communities and, most importantly, assist other women in realizing their full leadership potential – and it is an international award, having been given to more than 6,500 recipients in over 500 cities and 8 countries. Locally it is awarded by our Chamber of Commerce. 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:Aram James To:h.etzko@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City Cc:Sean Allen; Donna Wallach; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Jeff Rosen; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission Subject:Oscar-winning French director pulls film from Cinema South Festival as Israel boycotts mount | The Times ofIsrael Date:Wednesday, September 24, 2025 7:19:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Recently, some 4,000 Hollywood film industry professionals — among them actors Emma Stone and Joaquin Phoenix, and directors Yorgos Lanthimos and Ava DuVernay — signed a petition declaring they will not work with “Israeli film institutions involved in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people.” Oscar-winning French director pulls film from Cinema South Festival as Israel boycotts mount | The Times of Israel https://share.google/UaJAaKig0fwhqlVsB From:Aram James To:Palo Alto Public Records Center; Jasso, Tamara; Shikada, Ed; Poarch, Adam; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W007003-091025 Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 10:25:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9/23/2025 California Public Records Act Hi Christine, Thanks so much for sending me the records in PDF Format. Aram According to the documents released to me today, September 23, 2025 the following facts areestablished: The Southwood complex was subjected to a fire inspection on August 15, 2025. Southwood is a 100 unit complex. There are 5 separate buildings on the property. Each of the buildingsfailed the fire department’s inspection performed on (building's A, B, C, D, E). Per the the documents the owner of property or property manager, Julian Garcia, has 30 days to remedy the issue or issues that resulted in the Southwood complex failing the fire inspectionof all five buildings on the complex. Per the documents released the fire inspector, Adam Poarch, will be re inspecting the Southwood complex on September 15, 2025, or sometime there after. I am requesting that as soon as the followup inspection occurs that I receive any and alladditional reports. Given the potential for injury or worse at the Southwood complex I am requesting that the follow up fire inspection be completed as soon as possible. Best Regards, Received, thank you. On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 4:25 PM Palo Alto Public Records Center<paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> wrote: Attachments:Inspection_Bldg_A_8.15.25.pdf Inspection_Bldg_B_8.14.25.pdfInspection_Bldg_C_8.15.25.pdf Inspection_Bldg_D_8.15.25.pdfInspection_Bldg_E_8.15.25.pdf --- Please respond above this line --- Hi Mr. James, Please find the responsive records attached. Please let me know if you have anyquestions or concerns. Best,Christine PriorDeputy City ClerkCity Clerk's Office To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM] From:Maria Kossenko To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Strongly Opposed Tennis Court Conversion at Mitchell Park Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 8:36:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council: My mother and I have been living in Palo Alto for over 25 years, and have played tennis at Mitchell park for all this time. We are strongly opposed to the conversion of additional tenniscourts to pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Out of the nine tennis courts that Mitchell Park initially had, only two are currentlyavailable for general tennis use. The other two designated tennis courts (courts 1 and 2) are constantly used by tennis coaches. If the last two dedicated tennis courts (courts 3 and 4) are converted to pickleball courts, it will mean not having any courts at all to play tennis in Mitchell park. People are alreadywaiting for over an hour to play tennis in the evenings. Losing these last two courts to pickleball will mean we will have no lighted tennis courts in South Palo Alto. Furthermore, the policy boards stating how long the tennis courts can be used by any one party have been removed by the pickleball club. There are now no designated bulletin boardswhich explain the time limits for tennis players. Palo Alto already has the highest amount of pickleball courts per capita out of all SouthBay cities. See below the population by city versus the number of existing pickleball courts: Population By City (2024): Cupertino 58,710 Mountain View 87,316 Palo Alto 67,658 Foster City 32,657Sunnyvale 156,792 Menlo Park 33,040 Los Altos 30,864 Redwood City 82,982 Number of available public pickleball courts by city: 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 Cupertino –4 outdoor unlit courts. (3 of these are shared with tennis players. The city is planning to build 8 pickleball courts in 2028. Present total: 4 (3 shared). That’s 14,677residents per court. Mountain View— 3 dedicated outdoor pickleball courts, 6 shared (with tennis) outdoorcourts, +2 indoor courts. Total: 11 public courts citywide (6 shared). That’s 7,938 residents per court. Palo Alto – 15 dedicated pickleball courts at Mitchell Park, 6 at UC Palo Alto, (not including private and club pickleball options). Total: 15 public courts in south PA (not including the 6 at UC Palo Alto, because it’s not a city facility.) None of these courts are shared. That’s 4,511 residents per court. Foster City – 6 permanent dedicated pickleball courts. That’s 5,442 residents per court. Sunnyvale – 12 dedicated courts. That’s 13,066 residents per court. Menlo Park – 4 mixed use courts. That’s 8,260 residents per court. Los Altos – 6 duel use courts. That’s 5,144 per court. Redwood City – 4 mixed use courts. That’s 20,745.5 residents per court. As the President of Palo Alto pickleball club (PAPC) admitted, about half of theirplayers are not Palo Alto residents. When surveying the court, the non-resident number is likely to be much higher. The pickleball club is sending their nonresident members to Mitchell park. Siding with PAPC proposal is prioritizingnon-residents over Palo Alto residents. Several additional notes: Pickleball has created an immense amount of congestion in the parking lots and on thesidewalks. Traffic on the sidewalks due to pickleball players loitering while waiting forcourts makes it unsafe for children to ride their bikes and for other pedestrians to use thepark sidewalks. The JLS parking is locked off, making it even more difficult to find parking.Magic bridge is supposed to be an inclusive playground, but the pickleball noise makesit impossible for children with autism to use the playground. In conclusion, Converting Mitchell Park tennis courts into pickle ball courts will take awaycurrently the last lighted tennis courts available to Palo Alto residents. It will also make thecurrent difficult parking situation even worse. It will further discourage our residents fromusing the Mitchell park library and other facilities at the park including the Magical Bridgeplayground. We urge you to reconsider the court conversion for the sake of Palo Alto residents, who feelthat all sports and all individuals should be treated equally. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully,Maria Kossenko and Larisa Konakova From:Steve Wong To:Bill McLane Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Manu Kumar; Cathi Lerch; City Mgr; Patrick Kelly; Maor Greenberg; Council, City; Lester Wong Subject:Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 7:13:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i “Many thanks for the concerted effort! Step by step, we’ll get the message across.” Steve Wong Wong Electric, Inc. :+1 650.813.9999 ext. 14 : +1 650.280.0160: 4067 Transport Street,Palo Alto,CA 94303 USA Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978-2024A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council WONG ELECTRIC,INC.www.wongelectric.com swong@wongelectric.com On Sep 23, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:This is great news! Let’s keep the ball rolling. Can we now start to tow the unhitched trailers as well? Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 4:42 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>wrote: Thank you, Manu, for your diligence and collaboration. It was a pleasure to meet you today. And thank you also for the citation that was clearly just sunbathing. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police DepartmentSpecial Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:23 PM To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> Cc: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Subject: Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Manu and the City of Palo Alto! The RV hassuccessfully been removed and we appreciate it very much! On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 9:41 PM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>wrote:Eric, You ticketed this RV a few days ago. The ticket is fading in the sun andhasn’t even been touched because this RV is UNOCCUPIED. No one has entered or exited this RV since it was parked here. We havecameras watching it. Here are pictures show your citation that is still there sunbathing in the door.Also note the FOR SALE sign. Please follow the rules on towing abandoned vehicles and tow this vehicle. Pictures attached from various days… Warm regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. From:Bill McLane To:Bulatao, Eric Cc:Manu Kumar; Cathi Lerch; City Mgr; Patrick Kelly; Maor Greenberg; Council, City; Lester Wong; Steve Wong Subject:Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:50:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This is great news! Let’s keep the ball rolling. Can we now start to tow the unhitched trailersas well? Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 4:42 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you, Manu, for your diligence and collaboration. It was a pleasure to meet you today. And thank you also for the citation that was clearly just sunbathing. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:23 PM To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> Cc: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Subject: Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Manu and the City of Palo Alto! The RV has successfully been removedand we appreciate it very much! On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 9:41 PM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote:Eric, You ticketed this RV a few days ago. The ticket is fading in the sun and hasn’t even beentouched because this RV is UNOCCUPIED. No one has entered or exited this RV since it was parked here. We have cameras watchingit. Here are pictures show your citation that is still there sunbathing in the door. Also note theFOR SALE sign. Please follow the rules on towing abandoned vehicles and tow this vehicle. Pictures attached from various days… Warm regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. From:Bulatao, Eric To:Manu Kumar Cc:Cathi Lerch; City Mgr; Patrick Kelly; Maor Greenberg; Council, City; Lester Wong; Steve Wong; Bill McLane Subject:Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:42:01 PM Thank you, Manu, for your diligence and collaboration. It was a pleasure to meet you today. And thank you also for the citation that was clearly just sunbathing. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:23 PM To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> Cc: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Subject: Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave 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. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Thank you Manu and the City of Palo Alto! The RV has successfully been removedand we appreciate it very much! On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 9:41 PM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote: Eric, You ticketed this RV a few days ago. The ticket is fading in the sun and hasn’t even beentouched because this RV is UNOCCUPIED. No one has entered or exited this RV since it was parked here. We have cameras watching it. Here are pictures show your citation that is still there sunbathing in the door. Also note the FOR SALE sign. Powered by Mimecast Please follow the rules on towing abandoned vehicles and tow this vehicle. Pictures attached from various days… Warm regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. From:Cathi Lerch To:Manu Kumar Cc:Bulatao, Eric; City Mgr; Patrick Kelly; Maor Greenberg; Council, City; Lester Wong; Steve Wong; Bill McLane Subject:Re: RV at 927 Industrial Ave Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:24:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Thank you Manu and the City of Palo Alto! The RV has successfully been removedand we appreciate it very much! On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 9:41 PM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote: Eric, You ticketed this RV a few days ago. The ticket is fading in the sun and hasn’t even beentouched because this RV is UNOCCUPIED. No one has entered or exited this RV since it was parked here. We have cameras watching it. Here are pictures show your citation that is still there sunbathing in the door. Also note the FOR SALE sign. Please follow the rules on towing abandoned vehicles and tow this vehicle. Pictures attached from various days… Warm regards,-Manu This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. From:Tony Lee To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Urgent Plea for Reconsideration of Parking Policies on El Camino Real and the Impact on Small Businesses Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 2:53:48 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage004.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Council Members, I am writing to you again, as a concerned community member and advocate for our local smallbusinesses, to follow up on a letter I sent previously regarding the impact of parking policies on El Camino Real. To date, I have not received a response, and the situation for thesebusinesses continues to grow more dire. I must again plead with you to consider a practical and balanced "hybrid model" that permitsshort-term loading and unloading and late-night parking in the designated bike lane. This would provide much-needed relief to small businesses, like my laundromat and neighboringshops, that have no private parking and suffer from a significant decline in customers. Also, permitting parking during hours when no one, including cars or bicycles, is using the lane is asimple, effective solution that would demonstrate your commitment to supporting the local economy. Furthermore, I have observed a disturbing inconsistency in applying these policies. In front of the larger businesses, such as the McLaren and Volvo dealerships, there are currently no "NoParking" signs. The previous signs below the "No Parking" sign and a "Delivery Vehicles Excepted" sign have been completely removed. This starkly contrasts the rigid enforcementseen against smaller businesses on the same stretch of road. I am attaching a photo that I took before. This apparent differential treatment is deeply troubling and sends a message that the City prioritizes larger corporate entities over the small, family-owned businesses that contribute somuch to our community's character. I ask you to explain why there appears to be one rule for some and another for others. We urge you to reconsider the parking policies and address this issue of inconsistent enforcement. Our small businesses need your support and a clear, equitable path tosustainability. We look forward to your prompt response and to engaging in a constructive dialogue to find a fair solution. Sincerely, A Concerned Small Business Owner of Palo Alto Tony Lee650-224-2230 cell On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:56 PM Tony Lee <leetony@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Mayor Lauing, Thank you for the update and for following up with the Chief Transportation Officer. I appreciate you sharing the response regarding the creation of new 2-hour zones on OxfordAvenue and Stanford Avenue. It is encouraging to see this moving forward, especially since Mr. Nate Baird from the Office of Transportation informed me of these potential changesduring his visit to my laundromat on June 11th. While I understand these new zones are intended to provide some relief for businesses near El Camino Real, I must reiterate that this does not address the core issue for businessesdirectly on El Camino Real that have lost street parking immediately in front of their establishments. As you noted, this does not provide a spot in front of my shop, and the sameapplies to many other businesses in similar situations. The primary challenge remains customer accessibility to businesses like mine, which heavily rely on direct, convenient parking. Many of my customers are elderly or havemultiple laundry bags, making distant parking impractical. The current situation with the removal of street parking and the rigid enforcement of "no parking" in the bike lanescontinues to impact foot traffic and revenue significantly. For instance, my next-door neighbor, Roy's cleaner, has reported a 30-40% decline in revenue over the last severalmonths and is now using her savings to cover rent and utilities. I hope that solutions directly addressing the need for accessible parking on El Camino Real will be given further consideration. A hybrid model, such as permitting late-night parking inthe bike lane or creating designated public parking spots next to the bike lane (similar to the examples I shared from Mountain View), could offer a more effective compromise thatsupports both bike lanes and the vitality of our small businesses. I am available to discuss this further and offer any additional insights from the perspectives of affected business owners and my customers. Sincerely, Tony Lee650-224-2230 cell On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:28 AM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Tony, I followed up with our Chief Transportation Officer and got the following response on Friday. I am aware this does not get you a spot on ECR in front of your shop. “On August 11, 2025, Council approved the creation of new 2-hour zones in a number of locations including Oxford Avenue and Stanford Avenue near El Camino. This change isintended to provide parking relief for retail land uses such as the Stanford Coin Wash. The two-hour zone will ensure short term parking and parking turnover close to El CaminoReal which we expect will provide parking capacity for customers the area. Following Council approval, OOT staff prepared and issued a work order for the production and installation of the new signs. I sent an email today to check on the timingfor this work and we can let you know when we can expect to see the signs on the affected streets. “ Ed Lauing Mayor Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Tony Lee <leetony@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 2:00 PM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Urgent Plea for Reconsideration of Parking Policies on El Camino Real and the Impact on Small Businesses CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Thank you for your prompt reply to my initial email regarding the impact of parking policies on small businesses along El Camino Real. I appreciate your acknowledgmentand the assurance that you are looking into the situation. Your attention to this matter is highly encouraging. I am writing to respectfully inquire about the progress of your investigation and to offerany additional information or a dialogue with myself and other affected business owners. The challenges we are facing are urgent, and we are hopeful that a solution can be reachedbefore more businesses are irreparably harmed. We remain committed to finding a balanced approach that supports both sustainable transportation and the vitality of our local economy. We are available to meet at yourconvenience to discuss this issue further and to provide direct input from those most affected. As I mentioned in my previous email, a hybrid model that permits late-night parking in thebike lane, or the creation of designated, easily accessible public parking spots, could offer the necessary compromise. I have seen a great example of the creation of easily accessiblepublic parking spots on California Street in Mountain View. I am attaching a photo and a short video for you to IMG_0054.HEIC IMG_0055.MOV look at. Thank you again for your consideration and for your service to the Palo Alto community. Sincerely, Tony Lee Owner of Stanford Coin Wash On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 4:32 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Tony, I am investigating this situation. I appreciate the update. Ed Lauing Mayor Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Tony Lee <leetony@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2025 12:33 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Urgent Plea for Reconsideration of Parking Policies on El Camino Real and the Impact on Small Businesses CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council And the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works and Transportation Subject: Urgent Plea for Reconsideration of Parking Policies on El Camino Realand the Impact on Small Businesses Dear Honorable Council Members and Department Leaders, I am writing to you today as a concerned member of the Palo Alto community, and onbehalf of the many small business owners facing an existential crisis because of recent parking policy changes on El Camino Real. While we all support initiatives to improveour city, the unintended consequences of these policies are threatening the livelihoods of our local entrepreneurs, who form the very heart and soul of our community. The recent removal of street parking in favor of bike lanes on El Camino Real, while a noble effort to promote alternative transportation, has created a significant challenge forbusinesses that do not have their own private parking facilities. These businesses rely heavily on street parking for their customers, many of whom are unable or unwilling towalk long distances from distant lots. Since the removal, many of these small establishments have reported a substantial and disheartening decline in customer foottraffic, directly impacting their ability to sustain their operations. Furthermore, we are witnessing a particularly troubling enforcement of "no parking"rules in the bicycle lane, even during late-night hours when these lanes are completely devoid of bicycles, cars, or any other activity. This zealous application of the law, attimes when the risk of conflict or obstruction is zero, feels punitive and serves to further discourage any potential customers who might attempt to visit these businesses duringnon-peak hours. This combination of policies—the elimination of convenient parking and the rigid, all-hours enforcement—is a one-two punch that is killing these small businesses. They are the shops and restaurants that give our city its unique character, provide jobs, andcontribute to our local economy. Without the ability for customers to easily access them, they will be forced to close their doors. We urge the city to reconsider these policies. We are not asking for the elimination of bike lanes, but rather for a practical and balanced solution that allows small businessesto thrive. Perhaps a hybrid model that permits late-night parking in the bike lane, or the creation of designated, easily accessible public parking spots, could offer the necessarycompromise. We'd like to ask you to dialogue with the small business community to find a workablesolution before more of our cherished local establishments are lost forever. Sincerely, The Owner of Stanford Coin Wash Tony Lee650-224-2230 cell From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Clerk, City; City Mgr Subject:Council Bundle - September 23, 2025 Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 7:52:57 AM Attachments:image008.pngimage009.pngFw IndustrialTransportCommercial Safety.msgRE Monday - 9-15-2025 public comment.msgRE Code Enforcement - Overgrown Lawn at US Post Office 380 Hamilton Ave 25PCE 01096.msgFW Caltrain.msgRE Grade separationcharleston.msgRE Pickleball expansion.msg Importance:High Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through September 23, 2025. Please note staff responded to 45 emails regarding the Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park. I have enclosed one for your awareness. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office | Human Resources | Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Gerry Fan To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:No for converting Mitchell Park tennis courts to Pickleball Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 9:45:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hey members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I have lived in Palo Alto for last18 years, and am writing against converting 2 of the 4remaining tennis courts to eight additional pickleball courts (in addition to the 15 pickleball courts we already have) at Mitchell Park. Tennis has been a big part of my family, Mitchell Park tennis courts have been our "homecourts" for my son's growing-up process: my son and I play there since he started to walk(now he is sophomore in college); Gunn tennis team kids have also been playing on those courts,mitchell park tennis is part of kid's school experience, it would be very disturbing to take aways the very needed facility. Pickleball is also a good sport, they should build their owncourts from other less populated areas such as next to 101 where noise is not an issue, not canniballing the tennis courts that are highly needed for kid's schools, the hardworking (stillworking) mid-aged palo alto residents. Sincerely yours, Gerry FanBarron Park School area in Palo Alto. If you need my address, let me know. 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:Manu Kumar To:Bulatao, Eric Cc:City Mgr; Patrick Kelly; Maor Greenberg; Cathi Lerch; Council, City; Lester Wong; Steve Wong; Bill McLane Subject:RV at 927 Industrial Ave Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 9:42:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Eric, You ticketed this RV a few days ago. The ticket is fading in the sun and hasn’t even been touched because this RV is UNOCCUPIED. No one has entered or exited this RV since it was parked here. We have cameras watching it. Here are pictures show your citation that is still there sunbathing in the door. Also note theFOR SALE sign. Please follow the rules on towing abandoned vehicles and tow this vehicle. Pictures attached from various days… Warm regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Carter Chang To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Please keep tennis courts available! Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 8:56:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and members of City Council: I am a Palo Alto resident writing in opposition to converting 2 of the only 4 remaining tenniscourts at Mitchell park. Tennis has been (and continues to be) an integral part of my health and well-being. All three of my children grew up hitting on our public courts in Palo Alto. Every week I hit multipledays with a wide variety of tennis enthusiasts. However, there are insufficient tennis courts with lights. The ones that do exist are occupied by coaches, USTA matches, or school teams. (Evidence that tennis is healthy and growing!) I ask the council and commission to kindly reconsider this decision- I know you can findcreative ways to support both tennis and pickleball communities. Warmest regards, Carter ChangRhodes Drive Get Outlook for iOS NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, orotherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately byreply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you. 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 From:Carter Chang To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Please keep tennis courts available! Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 8:35:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I have lived in Palo Alto for the past 20+ years and am writing in opposition to converting 2 ofthe only 4 remaining tennis courts at Mitchell park. Tennis has been (and continues to be) an integral part of my health and well being. All threeof my children grew up hitting on our public courts in Palo Alto. As a Palo Alto resident, I hit with a wide variety of tennis enthusiasts multiple times a week. Already there areinsufficient tennis courts with lighting, and the ones that do exist are occupied by coaches, USTA matches, or school teams. Please reconsider this decision. There are other options. This does not need to be a zero sum game that pits pickle ball players against tennis enthusiasts. Respectfully,Carter Crescent Park addition/ DuveneckSent from my iPhone 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 From:Syed Arij To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Concern About Converting Tennis Courts to Pickleball at Mitchell Park Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 8:35:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council, I am a Palo Alto resident writing to express my opposition to the proposal to convert two of the four remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park into eight additional pickleball courts. PaloAlto already has 15 dedicated pickleball courts, and reducing the number of public tennis courts would significantly impact the ability of tennis players, especially youth and families,to access the sport locally. Tennis has been a source of exercise, mentorship, and family bonding for us. My childrenlearned discipline and sportsmanship on these courts, and it’s one of the few intergenerational activities we do together. Losing access to courts would make it much harder for us tocontinue this tradition. I fully appreciate the popularity of pickleball and the desire to accommodate its growth.However, I believe it’s possible to support pickleball players without displacing existing tennis infrastructure. Converting these courts risks creating an imbalance between the twosports and diminishing opportunities for residents, especially students and families, to learn and enjoy tennis. Thank you for your time and for considering the views of all community members as you make this important decision. Best Regards Syed Arij 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 From:S S To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Please don’t convert tennis courts to pickleball courts Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 8:21:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council , I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in against converting 2 of the 4 remaining tennis courts toeight additional pickleball courts (in addition to the 15 pickleball courts we already have) at Mitchell Park. All of us in my family play tennis and it’s a great family event for all of us! I enjoy withfriends and fellow PA residents and it’s a memorable & emotional experience. Sincerely yours, SrikanthPA resident 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:Philippe Bouissou To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Request to Keep Tennis Courts at Mitchell Park Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 8:11:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Members of the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council, I have lived in Palo Alto for the past 20 years on Clara Drive and am writing to express myconcern about the proposal to convert two of the four remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park into eight additional pickleball courts. This would be in addition to the 15 pickleball courts thecity has already provided. As a longtime tennis player, I have greatly valued the courts that Palo Alto offers, and my two children, who attended Palo Verde, JLS, and Paly, also grew up playing and enjoying thegame on these community courts, like many children do today. While I fully respect and appreciate the growth of pickleball, I urge you to maintain a fair balance between tennis and pickleball facilities. Preserving tennis courts alongside pickleballcourts ensures that residents with diverse interests can continue to enjoy the full range of recreational opportunities our city provides. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely yours, Philippe Bouissou, Ph.D. CEO Blue Dots Partners, LLC www.BlueDotsPartners.com LinkedIn TEDx talk My book Top 100 Magazine Vistage 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 Powered by Mimecast From:Govea, Jose (Contractor-NBCUniversal) To:ARB@paloalto.go; Council, City; bryna.chang@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed Cc:Holeyman, Alison (NBCUniversal); Pyryt, Dan (NBCUniversal); Lopez, Odell (NBCUniversal); Ramirez, Reinaldo (NBCUniversal); Wing, Kevin (Contractor-NBCUniversal) Subject:NBC REQUEST FOR PALO ALTO Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 7:48:49 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good evening, Can you please share any details about Palo Alto developments for tunnels for pedestrians to cross Caltrains tracks between California Ave and San Antonio ? Please “REPLY ALL” or call 408-432-4780, Thank you. Jose Francisco Govea |Assignment Desk Editor Telemundo 48 / KSTS – 408-944-4848 NBC Bay Area / KNTV – 408-432-4780 Jose.Govea@nbcuni.com @GoveaJournalism This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Aram James To:Council, City; h.etzko@gmail.com; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; editor@almanacnews.com;editor@paweekly.com; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; Robert. Jonsen;Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; Sean Allen; Seher Awan; mike braxton; Pat M Subject:Source: SFGATE Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 5:32:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Folks, I have warned our city council that they are vulnerable to a similar situation. Please consider arming yourselves in this volatile time. Avram Finkelstein As Huey B. Newton famously said: “ An Unarmed People Are Subjected To Slavery At AnyTime. “ Source: SFGATE Calif. town council descends into chaos after armed man storms meetinghttps://share.google/wIugZnq0xXQNkQwPl From:Peter BarlingTo:price@padailypost.com; bcartwright@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com Cc:Council, CitySubject:FW: Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter"s PowerPoint Presentation "Doing What"s Right vs. Doing What"s Wrong" Case #25-01694. The harassment and retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!! Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 4:19:33 PMAttachments:Peter"s Comments Turned Off -1.pngPeter"s Comments Turned Off -2.pngPeter"s Comments Turned Off -3.pngImportance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Paul, Braden & Emily + City Council Members, Oops! I forgot to add the three cellphone screen captures that prove my comments were turned off! (see attached photos below my name). Thanks for your patience and understanding with me, an 83.75-year-old gentleman,Peter _____________________________________________ From: Peter Barling Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 3:48 PMTo: 'price@padailypost.com' <price@padailypost.com>; 'bcartwright@padailypost.com' <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; 'emibach@padailypost.com' <emibach@padailypost.com> Cc: 'City.Council@paloalto.gov' <City.Council@paloalto.gov> Subject: FW: Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter's PowerPoint Presentation 'Doing What's Right vs. Doing What's Wrong' Case #25-01694. The harassment and retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!! Importance: High Hello Paul, Braden & Emily + City Council Members, Right after sending my email below, I went to YouTube on my laptop to view my PowerPoint Presentation that I made to the City Council on September 15, 2025. To my surprise, my comments were turned back on and I was able to listen to my comments made during my PowerPoint Presentation to the City Council Meeting on September 15, 2025!!! Possibly, someone’s legal counsel informed the individual(s) who were responsible for ‘turning off my comments’, were told to ‘turn my comments back on’! I have had the feeling for someweeks, and possibly for some months, that someone is hacking into my computer to monitor ever keystroke that is made on my computer.! HELP!!! Peter _____________________________________________From: Peter Barling Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 3:18 PM To: 'price@padailypost.com' <price@padailypost.com>; 'bcartwright@padailypost.com' <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; 'emibach@padailypost.com'<emibach@padailypost.com>Cc: 'City.Council@paloalto.gov' <City.Council@paloalto.gov> Subject: Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter's PowerPoint Presentation 'Doing What's Right vs. Doing What's Wrong' Case #25-01694. The harassment and retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!!Importance: High URGENT – YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED ASAP IN PETER’S ATTEMPT TO ‘GO PUBLIC WITH CASE #25-01694!!! In my opening statement for my PowerPoint Presentation at the Palo Alto City Council Metting – September 15, 2025, I made the comment that, “I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’ on comments that I had prepared for my PowerPoint Presentation. I was at the park today at ~1:20pm watching my Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 video on YouTube, when my comments for that presentation were turned OFF! I believe I may have touched a nerve over the past weekend, after I placed a notice onthe 5 Lytton Gardens elevator bulletin boards in 3-languages (English, Chinese (simplified) and Russian) informing all residents of the ‘Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 and my PowerPoint Presentation given at the start of that meeting (see link)! Late Sun ay night September 21, 2025, I went to each elevator to see if my notices were still on the elevator bulletin boards. In 3 of the 5elevators, notices had either gone missing or, obviously, had been removed and replaced on the bulletin boards in the elevators. There was one notice (see below attached under my signature/name) that had been removed and handled (one line was highlighted in yellow added to the second line of the text on my notice) and it was placed back on that elevator bulletin board to catch the viewer’s attention, as to its importance for over 400 elderly and vulnerable people whose safety and lives thar are and have been at risk, sinceJanuary 14, 2025, as a result of Donna Quick’s, Housing Administrator at Lytton Gardens’ cover letter and attached ‘release from liability form’ that every residence received and were told to sign, date and return to the Office by January 31, 2025. I made sure that all the missing notices were replaced and ready to be seen today, Monday, September 22, 2025, when the Lytton Gardens’ staff returned to workat 8:00am and residents began to move around the Lytton Gardens’ complex. I believe that ‘turning off my YouTube comments’, which made listening impossible, via the Palo Alto City Council Meeting YouTube Channel video of the Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025, made listening impossible for the Palo alto City CouncilMeeting YouTube Channel Subscribers to listen to what I had to say during my ‘PowerPoint Presentation at the City Council’s Meeting – September 15, 2025’. I further believe, that action to turn off my YouTube comments, was orchestrated by someone in a position of power or one or more individuals (Property Owner Front Porch Communities & Services, Sean Kelly, CEO, Property ManagementCompany CARING Housing Ministries, Soraya S. Diaz, President and Donna Quick, Housing Administrator for Lytton Gardens), whoare those who have a lot to lose from this information becoming public!!! FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! the individuals I was speaking to when I commented that I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’ comments in my PowerPoint Presentation. My question to Paul Price, Braden Cartwright and Emily Mibach is, “Does this ‘turning off my YouTube comments’ equate to a very good reason to ‘Go Public’ with PAPD Case #25-01694 in the Palo Alto Daily Post? Possible ‘Front Page Headlines’! Thanks for your support for me an over 400 elderly and vulnerable people, who reside at Lytton Gardens in Palo Alto and whose safetyand lives are at risks and have been at risk since January 14, 2025! Peter From:Peter Barling To:price@padailypost.com; bcartwright@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com Cc:Council, CitySubject:FW: Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter"s PowerPoint Presentation "Doing What"s Right vs. Doing What"s Wrong" Case #25-01694. Theharassment and retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!! Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 3:48:19 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. i Hello Paul, Braden & Emily + City Council Members, Right after sending my email below, I went to YouTube on my laptop to view my PowerPoint Presentation that I made to the City Council onSeptember 15, 2025. To my surprise, my comments were turned back on and I was able to listen to my comments made during my PowerPoint Presentation to theCity Council Meeting on September 15, 2025!!! Possibly, someone’s legal council informed the individual(s) who were responsible for ‘turning off my comments’, were told to ‘turn mycomments back on’! I have had the feeling for some weeks, and possibly for some months, that someone is hacking into my computer tomonitor ever keystroke that is made on my computer.! HELP!!! Peter _____________________________________________ From: Peter Barling Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 3:18 PM To: 'price@padailypost.com' <price@padailypost.com>; 'bcartwright@padailypost.com' <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; 'emibach@padailypost.com' <emibach@padailypost.com> Cc: 'City.Council@paloalto.gov' <City.Council@paloalto.gov> Subject: Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter's PowerPoint Presentation 'Doing What's Right vs. Doing What's Wrong' Case #25-01694. The harassment and retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!! Importance: High URGENT – YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED ASAP IN PETER’S ATTEMPT TO ‘GOPUBLIC WITH CASE #25-01694!!! In my opening statement for my PowerPoint Presentation at the Palo Alto City CouncilMetting – September 15, 2025, I made the comment that, “I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’ on comments that I had prepared for my PowerPoint Presentation. I was at the park today at ~1:20pm watching my Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 video on YouTube, when my comments for that presentation were turned OFF! I believe I may have touched a nerve over the past weekend, after I placed a notice on the 5 Lytton Gardens elevator bulletin boards in 3-languages (English, Chinese (simplified) and Russian) informing all residents of the ‘Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 and my PowerPoint Presentation given at the start of that meeting (see link)! Late Sun ay night September 21, 2025, I went to each elevator to see if my notices were still on the elevator bulletin boards. In 3 of the 5 elevators, notices had either gone missing or, obviously, had been removed and replaced on the bulletin boards in the elevators. There was one notice (see below attached under my signature/name) that had been removed and handled (one line was highlighted in yellow added to the second line of the text on my notice) and it was placed back on that elevator bulletin board to catch the viewer’s attention, as to its importance for over 400 elderly and vulnerable people whose safety and lives thar are and have been at risk, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast since January 14, 2025, as a result of Donna Quick’s, Housing Administrator at Lytton Gardens’ cover letter and attached ‘release from liability form’ that every residence received and were told to sign, date and return to the Office by January 31, 2025. I made sure that all the missing notices were replaced and ready to be seen today, Monday, September 22, 2025, when the Lytton Gardens’ staff returned to work at 8:00am and residents began to move around the Lytton Gardens’ complex. I believe that ‘turning off my YouTube comments’, which made listening impossible, via the Palo Alto City Council Meeting YouTube Channel video of the Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025, made listening impossible for the Palo alto City Council Meeting YouTube Channel Subscribers to listen to what I had to say during my ‘PowerPoint Presentation at the City Council’s Meeting – September 15, 2025’. I further believe, that action to turn off my YouTube comments, was orchestrated by someone in a position of power or one or more individuals (Property Owner Front Porch Communities & Services, Sean Kelly, CEO, Property Management Company CARING Housing Ministries, Soraya S. Diaz, President and Donna Quick, Housing Administrator for Lytton Gardens), who are those who have a lot to lose from this information becoming public!!! FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! the individuals I was speaking to when I commented that I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’ comments in my PowerPoint Presentation. My question to Paul Price, Braden Cartwright and Emily Mibach is, “Does this ‘turning off my YouTube comments’ equate to a very good reason to ‘Go Public’ with PAPD Case #25-01694 in the Palo Alto Daily Post? Possible ‘Front Page Headlines’! Thanks for your support for me an over 400 elderly and vulnerable people, who reside at Lytton Gardens in Palo Alto and whose safety and lives are at risks and have been at risk since January 14, 2025! Peter From:Bob Stillerman To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts to Pickleball Use Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 3:44:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I’m writing to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council regarding the pending proposal to convert Mitchell Park tennis courts to pickleball courts. Tl;dr: My suggestion is that the PRC convene a handful of tennis players and pickleball playerson a committee to develop an analysis of court usage and a proposal for the configuration and usage of the PA public courts. The PRC should not make a decision based on letters ortestimonials from either faction. I explain my rationale in more detail below. I have lived in Palo Alto for close to 50 years, having played on PA’s public courts since my arrival. I continue to play tennis regularly, often on our public courts. For the past seven years Ihave been a member of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club (PAPC) and am a former board member of the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC). I therefore consider myself someone who is familiar withand appreciates the availability of public facilities for these two engaging sports. Parenthetically, I have also served as Commissioner on the Infrastructure Blue RibbonCommission in Palo Alto and on the Florence Commission of Santa Clara County. I play pickleball regularly at Mitchell Park. The PAPC has done a great job working with the city to create a safe and friendly environment for both residents and non-residents. I am aware thatat certain times of the day, arriving players may have to wait for a spot on a court to become available. In my experience, wait times are rarely excessive. I play tennis several times a week on public courts. As there is no reservation system otherthan for official groups such as the USTA teams, waiting has always been an acceptable compromise for free use of a public facility. If a court is occupied, I may opt to wait or findanother court to play on. Ideally, the city could provide indications of court occupancy, so that players could know which courts are available at any given time. To my understanding, the PAPC has over 1000 members, many of whom are Palo Altoresidents. The club is well organized. I have received several emails requesting that I advocate for the creation of eight pickleball courts on two of the current Mitchell Park tennis courts. Ihesitate to do so. I expect that the PRC and perhaps the City Council will hear from many more pickleball players than tennis players, not because of lack of interest, but because thepickleball club is better organized. I strongly discourage the city from making a decision based on the number of community members it hears from but instead solicit a committee’srecommendation that takes into consideration the interest of both groups. In my opinion, the best way to approach is to form a group with three tennis players, three pickleball players and 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 one Parks and Rec commissioner. The commissioner can assist with interface to the city,providing information on court usage and other statistics/information from neighboring communities. The players can consider the issues and attempt to reach agreement on asolution that considers both sports. The joint solution could then be presented to the city at the appropriate venue. After all, tennis is considered one of the healthiest sports. Pickleball is asport growing in popularity and is often an option for retired tennis players. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Regards, Bob Stillerman Bob Stillerman From:Peter Barling To:price@padailypost.com; bcartwright@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com Cc:Council, CitySubject:Palo Alto City Council Meeting - September 15, 2025 Peter"s PowerPoint Presentation "Doing What"s Right vs. Doing What"s Wrong" Case #25-01694. The harassmentand retaliation of Peter Barling has begun!!!! Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 3:18:45 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. i URGENT – YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED ASAP IN PETER’S ATTEMPT TO ‘GOPUBLIC WITH CASE #25-01694!!! In my opening statement for my PowerPoint Presentation at the Palo Alto City Council Metting – September 15, 2025, I made the comment that, “I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’on comments that I had prepared for my PowerPoint Presentation. I was at the park today at ~1:20pm watching my Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 video on YouTube, when my comments for that presentation were turned OFF! I believe I may have touched a nerve over the past weekend, after I placed a notice on the 5 Lytton Gardens elevator bulletin boards in 3-languages (English, Chinese (simplified) and Russian) informing all residents of the ‘Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025 and my PowerPoint Presentation given at the start of that meeting (see link)! Late Sun ay night September 21, 2025, I went to each elevator to see if my notices were still on the elevator bulletin boards. In 3 of the 5 elevators, notices had either gone missing or, obviously, had been removed and replaced on the bulletin boards in the elevators. There was one notice (see below attached under my signature/name) that had been removed and handled (one line was highlighted in yellow added to the second line of the text on my notice) and it was placed back on that elevator bulletin board to catch the viewer’s attention, as to its importance for over 400 elderly and vulnerable people whose safety and lives thar are and have been at risk, since January 14, 2025, as a result of Donna Quick’s, Housing Administrator at Lytton Gardens’ cover letter and attached ‘release from liability form’ that every residence received and were told to sign, date and return to the Office by January 31, 2025. I made sure that all the missing notices were replaced and ready to be seen today, Monday, September 22, 2025, when the Lytton Gardens’ staff returned to work at 8:00am and residents began to move around the Lytton Gardens’ complex. I believe that ‘turning off my YouTube comments’, which made listening impossible, via the Palo Alto City Council Meeting YouTube Channel video of the Palo Alto City Council Meeting – September 15, 2025, made listening impossible for the Palo alto City Council Meeting YouTube Channel Subscribers to listen to what I had to say during my ‘PowerPoint Presentation at the City Council’s Meeting – September 15, 2025’. I further believe, that action to turn off my YouTube comments, was orchestrated by someone in a position of power or one or more individuals (Property Owner Front Porch Communities & Services, Sean Kelly, CEO, Property Management Company CARING Housing Ministries, Soraya S. Diaz, President and Donna Quick, Housing Administrator for Lytton Gardens), who are those who have a lot to lose from this information becoming public!!! FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast the individuals I was speaking to when I commented that I wished to ‘Speak Truth to Power’ comments in my PowerPoint Presentation. My question to Paul Price, Braden Cartwright and Emily Mibach is, “Does this ‘turning off my YouTube comments’ equate to a very good reason to ‘Go Public’ with PAPD Case #25-01694 in the Palo Alto Daily Post? Possible ‘Front Page Headlines’! Thanks for your support for me an over 400 elderly and vulnerable people, who reside at Lytton Gardens in Palo Alto and whose safety and lives are at risks and have been at risk since January 14, 2025! Peter From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Shikada, Ed; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; h.etzko@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Emily Mibach; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Vicki Veenker; Council, City; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; board@valleywater.org; board@pausd.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; Linda Jolley; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Wagner, April; Jeff Conrad; Perron, Zachary; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Pacific GrovePD; Palo Alto Free Press; Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers; Zelkha, Mila; Stump, Molly; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Mickie Winkler; Foley, Michael Subject:San Jose safe sleeping site temporarily closes - San José Spotlight Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 12:25:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9-22-2025 Hey Keith, See the number of unhoused people in San Jose and you can better understand why you can'tpush Palo Alto’s approximately 200 unhoused folks off on other cities in the county. If you do try there will be massive pushback on you, Keith Reckdahl. Best regards, Avram Finkelstein There are 6,503 homeless residents in San Jose, according to a point-in- time count conducted in January. More than 3,500 people are unsheltered. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-safe-sleeping-site-temporarily-closes/