Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-10-20 City Council Emails
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 10/20/2025 Document dates: 10/14/2025 - 10/20/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Matt Lynch To:Council, City Cc:McDonough, Melissa Subject:Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 12:36:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon: My name is Matthew Lynch, and I manage Gryphon Stringed Instruments, located on 211 Lambert Ave in Palo Alto. On behalf of our store, I would like to present the following for public comment at tonight's City Council meeting regarding OVI: Gryphon Stringed Instrument has been serving Palo Alto and the greater Bay Area since 1969, and while we are recognized internationally as a leading purveyor of fine stringed instruments, we foremost consider the local community to be our greatestasset. The derelict RVs on Park Boulevard are of particular concern to those who work at Gryphon Stringed Instruments because we are a retail business. Although we sellinstruments online through our website, we still depend on sales to customers from throughout the greater SF Bay Area who drive to the corner of Park & Lambert to shop for specialty instruments, or to have theirs repaired. Some customers have expressed surprise and dismay at the trash surrounding these huge ill-kemptvehicles, not to mention their poor condition, and we hear comments such as: "Is it safe to walk on that side of the street?", and "What happened to Palo Alto?". The urban blight that now characterizes the stretch of Park between Page Mill Road and Lambert Ave discourages customers from surrounding cities, such as Menlo Park andLos Altos, from coming to Gryphon to shop. Thank you for time. Sincerely, This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast -- Matthew Lynch, Retail Sales ManagerGryphon Stringed Instruments211 Lambert AvePalo Alto, Ca 94306888-493-2131 Ext. 7006 From:Deanna Olsen To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Deanna Olsen Subject:Urgent Request for Council Action – Ongoing Violations and Neglect at 3820 Park Blvd | Alcheck Family (10.20.25 Public Comment ) Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 12:31:25 PM Attachments:SantaClaraDeed_Pg1.pdf3820 Park Blvd LP.pngPublic Interest Story_Ongoing Issues & Lack of Transparency at Palo Alto Apartment Complex_Redacted.pdfFollowing up_ Request for Inspection – Substandard Housing _ Health & Safety Violation_Redacted.pdf3820 Park Blvd_Rat Issues.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Council Members, I’ve been a Palo Alto resident since March 2023, and am writing as a resident of 3820 Park Blvd to urgently request the City Council’s intervention regarding what appears to be asustained pattern of neglect, abuse, and potential violations of Palo Alto’s housing and health codes by the property’s current owners and management team. I have tried to escalate theseconcerns appropriately — beginning with the on-site management team and continuing through all available public resources — yet the situation remains unresolved and continues todeteriorate. Since the property was quietly acquired last year by the Alcheck family (Elie Alcheck, RonitAlcheck Bodner, Zach Bodner, and Michael Alcheck), tenants have faced a disturbing decline in living conditions, paired with escalating rent and utility charges that are neithertransparent nor lawfully sub-metered. Requests for information, maintenance, and even basic communication have gone unanswered for months, while those residents who press foraccountability are met with hostility or retaliation. Equally concerning, the owners have failed to register the property with Palo Alto’s RentalRegistry Program (RRP) — a clear requirement under city ordinance intended to ensuretransparency, accountability, and fair treatment of tenants. Their refusal to participate in this mandatory registry not only violates City policy but further obscures ownership and rentaldata that are meant to protect residents and inform city oversight. This is especiallyconcerning given the recent roles Ronit Bodner & Michael Alcheck have held with boththe Los Altos and Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission, they should knowbetter! Once I discovered that the Alcheck family were behind the purchase — and given their involvement in the local Jewish community, which I have long supported and championed — 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 I initially wanted to believe they might be unaware of how poorly things were being managed.However, it has become abundantly clear that they know exactly what is happening and are intentionally operating in this opaque manner. The pattern of behavior at this property seemsto mirror broader concerns that have been raised about their conduct in other civic and business contexts. The most visible and alarming example is the community pool, which has been drained sinceearly June and remains surrounded by caution tape with no notice or explanation providedto residents to date (see picture in "Public Interest" attachment below). This is not merely a matter of inconvenience — it is a clear health and safety hazard that violates multipleprovisions of California Civil Code §1941.1 and Health & Safety Code §§17920.3–17920.10, as well as Palo Alto’s own housing maintenance standards. Meanwhile, deadrodents left in shared areas have gone unaddressed, raising legitimate public health concerns. These conditions — and the owners’ deliberate concealment of their identities through limited partnerships — represent a pattern of willful disregard for habitability laws and tenantrights. They are exploiting weaknesses in local enforcement and operating as though the City’s housing code does not apply to them. I have already filed a formal inspection request with the City’s Code EnforcementDivision, contacted Project Sentinel for mediation, and documented every incident with photos and written correspondence. Yet despite these efforts, the violations persist and tenantsremain without protection. This situation demands more than another inspection request — it requires Council attention,public accountability, and enforcement action. I respectfully urge the Council to: 1. Direct the Department of Building Inspection and Code Enforcement to open afull investigation into 3820 Park Blvd, including the owners’ pattern of non-disclosure and potential bad-faith practices. 2. Request a report back to Council on the status of enforcement and any barriers to timely tenant protection. 3. Meet with affected tenants to hear firsthand how these abuses are undermining the integrity of Palo Alto’s housing standards. Palo Alto’s residents pay among the highest rents in the nation, and we deserve safe, sanitary, and lawfully managed housing. Allowing such misconduct to continue unaddressed sets adangerous precedent — one that erodes trust in the City’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and enforcement. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with any interested Council Member to share documentation, correspondence, and testimony from fellow residents. This issue is not isolated— it represents a broader challenge that many tenants face when property owners act with impunity. Thank you for your time, and I urge the Council to act swiftly to restore accountability and uphold the standards that define our community. Sincerely,Deanna Olsen Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> Public Interest Story: Ongoing Issues & Lack of Transparency at Palo Alto Apartment Complex Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com>Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:38 PM To: bcartwright@padailypost.com Bcc: Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> Dear Braden, My name is Deanna, and I am a resident of an apartment complex located near El Camino and Curtner in Palo Alto. I am reaching out because I believe there may be a compelling public interest story concerning the conduct of our new property owners and management team. Since their acquisition of the property, the new owners have taken significant steps to obscure their identities—even in response to requests that cite applicable California Code requiring disclosure of ownership and contact information. Through my own research, including obtaining the deed of sale from the Santa Clara County Clerk’s Office, I discovered that ownership was also attempted to be concealed behind a limited partnership (L.P.). However, we have been able to link the property to a prominent and influential local family with a history of public service (such as a former Planning & Transportation Commissioner) and prior scrutiny regarding potential city wide conflicts of interest. For the past several months, residents have been dealing with unresolved issues and a troubling lack of communication from property management (and many responses have been hostile, or they are replying only after 30+ days later, representing complete negligence). Several tenants have simply left, or are leaving due to these issues. The most visible concern is our pool, which has been drained and non- functional for months. Initially cordoned off with caution tape, it now features a more formal roped off area—yet not a single written update or notice has been provided to residents. In response, I have contacted Palo Alto’s mediation team, Project Sentinel, and organized a resident Google Group to help coordinate efforts and share information. I’ve also submitted some formal demands, including rent abatement due to the loss of this key amenity (pool)- and their response has been retaliatory. This experience has underscored a broader issue: the serious challenges tenants face when property owners and management companies operate without transparency or accountability. I believe this situation warrants greater public attention, and I would be glad to share more details, including documentation, photos, and other willing resident testimonies. Please let me know if you would be interested in discussing this further. I appreciate your time and consideration. Best regards, Deanna Olsen deanna.olsen@gmail.com Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> Following up: Request for Inspection – Substandard Housing / Health & Safety Violation Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com>Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:32 PM To: building@paloalto.gov Good afternoon, I wanted to follow up as I have had no response to this request for an inspection as of yet. I am meeting next week with the Palo Alto City Council, and was hoping that I'd at least be able to tell them where I am in terms of reaching out to the City about this issue. Thanks, Deanna Olsen Palo Alto Resident 3820 Park Blvd, Apt. #5 Palo Alto, CA 94306 deanna.olsen@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 5:47 PM Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> wrote: Deanna Olsen 3820 Park Blvd, Apt. #5 Palo Alto, CA 94306 deanna.olsen@gmail.com October 2, 2025 City of Palo Alto – Development Services / Code Enforcement 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: building@paloalto.gov Re: Request for Inspection – Substandard Housing / Health & Safety Violation Dear Code Enforcement Officer, I am writing to formally request an inspection of a property located at 3820 Park Blvd in Palo Alto, where I reside. I believe conditions on the premises constitute a substandard housing violation and present a health and safety hazard. Specifically, the property has a drained swimming pool surrounded only by caution tape, which remains unaddressed by management to all of the tenants. I raised this concern in a certified letter to management on July 28th, after more than 2 months of the existing problem. Additionally, we have had to alert management to dead rodents in the garages that were not dealt with. These conditions raise significant concerns under the following provisions: California Civil Code § 1941.1, which requires landlords to maintain premises in a habitable condition. California Health and Safety Code § 17920.10, regarding inadequate sanitation and hazardous conditions. California Health and Safety Code § 17920.3, which defines substandard buildings as those that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants or the public. The pool in its current state poses a clear safety risk to tenants, visitors, and potentially the public, given the lack of proper barriers and maintenance. I respectfully request that a Code Enforcement inspection be scheduled at the earliest possible date to evaluate these conditions and determine whether corrective action or a Notice of Violation is warranted. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me of the next steps. I am happy to provide photographs and additional documentation upon request. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your efforts to ensure the health and safety of Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Deanna Olsen _____________________________ Portion of letter related to the lack of any communication or notice re: the status of the pool sent to management on July 28, 2025. Till date, they have not made any attempt at communicating the situation to all of the tenants: In regards to the current state of the Pool, the apartment lease explicitly states that the community pool will be available to residents between June 1 and September 30. However, the pool has been drained, cordoned off with caution tape, and entirely inaccessible to residents for a majority of the months of June and July, with no formal notice, explanation, or expected repair timeline provided to the residents. It seems it will be offline in August as well, which is fast approaching. Given that the pool is a prominent feature of the property and contributes to the value of tenancy, its current condition has also become a visible eyesore, detracting from the overall appearance and livability of the property. This combination of inaccessibility and neglect—paired with the lack of transparency—constitutes a failure to provide the contracted amenity. This is a material breach of the lease and a loss of value to all of the tenants during peak summer months. Additionally, I am compelled to raise serious concern regarding the excessive delays in communication and lack of good faith responsiveness to reasonable tenant concerns. California law requires landlords to respond promptly and avoid actions that could be construed as bad faith, especially when tenant inquiries involve issues of rent, lease terms, and the functionality of amenities. To date: My June 27, 2025 follow-up email — expressed concerns about communication and transparency surrounding a major amenity (the pool) being offline with no communication — remains unanswered as of Monday, July 28, 2025 (a more than 30+ day delay). This consistent pattern of excessive delay and non-responsiveness, violates your obligations as a landlord under California Civil Code § 1942.4, which prohibits landlords from collecting rent if they fail to perform legal obligations or fail to respond to tenant concerns in a timely and good-faith manner. Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> Regarding the Incident on Friday, August 1st, 2025 Ali Emadi <ali.emadi21@yahoo.com>Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:13 AM To: Carolina Park <carolinaparkresidences@gmail.com>, Deanna Olsen <deanna.olsen@gmail.com> Dear Diana, Thank you for your email. I would like to take this opportunity to address a few number of pressing concerns that go well beyond the recent maintenance incident. First, I want to emphasize that my concerns—and those of many fellow residents—are not limited to the matter of construction noise. They speak to broader, ongoing issues regarding the habitability and management of this property. As a single tenant in a one-bedroom unit, I find it both unreasonable, unfair, and disappointing that my rent has recently increased by over 9%, as well as excluding additional charges for trash, sewer, and water—services that are not sub-metered. Despite this significant increase, the overall cleanliness condition of the property continues to decline. For instance, there has been a dead rat lying in the parking space for the past three days, now swarmed by ants. Despite being clearly visible, it remains unaddressed. This is not only unsanitary but deeply concerning from a public health standpoint. As someone who values respectful dialogue, I ask that we not lose sight of the core issue: residents deserve safe, clean, and reasonably managed living conditions—especially in a city like Palo Alto, where rent prices already reflect a high premium. I hope you and the whole management team will take these concerns seriously and address them proactively. Sincerely, Ali Emadi Unit #15 [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carolina Park Residents" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carolina-park-residents+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/carolina-park-residents/CAJK3HPjHNP6AuLuc4Fyq5iH5_ EUHBA8CLtbMCqAHvSzRQBV-ww%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 2 attachments IMG_9338.HEIC 1174K IMG_9339.HEIC 2199K From:Cynthia Fan To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Suggestion: Add staff responses to council & commissioner questions to meeting agendas Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 11:51:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Council and PRC Commission, In support of transparent governance and meaningful public engagement, please consider having staff’s written responses to commissioner and council questions routinely posted as part of meeting agendas. These exchanges between decisionmakers and staff can be just as valuable to the public’s understanding—sometimeseven more so—than the discussions that take place during meetings. Often, members of the public have many of the same questions you do, but they’re not afforded the opportunity to see the answers staff provides to you before decisionsare made. Those answers directly inform your votes and priorities, yet the publiccan be left wondering what information shaped your decisions. For reference, the City of Sunnyvale already follows this practice for council Q&A: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx? ID=1271907&GUID=5A8FE9B5-35D7-4F53-B26D-1DEEDE483903&Options=info|&Search= . So does the City of Los Altos: https://losaltosca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/196/files/attachment/46 While I understand these Q&A communications can be requested through the California Public Records Act (CPRA), I’m not sure much of the public is aware that these documents exist or that they can be requested. Even if they knew, it maybe challenging for staff to respond to individual CPRA requests in time to enablecommunity members to prepare informed public comments on agendized items. Thank you for considering this suggestion to make the City’s process even more open, accessible, and collaborative. Best regards, Cynthia Fan From:Eric Chan To:Council, City Subject:Re: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo Alto Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 11:07:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Palo Alto Council Members, As a property owner and resident of Echelon Community, I request Palo Alto City not to allowRV parking next to our home, along East Meadow Circle. It is negatively impacting our living conditions, safety and property value. Thank you. Eric Chan - Echelon Community On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:33 PM Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Council Members and Neighbors, A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described below. This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM): “16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions. Sincerely, Colin Swindells 3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Health Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential health risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas. 1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-load on the immediate environment. Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains, gutters, or onto the ground. Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment. Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and can be spread through contaminated surfaces or water. Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases. Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play. Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers. While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains. Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs. Health Risks: Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches). Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food surfaces. Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials. Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored. 2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV occupants and, potentially, the wider community. Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above (especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar encampment situations in other cities. Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5). Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly ventilated vehicles. Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as skin conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population. 3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards. Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks. Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator malfunctions. Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's spread and endangering firefighters. Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding emergency vehicle access. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents. Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic. 4. Mental and Social Health Impacts These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants. For Neighborhood Residents: Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety. Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and sanitation concerns. For RV Occupants: Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft. Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be significantly magnified. Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible biohazard zones. Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond. Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures. Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment and would require a major intervention from public health departments. In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this issue effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned locations with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants with healthcare, housing, and other support services. Economic Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential economic risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services. Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon… Total Units in Echelon: 75 Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units] Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage… Total Units: 254 Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units] Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] 1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents. Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include: Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime. Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood. Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the neighborhood less desirable. Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties: Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take significantly longer to sell or rent. Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct financial loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates. Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the declining desirability of the neighborhood. 2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are ultimately borne by taxpayers. Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a disproportionate demand on emergency services. Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These calls are resource-intensive. Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time. Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood. Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs: Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far more expensive than standard trash collection. Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per event. Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign for containment, testing, and vaccination. 3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout. Reduced Revenue: Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks can further deter patrons. Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new customers. Increased Operational Costs: Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive surveillance systems. Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins. Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the area is deemed higher risk. Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or late-night shifts. 4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses. Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences. Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars). Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the zip code. 5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood. Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward economic spiral. Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious cycle. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained reality. Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius. Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood services like park maintenance or library hours. "Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-go" zone for new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial pressure, with a high risk of failure. In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for managed, resourced solutions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Echelon Palo Alto" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to echelonpa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/echelonpa/CAOcXV2HfbUCW7GW%3DQ0-rD9a%3D3rdXb%3DLhC4ydnXqfJk2LG8ks3A%40mail.gmail.com. From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Human Relations Commission; james pitkin; Yolanda Conaway; Bains,Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; Holman, Karen (external); Tony Alexander; Tom DuBois; tom.cline@cityofgilroy.org;Adam Dawes; Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; Baker, Rob Cc:Vicki Veenker; Jasso, Tamara; Blackshire, Geoffrey; editor@almanacnews.com; Lauing, Ed; gstone22@gmail.com Subject:Watch "Sean Allen Analysis on Santa Clara County Taser Usage" on YouTube Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:27:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://youtu.be/SEnlP3WoM2w?si=TIRie0FDhbUv2pEy From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:Tonight"s discussion of the RV situation Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:19:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Councilmembers: The staff report is quite nebulous concerning the locations of certain areas where RVs will be able to congregate and receive services. I suspect Park Boulevard and surrounding streets inVentura will be one of the specially designated spots since our neighborhood has been a de facto "permitted" area for years. You KNOW how I feel. I want all neighborhoods to share equally in housing our RVdwellers. I propose a rotation system should be designed whereby RVs are relocated month to month across the city so that all residents may be equally impacted and equally helpful. Please don't consign one or two neighborhoods to do the work for the whole city of taking careof our RV and vehicle dwellers. Special thanks to Vice Mayor Veenker for calling this out at the Policy and Services Meeting. Thank you and kind regards, Becky Sanders From:June Chang To:Council, City Subject:RV vanlording on E Meadow Circle Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:11:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable city council members, The RVs occupying E Meadow Cir. causes health concerns and issues, increases traffic and noises atthe cross street of E Meadow Drive and Fabian Way. Every RV comes with a car and/or a motorcycle,impacting Echelon, Vantage, and Altaire community.E Meadow Circle and Fabian way never has street cleaning because of vanlording, not only it lookstrashy but also raises health concerns.Where are the rights of law abiding residents who moved into this neighborhood, paying taxes, hoping tobuild a clean and safe environment for their families? this is undoubtedly a decrease of the quality of lifeand the property value of honest Palo Alto residents, we seek to preserve. Please approve:- ban vanlording- redistribution of RVs to other parts and/or RV parks;- and updated street signage for cleaning. Much appreciated council member's consideration.- Jung Changfrom Echelon Community. 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:Min Zhong To:Council, City Cc:Kratt, Ken Subject:Serious illegal RV parking issue in Palo Alto Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 9:56:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I am an owner of the Echelon community in the East Meadow and East Meadow Circle area. The illegal RV parking situation on public streets around my neighborhood and beyond in Palo Alto has become a serious public safety, health, environment, and economy issue. This situation has been seriously affecting the living quality of Palo Alto residents who are paying property tax, rentals, and utilities to keep Palo Alto a great place to live, while significantly draining the city budget to maintain those affected areas caused by those illegal RV campers. This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM): “16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” I appreciate your positive actions to address the health and economic risks that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities caused by those RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. I am certain that you will live up to your voters' expectations on eliminating all illegal RV parking on public streets in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Min Zhong 3704 Feather Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 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:Yingxi Liu To:Council, City; Kratt, Ken Subject:Please restrict oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Cir (Agenda Item #16, Oct 20) Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 9:51:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, Adopt Item #16 and immediately prohibit oversized/RV parking on E Meadow Circle and nearby residential streets. Our block is not equipped for long-term vehicle habitation. Thecurrent concentration has produced ongoing health, fire, and traffic hazards—sewage and trash, generator fumes and noise, blocked sightlines, and impeded emergency access. Publicsafety is non-negotiable. Act now: post “No Oversized Vehicle Parking” signs, set tow-away hours, enforceconsistently, and publish a 30-day implementation schedule. Pair this with sanctioned, serviced safe-parking in appropriate zones—compassion requires order. I acknowledge and support my neighbor Colin Swindells for his detailed analysis; I align with his findings and request. No more delays—restore basic standards on E Meadow Circle. Sincerely, 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:Marguerite Poyatos To:Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com Cc:Steve Wong; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Dave Stellman; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 8:42:29 AM Attachments:Outlook-THEimage015.pngimage018.pngOutlook-3lhybjrbOutlook-logo 2 PNG.pngimage011.pngOutlook-Green Hearimage020.pngimage017.pngimage021.pngimage016.pngimage019.pngAttachment A - Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Approaches.pdfItem 16 Staff Report (2).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Manu! I am following up to include Roger & Peter in this email chain. They also are interested in rectifying this RV/parking situation. Attached is some information they had provided to us regarding a City Council meeting,which is scheduled for tonight, as well as parking regulations for neighboring cities. On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 9:24 AM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote: Steve and fellow neighbors: I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what PaloAlto really looks like. https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636 It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight. The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in a different spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs. The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is notallowed altogether. Regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in this area every day. Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to worsen week after week. There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and overcrowded areas. This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses. Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the available spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over additional spots and making the situation worse. We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible steps to resolve it. Sincerely, Steven L. Wong - President Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160 4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your shoulders when something happens. Patrick Kelly From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still sitting in the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't beallowed to be kept in the street for multiple reasons. On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote: The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental issues. Please help. Patrick Kelly From: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. O.R. Builders Inc. Xenia Czisch Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno' <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>; 'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti' <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Dave Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete Moffatt' <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley' <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; 'Melissa McDonough' <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider' <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation' <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Lydia Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker' <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims' <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety + Staceytomson@qmsshields.com Vice President of Operationsphone: (650) 858-2491 mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inchesfrom the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws. Bill McLane ---------------------------------Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operationsphone: (650) 858-2491 mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote: + staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Chantal, Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and gave out the 72 hour tow notices. I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all townotices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of thenotices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in the street for a few months now. Can that be addressed? The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many ofthese end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering? As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because thereis no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians. Thank you. On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno<ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused bythe RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business andthe safety of my students and their families. As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaininga safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families. However, recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult. One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RVencampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect thetrash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my own expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. Thisis unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. I understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facingsimilar challenges. Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation aboutbringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditions surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses adirect risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school. I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address thesechallenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our communityand the ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a priority. I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action thatincludes: Proper and reliable waste management enforcementIncreased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbagedisposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for intervention. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local businesscommunity. Sincerely, Ramon Moreno Owner & Director Ramon Moreno School of Ballet Please feel free to text or call: 650-304-1909 Thank you, Ramon Moreno www.ramonmorenoballet.com www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burningoven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surroundingRV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed bypeople associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a timewhen they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles isnowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we havehad minimal progress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also comeand clean the street as it’s not safe see attached Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction |650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto94303 From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of thecountry? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enoughevidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have alreadybegun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be lesscostly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an evenbigger problem. -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Regulations The following is a non-exhaustive list of the approaches some of our neighbor cities have taken to managing the impacts of inhabited Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). San Jose •“Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement” (OLIVE) pilot program1: o The program, funded by a $1.5 million budget addendum, is intended to help address the environmental and safety issues caused by oversized vehicles, including lived-in vehicles, parked on city streets. It directs City staff to: ▪Identify areas impacted by the parking of oversized and lived-in vehicles on city streets ▪Establish temporary tow-away zones to allow cleanup of impacted areas and encourage vehicles to relocate ▪Analyze the feasibility of installing permanent parking restrictions at select locations o 30 sites were identified in FY 2025 and up to 50 will be identified in FY 2026 for temporary tow-away parking restrictions (approximately one month in duration) to help facilitate the cleanup and street sweeping of the area and encourage people to move their vehicles out of the restricted zone. Vehicles that are not voluntarily moved from tow away zones will be subject to towing and impound. Based on the success of the temporary restrictions, up to 10 sites will be considered for permanent parking restrictions. •Designated “no overnight parking” and “no large vehicle parking” zones. Towing authorized for violations.2 •Ban on vanlording and on living in vehicles, which went into effect in July 2025.3 Services including safe parking, vehicle buy-back program, biowaste removal, and trash pickups for lived-in vehicles.4 San Mateo •Prohibits parking oversize vehicles and detached trailers on residential streets throughout the city. 5 •Prohibits living in vehicles.6 The City had not been enforcing this ordinance, which was originally passed in the 1990s, but recently began enforcing it again after a dedicated outreach period.7 Menlo Park •Effective April 2025, OSVs may not park overnight (2-5 am) on any public street in the city.8 •The City also recently updated its 72-hour ordinance and adopted ordinance language to implement AB 413 (state law that prohibits parking within defined distance of intersections).9 Fremont •In late 2024, the Fremont City Council approved municipal code amendments that would: o Prohibit parking an OSV on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property line.10 o Amend the City’s 72-hour ordinance to clarify that “Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.”11 o The associated staff report12 acknowledged that enforcement would be largely complaint-based. Staff estimated that substantially expanding parking enforcement beyond their current model would require several additional FTEs at a total ongoing expense of about $1.2 million plus additional one-time expenses for equipment and material. Sunnyvale •Sunnyvale plans to expand safe parking. At the end of 2024, the Council passed an ordinance13 that would govern safe parking programs in the city. It also directed staff to pursue implementing a safe parking pilot program on public land and a general fund grant for nonprofit or faith-based organizations to provide safe parking on private land.14 San Francisco •San Francisco recently imposed a citywide two-hour limit on OSV parking. Vehicles that have applied for and received a “refuge permit” are exempt from enforcement.15 To be eligible for a permit, applicants must: o Have been living in a large vehicle in SF as of May 2025 (verified by City staff count) o Be actively engaging with City services for the unhoused o Agree to adhere to a “good neighbor policy” o Allow Public Works to clear debris around the vehicle o Agree to relinquish the vehicle (via City-run buy-back program or otherwise) and enter permanent housing or non-congregate interim housing if offered. •The City has budgeted $13 million for the program over two years. Enforcement is set to start November 1, 2025. Cupertino •City recently passed a first reading16 of an ordinance that would ban overnight OSV parking throughout the city. Housed city residents would be eligible to apply for up to 20 permits a year that would allow them to park their OSVs on the street for up to 72 hours at a time. •The ordinance also bans renting out a vehicle for living or sleeping quarters in the public right of way. •At the time this report was written, the ordinance had not yet taken effect. 1 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/parking/vehicle- abatement/oversized-and-lived-in-vehicle-enforcement 2 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:eab8cf93-9cc5-4caf-a89a-0358319167f0 3 https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727 4 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/residents/homelessness-hub/homelessness-hub-faqs 5 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2407/Oversized-Vehicle-Parking 6 https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/10.04.140#(a) 7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:9f595393-eae3-4d52-b18d- 88cb77eef4f0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover 8 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark11/MenloPark1124.html#11.24.075 9 https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2024- meetings/agendas/20241112/l1-20241112-cc-oversized-vehicle-and-parking-ord.pdf 10 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.555 11 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/Fremont10/Fremont1005.html#10.05.550 12 https://fremontcityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1980&MediaPosition=&ID=5 285&CssClass= 13 https://ecode360.com/46385883 14 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7014182&GUID=1ED10C32-1325-4891-ABED- 959D528361C5&G=FA76FAAA-7A74-41EA-9143-F2DB1947F9A5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 15 https://www.sf.gov/large-vehicle-refuge-permit-program 16 https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7640446&GUID=AA6B4AEF-0865-48BB-ADEB- 056F131B83A5 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: October 20, 2025 Report #:2509-5183 TITLE Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council Approve the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to: 1. Approve the phased approach (described below) to addressing oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles; and 2. Approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation (requires a 2/3 vote) to resource aspects of the phased approach in the: a. General Fund by: i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the City Manager’s Office by $157,000 for resources to support program implementation; ii. Decreasing the Reserve: Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability by $157,000; iii. Increasing the contractual services appropriation for the Office of Transportation by $150,000 for engineering services; iv. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Public Works Department by $60,000 for street clean-up services; v. Increasing the contractual services appropriation in the Police Department by $95,000 for marking and enforcement of vehicles; vi. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $305,000; b. Refuse Fund by: i. Increasing the contractual services appropriation by $245,000 for new permanent and temporary street cleaning signage; and ii. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $245,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report updates information presented to the Policy and Services Committee at its August 25, 2025 meeting as well as reflecting the Committee’s recommendation to the full Council. This recommendation follows the 2025 Council Priority Objective to present options for addressing impacts associated with oversized vehicles (OSVs), particularly individuals living in vehicles. Following the initial report outlining a range of possible strategies, the Policy and Services Committee (the Committee) reviewed the options, amended the staff proposal, and is recommending a phased approach for full Council consideration. The recommended approach reflects a balanced approach to addressing public health, safety, and neighborhood concerns while also recognizing the complex needs of those living in vehicles. The proposed phasing begins with Phase 1 enacting regulatory measures and enhanced street cleanups and sweeping, including coordination with service providers such as LifeMoves, and appropriating $707,000 in FY 2026 across several funds. This would be followed by Phase 2, a small-scale pilot of enhanced services, such as mobile pump-outs and increased outreach. The approach also sets the stage for expanding safe parking on private and congregation-based lots and, over time, developing a program to limit OSV parking to designated streets. The Committee was split on limiting OSV parking to designated streets. In a 2-1 vote, the Committee recommended that Phase 2 begin exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time (PIT)1 count, explore an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. Subsequent phases include approving items developed in earlier phases, implementation, and enforcement. Additional one-time and ongoing resources will be needed in future years to administer all phases of this program and will be brought forward as part of the annual budget process to allocate funding. BACKGROUND Homelessness continues to be one of the most complex and pressing societal issues affecting communities across California and the nation. In response, the City of Palo Alto has aligned its local efforts with the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020–2025, which the City formally endorsed in August 2021.2 Since that time, the City has advanced a 1 The PIT Count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness at a specific point in time and occurs every other year in January. 2 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025: https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb501/files/CommunityPlan_2020.pdf ; Council Staff Report, April 5, 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendasminutesreports/reports/citymanager- reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12133.pdf ; Council Action Minutes, August 9, 2021 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3354&compileOutputType= 1 range of initiatives to promote housing stability and reduce the impacts of homelessness, including: •Strengthening renter protections, •Enabling and supporting safe parking programs, •Permitting and beginning construction of the Homekey interim shelter, and •Supporting affordable housing developments such as Wilton Court Apartments, 231 Grant Avenue, Mitchell Park Place, and projects on city-owned sites like Lot T downtown and 340 Portage Avenue. The City also continues to respond to resident and business concerns regarding the visible impacts of homelessness, focusing both on service referrals and enforcement of existing laws. Recognizing the need for a deeper understanding of local needs and service gaps, the City Council established a 2024 Council Priority Objective to conduct a gap analysis of local housing and homelessness services.3 That analysis was presented as an informational item on December 9, 2024, and discussed at a Council Study Session on February 10, 2025.4 The session also included updates on service coordination and enforcement efforts. As a result of that discussion, Council referred follow-up work to the Policy and Services Committee, and adopted two related 2025 Council Priority Objectives, asking staff to return as soon as feasible to Council to determine further action and to bypass extended stakeholder engagement at that time. The Council Priority Objectives are:5 •Present options to address homelessness impacts, particularly for individuals living in vehicles, to Policy and Services Committee for prioritization. •Organize an initial review of sources and methods to raise funding to support new affordable housing production for future evaluation. Following the February Study Session, staff shared the gap analysis with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) on June 12, 2025, gathering input on housing and services for the unhoused.6 While no formal action was taken, individual Commissioners supported a wide 3 Council Meeting, December 4, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2CuhXvs84 4 Council Staff Report, December 9, 2024 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6549&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=12534; Council Staff Report, February 10, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6751&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=13091 5This item responds to the first of the two objectives, the second will be referred to Finance Committee, once staff has identified and evaluated sources and methods. Council Staff Report, May 5, 2025, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7767&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14271 6 Human Relations Commission Staff Report, June 12, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8147&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=14739 range of ideas, including expanded safe parking, particularly for RVs; incentives and streamlined processes for below-market-rate housing, addressing family homelessness (e.g., via hotel vouchers or tiny homes), shelter improvements, continued renter protections, and stronger partnerships with the tech industry to improve communications access (e.g., phones, Wi-Fi). Most recently, on August 25, 2025, the Policy and Services Committee took up the Council Priority Objective—addressing impacts related to oversized vehicles (OSVs), including recreational vehicles (RVs).7 After discussion, the Committee voted on a split motion to recommend a phased approach. The full Committee agreed on Phases 1, 3 and 4. In a 2-1 vote, with Councilmember Veenker voting no, the Committee recommended to, in Phase 2, begin exploring limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including direction to evenly distribute OSV permitted parking citywide, tie the OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count, explore an OSV permitting program, and clearly mark where OSV parking is permitted. The full motion text and vote is shown in full on the next page. The full staff report is included as Attachment B. 7 Council Staff Report, August 25, 2025, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=8615&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=15516 1. Discussion and recommendation to Council on prioritization of potential approaches to address oversized vehicle (including recreational vehicle) impacts, particularly relating to individuals living in vehicles MOTION SPLIT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council: Phase 2: Begin exploration of the “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, including determining a process and criteria for designating streets where OSV parking might be permitted, with appropriate community engagement o Identify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted, and to the extent possible, evenly distribute those streets across the city o Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the Point in Time count o Explore the possibility of a permitting program for OSV o Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking spots across the identified streets to avoid overconcentration and clearly mark on those streets where OSV parking is permitted MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Veenker no MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council: Phase 1: Upon Council approval, staff would: 1. Develop an ordinance to prohibit parking of detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets, 2. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the renting of public parking spaces (“vanlording”), 3. Refine the scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping, 4. Return to Council for approvals of ordinances and contract amendments (e.g., street sweeping) as soon as possible, estimated to require up to four (4) months, and 5. Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow. 6. Work with LifeMoves to consider options, such as a buyback or parking program, to accept RV residents quickly at the Homekey site or other housing options 7. Return to Council for direction for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation- based parking lots, excepting any safe parking site that requires undedicating parkland Phase 2: Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on: 1. Design a small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump outs, additional outreach workers/hours, garbage pickup, etc.), Phase 3: Following the completion of related components in Phase 2, Council would: 1. Approve pilot and any related contracts and agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot, 2. Approve a preferred option for expanded safe parking on privately-owned and congregation- based parking lots, 3. Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed and develop necessary ordinances and program design for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, and 4. Implementation of these actions would follow. Phase 4: Following the completion of related components in Phase 3, staff would: 1. Evaluate the enhanced services pilot, 2. Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking, and 3. Obtain related Council approvals for “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin enforcing new approach. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 ANALYSIS The recently received 2025 PIT count data shows 418 people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto, compared to 206 people in 2023. The City continues to have a higher percentage of its unsheltered population living in vehicles compared to the County as a whole. Of those unsheltered in Palo Alto, 73 percent were in vehicles, while 37 percent were in vehicles countywide. There were 168 vehicles (29 cars, 120 RVs, and 19 vans) counted, 35 of which were in safe parking.8 As noted at the August Committee meeting, the growing number of people living in vehicles on public streets poses a health and safety challenge, reducing the on-street parking availability for other uses (e.g., residents, business employees and visitors), and necessitating outreach services, street cleaning, and waste disposal. The City has been receiving increased concerns from residents and the business community about long-term parking of oversized vehicles, debris and personal belongings obstructing streets and sidewalks, and improper disposal of human waste. The City Manager’s Office has seen a notable rise in these complaints beginning in Spring 2025. Other neighboring cities are also seeking a variety of ways to address inhabited OSVs, as summarized in Attachment A. This report outlines the phased approach recommended by the Committee, beginning with some contextual information on state law. Then more detailed information is provided on the various actions proposed in the phased approach to: (1) reduce the impacts of accommodating OSV parking demand, (2) strengthen regulations in areas where impacts are occurring while preventing the impacts elsewhere, and (3) organize activities into phases that account for implementation timelines and the complexity of the issue. Please note that one of the Committee actions was to move safe parking expansion from Phase 2 to Phase 1. To reflect the Committee intent of moving safe parking expansion up in the timeline, staff also moved associated safe parking expansion activities from Phases 3 and 49 to Phase 1; associated resource implications are also identified. Additionally, upon review of the motion, staff noted that the amended Phase 2 to “identify non-residential and non-residential adjacent streets where OSV parking would be permitted” is a revision of Phase 3 item 3 "identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed....” Since this was part of the split motion, if the full Council chooses to adopt the proposed amended language in Phase 2, staff would interpret the Phase 3 item 3 language as being the continuation and finalization of the work begun in Phase 2. The many items in Phase 1 will trigger the immediate need for staff resources to handle coordination, administration, and implementation. Procurement, contracting, and/or 8 The County used a new survey methodology in 2025, so comparing to prior years is fundamentally not the same. The full 2025 PIT Count report is available here: https://osh.santaclaracounty.gov/data-and-reports/point-time- count. 9 In the Policy and Services Motion this is Phase 3, item 2, but is now considered incorporated under/as part of Phase 1. recruitment and hiring for this will likely take several months and may impact the rollout time for Phase 1. State Law and Local Parking Regulations Relating to Oversized Vehicles In California, the state legislature holds preemptive authority over vehicle movement and parking regulations. Cities—including charter cities—may adopt local parking laws only as permitted by state law, and such laws must also comply with the U.S. Constitution. In general, parking is allowed in the public right-of-way when: (a) it is not explicitly prohibited, and (b) the vehicle does not block an active lane of traffic, fire hydrants, driveways, or other areas restricted by state law. These rules apply equally to oversized vehicles (OSVs), unless a local jurisdiction adopts specific restrictions for OSVs, which the California Vehicle Code generally allows. Palo Alto’s Municipal Code includes one provision regulating OSV parking: it prohibits OSVs from parking on the street in residential and public facility zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Although the Code states this rule is enforceable regardless of signage, state law prohibits enforcement without proper signage to notify drivers. (Practically speaking, OSVs rarely attempt to park in residential zones.) State law also authorizes local jurisdictions to regulate parking in specific ways, such as with the “72-hour” rule. This allows cities to adopt ordinances permitting removal of a vehicle parked in the same spot for more than 72 hours. Palo Alto has a 72-hour ordinance, which also, to satisfy federal due process requirements, requires that City staff must post a notice on a vehicle stating it will be towed10 after 72 hours unless the vehicle travels at least five-tenths of a mile. However, nothing in state or local law prevents a vehicle from moving and re-parking in the same location. Prior to towing a vehicle believed to be used for shelter, Police Department personnel and the City’s homeless outreach team collaboratively engage in outreach efforts to attempt to connect occupants with alternative housing or safe parking options. The Police Department has primarily focused on abandoned and non-operational OSVs. The Police Department has successfully collaborated with the City’s homeless outreach team and has not towed an occupied OSV. Parking regulations are typically enforced through citations and fines. In certain situations, as defined by state law, vehicles may also be towed. Because towing is a form of property seizure, it triggers Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have ruled that a judicial warrant is generally required to tow a vehicle unless the action falls under the judicially-defined “community caretaking doctrine.” This doctrine authorizes towing vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic or to keep the vehicle from being a target for 10 The City's ability to tow OSVs is constrained by the limited number of tow companies operating the specialized equipment necessary for towing OSVs, and by limited local tow yard capacity to store OSVs. vandalism or theft. In most cases, towing also requires notice and an opportunity to correct the violation. Signage and Enforcement Considerations Parking restrictions, including the increased street sweeping parking restrictions and the proposed ordinance banning unattached trailer parking, require installing signage to be enforceable.11 Implementing signage for these items could include use of temporary signs and focused sign installation in areas of high activity. The cost of signage could be substantial. For comparison, Mountain View spent about $980,00012 in 2020 to implement signage relating to its oversized vehicle parking ordinances. In Palo Alto, estimated costs are $1,900 per block for sign installation by a contractor. As a hypothetical maximum, with approximately 2,200 blocks and two signs per side of the block, this equates to roughly 8,800 signs at an estimated cost of $4.2 million if signs needed to be posted on every block on every street.13 (However, to enforce the recommended ordinance to prohibit unattached trailers, signage would not be required on every block in the City and installation could focus on particular areas. On the other hand, state law requires block-level signage, at minimum, for street sweeping parking restrictions). In addition to costs for installation, engineering is required for sign and pole placement field verification, and work order preparation for new street signs and poles (if needed) in public rights of way. For a Citywide signage program, an additional FTE limited duration equivalent to $244,000-$269,000 per year would be needed. There may also be an impact to the work of existing engineering staff on items such as development-related traffic control plan review, routine sign upgrades, traffic signal adjustments, traffic signal upgrades, traffic calming and traffic control device plan review, and complete streets projects engineering design). For reference, Mountain View’s implementation required over two traffic engineers working full-time for 9 to 12 months. There would also be added work for Utility Locators to check for conflicts at each site, and ongoing maintenance after installation, likely requiring additional Public Works staffing. Consistent with current practice,14 staff would also lead with outreach workers ahead of implementing increased street sweeping or any changes to enforcement. Dedicating the 11 In some cases, California cities adopting regulatory actions relating to OSV parking have been sued by advocates for the unhoused, resulting in legal costs. 12 Number not adjusted for inflation nor construction cost increases over time. https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4712008&GUID=B91F5618-049D-44E7-9BA9- 966071A60D1C&Options=&Search= 13 This estimate assumes the cost for one sign to be posted throughout the City - approximately 2,200 blocks in the City and 2 signs per side per block. If signage will be installed throughout the City it would equate to approximately 8,800 signs. Installation of signs and posts by a contractor is estimated at $4.2 million (8,800 x $475). However, not every new parking restriction may require signage to this extent. 14 Currently, Police and Public Works coordinate closely with the outreach team during a weekly huddle and as- needed. outreach team to this work would likely impact their ability to rotate effectively throughout the city for contact with other unhoused people not living in these areas. In terms of enforcement, a citywide parking regulation, inclusive of all the options presented in this report, would significantly increase parking enforcement workload, triggering the need for an additional 1 police officer and 1 parking enforcement officer. The approximate additional annual cost for either in-house FTEs or contracted services would be $400,000. The additional towing associated with a new citywide parking regulation could add approximately $40,000 in towing costs annually.15 Phased Approach – Actions to Accommodate Some Demand Expanding Safe Parking on Privately-Owned and Congregation-Based Lots The City could expand safe parking options by pursuing partnerships with privately-owned commercial properties and building on its existing congregation-based safe parking program. Allowing safe parking on private commercial property would require amending the zoning code and conducting site-specific environmental reviews under CEQA. Then the City could lease the property from interested owners and develop the site for safe parking use. Developing a zoning code amendment to allow safe parking on privately-owned sites is on the Planning and Development Services Department’s long-term work plan but is currently un-resourced. Moreover, as currently scoped, this effort does not include identification of interested property owners, potential sites or funding sources. Progress would depend on a property owner coming forward, which has not happened so far. If that occurs, staff would need to adjust priorities to move this forward.16 15 The exact staffing and associated cost would depend on the specific regulation(s) adopted. 16 Additional Information on Resources for Safe Parking: Implementation of an expanded safe parking program on privately-owned lots, including commercial and congregation-based sites, would require substantial staff work. This includes outreach to congregations, commercial property owners, and surrounding neighborhoods to gauge interest, identify concerns, and assess willingness to participate; evaluation of potential sites for suitability, including space requirements for RVs, circulation, access, lighting, sanitation, and safety standards; coordination with the Human Relations Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; and development of policy options for Council consideration; for example, it could be establishing a pilot program with willing partners or preparing a draft ordinance with defined conditions for private sites. This scope of work is currently un-resourced. If Council directs staff to proceed, resources would need to be shifted from other Council priority projects, which would result in de-prioritizing or delaying work related to several initiatives including: stream corridor, bird-safe glass, wireless, and lighting/dark skies ordinance implementation and limit the number of Council priorities that could be implemented in calendar year 2026 while staff capacity is redirected to this effort. Prior staff work on this issue in previous years noted several concerns from commercial property owners about participating in a safe parking program. Liability issues and increased insurance premiums were identified as significant barriers. Elected officials, partnered with staff in direct discussions with potential partners may be more One idea proposed at Policy and Services Committee was to consider safe parking or perhaps OSV storage on airport vacant land, including places leased to car dealerships. Residential use, including temporary or short-term occupancy, is prohibited on the airport under Section 2.3.1.2 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B. The two staging areas on airport land total approximately 75,000 square feet over 2 sites and are currently leased for $0.86/square foot, generating roughly $774,000 annually. If used for unoccupied vehicle storage, federal grant assurances require that the Airport Enterprise Fund be compensated at this rate. The Runway Protection Zone overlays one of the sites and both sites are affected by the Runway 31 approach. For congregation-based lots, existing City law allows up to eight vehicles to park overnight at approved sites.17 Staff could explore expanding this to allow 24-hour parking and possibly accommodate some oversized vehicles (OSVs). While OSVs aren’t currently prohibited, the program operator notes these vehicles are hard to manage with the daily movement required under current hours. Expanding to include OSVs or longer hours would require outreach to congregations to gauge interest and address neighbor concerns. Resource Impacts Exploring these expansion options would require staff time and reprioritizing other work. Costs depend on the level of expansion and site conditions, especially existing amenities. Additional funding would be needed for program management and might be needed for leases and infrastructure. For context, a recent safe parking expansion with existing facilities cost about $270,000 annually to accommodate 10 additional RV spaces. Consider Options for Buyback or Parking Program As mentioned elsewhere (see “Expanding Safe Parking...” above and “Enhanced Services...” following), both, a buyback program and pursuing storage or temporary parking of OSVs while occupants are participating in an interim shelter (e.g., Homekey) or housing program is a novel approach for the City. A couple of jurisdictions recently pursued buyback and at least one is leveraging a local storage facility to pursue storage. The efficacy, effort required, and costs for this approach are largely unknown at this time. A buyback program in Berkeley disbursed a total of $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no existing OSV storage lots in Palo Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and, at the time of this report, staff does not have the per vehicle per month rates charged. Staff estimates that exploring this option would take a couple months to research and analyze and that approvals, agreements, and implementation would require several additional months. Without additional staffing in the effective than developing a broad pilot program or ordinance, which tends to be more passive and resource intensive. If a partner is identified the city could negotiate a site-specific regulatory agreement to advance the City’s interests in this topic. 17 Safe parking at churches and other religious institutions is regulated at PAMC section 18.42.160. near term, an ambitious target would be returning to Council with a recommended path forward and funding request for the Fiscal Year 2027 budget. Increased Cleaning and Street Sweeping on Selected Streets The City could focus increased cleaning and sweeping on streets where clusters of OSVs are parked. Streets impacted by OSVs require more frequent and thorough cleaning and maintenance than other areas to address refuse, biohazards, and debris. The City can use parking restrictions to support thorough street sweeping by prohibiting parking on designated streets during sweeping hours. Staff would propose to sweep each side of the designated streets twice per month on alternating weeks. For instance, one side could be swept the first and third Wednesday, while the other side was swept the second and fourth Wednesday. Streets currently or recently affected by high concentrations of OSVs include Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, Faber Place, Elwell Court, Corporation Way, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Portage Avenue, Ash Street, Commercial Street, Transport Street, Industrial Avenue, the 1000 block of Colorado, the 900 block of San Antonio, Lambert, and Sheridan (east of Park).18 The street sweeping parking restrictions may encourage OSV owners to relocate, potentially shifting impacts to more sensitive areas like retail or residential neighborhoods. To reduce storm drain contamination, the City could install filter fabric at storm drain locations to block larger debris, sediment, and soil particles from entering the storm drain system. Additionally, specialized cleanup crews and equipment are necessary to address any biohazardous debris. Resource Impacts Costs for signage, increased street sweeping, and specialized cleanup services would need to be addressed. Installing street sweeping signage on the above-mentioned streets where the highest concentration of OSVs commonly park is estimated at about $100,000 in addition to staff time and deferral of other priorities in order to engineer the installation of the signs. Posting temporary No Parking signs for the above-mentioned streets to enable expedited street cleaning work, before permanent signs are installed, is estimated at $143,000. Cleanup after OSVs move on—often involving fluid spills, biohazards, and abandoned items—requires dedicated crews working 4 to 8 hours per instance, costing between $2,000-$4,000 plus debris disposal fees. Increasing street sweeping to weekly schedule year-round on these streets would add roughly $12,000 annually. If street sweeping for these abovementioned street segments is changed from the current schedule of weekly sweeping during Leaf Season and bi-weekly 18 This list has been updated and amended since the Policy and Services Committee meeting to add portions of Colorado, San Antonio, Lambert, Olive, and Sheridan. Cost for in-house signage along these streets would be approximately $80,000 and take a minimum of 6 months with in-house staff operating on mandatory overtime. The cost for the increased frequency of street sweeping would be $12,000 for weekly, year round sweeping of these streets. If the increase were to be one side of the street each week, year round there would be no net increase cost for the sweeping. sweeping during non-Leaf Season, to sweeping only one side of the street twice per month year-round, alternating sides each week, then staff anticipates there will be no net increase in street sweeping cost. Enforcement would increase the workload for Police Department parking enforcement staff, as well as increase towing expenses. First-year cost assumes this program would begin with temporary signage. Temporary signage must be maintained and properly noticed to be legally enforceable. At a minimum, staff are required to check temporary signage three days before the scheduled sweeping day when enforcement occurs prior to actual sweeping. If a vehicle is towed, staff time requires the presence of a parking officer and a sworn police officer. At inception, this program will require significant outreach by the police staff and the homeless outreach team. As compliance with the sweeping program increases, enforcement staff time and the number of tows is anticipated to decrease. The FY26 cost of this effort is estimated at $95,000, inclusive of staff time and enforcement towing - depending on vendor capacity to accept these vehicles. Ongoing costs would be a 0.5 FTE at $70,000 - $80,000 annually and some ongoing towing funding is already in the Police Department’s operating budget. Enhanced Services Relating to Inhabited OSVs The City could further address the impacts of inhabited OSVs with enhanced services, including outreach to people living in vehicles, mobile sanitation support (e.g., garbage collection, pump- out), and potentially explore new strategies like an OSV “buyback” program. These could complement expanded street sweeping and stormwater protection efforts already under consideration. Outreach is a key first step. People living in vehicles often take longer to engage with service providers and may be hesitant to leave the perceived independence and security of their vehicles for shelter options. The City currently has under contract two outreach workers who have recently updated their schedules so that one primarily operates weekday daytime shifts, while the other worker covers weekends and some evenings. Further expanding evening and weekend coverage could improve engagement and trust-building, as anecdotally, this population tends to be working during daytime and weekend hours. To encourage voluntary participation in shelter programs, the City could consider piloting a vehicle buyback program, as seen in Berkeley and San Francisco, where modest cash incentives were offered in exchange for relinquishing vehicles and moving into interim housing. While promising, this remains a relatively new and untested strategy. For sanitation, the City could designate a waste drop-off site for OSV occupants or use existing facilities with capacity for increased disposal. Staff does not recommend installing new public waste bins due to concerns about illegal dumping. However, another option could be to issue RV dwellers their own solid waste containers to be placed out for collection on assigned collection days and serviced by GreenWaste of Palo Alto. Some jurisdictions have piloted pump- out programs for RVs with mixed results. For example, Portland’s program served over 4,000 OSVs in a few years using a combination of scheduled routes and on-demand service, while other cities, like Long Beach, saw limited participation. Staff can further explore during Phase 2 how to help OSV occupants appropriately dispose of both their solid waste and liquid waste. Resource Impacts The City currently spends approximately $256,000 annually on its contracted outreach program, which includes two full-time outreach workers and a part-time manager.19 A potential OSV buyback program’s cost would depend on the scale of implementation. For reference, the City of Berkeley allocated $150,000 to a pilot program, which showed early success—20 out of 21 OSV occupants accepted a cash offer in exchange for moving into interim housing and relinquishing their vehicles. Residential curbside refuse collection services provided by GreenWaste of Palo Alto, the City’s contracted hauler, are $50.07 per month for the standard size 32-gallon size container. Extrapolating from the estimated number of 133 vehicles,20 the estimated projected additional annual expense for such service is about $80,000. Providing a larger container for each block, such as a two cubic yard bin, is another option but would come at a significantly higher cost. Mobile pump-out services would require additional research to determine local costs, but available examples provide useful context. Portland spent roughly $805,000 over four years (about $22,000 per month), while Mountain View’s three-month pilot cost was $29,000 (about $7,250 per month), with a per-service cost of $391, not including staff time. These two programs had different service models. Phased Approach – Actions to Increase Regulation Prohibit Storage of Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles on Public Streets A common concern from the community is the presence of detached trailers and other non- motorized vehicles that are clearly not able to move under their own power and taking up public parking spaces. The City could adopt an ordinance banning the parking of non-motorized vehicles, such as camper shells and trailers, on public streets when not attached to a motor vehicle capable of legally moving them. Staff recommend a prohibition that applies throughout the City, at all hours. Alternatively, parking could be limited to a set duration, like 1-2 hours. This would help free up parking spaces currently being used for storage of stationary vehicles unable to move under their own power to comply with the 72-hour parking limit.21 19 Currently, the program is funded through a combination of State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) entitlement funds, City General Fund contributions, and financial support from Stanford University. 20 This number considers all vehicles not in safe parking (168 vehicles – 35 in safe parking). The estimate was calculated at 133 vehicles for $50.07/month each, totaling $6,659, or $79,912 annual cost. 21 The zoning code (Title 18) includes a prohibition on storing or parking non-operable conveyances on private property, except where screened from neighbors. This provision is enforced by Code Enforcement through issuance of warnings, administrative citations, and fines. For non-motorized conveyances on public streets, staff recommends adoption of a new ordinance specifically addressing use of public parking spaces, enforceable by the Police Department or Office of Transportation. The ordinance would apply to all such conveyances, whether inhabited or not. At the Policy and Services Committee meeting, a Councilmember expressed concern for contractor trailers retaining the ability to park in public parking spaces. However, a ban on detached trailers will not impact trailers used by construction crews which already require a City permit for parking. The prohibition could also include exceptions for loading/unloading and emergency repairs. Signage would be necessary to enforce this rule, with priorities likely starting in areas most impacted by detached trailers. The prohibition would be enforceable as a parking citation and by towing. If directed to return on the Consent calendar with an ordinance as described in this section, staff could bring an ordinance for a first reading as early as December 2025 or January 2026. Resource Impacts Sign installation for enforcement would require some costs for the additional signage22 and staff from both the Office of Transportation and Public Works Department, similar to other parking restriction projects. While enforcement, in the short term, is expected to moderately increase the workload for existing parking enforcement officers and increase towing costs, implementing multiple measures, to include clean sweeping enforcement and this strategy, may require an additional 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, at a cost of about $70,000-$80,000 annually. Towing would likely be done using the current operating budget and is dependent on towing company capacity. Enforcement for Detached Trailers/Non-motorized Vehicles and street sweeping would share resources. Prohibit Renting of Public Parking Spaces (“Vanlording”) Staff identified that some occupied OSVs parked on city streets are being rented out by so- called “vanlords” who profit from leasing public parking spaces for habitation. To address this, the City could adopt an ordinance prohibiting the rental of vehicles for living purposes on public streets or the sale of space in the public right-of-way. The goal would be to prevent private profit-taking from a public resource and protect vulnerable renters who often pay for substandard, unregulated living conditions. The ordinance would target the vanlord—not the renter—and could include escalating daily fines for violations. Other cities are beginning to take similar action. San José recently passed a vanlord-specific ordinance, and Los Angeles is considering one. While San Francisco doesn’t directly regulate vanlords, it does ban leasing public streets or sidewalks, with fines of up to $300 per violation.23 22 Staff believes that this signage would be less extensive and should cost a lower amount. 23 San Jose’s vanlording ordinance is available here: https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1363727 Enforcement may be difficult, as identifying vanlords often depends on information from renters, who may be reluctant to cooperate if the practice is banned. As a result, enforcement would rely on staff investigations. If Council directed staff to return on the Consent calendar with an ordinance prohibiting vanlording as described in this report, staff could bring an ordinance for a first reading as early as December 2025 or January 2026. Resource Impacts Implementing a vanlord ban would require staff resources, primarily from the Police Department and City Attorney’s Office. Staff would need to gather evidence—both online and in the field—identify the vanlord, and issue warnings or fines. If a vehicle is occupied, the City would also assess what support services could be offered to the residents. While it is still too early to determine impact to workloads for Police, to be effective with investigating illegal renting, Police staff expect one more police officer would need to be resourced – by either diverting away from other investigations, which is not recommended, or add 1.0 FTE during the FY 27 budget cycle at approximately $280,000 ongoing. Limit OSV Parking to Certain Streets with Focused Regulations The City could manage OSV parking by designating specific streets for OSV parking and prohibiting it elsewhere. This strategy, similar to Mountain View’s approach under the term of a legal settlement,24 would help mitigate public health, sanitation, and parking impacts while providing clearer guidelines for both enforcement and services. These designated streets would likely be in commercial or industrial areas where residential or school-adjacent impacts are minimized.25 This targeted approach, paired with the above-mentioned increased services— regular street sweeping, trash/waste collection/removal, and safety measures—on streets where OSVs are allowed. Localized parking regulations like red curbs and intersections clearances could also be implemented to maintain safety and access. Preliminary analysis suggests that street segments where OSVs are currently clustered could accommodate an estimated 200 OSVs,26 though this would reduce the availability for other users and pose ongoing localized challenges arising from habitation on public rights of way not 24 At Policy and Services, a Councilmember asked what the change in number of OSVs was in Mountain View since it began enforcing its oversized vehicle restrictions in October 2022. Mountain View counted 208 vehicles in August 2022 (138 RVs, 35 passenger vehicles, 35 other), 151 vehicles in January 2023 (115 RVs, 21 passenger vehicles, 15 other vehicles), 148 vehicles in August 2023 (99 RVs, 11 passenger vehicles, 38 other), and 223 vehicles in July 2024 (143 RVs, 31 passenger vehicles, 49 other). Mountain View had not published its 2025 vehicle count at the time this report was written. 25 The municipal code already prohibits OSV parking between the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 am on streets located within residential and public facilities zones. However, to enforce the provision, state law requires local jurisdictions to install signs adequately informing parkers of the restriction. Moreover, any attempt to formally designate a subset of non-residential streets on which OSVs may park (i.e., prohibiting OSV parking on all other streets) would require amending the municipal code. 26 Per the 2025 PIT Count, there were 170 vehicles counted: 29 cars, 122 RVs, and 19 vans. designed to support the ongoing activities of living.27 In consideration of these localized challenges, two of three Committee members voted to identify non-residential and “non- residential-adjacent”28 streets where OSV parking would be permitted, with the goal of distributing these locations as evenly as possible through the city to avoid overconcentration.29 The number of OSVs allowed to park could be tied to the City’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count, ensuring that capacity remains responsive to actual need. The Committee also raised the possibility of a permitting program to help regulate and monitor OSV parking. In addition, all designated streets could be clearly marked to communicate where OSV parking is allowed, further supporting enforcement and public understanding. To ensure this is fair and manageable, the City would need a detailed plan identifying where OSVs may or may not park, rather than adopting piecemeal restrictions. Ongoing enforcement of the 72-hour parking rule would continue, and a process would be needed to periodically review and update designated streets. Resource Impacts As mentioned in the “Signage and Enforcement Considerations” subsection earlier in this Analysis section, any citywide parking regulation would require significant signage and enforcement-related resources. The resource burden is somewhat ameliorated by the phased nature of the overall recommendation. Summary of Phased Approach The table below summarizes the costs referenced about each of the programs. PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION/ COMPLETION ESTIMATED COST/ BUDGET TIMING IMPLICATIONS All Support program implementation 2 years $314,000 (total over 2 years); some costs can be prorated Phase 1 1.1 Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable vehicle parking on public streets 3 months – January 2026 Staff time only 27 Analysis assumptions include OSV length of 30’, 5’ distance between vehicles, driveway clearance of 10’, intersection clearance of 20’, hydrant clearance of 15’ and 300’ hydrant spacing. The estimate analyzed the 14 streets where high concentrations of OSVs are currently clustered, focusing on the segments of those streets where OSVs park. Given those parameters, the combined street length is approximately 12,000 linear feet and assuming one sign per 150 feet and $300/sign. 28 The municipal code restricts overnight parking of OSVs on streets where the property on at least one side carries a residential or public facilities zoning designation, but it does not prohibit OSV parking on “residential-adjacent” streets or include a definition of that term. If Council wants to expand the restriction, it would need to formulate a definition of “residential-adjacent.” 29 The Councilmember voting against the motion that included this idea was advocating to explore all other options before pursuing limiting OSV parking to certain streets. PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION/ COMPLETION ESTIMATED COST/ BUDGET TIMING IMPLICATIONS 1.2 Develop an ordinance to prohibit renting public parking spaces 3 months – January 2026 Staff time only 1.3 Refine scope & begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping 3 months – Jan 2026 $548K for FY26; plus an additional $269K in FY27 for engineering; some costs can be prorated[1] 1.4 Begin adoption of ordinance(s) (i.e., vanlord, inoperable vehicles) and contract(s) approval (i.e., for street sweeping) on consent calendar 3 months – Jan 2026 Staff time only 1.5.1 Implement & enforce detached/inoperable vehicles prohibition Apr/May 2026 Unknown amount for signage/FY26 enforcement included in 1.3; FY27 additional $80K/yr 1.5.2 Implement & enforce vanlord (public parking space rental) prohibition Apr/May 2026 FY26 enforcement included in 1.3 and 1.5.2; FY27 additional $280K/yr for 1.3 thru 1.5.2; CAO time dependent on volume 1.6 Work with LifeMoves [and Santa Clara County] to consider options (buyback, storage) and to accept RV residents quickly at Homekey or other housing 6 months – Apr/May 2026 Unknown - $150,000[2] for buyback program/ FY27 Budget 1.7 Return to Council for direction on expanding safe parking on privately-owned and congregational based lots If no site identified, then 9+ months – August 2026[3] Staff time only Phase 2 2.1 Develop small scale enhanced services pilot 5 months - Oct 2026 Staff time only 2.2[4]Begin exploration of limiting OSV parking to certain streets, including process/criteria for designating streets, with community engagement 6+ months – Nov/Dec 2026 Staff time only 2.2.1 Identify non-residential & non-residential adjacent streets 6+ months – Nov/Dec 2026 Staff time only 2.2.2 Tie the number of OSV permitted parking to the PIT count <1 month Staff time only 2.2.3 Explore possibility of OSV permitting program 3+ months – Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only 2.2.4 Evenly disburse permissible OSV parking across identified streets to avoid overconcentration and mark clearly on those streets where permitted 6+ months – Nov/Dec 2026 Staff time only Phase 3 PHASE ACTION ESTIMATED DURATION/ COMPLETION ESTIMATED COST/ BUDGET TIMING IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Council approval of enhanced services pilot and related contracts/agreements Nov/Dec 2026 $400,000+ one-time FY 2027 Budget 3.2 Council approval of preferred expanded safe parking option(s) Aug/Sept 2026 Staff time only 3.3 Council identification of streets where OSV parking permitted & develop ordinances and program design 6+ months – Nov/Dec 2026 Staff time only 3.4.1 Implement enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2027 Staff time only 3.4.2 Approve preferred option for expanded safe parking[5] Late 2026 & onward Staff time only Phase 4 4.1 Evaluate enhanced services pilot Jan/Feb 2028 Staff time only 4.2 Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking.[6]Late 2026 & onward $270,000+ annually/Midyear 2026- 2027 Budget 4.3 Council approvals relating to limiting OSV parking to certain streets. Jan/Feb 2027 $4.2 million one-time for citywide signage FY 2027 Budget $400,000+ annually thereafter (this includes $80K for enforcement for 1.3-4.3) 4.3.1 Implement “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” and begin enforcement. 3-6 months - May/Aug 2027 Staff time only [1] This amount includes $100,000 for new permanent signage, $143,000 for temporary signage if the City wants to start implementing street cleaning immediately, plus $60,000 for the estimated cost of deep cleaning of the 18 street segments (where OSVs are currently clustered) after the OSVs leave each area for the initial cleaning. Staff anticipates phasing in this work, starting with a few blocks each week over several months. This allows time for workers to install signs along nearly 40,000 linear feet of roadway. The sweeping and cleaning work can follow behind as signs are installed. Additionally, this amount includes $150,000 for engineering analysis, plans, work orders and inspection related to signage, striping and curb paint throughout the City. It also includes $95,000 for enforcement support rolled out as PW works through the progressions. [2] A buyback program in Berkeley applied $150,000 for 21 OSVs. The storage cost for OSVs would likely vary significantly based on location, security involved, and insurance costs. There are no extant OSV storage lots in Palo Alto. The nearest that staff is aware of is in the City of San Mateo and the per month vehicle costs were not available at the time of this report publishing. [3] Note: this timeframe does not align with the P&S Committee recommendation. The motion called for Safe Parking expansion to be moved to Phase 1; however, with no specific site identified to date, this effort is currently not resourced as noted in footnote 16 earlier in this report. [4] This particular action was part of a split motion that indicated it would be in Phase 2. As parts of this action also appear in the unanimous motion, where those appear, they are also italicized. [5] Since expanded safe parking implementation is also part of Phase 4, staff is considering this the initial implementation steps. Since both proposed expansion options require a willing non-city partner, implementation will begin with outreach and, if successful, result in permitting (e.g., congregation-based) and/or leasing (e.g., privately owned). [6] See note above. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The recommended phased approach would require City funding as outlined in the table below and ongoing staff allocation for the foreseeable future. Although funding sources for the majority of this work have not yet been identified, a significant General Fund allocation is likely. Staff will also research and evaluate other funding sources (e.g., grant funding and/or entitlement opportunities, and Business Tax Revenue for Affordable Housing and Unhoused Services). The budget appropriations reflected in the recommendations on the first page of this report are intended to provide the up-front resources required to move forward on immediate actions, with the expectation that additional appropriations and funding sources will be identified at the mid-year budget report in early 2026. In the near term, the significant front-loading of items into Phase 1 will require reallocating staff resources, will impact other Council priorities, and will require appropriation of a total of $707,000 in FY 2026: (1) $157,000 to the City Manager’s Office for resources to support program implementation (2) $305,000 to Public Works for additional street cleaning on currently impacted street segments and related signage, (3) $150,000 to the Office of Transportation (pro-rated) for engineering analysis, plans, work orders, and inspections, and (4) $95,000 to the Police Department for enforcement and towing services. These costs will be funded by: (1) $157,000 from the Business Tax Revenue for Housing Affordability, (2) $245,000 from the Refuse Fund, and (3) $305,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. The ongoing costs for these services would impact the General Fund by approximately $0.7 to $0.8 million ongoing annually. In addition, funding for signage in the Capital Improvement Fund may need additional support from the General Fund depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve for capital improvements. This report focuses on immediate steps to ameliorate the impacts of vehicle dwelling in Palo Alto. In light of the increasing PIT numbers, however, addressing homelessness in a lasting way will ultimately require additional housing for the people being helped. Although not covered in this report, this longer-term effort is important to keep in mind. Action Funding Source FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 & Ongoing Street Sweeping Signage Refuse Fund $245,000 $0 $0 Clean-up Services General Fund $60,000 $0 $0 Engineering General Fund $150,000 $269,000*$0 Enforcement/Towing General Fund $95,000 $440,000 $440,000 Expanded Safe Parking General Fund $0 $135,000 $270,000 Signage for Additional Parking Restrictions Capital Fund $0 $4,200,000*$0 Administration/Implementation Business Tax $157,000 $157,000 $0 Buyback/Storage Program Business Tax $0 $150,000 $0 Enhanced Services Pilot Business Tax $0 $400,000 $0 Total $707,000 $5,751,000 $710,000 General Fund Impact *$305,000 $844,000 $710,000 Business Tax Revenue Support $157,000 $707,000 $0 *Parking Signage work in the Capital Fund may require additional funds to be transferred from the General Fund depending on resources available in the Infrastructure Reserve. The $4.2 million for signage and $269,000 for engineering is the estimated maximum cost to sign Citywide; see discussion in the Analysis section under the Signage and Enforcement Considerations item of this memo. The cost will ultimately vary depending on such factors as: the number of new parking regulations adopted (and therefore the number of new signs), the geographic scope of a new parking restriction, and the availability of existing poles/infrastructure for new signs. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff has made some preliminary efforts to gather feedback from the community on the Committee’s recommendation. This included seeking input from the “RV Dwellers Group” of service providers, a representative of Stanford University, members of the faith-based community, City staff, a City Councilmember, and a Human Relations Commission member, at its regular meeting in September 2025. Attendees discussed how to address and balance needs and concerns, including: •Considering extending safe parking near Geng Road site, •Understanding how many people living in vehicles work in Palo Alto, how many are van lifers, and noting that there is distrust and fear in this community, •Concern about people who would not qualify for housing and/or services based on immigration status, and •Concern about the health and safety of people living in “vanlord” vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Council action on Phase 1 provisions about enhanced cleaning, street sweeping, parking signs, and parking enforcement are categorically exempt under CEQA regulations 15301 (existing facilities) and 15321 (enforcement actions). Other items in Phase 1 and in later phases require further Council input and/or approval and CEQA will be addressed as those are approved. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Neighboring Cities’ OSV Parking Approaches Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee August 25, 2025 Staff Report APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - October 20, 2025 Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 7:59:04 AM Attachments:image002.pngFW Robotic vehicles pulling a fast one.msgRE No to round-about option for Alma-Charleston intersection.msgRE Questions for SARAP Study Session.msgRE Gas Leaf Blower (Non)Enforcement.msgRE Comments about design of survey - San Antonio Road Area Plan.msgRE A Bicyclist was Hit by a Car.msgimage004.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through October 20, 2025. Thank you, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Oksana Selavri To:Council, City; Kratt, Ken Subject:RV parking situation on East Meadow Circle in Palo Alto Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 1:12:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, We appreciate your efforts in trying to solve the RV parking situation in the city of Palo Alto for long term and short term. I would like to join my neighbor Colin Swindells in our request to please support the interest and wellbeing of 254 Palo Alto families who are residents in Echelon, Altaire and Vantage communities. We have been carrying the burden for the whole city of Palo Alto for a few years now livingnext to an expanding RV trailer park (over 40 vehicles) which has significantly affected our families' quality of life.We gave our votes for you in hopes of being represented well. Kindly please ban the RV parking next to our complexes and identify parking lots that are notaffecting any residential areas in Palo Alto for RV overnight stay. Sincerely, Oksana 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:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Betty Duong; District5@bos.sccgov.org;district1@bos.sccgov.org; Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Brandon Pho;Robert Salonga; Chief.sjpd; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; Binder, Andrew; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James;ladoris cordell; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; EPAToday; Raymond Goins; Gennady Sheyner; Raj Jayadev; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; CouncilmemberChappie Jones; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; Human RelationsCommission; steven mcgill; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Carla Torres; David Piper; mike braxton;Yusra Hussain; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Doug Minkler; Wagner, April; Enberg,Nicholas; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Barberini, Christopher; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Lotus Fong; LindaJolley; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Shikada, Ed; Bill Newell; Rebecca Kieler;PD Kristina Bell; GRP-City Council; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Vicki Veenker; vramirez@redwoodcity.org;Stump, Molly; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Perron, Zachary; Council, City;Seher Awan; Steve Wagstaffe; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Watch "Sean Allen Analysis on Santa Clara County Taser Usage" on YouTube Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 10:56:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://youtu.be/SEnlP3WoM2w?si=1EJxFoZtIEBdGud0 From:David Adams To:Council, City Subject:RV parking - Agenda Item 16 Monday 10/20 Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:35:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable members of the council, In Ventura there is a proliferation of no overnight parking and no oversize vehicle parking signs. Theproblem is they are ignored and not enforced. Better than spending a million bucks on signs city-widewould be to run a pilot program in Ventura to see if Mr Shikada's proposal of enforcement actually works.It would be extremely imprudent of the city council not to run a pilot first. The proposal to limit RV parking to certain streets would be extremely unfair to those having to live orwork nearby. This proposal should be made dead on arrival. The proposal to stop sewage getting into the creeks by covering the drains is half baked. So, the sewagewould remain by the curb for up to 2 weeks until it got swept away? Please, we can do better than that. What is the effect of all this sewage on our creeks? Has anyone tested the water in the creeks and in thebay recently? I think we should be told. Incidentally, there's already an ordinance prohibiting non-operable conveyances on public streets. It's insection 10.34.020 of the municipal code. Thank you for your consideration.David AdamsVentura This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:stephanie wansek To:Council, City Subject:Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 16 – Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:51:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers, I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 16 for the October 20 meeting—the proposed Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (RV) Impacts. I live adjacent to East Meadow Circle, an area currently affected by long-term RV habitation, and I appreciate the City’s effort to balance enforcement with outreach and service coordination. My main concern is that, under the proposed phasing, RV habitation could continue on East Meadow Circle for several more years before any restrictions are enacted. This corridor directly borders residential properties and, in the case of Echelon, even overlaps with the complex—one side fronts directly on East Meadow Circle. These are established, tax-paying residential communities yet this proposed policy framework would disproportionately affect them compared with single-family neighborhoods, which already benefit from overnight parking restrictions. As noted by the City’s own studies, industrial and commercially zoned areas may offer far more appropriate locations for managed RV habitation. The phased approach also prolongs very real neighborhood impacts. In my own experience, I used to walk my dog along East Meadow Circle every morning when only a few RVs were present and the area felt safe enough. That changed after my dog was attacked by an unleashed pit-bull mix that came out of an RV. When I reacted, understandably shaken, the imposing male owner yelled at me. That was more than five years ago, and I haven’t walked there since. What should be a pleasant, walkable area for nearby residents has become off-limits to many of us because of ongoing safety, noise, and sanitation concerns. This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Even from across the street, the constant generator noise and exhaust from RVs is hard to ignore. When I walk my dog in the evening on my complex grounds, I can smell the fumes and hear the mechanical hum from multiple units running at once. It’s difficult to reconcile this with living in a neighborhood that contributes property and city taxes to maintain quiet streets and good air quality. The persistent pollution and noise simply feel incompatible with what should be a livable residential environment. I respectfully ask Council to consider an amendment so that Phase 1 explicitly excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV habitation and instead prioritizes relocation to industrial and commercial areas, for example, Corporation Way, Industrial Avenue, or Transport Street, where management and sanitation can be more effectively coordinated with LifeMoves or similar partners. This approach would align Palo Alto with regional precedent. Neighboring cities including Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and San Jose have already implemented zone-based restrictions that prohibit RV parking on residential and residential-adjacent streets, directing long-term habitation to industrial or commercial zones with safe-parking programs. Menlo Park and San Francisco have adopted citywide overnight bans within the last year. By comparison, Palo Alto’s phased plan delays full enforcement until at least 2027, which, according to the City’s own regional policy review, creates a “magnet effect” as vehicles relocate to the least-regulated cities. An amendment to Phase 1 that excludes residential-adjacent streets from permitted RV habitation, could help ensure that all residential areas are treated equitably under the City’s policy framework, while still supporting compassionate, managed alternatives. Thank you for your attention to this important issue and for the thoughtful work that has gone into developing the staff proposal. Sincerely, Stephanie Wansek Vantage Resident East Meadow Circle Area From:Martin Cuyegkeng To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on 10/20 Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:47:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, Supporting Colin’s explanation regarding the importance of this matter and thanking you foryour action. Regarding the City Staff recommendation summarized as a phased, citywide plan to manage RVs and other oversized vehicles used for habitation on public streets: Phase 1 (FY 2026 – early implementation) • Ban detached/inoperable vehicles and “vanlording.” • Increase sanitation and street cleaning (new signage, enforcement, towing). • Coordinate with LifeMoves and nonprofits for outreach and relocation. • Budget: ≈ $707 K across departments. Phase 2 (planning and pilot) • Develop a pilot for mobile sanitation and trash pickup. • Identify which non-residential and “residential-adjacent” streets could allow long-term RV parking. Phases 3–4 (long-term implementation) • Approve and expand safe-parking locations. • Designate streets where RV habitation is permitted and begin formal enforcement. Phase 1 is scheduled for FY 2026 (mid-2025 to mid-2026). Phases 2–4 have no set dates and are expected to extend into 2027 or later. Can we move toward implementation that prohibits RV / oversized vehicle parking on all residential and residential-adjacent streets? Instead, direct long-term habitation to industrial or commercial areas with safe-parking programs which the city has &/or is planning more. 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 This seems to be the most balanced approach of not simply banning the vehicles for them to move to another city, which has arguably been done to us by others such as Menlo Park, while also recognizing the materially negative impact of the proliferation in these areas. Furthermore, realistically, any residential or residential-adjacent location chosen will result in valid concern / impact on the people in that area so better to aim for consistency across the city. Lastly, this would be similar to the policy that some of our sister cities such as Mountain View and Los Altos have done. Thank you. Martin CuyegkengTrinity Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94303 From: Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com> Subject: [echelonpa] RV Situation in Palo AltoDate: October 17, 2025 at 1:33:07 PM PDT To: city.council@paloalto.gov Dear Council Members and Neighbors, A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described below. This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM): “16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non-designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions. Sincerely, Colin Swindells 3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Health Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential health risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non-designated areas. 1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio- load on the immediate environment. Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains, gutters, or onto the ground. Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment. Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and can be spread through contaminated surfaces or water. Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases. Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play. Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers. While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains. Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs. Health Risks: Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches). Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food surfaces. Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials. Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored. 2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV occupants and, potentially, the wider community. Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above (especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar encampment situations in other cities. Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5). Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly ventilated vehicles. Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as skin conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population. 3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards. Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks. Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator malfunctions. Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's spread and endangering firefighters. Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding emergency vehicle access. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents. Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic. 4. Mental and Social Health Impacts These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants. For Neighborhood Residents: Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety. Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and sanitation concerns. For RV Occupants: Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft. Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be significantly magnified. Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible biohazard zones. Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond. Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures. Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment and would require a major intervention from public health departments. In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this issue effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned locations with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants with healthcare, housing, and other support services. Economic Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential economic risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services. Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon… Total Units in Echelon: 75 Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units] Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage… Total Units: 254 Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units] Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] 1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents. Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include: Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime. Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood. Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the neighborhood less desirable. Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties: Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take significantly longer to sell or rent. Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct financial loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates. Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the declining desirability of the neighborhood. 2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are ultimately borne by taxpayers. Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a disproportionate demand on emergency services. Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These calls are resource-intensive. Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time. Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood. Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs: Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far more expensive than standard trash collection. Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per event. Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign for containment, testing, and vaccination. 3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout. Reduced Revenue: Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks can further deter patrons. Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new customers. Increased Operational Costs: Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive surveillance systems. Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins. Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the area is deemed higher risk. Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or late-night shifts. 4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses. Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences. Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars). Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the zip code. 5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood. Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward economic spiral. Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious cycle. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained reality. Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius. Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood services like park maintenance or library hours. "Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no- go" zone for new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial pressure, with a high risk of failure. In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for managed, resourced solutions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups"Echelon Palo Alto" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an emailto echelonpa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/echelonpa/CAOcXV2HfbUCW7GW%3DQ0-rD9a%3D3rdXb%3DLhC4ydnXqfJk2LG8ks3A%40mail.gmail.com. From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 20, 2025, City Council Meeting, Item #3: 70 Encina Avenue [25PLN-00034] Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:21:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. OCTOBER 20, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #3: 70 ENCINA AVENUE [25PLN-00034] October 19, 2025 The staff report for this agenda item differs from the staffreport for the September 29, 2025 meeting only by appearing inthe meeting's agenda packet with the current meeting's date andapparently after being properly noticed, but otherwise thestaff report is the same as the one for the September 29, 2025meeting on this agenda item's project. The Planning & Transportation Commission has not yet receivedor approved the Action Minutes for its August 27, 2025 meetingalthough sense minutes have been posted on the City's websiteas a convenience for the City Council and public. The failure to have the Commision minutes before you and thepublic means you need to continue this project's agenda itemagain. None my other comments about the staff report and Record ofLand Use Action have been responded to in the current staffreport. The staff report states that the project is exempt from theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQARegulation 15183, "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan",but that regulation enables anyone to challenge in court anyproject-specific significant impacts of the project. The Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder website indicates that aNotice of Decision (NOD) for the project was posted on May 12,2025 that replaced the NOD posted on April 18, 2025. If the public has 180 days from the May 12 NOP posting tochallenge the project approval in court, there is still timefor that to occur. If Ellis Partners, the primary opponent of the project, hasreached an agreement with the project applicant that depends onyour approval of this agenda item, they are just going to haveto wait to see if anyone else files a CEQA lawsuit. If Ellist Partners is still opposed to the project, then theystill have time to sue. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:annecribbs To:Council, City Subject:Remarks from Anne Warner Cribbs Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 3:05:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Good afternoon.. I most likely will not make it to the City Council Study Session onCubberley tomorrow night as I am heading up the Celebrity Golf Tournament at Palo Alto Hills Golf Course for Peninsula Family Service’s 75th Anniversary. However, If I would havebeen able to be there, this is what I would like the City Council to know: Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, I’m Anne Cribbs, a long-time Palo Alto resident, a 1960 Olympian, the producer of the BayArea Senior Games, and soon to complete my term as a Palo Alto Parks and RecreationCommissioner. I’m here tonight to express my strong support for the new Cubberley Community Center — and especially the Recreation Wellness Center. I represent the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit formed in 2022 with dedicated Palo Alto residents serving on our Board and AdvisoryCommittee. Our vision is to help make this Center a reality through community engagement and public-private partnership. As an Olympian, I know firsthand the value of sports and recreation — to build confidence, connection, and lifelong health. From youth learning teamwork to seniors staying active andindependent, access to fitness and recreation enriches every stage of life. We see this as a public–private partnership, much like our wonderful Junior Museum andZoo, where the City and community work together to create something lasting and meaningful. We’re thrilled to be part of Phase One of the Cubberley plan. Palo Alto currently has nocommunity gym or recreation and wellness center, and this project will fill that vital needfor residents of all ages. The Friends are committed to working with the City and community groups to ensure itssuccess — and we look forward to celebrating together when we cut the ribbon on this exciting new center for health, wellness, and community. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you. Anne Warner Cribbs OLYPresident and CEO BASOC 1960 Olympian2450 Agnes Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ph. 650.323.9400 415.264.2067 - mobile From:Evan Reade To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Shikada, Ed; savelegalparkingpa@gmail.com Subject:Re: Say NO to RV parking on our streets Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 2:34:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dr. Mr. Mayor; Dear City Council Members: I am resending my letter to you of September 3, 2025 regarding RV parking, as you will be discussing this matter on October 20 and I am unable to attend in person. To summarize: - You should not be incentivizing people to come to Palo Alto to live on our streets wherever they wish in their RVs, or in any other type of vehicles, for that matter. - The City should not be spending taxpayer dollars to operate RV parks or other campgrounds. - Rather than solving this problem, you are making it worse. JUST SAY NO to RVs parked on our streets. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct.Palo Alto On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 01:59:16 PM PDT, Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Mayor; Dear City Council Members: Regarding the recent meeting of the Policy and Services Committee convened to discuss the subject of RV dwellers parking and living on the streets of Palo Alto: JUST SAY NO. I take issue with those who refer to the people who occupy these mobile dwelling units as "residents" of Palo Alto. Clearly, they are not. They do nothave an address in the city. They do not pay taxes in the city. And they have no right to simply plop themselves down where ever they wish, in front of someone's business, or someone's home, or next to one of our parks, or anywhere on our public streets and decide to "reside" there for as long as they wish. They spreadtheir belongings on public rights of way, they pour their waste into city storm drains, and they increasingly divert the resources of our public safety professionals. They are a blight. A recent newspaper article I read about this issue reported that the number of RV dwellers in Palo Alto is increasing. Gosh, I wonder why. Could it be they come because the word is out that they will be tolerated and almost even welcomed here, unlike in other cities in the region, including San Francisco, which recentlyenacted prohibitions against oversized vehicle parking? And I can't believe the quote attributed to Council Member Lu that he is "a YIMBY on extremely affordable housing and RV parking throughout the entire community, and would not object to anything in my neighborhood." I wonder how your neighbors feel about that, Mr.Lu. You should be protecting the quality of life for those who elected you. I applaud the Palo Alto Police Department for all they are doing to try to keep ahead of this growning blight by utilizing laws and ordinances already on the books. They are working to keep our community safe and clean. I urge Council to do the same. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct. Palo Alto From:Magical Bridge FoundationTo:Council, CitySubject:Please Join Us for a Magical Series FriendsgivingDate:Sunday, October 19, 2025 10:31:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Food, laughter, and stories that bring generations together – reserve your spot now. No images? Click here Friendsgiving Come as neighbors. Leave as friends. Join us for Palo Alto’s second annual Friendsgiving, a warm and welcoming evening where neighbors of all ages come together to share food, music, and meaningful conversation. Enjoy interactive activities that spark authentic connection — from conversation and storytelling to shared creative moments that bring generations together. When we share a table, we share more than a meal. We share friendship, laughter, and the real magic of being together. Sunday, November 16th 4:30 pm - 7:30 pm Lucie Stern Ballroom Tickets are $25 per person, and include dinner and curated activities Tickets and Registration LIMITED TICKETS - REGISTER TODAY What the Evening Involves: A shared meal New friendships Intergenerational connection Building belonging Tickets and Registration Get in touch Questions? We'd love to hear from you. Reach to Harriet@magicalbridge.org Magical Bridge is proud to partner with the City of Palo Alto on programs that bring our community together. Magical Bridge Foundation 959A Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 © 2025 Magical Bridge Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Preferences | Unsubscribe From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because I also think that it’s also about the right time that RV owners should be sent to other parts across the United States and als... Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 7:58:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.Sent from my iPhone From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Letter Concerning RV parking on the City Street in Palo Alto Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 3:41:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I think the challenge of RVs on our streets and people having to use them as "permanent housing" is an impossible situation for them and for the people who live and work in these areas where the RVs are parked. It is an endless challenge with no good solutions. I believe the best thing for you to do - it may sound impossible but is really the only thing that will help solve the problem - is: 1. buy or find someone to buy - apartment buildings that will house about the number of units you will need to offer basic, supportive housing for those you have living in RVs. 2. partner with a housing group to supply supportive services 3. The City offer an apartment at a subsidized rate to each RV unit. They need to be told if they do not take the apartment they will have to leave the City. 4. You offer to purchase their RV 5. if they move to an apartment great. If not they must be required to leave. (legal now I believe). I Know this sounds impossible but it has to be possible for people to live here. I want to remind you of something the City Council did in 1997-98 building Alma Place for 107 people who were almost homeless. In fact without Alma Place I think they would have been. But you built an SRO on Alma for 107 units and very vulnerable people like those living in RVs today now live lives with dignity as part of this community. It took real vision then and now to do what seems impossible. It is needed because we in this area have allowed housing to become so expensive and scarce. I ask you to consider the unthinkable to real solutions. Maybe funders could be found for the buildings. Cities nearby are trying to do this too. It is a time that calls for extraordinary measures. Thank you for your consideration, Patty Irish In the past I have been staff, I have worked with homeless in LA, Peninsula Habitat for Humanity staff and Board of Palo Alto Housing and Stevenson House. -- Patty Irish850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Lauing, Ed To:Luyuan Liu; Council, City Cc:Ah Yun, Mahealani Subject:RE: Inquiry Regarding Historical City Council Records Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 11:13:06 AM Attachments:image002.png Luyuan, I will refer you to our City Clerk for this request. She is copied here. All the best with your research. When you are finished I would love to read your paper. Ed Lauing Mayor Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Luyuan Liu <lliu27@lawrenceville.org> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 10:39 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Inquiry Regarding Historical City Council Records CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Niki and I am a currentjunior at The Lawrenceville School. I am conducting academic research focused on the historical governance and urban planning of Palo Alto. I am reaching out to request access i This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Members of the City Council, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Niki and I am a current junior at TheLawrenceville School. I am conducting academic research focused on the historical governance and urban planning of Palo Alto. I am reaching out to request access to archivedCity Council meeting minutes, reports, or other municipal records from the 1980s and earlier. If these materials are publicly available, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to Powered by Mimecast access them—whether through a digital archive, public records request, or in-person visit.Please also let me know if there is a designated staff member or department responsible for historical records management. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I greatly appreciate your help in preserving and sharing the city’s history. Best regards, Niki Liu From:Luyuan Liu To:Council, City Subject:Inquiry Regarding Historical City Council Records Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 10:39:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the City Council, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Niki and I am a current junior at The Lawrenceville School. I am conducting academic research focused on the historicalgovernance and urban planning of Palo Alto. I am reaching out to request access to archived City Council meeting minutes, reports, or other municipal records from the 1980s and earlier. If these materials are publicly available, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to access them—whether through a digital archive, public records request, or in-person visit.Please also let me know if there is a designated staff member or department responsible for historical records management. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I greatly appreciate your help in preserving and sharing the city’s history. Best regards, Niki Liu This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Nancy Noe To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Council, City Cc:Board Subject:Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 10:20:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Re Agenda Item 16, the Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Honorable Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers, The Board of Heart and Home Collaborative would like to thank you for your continuing efforts to address homelessness in Palo Alto, and to encourage you to adopt the Policy & Services Committee Recommendation for a phased approach to address the issue of oversized vehicles as part of your strategy for helping your unhoused population. Your on-going support for programs like ours and LifeMoves are a critical component in serving unhoused people in Palo Alto, but as you know there are many more people in need of housing than current shelters and transitional housing programs are able to support. Living in RVs on the City streets (and for that matter staying in shelters) are far from ideal living arrangements, but they provide immediate safe, dry places for people to sleep at night until better, more permanent accommodations are available. Forcing the relocation of oversized vehicles when better alternatives are not available does not create a solution. People simply have to move the vehicles to other inappropriate locations, or possibly be forced out of their vehicles onto the streets. We recognize that oversized vehicles used as living spaces can cause negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and applaud the recommendations offered in Phase One that would improve the sanitary environment for the people living in the vehicles, as well as addressing the impacts to those living and working nearby. We believe that the phased approach recommended is well thought out and that dedicating 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 some additional time and resources to find safer, more appropriate parking areas and to increase other housing alternatives will result in better long-term outcomes for the current vehicle dwellers and for the broader community. We therefore urge you to adopt the phased recommendation offered by the Policy and Services Committee. Respectfully, Nancy Noe, Board member on behalf of Heart & Home Collaborative Board of Directors From:Manu Kumar To:Steve Wong Cc:Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Marguerite Poyatos; Dave Stellman; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 9:26:11 AM Attachments:Outlook-THEimage015.pngimage018.pngOutlook-3lhybjrbOutlook-logo 2 PNG.pngimage011.pngOutlook-Green Hearimage020.pngimage017.pngimage021.pngimage016.pngimage019.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Steve and fellow neighbors: I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what Palo Alto really looks like. https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636 It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight. The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in adifferent spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs. The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is not allowed altogether. Regards,-Manu Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone. On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in this area every day. Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to worsen week after week. There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and overcrowded areas. This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses. Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the available spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over additional spots and making the situation worse. We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible steps to resolve it. Sincerely, Steven L. Wong - President Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160 4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Patrick Kelly From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your shoulders when something happens. Patrick Kelly From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still sittingin the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't be allowed tobe kept in the street for multiple reasons. On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote: The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental issues. Please help. Patrick Kelly From: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operations phone: (650) 858-2491mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno' <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>; 'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti' <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Dave Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete Moffatt' <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley' <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; 'Melissa McDonough' <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider' <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation' <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Lydia Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker' <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims' <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety + Staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or- builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches from the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws. Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operationsphone: (650) 858-2491mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 4047 Transport St Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote: + staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Chantal, Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning andgave out the 72 hour tow notices. I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all townotices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures ofhis vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the notices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in the street fora few months now. Can that be addressed? The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of theseend up. Can there be any enforcement for littering? As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety ofpedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there isno visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians. Thank you. On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by the RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and thesafety of my students and their families. As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining a safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families. However,recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult. One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personalwaste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my ownexpense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This is unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. Iunderstand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing similar challenges. Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safetyconcerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about bringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditionssurrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses a direct risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school. I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address thesechallenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community andthe ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a priority. I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that includes: Proper and reliable waste management enforcement Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinancesMeasures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness ofthe situation and the urgent need for intervention. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and toseeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local business community. Sincerely, Ramon Moreno Owner & Director Ramon Moreno School of Ballet Please feel free to text or call: 650-304-1909 Thank you, Ramon Moreno www.ramonmorenoballet.com www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or- builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to theman living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stoveinside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard notonly for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles &businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe forpedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed bypeople associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a coupleissues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a timewhen they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowherenear the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehiclesrarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimalprogress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg<maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600- 9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of theunsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our publicspaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why notPalo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay thecost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem. View this email in your browser. Updates, events and news you can use,as the special election nears. Get your mail-in ballot in early for the smoothest election possible. OCTOBER 18: No Kings 2: parade at 11:30am and democracy fair at 1pm in PA NOVEMBER 4: Special Election Day! Handy link! CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS: https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/ From:LWV Palo AltoTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA October Events and News FlashesDate:Saturday, October 18, 2025 7:48:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. No Thrones.No Crowns. No Kings. Join your friends and neighbors on Saturday, October 18 - a day for everyone who loves America and believes in democracy, justice, and freedom. Join your friends in the League at two events in Palo Alto - a peaceful parade, followed by a Democracy Fair. Across our nation, millions are rising again to show the world that America has no kings, and that power belongs to the people. Join us to build a future where every family can live with dignity and safety. IN PALO ALTO, JOIN US FOR: No Kings Parade: Gather at 11:30am at El Camino & Embarcadero (Town & Country Center), then step off at 12:30pm for a short, peaceful march along the sidewalks toward Rinconada Park. Family-friendly; signs, music, and costumes welcome. RSVP FOR THE PARADE No Kings Democracy Fair: 1–4PM at Rinconada Cultural Park. Hands-on action stations, workshops, partner tables, and a kids’ area. Leave with a skill, a plan, and new connections. Come to visit the League table, where you can: Register to vote Learn what's on the ballot (Pros/Cons for Measure A & Prop 50) and grab a Prop 50 Easy Voter Guide Take action by urging the EAC not to require documentary proof of citizenship (link below) Make friendship bracelets and say HI to our volunteers ADDRESS: 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303. RSVP FOR THE FAIR Not near Palo Alto? Want more info? Find an event near you: No Kings TAKE ACTION! Urge the EAC not to Require Documentary Proof of Citizenship RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: League of Women Voters Denounces Federal Militarization of Illinois Communities Voters, Civil Rights Groups Seek to Halt DOJ Attempts to Seize Pennsylvania Voter Data Emergency Relief Sought to Protect Upcoming Elections From Trump-Vance Administration Plot to Facilitate Illegal and Inaccurate Voter RollPurges VIDEO LIBRARY: Catch up on recent programs! Brand new from 10.7! County Assessor's Forum Brand new from 10.7! Ballot Pro/Cons - Measure A & Prop 50 Do you know where your water comes from? Water Symposium on 10.2 (SFGate)Curious about the rule of law?Hear our 10.4 Kick-off guest speaker, Stanford law professor ERIK JENSEN 9.9: Learn about the limits and reach ofExecutive Power 8.17: Addressing key questions with REP. SAM LICCARDO For all your voting needs, go to VOTE411! VOTE411.org is the League’s one-stop-shop where you can find all the information you need to cast your ballot. It's virtual, nonpartisan, and available in both English and Spanish. Discover all your voting options, from early voting to absentee and mail-in voting, to voting on Election Day, and make an election plan that fits your life. Visit VOTE411! Want to make change for good? Get involved with the League! Volunteers Needed! Interested in helping to register people, get out the vote and educate voters on the issues and candidates in the special election? We've got a spot for you! Please contact us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com - subject “Voter Services.” Come join us - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram. Stay informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com 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:Stump, Molly; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; GRP-City Council; Nash, Betsy; City of Menlo Park; Chief.sjpd; Council,City; gstone22@gmail.com; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; james pitkin; Shikada, Ed; ladoris cordell; Paul George @PPJC; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Diana Diamond;Brian Good; Brandon Pho; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; PD Kristina Bell; Palo Alto Free Press; Doug Minkler;Shankar Ramamoorthy; Sarah E. Sandoval; Sean Allen; Pat M; Patrice Ventresca; Raymond Goins; Rose Lynn;Julie Lythcott-Haims; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Perron, Zachary;Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Alex Kobayashi; Afanasiev, Alex; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Tom DuBois;Seher Awan; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Robert Salonga; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:L.A. council rebukes city attorney over ban on LAPD using crowd control weapons on journalists Date:Saturday, October 18, 2025 12:46:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. L.A. council rebukes city attorney over ban on LAPD using crowd control weapons on journalists https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-17/l-a-officials-clash-over-judges-ban-on-lapd-shooting-crowd-control-weapons-at-journalists From:Linda Lee To:Council, City Cc:spencer S. lee Subject:Road and Traffic matter - Charleston Road railway grade project Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 10:54:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Madam/Sir, I am a resident of 347 Ely Place (Walnut Grove) and am writing to you about theCharleston Road railway grade project. Our family's preferences are as follows: 1) Hybrid - This is the best option because it has the least negative traffic impact for our neighborhood and no detours for the drivers. None of my neighbors' homes arebeing torn down. It is also the cheapest option for the city. 2) Underpass (Direct Access Ramp) - This is the 2nd best option. It also has less negative traffic impact on our neighborhood. 3) Underpass (Roundabout) - This is the worst option. Our neighbors lose theirhomes. It will have massive traffic consequences for our neighborhood. All the following traffic will end up being pushed down towards Mumford/Carlson to make a U-turn at the roundabout. - traffic headed south on Alma trying to make a right on W.Charleston - traffic headed east on W.Charleston trying to make a left on Alma- traffic headed north on Alma trying to make a left on W. Charleston. Furthermore, this option is going to cost the city more than $300MM compared to the Hybrid option. We hope that our concerns are taken into consideration in the final decision. Please keep us posted on any future meetings/updates so we can attend these if necessary. Best Regards, Spencer Lee 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:laurie miller To:Council, City; Transportation Subject:Charleston Railroad Crossing Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 4:27:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Our family would like to express our preference for the proposed railroad crossing. Although none of the options are completely ideal, we feel the hybrid is the bestoption. The worst option would be the roundabout. I am wondering if you are forgettingto take into account the massive new school building being built on CharlestonRoad. I think the additional amount of car traffic and children on bicycles make this a very dangerous option, especially if you take into account that drivers here couldn't even figure out how to navigate the Ross Road/East Meadow roundaboutnecessitating having to finally put 4 stop signs there so motorists and bicycles couldco-exist! Thank you for your consideration,Van WhitisLaraine Miller 355 Ely Place Palo Alto, CA 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:Mohit Thawani To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer;Gaines, Chantal; Pierce, Kojo; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Urgent Concerns Re: HRC Candidate Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 3:48:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Councilmembers, Thank you for all the work you do on behalf of Palo Alto. I know serving on the Council takes a lot of time and patience, and I appreciate your efforts to keep our city strong and inclusive. I wanted to share an urgent and profound concern about one current applicant for the HRC, Salwa Ansari. The HRC’s role is to help ensure that Palo Alto remains a welcoming place for everyone and to represent all vulnerable members of our community without bias. That requires commissioners who respect and fairness to all residents. According to Ms. Ansari’s HRC application, Ms. Ansari has a deep affiliation with "Muslim Advocates", an organization that has polarizing and deeply controversial positions - such as joining an “anti-war coalition” campaigning to block U.S. arms sales to Israel and declaring “solidarity with the Palestinian people” while condemning Israel’s “punitive bombardment and occupation” - This should raise serious concern to all. By her own admission on the HRC application, Ms. Ansari’s affiliation with Muslim Advocates includes “fundraising, strategy, mission positioning…guidance to board chair and executive director.” These statements go far beyond humanitarian advocacy; they adopt one-sided, politically charged narratives that many in our community find fringe, offensive, and alienating. Aligning with such rhetoric dehumanizes and marginalizes Jewish and Israeli community members, undermining the fairness, empathy, and balance expected of a commissioner charged with protecting the rights and dignity of all. If Ms. Ansari wants to run for office and campaign on this platform, then so be it. But for an appointed position - where impartiality and public trust are crucial - such affiliations are not just concerning, they are disqualifying. Commissioners must be able to represent the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast community with neutrality, inclusivity, and sound judgment - and Ms. Ansari’s deep affiliation with this group that includes “fundraising, strategy, mission positioning…guidance to board chair and executive director” shows anything but. Thank you again for your service and for taking the time to consider this perspective. Sincerely, -- Mohit ThawaniCell (347) 224 7292 From:Andrew Li To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for 10/20/25 Meeting - Employee Safety Concerns regarding RV Parking Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 3:42:02 PM Attachments:image811086.png LONGFELLOW - LETTER TO PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Please find attached a formal letter from Longfellow Real Estate Partners regarding the oversized vehicle parking ordinance under consideration at Monday's City Council meeting on October 20, 2025. As owner and operator of Palo Alto Labs, Longfellow is writing to express our support for the Policy and Services Committee's comprehensive approach to addressing public health, safety, and sanitation concerns related to oversized vehicle parking in Palo Alto. Our attached letter outlines specific, documented concerns affecting our tenants and the surrounding community, as well as the proactive measures we have taken to address these challenges. We have also included on the final page photographic and documentary exhibits that supplement the concerns described in our letter. We appreciate the Council's thoughtful consideration of this complex issue and your commitment to balancing enforcement with compassionate, long-term solutions. Longfellow stands ready to support the City's efforts and provide any additional information that may be helpful as you deliberate on these important matters. Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to provide public comment. Respectfully, Andrew Li Property Manager Longfellow Real Estate Partners, Palo Alto Labs This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 650.613.3965 ali@lfrep.com Andrew Li Property Manager M: 650.613.3965 lfrep.com Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing on behalf of Longfellow Real Estate Partners, the owner and operator of Palo Alto Labs, a life sciences campus located at 1800-1850 Embarcadero Road & 2445-2465 Faber Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303. As commercial property owners with deep investment in this community, we express our support for the Policy and Services Committee's comprehensive approach to addressing oversized vehicle parking concerns in Palo Alto. Our Commitment to Tenant Safety Longfellow Real Estate is committed to ensuring a safe, accessible, and sanitary environment for our tenants and the broader Palo Alto community. Over the past several months, we have observed significant safety and public health concerns on Faber Place and Embarcadero Road, the public streets directly adjacent to our property. These concerns have escalated to a point where our tenants, many of whom are scientists, researchers, and healthcare professionals working to advance critical medical innovations, have expressed legitimate fears about their daily commute and workplace access. Documented Safety and Sanitation Concerns Since August 14th, 2025, we have systematically documented the following issues through the PaloAlto311 mobile app and direct coordination with the Palo Alto Police Department: ● Pedestrian Safety Hazards: Sidewalk obstructions on Faber Place routinely force pedestrians, including our employees, into traffic lanes, creating dangerous conditions, particularly during morning and evening commute hours. ● Public Health and Sanitation Violations: Improper waste disposal, including sewage dumping into street gutters and storm drains, poses serious public health risks and contributes to environmental contamination of San Francisco Bay. ● Parking Access Limitations: The concentration of oversized vehicles has reduced available parking for employees, visitors, and emergency vehicle access to our property. ● Accumulated Refuse: Regular accumulation of trash and debris around parked vehicles has attracted rodents and created unsanitary conditions in proximity to our life sciences facilities. ● Safety Incidents: We have documented concerning incidents, including a RV occupant’s dog biting a vendor working on property, that have heightened tenant anxiety and safety concerns. Our Proactive Response In response to these conditions, Longfellow has taken significant action: ● Expanded security patrol coverage to 24/7, including weekends, with focused monitoring of exterior common areas and both Faber Place and Embarcadero Road ● Established direct coordination protocols with the Palo Alto Police Department for non- emergency incident reporting ● Implemented real-time communication channels for tenants to report safety concerns to our Property Management and Security teams ● Actively engaged with the City's Transportation Department regarding proposed bike lane infrastructure improvements along Embarcadero and Faber Place ● Consistently reported violations and concerns through the PaloAlto311 mobile app, as directed by City officials Why We Support the Proposed Ordinance We support the Policy and Services Committee's recommended approach because it balances enforcement of existing public health and safety regulations with a comprehensive, long-term strategy. Specifically, we support: 1. Enforcement of Existing Regulations: Palo Alto's 72-hour parking ordinances, sanitation codes, and sidewalk accessibility requirements exist to protect all community members. Consistent application of these standards is essential for public safety. 2. Ban on Inoperable Vehicles and Unhitched Trailers: Vehicles that cannot be moved pose safety and environmental hazards and should not occupy public streets indefinitely. 3. Enhanced Street Sweeping and Maintenance: Increased cleaning in impacted areas will address immediate sanitation concerns while longer-term solutions are developed. 4. Comprehensive Long-Term Solutions: We appreciate the City's parallel work on safe parking sites, outreach services, and transitional housing options. Enforcement and compassionate resources are not mutually exclusive, as both are necessary. Looking Forward Longfellow Real Estate Partners has invested significantly in Palo Alto because we believe in this community's future. Our tenants are advancing groundbreaking research in life sciences that will benefit society for generations to come. They deserve safe access to their workplace, clean streets, and a professional environment that reflects Palo Alto's status as a world-class innovation hub. We recognize that housing affordability is a complex regional challenge, and we support the City's efforts to develop appropriate resources and designated safe parking areas. However, these longer-term solutions cannot come at the expense of immediate public health, safety, and environmental protection. We respectfully urge the City Council to advance the Policy and Services Committee's recommendations and to prioritize consistent enforcement of existing municipal codes that protect all Palo Alto residents and workers. Thank you for your leadership on this challenging issue and your commitment to ensuring Palo Alto remains a safe, vibrant community for all. Respectfully submitted, Hugh McBride Director, Property Management Longfellow Property Management Services CA, Inc. EXHIBITS: For all exhibits, select this link. The following exhibits supplement this letter and document the conditions described above: Exhibit A: VIEW IMAGES HERE documenting sidewalk obstructions on Faber Place forcing pedestrians into traffic; accumulated trash and refuse around oversized vehicles adjacent to property (August 2025 – current) Exhibit B: VIEW IMAGES HERE documenting sewage dumping and improper waste disposal on Embarcadero Road and Faber Place (August 2025 – current) Exhibit C: VIEW REPORTS HERE documenting PaloAlto311 incident reports submitted by Longfellow Property Management team (August 2025 – current) Exhibit D: Timeline of security incident reports and tenant safety complaints (August 2025 – current) From:Tom DuBois To:Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Alamos, Lupita; Lai, Lauren; Tong, Sunny; Ramberg, David; Bill Blodgett; Deborah Grant Subject:La Comida License to use 455 Bryant Street, Consent Item #10 Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 3:14:53 PM Attachments:Council Letter La Comida 10172025 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council, Thank you for your support of La Comida. Please see my letter attached below. Best, Tom 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 SUBJECT: La Comida License to use 455 Bryant Street, Consent Item #10 of October 20th, 2025 Council Meeting Council Members, First, as a Board member of La Comida, I want to say THANK YOU for supporting La Comida and getting us to this stage. This agreement between La Comida and the City of Palo Alto, will help us continue to achieve our goals of enhancing the physical and mental well-being of Palo Alto seniors by providing nutritious lunches and reducing social isolation. By providing certainty in terms of a long term license to use city-owned space, you are a true partner. Thank you again, this is truly a momentous occasion for La Comida and the residents we serve. I also want to thank city staff, who have worked with us to ready the license agreement before you tonight. Specifically Lauren Lai, Sunny Tong, Lupita Alamos, and David Ramberg. These four met with me throughout the last year to agree to the terms of this license and were always positive and professional. I also want to thank Cooley who provided pro-bono legal advice for the entire period of time. Finally, I want to thank the First Methodist Church (FUMC), which has continued to rent space to La Comida to serve the Palo Alto downtown area. La Comida first submitted a term sheet for the use of 455 Bryant in October of 2023, two years ago. FUMC continued to rent to us throughout this extended period while the use of the building and its refurbishment was being determined. Without their flexibility, we would have experienced a real crisis. To supplement your staff report, I wanted to point out some of the key provisions from La Comida’s perspective. ● Purpose: The agreement grants La Comida de California the nonexclusive right to use approximately 1,602 rentable square feet on the first floor of the building. Our license gives us exclusive use from 10AM - 2 PM, M-F. ● Term: The term of the license begins on the first day of the month after renovations are complete and lasts for 10 years, with a 5 year extension. Our hope is for a successful partnership that will continue beyond those 15 years. ● Use: Because many of our volunteers are elderly themselves, the City has agreed operationally to restore the tables and chairs in the configuration La Comida uses to minimize setup at 10AM. ● Continued Construction: La Comida aims to move in as soon as the downstairs is habitable. However, because the City’s community center work on the second floor and common areas will not be complete, we will have to operate through some future disruption when that City construction occurs. We are hopeful the disruption will be minimal and meal service will not need to halt during that time. ● Contribution to Improvements: The CIty was required to make some ADA improvements and general repairs to the building and asked La Comida to contribute to these repairs. This was probably one of the biggest sticking points, as we are not leasing the space (because we have non-exclusive use, this is a Licensee). We ultimately agreed to pay $50,000 towards the work being done, in the future. La Comida intends to raise money through a capital campaign to pay for this. Because most of our funding comes from the County and is tied to meals served, we will need to get creative to cover these costs. ● Operating Expenses: While the License is $1/month, we are also paying for utilities, janitorial, maintenance, and other operating costs, with the price increasing every two years, and paying for our own trash service. . ● Reporting: Both parties agreed to align reporting requirements with existing requirements already in place with the County and City as part of La Comida’s funding requirements, saving La Comida from additional administrative overhead. Council, thanks again for your support. I urge you to pass this item. La Comida will continue to focus on providing over 200 nutritious lunches daily, 249 days a year. We look forward to moving into our new home, and invite you all to come see us in operation, once we are up and running. Best, Tom DuBois, former Mayor and Council Member From:midtowngary@me.com To:Council, City Cc:Council, City Subject:October 20, 2025 Hearing on RV parking in Palo Alto Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 2:50:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Palo Alto City Council, October 17, 2025 I am writing as a concerned resident and taxpayer to urge the Council to take action inaddressing the growing issue of long-term RV parking on our city streets. As surrounding communities have implemented restrictions or outright bans on RV parking, many of thesevehicles—and their associated problems—have migrated into our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the results are increasingly visible: blight, trash accumulation, and ongoingnuisances that negatively impact the quality of life for residents and the appearance of our city. While I understand that some individuals living in RVs may be facing difficult circumstances,allowing unrestricted RV parking is not a sustainable or fair solution. The reality is that many of these vehicles are not properly maintained, leak fluids onto the streets, generate noise andwaste, have expired tags, and contribute to litter and unsanitary conditions. They also take up valuable parking spaces. This not only degrades property values but quality of life in our city. Other cities have recognized that uncontrolled RV parking leads to safety hazards, diminished public spaces, and growing costs for municipal services. As they enact bans or stricterregulations, our city has become an unintended haven for RV encampments, bringing these issues to our doorsteps. Without clear restrictions, we risk allowing the problem to grow to anunmanageable scale. I respectfully urge the City Council to consider adopting an ordinance that bans RV parkingon city streets and in residential areas. Most taxpaying residents feel the same way and deserve to have their voices heard. The majority of us work hard to maintain our homes andneighborhoods, and we expect our city to take reasonable action to preserve the safety, cleanliness, and character of our community. Our community deserves clean, safe, and attractive neighborhoods. As taxpayers, we should not have to shoulder the costs or consequences of lax enforcement and policy gaps thatencourage blight and disorder. This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your continued work to protectthe health, safety, and integrity of our community. Respectfully, Gary From:Colin Swindells To:Council, City Cc:Kratt, Ken; "emily yang" via Echelon Palo Alto Subject:RV Situation in Palo Alto Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 1:35:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members and Neighbors, A summary of health and economic risks related to the current RV situation are described below. This relates to Agenda Item #16 for the CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025 (Council Chambers & Hybrid @ 5:30 PM): “16. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Approve a Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle (Including Recreational Vehicle) Impacts, Particularly Relating to Individuals Living in Vehicles and Approve Budget Amendments in various funds; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” I appreciate your upcoming action to address the health and economic risks that are directly impacting the 254 units of Altaire, Echelon and Vantage communities neighboring the RVs parked along E Meadow Cir in Palo Alto. Specifically, health concerns arise from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas. Economic concerns include property values, municipal & public services, local businesses, direct neighbor costs and economic stagnation. For example, if only considering property tax revenue losses to the City of Palo Alto due to the particular RV situation neighboring our three complexes (Altaire, Echelon and Vantage), an estimate is $1.5 M - $1.8 M total reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year (see Example Economic Use Case B below). Presumably, overall economic impacts for Palo Alto are much higher. I would be happy to update more complete health and economic impact estimates with council members & neighbors, and appropriate solutions. Sincerely, Colin Swindells 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 3769 Klamath Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Health Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential health risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: This is a complex public health issue with significant impacts on both the unhoused individuals living in the RVs and the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The health risks are not inherent to the people, but rather stem from the lack of sanitation, safety infrastructure, and basic services that come with living in non- designated areas. 1. Environmental Health and Sanitation Risks This is often the most immediate and visible category of health risks. A high concentration of RVs without access to proper utilities creates a significant bio-load on the immediate environment. Improper Disposal of Human Waste (Black Water): RVs have toilets and black water holding tanks that need to be emptied regularly. Without legal and accessible dump stations, occupants may be forced to dump raw sewage into storm drains, gutters, or onto the ground. Health Risks: This introduces dangerous pathogens into the environment. Bacteria: E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Viruses: Norovirus and Hepatitis A, which are highly contagious and can be spread through contaminated surfaces or water. Parasites: Giardia and Cryptosporidium, leading to diarrheal diseases. Impact: These pathogens can contaminate public sidewalks, wash into local waterways (creeks, bays), and potentially seep into the soil in parks or green spaces where children and pets play. Improper Disposal of Gray Water: This is wastewater from sinks and showers. While less hazardous than black water, it contains soaps, food particles, and bacteria that can create foul odors, attract pests, and pollute storm drains. Accumulation of Solid Waste (Trash): Without regular municipal trash collection, garbage can pile up in and around the RVs. Health Risks: Pest Infestations: Accumulating trash is a breeding ground for rodents (rats, mice) and insects (flies, cockroaches). Vector-Borne Diseases: Rodents can carry diseases like Hantavirus (from droppings), Leptospirosis, and Salmonellosis. Flies can transfer bacteria from waste to food surfaces. Hazardous Material Spills: RVs use and store hazardous materials. Health Risks: Leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel, propane, motor oil, and battery acid can contaminate the soil and groundwater. Propane tanks pose a significant fire and explosion risk, especially if they are old, damaged, or improperly stored. 2. Public Health and Communicable Disease Risks The dense, close-quarters living conditions, combined with a lack of sanitation, can create an environment where diseases can spread easily, affecting both the RV occupants and, potentially, the wider community. Increased Risk of Outbreaks: The unsanitary conditions described above (especially human waste) create a perfect environment for outbreaks of diseases like Hepatitis A or Shigellosis, which have been documented in similar encampment situations in other cities. Respiratory Illnesses: The constant running of generators for power produces carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5). Health Risks: Poor air quality can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions for nearby residents. For RV occupants, there is a severe risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, which can be fatal, especially in poorly ventilated vehicles. Spread of Other Diseases: Lack of access to running water for handwashing and hygiene facilitates the spread of viruses like influenza and COVID-19, as well as skin conditions like scabies and lice among the encampment population. 3. Physical Safety and Hazard Risks The physical presence of a large number of vehicles not designed for permanent street parking creates numerous safety hazards. Fire Hazards: This is one of the most significant risks. Causes: Fires can be started by faulty internal wiring in older RVs, unsafe heating methods (propane heaters, stoves), cooking accidents, or generator malfunctions. Magnified Risk: In a dense cluster of 50 RVs, a fire in one vehicle can quickly spread to adjacent RVs and potentially to nearby homes, trees, or parked cars. The presence of propane tanks can lead to explosions, accelerating the fire's spread and endangering firefighters. Access Issues: The RVs may block streets or fire hydrants, impeding emergency vehicle access. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Blocked Sightlines: RVs parked at intersections can block visibility for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents. Obstruction of Public Ways: Vehicles parked on sidewalks or in bike lanes force pedestrians and cyclists into the street, into the path of traffic. 4. Mental and Social Health Impacts These risks affect both the housed residents and the unhoused occupants. For Neighborhood Residents: Stress and Anxiety: Constant noise from generators, fear of crime, concern over sanitation, and feelings of a loss of neighborhood safety can lead to chronic stress and anxiety. Loss of Public Space: Residents may feel unable to use public parks, sidewalks, or other common areas due to perceived or real safety and sanitation concerns. For RV Occupants: Extreme Stress and Trauma: It's crucial to acknowledge the immense health risks faced by the unhoused individuals themselves. They live in a state of constant vulnerability, facing the threat of displacement, harassment, violence, and theft. Exacerbation of Health Conditions: Lack of stability, nutrition, and access to healthcare worsens pre-existing conditions, including physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: With a density of 50 RVs in such a small area, all the risks mentioned above would be significantly magnified. Environmental Load: The daily output of human waste, gray water, and trash from 50+ people would quickly overwhelm the local environment, creating tangible biohazard zones. Air and Noise Pollution: The cumulative noise and fumes from dozens of generators running simultaneously would create a constant, unhealthy environment for everyone within that 1000-foot radius and beyond. Cascading Fire Risk: A fire would be a catastrophic event with a high probability of spreading to multiple vehicles and structures. Public Health Emergency Potential: An outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would have a high potential for rapid spread within the encampment and would require a major intervention from public health departments. In conclusion, a high concentration of RVs in a residential neighborhood without proper infrastructure poses serious, multifaceted health risks related to environmental contamination, communicable disease, fire safety, and public safety. Addressing this issue effectively requires a public health-led approach that provides safe, sanctioned locations with sanitation services, coupled with robust outreach to connect the unhoused occupants with healthcare, housing, and other support services. Economic Risks Situation: a high concentration of illegally parked RVs with unhoused occupants living in a residential neighborhood—50 RVs within a 1000-foot radius—here is a breakdown of potential economic risks, categorized for clarity. Summary Challenges: Building on the public health risks, the economic risks associated with a high concentration of illegally parked RVs are significant and can affect homeowners, local businesses, and the municipal government. These risks are not caused by the unhoused individuals themselves, but by the circumstances of living in unmanaged, unsanctioned encampments that lack infrastructure and services. Example Economic Use Case A: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Echelon… Total Units in Echelon: 75 Conjecture A: $1.75 M average current value (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.75 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $43.8 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.75 M) * 75 units] Estimate C: $438 k total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] Example Economic Use Case B: Palo Alto City lost property tax revenue from Altaire, Echelon, and Vantage… Total Units: 254 Conjecture A: $1.7 M - $2.1 average current value per unit (Q4 2025) Conjecture B: 25% reduction in value due to RV situation Estimate A: $2.3 M - $2.8 M average unit value (Q4 2025) with resolved RV situation [$1.7 M / (1 - 25%); $2.1 M / (1 - 25%)] Estimate B: $152 M - $178 M total reduced property value for Palo Alto property taxes per year [($2.3 M - $1.7 M) * 254 units; ($2.8 M - $2.1 M) * 254 units] Estimate C: $1.5 M - $1.8 M total absolute reduced Palo Alto property taxes collected per year [annual property tax @ 1% property value] 1. Impact on Real Estate and Property Values This is often the most direct and significant economic impact for neighborhood residents. Decreased Property Values: The presence of a large, unsanctioned encampment can lead to a measurable decline in property values. Factors contributing to this include: Perceived Decline in Safety and Quality of Life: Potential buyers are often deterred by visible signs of disorder, sanitation issues, and perceived crime. Visual Blight: The physical appearance of a large number of dilapidated or poorly maintained vehicles, along with associated debris, can negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood. Noise and Air Pollution: Constant generator noise and exhaust fumes make the neighborhood less desirable. Difficulty Selling or Renting Properties: Longer Market Time: Homes and apartments within the affected area may take significantly longer to sell or rent. Reduced Sale Prices and Rental Income: To attract buyers or tenants, property owners may be forced to lower their asking prices or rent, leading to a direct financial loss. Landlords may experience higher vacancy rates. Stifled Home Improvement Investment: Homeowners may become hesitant to invest in renovations or upgrades, fearing they will not see a return on their investment due to the declining desirability of the neighborhood. 2. Increased Costs for Municipal and Public Services The burden on public services translates directly to increased costs for the city, which are ultimately borne by taxpayers. Increased Emergency Service Costs: A high-density encampment places a disproportionate demand on emergency services. Fire Department: High frequency of calls for fires (vehicle, trash, tent), medical emergencies, and responses to propane leaks or generator malfunctions. These calls are resource-intensive. Police Department: Increased calls for service related to disputes, wellness checks, theft, and other crime, requiring significant officer time. Paramedics/EMT: Frequent medical calls for both encampment occupants and potential issues in the surrounding neighborhood. Significant Sanitation and Cleanup Costs: Biohazard Removal: Cleaning up human waste, used needles, and other biohazardous materials requires specialized crews and equipment, which is far more expensive than standard trash collection. Large-Scale Debris Removal: The city often bears the cost of clearing out abandoned vehicles, accumulated trash, and personal property after an encampment is cleared. These operations can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per event. Public Health Response Costs: As mentioned in the health risks, an outbreak of a communicable disease like Hepatitis A would necessitate a costly public health campaign for containment, testing, and vaccination. 3. Negative Impact on Local Businesses Small, local businesses are particularly vulnerable to the economic fallout. Reduced Revenue: Loss of Foot Traffic: Customers may avoid shopping in areas they perceive as unsafe or unpleasant. Difficulty finding parking and navigating blocked sidewalks can further deter patrons. Negative Reputation: A business located in or near a large encampment can suffer from a damaged reputation, driving away both regular and potential new customers. Increased Operational Costs: Security: Businesses may need to hire private security guards or install expensive surveillance systems. Cleaning and Repairs: Daily costs for cleaning up litter, human waste, and graffiti from their storefronts. Costs to repair vandalism or break-ins. Higher Insurance Premiums: Commercial insurance rates may increase if the area is deemed higher risk. Employee-Related Issues: Businesses may struggle to attract and retain employees who feel unsafe commuting to or working in the area, especially during early morning or late- night shifts. 4. Direct Financial Costs to Residents Beyond the impact on property values, residents may face direct, out-of-pocket expenses. Installation of Security Measures: Many residents will feel compelled to spend money on security cameras, enhanced lighting, alarms, and stronger fences. Property Damage: Costs to repair damaged fences, remove graffiti, and replace stolen items (e.g., packages, items from yards or cars). Increased Insurance Rates: If the neighborhood experiences a documented increase in crime or fire incidents, homeowners' insurance premiums could rise for everyone in the zip code. 5. Broader Economic Stagnation and Disinvestment If the situation persists, it can lead to long-term economic damage to the neighborhood. Deterred Investment: Private developers and businesses will be reluctant to invest in a neighborhood with such visible and unresolved social and sanitation issues. This can halt new construction, prevent new businesses from opening, and lead to a downward economic spiral. Erosion of the Tax Base: A combination of declining property values and businesses closing or relocating can lead to a reduction in the city's property and sales tax revenue from that area. This, in turn, can mean less funding for public services, creating a vicious cycle. Summary for the 50 RV / 1000 ft Scenario: In a dense scenario like this, the economic risks are not just potential; they become a sustained reality. Market Chill: The local real estate market would likely freeze or see a sharp, localized crash. It would be difficult to sell a home at a fair market price within that radius. Budgetary Strain: The cost to the city for services would become a significant, recurring line item in the municipal budget, potentially diverting funds from other neighborhood services like park maintenance or library hours. "Red Zone" for Business: The immediate area would likely become a "no-go" zone for new business investment, and existing small businesses would be under severe financial pressure, with a high risk of failure. In essence, a high concentration of RVs creates a localized economic crisis driven by the failure to provide basic sanitation, safety, and housing infrastructure. The economic costs demonstrate the financial consequence of not addressing the root causes of homelessness and the need for managed, resourced solutions. From:CaraSilver@proton.me To:Council, City Cc:LF_Act4Democracy; David Waksberg; Mike Slind Subject:No Kings Day Events in Palo Alto Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 6:09:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and City Council Members: You are warmly invited to join Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and several other local Indivisible chapters for a Democracy Parade, Fair and Democracy Academy this Saturday, October 18, beginning at 10:00 AM. Here is a link to the Democracy Parade and Fair: https://www.indivisiblepeninsulabayarea.org/nokings/. Rep. Liccardo and Former Council Member Cordell will be speaking at the Closing Ceremony. This time around we will also be hosting special Democracy Academy workshops, which will take place alongside the parade and fair. Here is a link to these workshops: https://www.indivisiblepeninsulabayarea.org/nokings/democracy_academy.html You can review the topics and times for all workshops, and pre-register for workshops that appeal to you. Council Member Lythcott-Haims will be moderating a workshop called "Amplify Your Voice: A Workshop for New Activists." Looking forward to seeing you all there! Cara Silver and Linda Frommer Co-Chairs, Democracy Academy Indivisible Palo Alto Plus Sent with Proton Mail secure email. 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:Noel, Dunia Subject:Draft RFP and TAC for LAFCO"s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 5:18:14 PM Attachments:DraftRFP&ScopeOfServices.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Affected Agencies and Interested Parties: Santa Clara LAFCO invites your review and comments on the attached Draft Request forProposal & Scope of Services (RFP) for the upcoming Countywide Water andWastewater Service Review. Your input will help ensure the scope and approach accurately reflect local conditions and needs. Please submit any comments by Thursday, October 30, 2025, at 5 PM to lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. We also welcome suggestions of qualified consulting firms for inclusion in the final RFP distribution list. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you for yourcontinued collaboration and participation in this important effort. Sincerely, Dunia Noel Dunia Noel Assistant Executive Officer, Santa Clara LAFCO 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or its content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast PAGE 1 OF 2 DATE: October 16, 2025 VIA EMAIL TO: City and District Managers County Executive City Public Works/Utilities Directors Other Affected Agencies and Departments Interested Parties FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer RE: Review of Draft Request for Proposals for LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) Attached for Your Review and Comment This letter is to request your assistance in reviewing and commenting on the attached Draft RFP (Attachment A) for LAFCO’s upcoming Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This document is being sent to each of the agencies that will be included in the service review, as well as other interested parties. This draft is only for your review and comment. Please email your comments no later than Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 5 PM to: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Santa Clara LAFCO, at its October 1, 2025 meeting, directed staff to prioritize the completion of a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review and to prepare a Draft RFP for a professional services firm to conduct this review. Taking into consideration the comments received, LAFCO staff will prepare a Final RFP for LAFCO to consider and approve at its December 3, 2025 meeting. Upon LAFCO’s approval, staff will distribute the Final RFP to potential consultants. Water and Wastewater Service Review Consultant Suggestions Appreciated LAFCO staff is preparing a list of consultants to whom the Final RFP will be distributed. If you know of a firm that may be able to perform the services noted in the RFP, please let us know so that we can add them to the RFP distribution list. We will also post the Final RFP on the LAFCO website and the California Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO) website. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for Service Review LAFCO will establish a TAC to assist with the selection of the consultant and provide advice as the project proceeds. In addition to LAFCO Commissioner Rosemary Kamei and Alternate Commissioner Teresa O’Neill, the TAC will be composed of local agency staff representatives from the County/Cities Managers’ Association, Santa Clara County Special Districts Association, County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association, and Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group. TAC Members will serve as a liaison between LAFCO and these various organizations during the service review process. Page 2 of 2 Questions? Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact LAFCO staff at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank you in advance for your participation in LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review process, and we look forward to working collaboratively with all the affected agencies and other stakeholders. Attachment: A. Draft RFP for LAFCO’s Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review Cc: LAFCO Members Cities Association of Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Special Districts Association Santa Clara County/Cities Managers’ Association County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group PAGE 1 OF 6 Attachment A DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW I. OBJECTIVE The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County is seeking proposals from professional service firms to prepare a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This work is to be completed in compliance with applicable California Government Code sections and Santa Clara LAFCO policies. In Santa Clara County, service reviews are intended to serve as a tool to help LAFCO, the public and other agencies better understand the public service governance and delivery and evaluate options for the provisions of efficient and effective public services, and to develop information to update the spheres of influence of special districts and cities in the county. LAFCO is not required to initiate boundary changes based on service reviews. However, LAFCO, local agencies or the public may subsequently use the service reviews together with additional research and analysis where necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries or spheres of influence. II. BACKGROUND The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) mandates that LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with sphere of influence updates and requires that LAFCO once every five years, as necessary, review and update the sphere of influence of each city and special district [Government Code § 56430]. The Service Review must include an analysis and written statement of determination regarding each of the following seven categories: • Growth and population projections for the affected area • The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence • Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence PAGE 2 OF 6 • Financial ability of agencies to provide services • Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities • Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies • Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission Additionally, as part of the sphere of influence updates LAFCO must prepare an analysis and written statement of determinations for each special district regarding certain factors. [Government Code § 56425(e)] Santa Clara LAFCO is responsible for establishing, reviewing, and updating Spheres of Influence for 41 public agencies in Santa Clara County (15 cities and 26 special districts). LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (amended August 6, 2025), provide guidance to LAFCO in preparing and conducting service reviews. LAFCO completed and adopted its first round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates prior to January 1, 2008 and its second round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates for all cities and special districts prior to January 1, 2015. LAFCO’s most recent Countywide Water Service Review was adopted in 2011. LAFCO’s Special District Service Review: Phase 2 was adopted in December 2013 and includes information on special districts that provide sanitary/sewer service. LAFCO’s Cities Service Review was adopted in December 2015 and includes information on wastewater service and stormwater management services provided by cities in the county. These Reports, which are all available on the LAFCO website, have been a valuable resource for LAFCO, the public, and other local agencies seeking to gain a better understanding on how these services are provided in the county. LAFCO, at its December 2, 2020 meeting set priorities for the completion of LAFCO’s third round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates. LAFCO’s service reviews work plan calls for the completion of 4 studies (i.e. countywide fire service review, countywide water and wastewater service review, special districts service review, and cities service review). It is anticipated that these studies will be conducted by professional service firms under the operational direction of the LAFCO Executive Officer. LAFCO’s first priority, a countywide fire service review was completed in October 2023. LAFCO’s next priority, a countywide review of water service and wastewater service in Santa Clara County and sphere of influence updates for special districts that provide water and sewer service, is the subject of this Request for Proposal (RFP). III. SCOPE OF SERVICES A draft Scope of Services is enclosed with this RFP as Attachment 1. A final statement of services to be provided will be negotiated with the firm selected to PAGE 3 OF 6 conduct the service review and will be included as part of the professional services agreement. IV. BUDGET A final budget amount for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching agreement. The anticipated project cost of the proposal should not exceed $TBD. V. SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the firm will start work in late January 2026. The final schedule for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching an agreement and will be based on the key steps listed in the Scope of Services. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Response to this RFP must include all of the following: 1. A statement about the firm that describes its history as well as the competencies and resumes of the principal and all professionals who will be involved in the work. This statement should describe the firm’s level of expertise in the following areas: General Expertise • Familiarity with CKH Act, the role and functions of LAFCO, and the service review process • Ability to analyze and present information in an organized format • Ability to quickly interpret varied budget and planning documents • Ability to facilitate and synthesize input from a variety of stakeholders • Familiarity with public input processes and experience in managing the presentation and dissemination of public information for review and comment • Experience in fostering multi-agency partnerships and cooperative problem-solving • Ability to provide flexible and creative alternatives where necessary to resolve service and policy issues Water Service and Wastewater Service Expertise • Management level understanding of how water service and wastewater service are financed and delivered • Expertise in various aspects of 1) water service provision (i.e. water supply, water quality, water delivery, recycled water, water conservation and stewardship, groundwater recharge and pumping, flood control, stormwater runoff and management, etc.); and 2) sanitary/sewer service provision (i.e. wastewater collection, treatment, and management, etc.) PAGE 4 OF 6 • Expertise in the financial analysis of water and wastewater service delivery systems, including identifying financing constraints / opportunities and cost avoidance opportunities • Expertise in water service and wastewater service organization analysis, including evaluating government structure options (advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers) • Experience with the operational aspects of various types of water service and wastewater service providers in California, including special districts (water districts, sanitary/sewer districts, and community services districts), city/county departments (public works, utilities, and environmental health), and others (private water companies, mutual water companies, small water systems, and onsite wastewater management systems) • Experience in evaluating water and wastewater service delivery systems, including performance measurements and benchmarking techniques • Experience in evaluating impacts of recent climate change (floods, sea level rise) and their impact on water service and wastewater service 2. Identification of the lead professional responsible for the project and identification of the professional(s) who will be performing the day-to-day work. 3. Identification of any associate consultant firms to be involved. If associate consultant firms are proposed, describe the work they will perform and include the same information for each as required for items 1 and 2 above. 4. A statement of related experience accomplished in the last five years and references for each such project, including the contact name, address, and telephone number. 5. A statement regarding the anticipated approach for this project, including conducting community engagement and outreach, and explicitly discussing and identifying suggested changes to the draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1). 6. Identification of any information, materials and/or work assistance required from LAFCO and / or involved water service and wastewater service providers to complete the project. The expectation is that the consultant will use all available data sources to develop/update information for agency profiles in an effort to minimize the workload for affected agencies. 7. An overall project schedule, including the timing of each work task. 8. Information about the availability of all professionals who will be involved in the work, including any associate consultants. 9. The anticipated project cost, including: a. A not-to-exceed total budget amount. b. The cost for each major sub-task identified in the draft Scope of Services. PAGE 5 OF 6 c. The hourly rates for each person who will be involved in the work, including the rates of any associate consultants. 10. Comments about the draft services agreement (Attachment 2) specifically including the ability of the firm to meet the insurance requirements and other provisions. VII. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Responses to RFP will be accepted by email only at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org and should be addressed to Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer. Proposals should be submitted in a complete, single electronic file, to the email specified in this notice. DUE DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 19, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Proposals received after that time and date will not be considered. VIII. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS Firms will be selected for further consideration and follow-up interviews based on the following criteria: • Relevant work experience • The completeness of the responses • Overall project approaches identified • Proposed project budget A consultant selection committee will conduct interviews and the most qualified firm will be selected based on the above evaluation criteria and reference checks. Interviews will be held in early January 2026. The selection committee is expected to make a decision soon after. Following the selection of the most qualified firm, a final services agreement including budget, schedule, and final Scope of Services statement will be negotiated before executing the contract. LAFCO reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to issue addenda to the RFP, to modify the RFP or to cancel the RFP. IX. LAFCO CONTACT Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer LAFCO of Santa Clara County Voice: (408) 993-4713 Email: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1) 2. Draft Professional Service Agreement and insurance obligations (Attachment 2- included in Final RFP) XI. REFERENCE INFORMATION Please refer to LAFCO’s website (www.santaclaralafco.org) for general information about Santa Clara LAFCO and the following links for further information: PAGE 6 OF 6 1. LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (Amended August 6, 2025): (https://santaclaralafco.org/resources/policies/service-review-policies) 2. LAFCO Service Reviews Webpage: (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews) 3. Countywide Water Service Review (Adopted December 7, 2011): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/2011-countywide-water-service-review) 4. Special Districts Service Review: Phase 2 (Adopted December 4, 2013): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/special-districts-service-review-phase-2) 5. Cities Service Review (Adopted December 2, 2015): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/cities-service-review) Attachment 1 PAGE 1 OF 7 SCOPE OF SERVICES COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES The Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Report will provide a comprehensive overview of all the agencies that provide water services (including recycled water), wastewater services, and stormwater management in the County; evaluate the provision of these services; and recommend actions to promote efficient service delivery; and review and update the spheres of influence of the 5 water districts, 5 sanitary/sewer districts, and 2 community services districts. I. SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to California Government Code §56430, LAFCO is required to adopt a written statement of determination for each of the following considerations: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. California Government Code §56425 requires LAFCO, when determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, to prepare and adopt a written statement of determination for each city and special district regarding the following considerations: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. PAGE 2 OF 7 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency 5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protections that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. 6. Nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts II. IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR STUDY Agencies that are required to have a Spheres of Influence (SOI) [i.e. special districts and cities] will be the focus of service reviews. Other agencies will also be reviewed to the extent necessary to establish relationships, quantify services, designate or map service location/facilities and provide a complete overview of services in the area. The following agencies and organizations that provide water service (including recycled water), wastewater service, and stormwater management in Santa Clara County will be included in the service review: Water Districts 1. Aldercroft Heights County Water District (serves a small unincorporated community near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) 2. Pacheco Pass Water District (serves a small unincorporated area in southern Santa Clara County and also includes lands in San Benito County. San Benito LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 3. Purissima Hills County Water District (serves a portion of Los Altos Hills and adjacent unincorporated area) 4. San Martin County Water District (serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District (countywide) Special Districts that Provide Wastewater Services 1. Burbank Sanitary District (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated islands surrounded by the City of San Jose) 2. County Sanitation District 2-3 (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated areas surrounded by or adjacent to the City of San Jose) 3. Cupertino Sanitary District (serves majority of the City of Cupertino, portion of City of Saratoga, small areas of City of San Jose, Sunnyvale and Los Altos, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 3 OF 7 4. West Bay Sanitary District (serves a small unincorporated area along the San Mateo County boundary and also includes lands in San Mateo County. San Mateo LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 5. West Valley Sanitation District (serves City of Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, City of Monte Sereno, portion of the City of Saratoga, and unincorporated areas west of these cities) 6. Lions Gate Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of CordeValle, located south of Morgan Hill) 7. Lake Canyon Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of Lake Canyon near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) Cities (review specific to water service, wastewater service, and stormwater management service) 1. City of Campbell 2. City of Cupertino 3. City of Gilroy 4. Town of Los Altos 5. City of Los Altos Hills 6. Town of Los Gatos 7. City of Milpitas 8. City of Monte Sereno 9. City of Morgan Hill 10. City of Mountain View 11. City of Palo Alto 12. City of San Jose 13. City of Santa Clara 14. City of Saratoga 15. City of Sunnyvale Other Service Providers (included for comprehensiveness and/or to address a focus issue) Private Water Companies 1. San Jose Water Company (serves Cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, part of Cupertino, parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 4 OF 7 2. California Water Service Company (serves parts of Cities of Cupertino and Los altos, parts of Los Altos Hills and Mountain View, parts of Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas) 3. Great Oaks Water Company (serves parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated area south of San Jose) 4. West San Martin Water Works (purchased by California American Water, serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) Miscellaneous 1. Stanford University (serves the University) 2. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (wholesale agency to portions of North County) 3. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (provides water conservation programs and conducts water supply planning activities for their members) 4. South Bay Water Recycling 5. County Department of Environmental Health 6. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 7. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility 8. South County Regional Wastewater Authority 9. Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant 10. Mutual Water Companies, including small water systems Please note that in addition to the above listed agencies, there may be other agencies within the county that provide water, wastewater, and/or stormwater management related services. It may be necessary to include those agencies in the service review. III. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK Service Review Determinations Based on the elements above, Consultant will draft proposed service review determinations for each agency that meet the legal requirements as identified in Government Code §56430. Sphere of Influence Update Analyze and propose, if deemed appropriate, sphere of influence updates for each of the special districts that provide sewer and/or water services and prepare a written statement of determination for each district as required by Government Code §56425 PAGE 5 OF 7 Focus Issues The service review will also consider the following issue and identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County: Small Water Systems in the Unincorporated Area The State Water Resources Control Board’s Department of Drinking Water (DDW) staff have identified many small water systems in south Santa Clara County that from time-to-time experience technical, managerial, and financial difficulties. In response, there have been many interagency discussions on potential options for helping these current systems, including the potential consolidation of these struggling systems with better managed or maintained systems located nearby. However, there does not appear to be any readily available solution. Discussions concerning the feasibility and practicality of consolidation or infrastructure extension to these existing systems noted various challenges, including the long distances involved, terrain challenges, high costs, lack of funding sources, water supply availability, and overall uncertainty. Furthermore, it is important that any such solutions are consistent with LAFCO law, and LAFCO’s mandate to preserve agricultural lands and open space, curb urban sprawl, and encourage efficient delivery of services; and local/affected agencies’ policies. Consultant will identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County and consider the fiscal, economic, political, social and policy implications of each identified option/opportunity. Other Issues Consultant will also consider ongoing and emerging issues, including status of water quality issues in the southern part of Santa Clara County e.g. septic system concerns, nitrates, perchlorate, etc.; implications of sea level rise on water service and wastewater service, and stormwater management; and rising demand for water for data centers. IV. SERVICE REVIEW TASKS OVERVIEW The Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review will be conducted in accordance with LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (adopted August 6, 2025). Preparation of the service review will include the following key steps, although other activities may be necessary: 1. Kick-Off & Stakeholder / Public / Community Engagement and Outreach • Attend kick-off meetings with LAFCO staff and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). • Develop a community engagement and outreach approach for the service review, consisting of meetings, surveys, etc. • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops on LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review to engage the community and PAGE 6 OF 7 receive input on water, wastewater, and stormwater related issues/concerns. • Prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting and in the survey. • Consider the findings and recommendations of prior service reviews for the affected agency or service area and consider the affected agency’s implementation efforts. Prepare a memo summarizing any key takeaways and relation to current service review. 2. Development of Evaluation Criteria and Data Collection • Develop, in coordination with LAFCO staff and the TAC, appropriate criteria to be used for service evaluation and for making service review determinations, as necessary. • Develop and present to LAFCO staff and TAC, a questionnaire or a request for information related to the evaluation categories for service reviews. • Collect and compile necessary data from available data resources (i.e., agency websites, and other relevant sources). Create a custom questionnaire for each agency to collect any other necessary data and distribute the questionnaire to each agency for their completion. • Conduct interviews with affected agencies as necessary to follow up on information gaps and seek clarification on matters. LAFCO staff may attend interviews when feasible. • Compile profiles of each of the agencies using a standard format, based on the interviews and data collected and obtain a level of consistency in the data. • Provide each agency with their agency profile for their internal review and comment, to ensure accuracy prior to analysis. Work Products: Consultant must deliver to LAFCO staff a complete profile for each agency and organization. 3. Data Analysis and Preliminary Findings • Analyze data to make required determinations for each agency and to develop any recommendations, where appropriate. • Present and discuss the required determinations and any recommendations with LAFCO staff. • Present preliminary findings, as necessary to TAC. Work Products: Consultant must deliver analysis and findings and recommendations to LAFCO staff. PAGE 7 OF 7 4. Administrative Draft Service Review Report • Prepare an Administrative Draft Report for LAFCO staff review, in accordance with the project schedule. • LAFCO staff will review and provide comments on the Administrative Draft Report, in accordance with the schedule Work Products: Consultant must deliver Administrative Draft Report to LAFCO staff. 5. Draft Service Review Report & Community Workshops and LAFCO Public Hearing • Address LAFCO staff’s comments and prepare a Draft Service Review Report • LAFCO staff will distribute the Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops to present the Draft Report and receive input and prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver MS Word version and a PDF version of the Draft Report. 6. Revised Draft Report & LAFCO Public Hearing • Revise the Draft Report to address comments and submit the Revised Draft Report to LAFCO staff • LAFCO staff will distribute the Revised Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Revised Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version and a PDF version of the Revised Draft Report. 7. Final Service Review Report • Following LAFCO adoption of the Service Review, prepare the Final Report. Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version, a PDF version, and 3 hard copies of the Final Report. From:Noel, Dunia Subject:Draft RFP and TAC for LAFCO"s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 5:15:06 PM Attachments:DraftRFP&ScopeOfServices.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Affected Agencies and Interested Parties: Santa Clara LAFCO invites your review and comments on the attached Draft Request forProposal & Scope of Services (RFP) for the upcoming Countywide Water andWastewater Service Review. Your input will help ensure the scope and approach accurately reflect local conditions and needs. Please submit any comments by Thursday, October 30, 2025, at 5 PM to lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. We also welcome suggestions of qualified consulting firms for inclusion in the final RFP distribution list. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you for yourcontinued collaboration and participation in this important effort. Sincerely, Dunia Noel Dunia Noel Assistant Executive Officer, Santa Clara LAFCO 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or its content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast PAGE 1 OF 2 DATE: October 16, 2025 VIA EMAIL TO: City and District Managers County Executive City Public Works/Utilities Directors Other Affected Agencies and Departments Interested Parties FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer RE: Review of Draft Request for Proposals for LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) Attached for Your Review and Comment This letter is to request your assistance in reviewing and commenting on the attached Draft RFP (Attachment A) for LAFCO’s upcoming Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This document is being sent to each of the agencies that will be included in the service review, as well as other interested parties. This draft is only for your review and comment. Please email your comments no later than Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 5 PM to: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Santa Clara LAFCO, at its October 1, 2025 meeting, directed staff to prioritize the completion of a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review and to prepare a Draft RFP for a professional services firm to conduct this review. Taking into consideration the comments received, LAFCO staff will prepare a Final RFP for LAFCO to consider and approve at its December 3, 2025 meeting. Upon LAFCO’s approval, staff will distribute the Final RFP to potential consultants. Water and Wastewater Service Review Consultant Suggestions Appreciated LAFCO staff is preparing a list of consultants to whom the Final RFP will be distributed. If you know of a firm that may be able to perform the services noted in the RFP, please let us know so that we can add them to the RFP distribution list. We will also post the Final RFP on the LAFCO website and the California Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO) website. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for Service Review LAFCO will establish a TAC to assist with the selection of the consultant and provide advice as the project proceeds. In addition to LAFCO Commissioner Rosemary Kamei and Alternate Commissioner Teresa O’Neill, the TAC will be composed of local agency staff representatives from the County/Cities Managers’ Association, Santa Clara County Special Districts Association, County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association, and Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group. TAC Members will serve as a liaison between LAFCO and these various organizations during the service review process. Page 2 of 2 Questions? Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact LAFCO staff at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank you in advance for your participation in LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review process, and we look forward to working collaboratively with all the affected agencies and other stakeholders. Attachment: A. Draft RFP for LAFCO’s Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review Cc: LAFCO Members Cities Association of Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Special Districts Association Santa Clara County/Cities Managers’ Association County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group PAGE 1 OF 6 Attachment A DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW I. OBJECTIVE The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County is seeking proposals from professional service firms to prepare a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This work is to be completed in compliance with applicable California Government Code sections and Santa Clara LAFCO policies. In Santa Clara County, service reviews are intended to serve as a tool to help LAFCO, the public and other agencies better understand the public service governance and delivery and evaluate options for the provisions of efficient and effective public services, and to develop information to update the spheres of influence of special districts and cities in the county. LAFCO is not required to initiate boundary changes based on service reviews. However, LAFCO, local agencies or the public may subsequently use the service reviews together with additional research and analysis where necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries or spheres of influence. II. BACKGROUND The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) mandates that LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with sphere of influence updates and requires that LAFCO once every five years, as necessary, review and update the sphere of influence of each city and special district [Government Code § 56430]. The Service Review must include an analysis and written statement of determination regarding each of the following seven categories: • Growth and population projections for the affected area • The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence • Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence PAGE 2 OF 6 • Financial ability of agencies to provide services • Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities • Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies • Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission Additionally, as part of the sphere of influence updates LAFCO must prepare an analysis and written statement of determinations for each special district regarding certain factors. [Government Code § 56425(e)] Santa Clara LAFCO is responsible for establishing, reviewing, and updating Spheres of Influence for 41 public agencies in Santa Clara County (15 cities and 26 special districts). LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (amended August 6, 2025), provide guidance to LAFCO in preparing and conducting service reviews. LAFCO completed and adopted its first round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates prior to January 1, 2008 and its second round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates for all cities and special districts prior to January 1, 2015. LAFCO’s most recent Countywide Water Service Review was adopted in 2011. LAFCO’s Special District Service Review: Phase 2 was adopted in December 2013 and includes information on special districts that provide sanitary/sewer service. LAFCO’s Cities Service Review was adopted in December 2015 and includes information on wastewater service and stormwater management services provided by cities in the county. These Reports, which are all available on the LAFCO website, have been a valuable resource for LAFCO, the public, and other local agencies seeking to gain a better understanding on how these services are provided in the county. LAFCO, at its December 2, 2020 meeting set priorities for the completion of LAFCO’s third round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates. LAFCO’s service reviews work plan calls for the completion of 4 studies (i.e. countywide fire service review, countywide water and wastewater service review, special districts service review, and cities service review). It is anticipated that these studies will be conducted by professional service firms under the operational direction of the LAFCO Executive Officer. LAFCO’s first priority, a countywide fire service review was completed in October 2023. LAFCO’s next priority, a countywide review of water service and wastewater service in Santa Clara County and sphere of influence updates for special districts that provide water and sewer service, is the subject of this Request for Proposal (RFP). III. SCOPE OF SERVICES A draft Scope of Services is enclosed with this RFP as Attachment 1. A final statement of services to be provided will be negotiated with the firm selected to PAGE 3 OF 6 conduct the service review and will be included as part of the professional services agreement. IV. BUDGET A final budget amount for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching agreement. The anticipated project cost of the proposal should not exceed $TBD. V. SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the firm will start work in late January 2026. The final schedule for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching an agreement and will be based on the key steps listed in the Scope of Services. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Response to this RFP must include all of the following: 1. A statement about the firm that describes its history as well as the competencies and resumes of the principal and all professionals who will be involved in the work. This statement should describe the firm’s level of expertise in the following areas: General Expertise • Familiarity with CKH Act, the role and functions of LAFCO, and the service review process • Ability to analyze and present information in an organized format • Ability to quickly interpret varied budget and planning documents • Ability to facilitate and synthesize input from a variety of stakeholders • Familiarity with public input processes and experience in managing the presentation and dissemination of public information for review and comment • Experience in fostering multi-agency partnerships and cooperative problem-solving • Ability to provide flexible and creative alternatives where necessary to resolve service and policy issues Water Service and Wastewater Service Expertise • Management level understanding of how water service and wastewater service are financed and delivered • Expertise in various aspects of 1) water service provision (i.e. water supply, water quality, water delivery, recycled water, water conservation and stewardship, groundwater recharge and pumping, flood control, stormwater runoff and management, etc.); and 2) sanitary/sewer service provision (i.e. wastewater collection, treatment, and management, etc.) PAGE 4 OF 6 • Expertise in the financial analysis of water and wastewater service delivery systems, including identifying financing constraints / opportunities and cost avoidance opportunities • Expertise in water service and wastewater service organization analysis, including evaluating government structure options (advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers) • Experience with the operational aspects of various types of water service and wastewater service providers in California, including special districts (water districts, sanitary/sewer districts, and community services districts), city/county departments (public works, utilities, and environmental health), and others (private water companies, mutual water companies, small water systems, and onsite wastewater management systems) • Experience in evaluating water and wastewater service delivery systems, including performance measurements and benchmarking techniques • Experience in evaluating impacts of recent climate change (floods, sea level rise) and their impact on water service and wastewater service 2. Identification of the lead professional responsible for the project and identification of the professional(s) who will be performing the day-to-day work. 3. Identification of any associate consultant firms to be involved. If associate consultant firms are proposed, describe the work they will perform and include the same information for each as required for items 1 and 2 above. 4. A statement of related experience accomplished in the last five years and references for each such project, including the contact name, address, and telephone number. 5. A statement regarding the anticipated approach for this project, including conducting community engagement and outreach, and explicitly discussing and identifying suggested changes to the draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1). 6. Identification of any information, materials and/or work assistance required from LAFCO and / or involved water service and wastewater service providers to complete the project. The expectation is that the consultant will use all available data sources to develop/update information for agency profiles in an effort to minimize the workload for affected agencies. 7. An overall project schedule, including the timing of each work task. 8. Information about the availability of all professionals who will be involved in the work, including any associate consultants. 9. The anticipated project cost, including: a. A not-to-exceed total budget amount. b. The cost for each major sub-task identified in the draft Scope of Services. PAGE 5 OF 6 c. The hourly rates for each person who will be involved in the work, including the rates of any associate consultants. 10. Comments about the draft services agreement (Attachment 2) specifically including the ability of the firm to meet the insurance requirements and other provisions. VII. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Responses to RFP will be accepted by email only at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org and should be addressed to Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer. Proposals should be submitted in a complete, single electronic file, to the email specified in this notice. DUE DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 19, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Proposals received after that time and date will not be considered. VIII. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS Firms will be selected for further consideration and follow-up interviews based on the following criteria: • Relevant work experience • The completeness of the responses • Overall project approaches identified • Proposed project budget A consultant selection committee will conduct interviews and the most qualified firm will be selected based on the above evaluation criteria and reference checks. Interviews will be held in early January 2026. The selection committee is expected to make a decision soon after. Following the selection of the most qualified firm, a final services agreement including budget, schedule, and final Scope of Services statement will be negotiated before executing the contract. LAFCO reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to issue addenda to the RFP, to modify the RFP or to cancel the RFP. IX. LAFCO CONTACT Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer LAFCO of Santa Clara County Voice: (408) 993-4713 Email: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1) 2. Draft Professional Service Agreement and insurance obligations (Attachment 2- included in Final RFP) XI. REFERENCE INFORMATION Please refer to LAFCO’s website (www.santaclaralafco.org) for general information about Santa Clara LAFCO and the following links for further information: PAGE 6 OF 6 1. LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (Amended August 6, 2025): (https://santaclaralafco.org/resources/policies/service-review-policies) 2. LAFCO Service Reviews Webpage: (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews) 3. Countywide Water Service Review (Adopted December 7, 2011): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/2011-countywide-water-service-review) 4. Special Districts Service Review: Phase 2 (Adopted December 4, 2013): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/special-districts-service-review-phase-2) 5. Cities Service Review (Adopted December 2, 2015): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/cities-service-review) Attachment 1 PAGE 1 OF 7 SCOPE OF SERVICES COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES The Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Report will provide a comprehensive overview of all the agencies that provide water services (including recycled water), wastewater services, and stormwater management in the County; evaluate the provision of these services; and recommend actions to promote efficient service delivery; and review and update the spheres of influence of the 5 water districts, 5 sanitary/sewer districts, and 2 community services districts. I. SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to California Government Code §56430, LAFCO is required to adopt a written statement of determination for each of the following considerations: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. California Government Code §56425 requires LAFCO, when determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, to prepare and adopt a written statement of determination for each city and special district regarding the following considerations: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. PAGE 2 OF 7 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency 5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protections that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. 6. Nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts II. IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR STUDY Agencies that are required to have a Spheres of Influence (SOI) [i.e. special districts and cities] will be the focus of service reviews. Other agencies will also be reviewed to the extent necessary to establish relationships, quantify services, designate or map service location/facilities and provide a complete overview of services in the area. The following agencies and organizations that provide water service (including recycled water), wastewater service, and stormwater management in Santa Clara County will be included in the service review: Water Districts 1. Aldercroft Heights County Water District (serves a small unincorporated community near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) 2. Pacheco Pass Water District (serves a small unincorporated area in southern Santa Clara County and also includes lands in San Benito County. San Benito LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 3. Purissima Hills County Water District (serves a portion of Los Altos Hills and adjacent unincorporated area) 4. San Martin County Water District (serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District (countywide) Special Districts that Provide Wastewater Services 1. Burbank Sanitary District (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated islands surrounded by the City of San Jose) 2. County Sanitation District 2-3 (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated areas surrounded by or adjacent to the City of San Jose) 3. Cupertino Sanitary District (serves majority of the City of Cupertino, portion of City of Saratoga, small areas of City of San Jose, Sunnyvale and Los Altos, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 3 OF 7 4. West Bay Sanitary District (serves a small unincorporated area along the San Mateo County boundary and also includes lands in San Mateo County. San Mateo LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 5. West Valley Sanitation District (serves City of Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, City of Monte Sereno, portion of the City of Saratoga, and unincorporated areas west of these cities) 6. Lions Gate Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of CordeValle, located south of Morgan Hill) 7. Lake Canyon Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of Lake Canyon near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) Cities (review specific to water service, wastewater service, and stormwater management service) 1. City of Campbell 2. City of Cupertino 3. City of Gilroy 4. Town of Los Altos 5. City of Los Altos Hills 6. Town of Los Gatos 7. City of Milpitas 8. City of Monte Sereno 9. City of Morgan Hill 10. City of Mountain View 11. City of Palo Alto 12. City of San Jose 13. City of Santa Clara 14. City of Saratoga 15. City of Sunnyvale Other Service Providers (included for comprehensiveness and/or to address a focus issue) Private Water Companies 1. San Jose Water Company (serves Cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, part of Cupertino, parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 4 OF 7 2. California Water Service Company (serves parts of Cities of Cupertino and Los altos, parts of Los Altos Hills and Mountain View, parts of Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas) 3. Great Oaks Water Company (serves parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated area south of San Jose) 4. West San Martin Water Works (purchased by California American Water, serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) Miscellaneous 1. Stanford University (serves the University) 2. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (wholesale agency to portions of North County) 3. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (provides water conservation programs and conducts water supply planning activities for their members) 4. South Bay Water Recycling 5. County Department of Environmental Health 6. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 7. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility 8. South County Regional Wastewater Authority 9. Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant 10. Mutual Water Companies, including small water systems Please note that in addition to the above listed agencies, there may be other agencies within the county that provide water, wastewater, and/or stormwater management related services. It may be necessary to include those agencies in the service review. III. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK Service Review Determinations Based on the elements above, Consultant will draft proposed service review determinations for each agency that meet the legal requirements as identified in Government Code §56430. Sphere of Influence Update Analyze and propose, if deemed appropriate, sphere of influence updates for each of the special districts that provide sewer and/or water services and prepare a written statement of determination for each district as required by Government Code §56425 PAGE 5 OF 7 Focus Issues The service review will also consider the following issue and identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County: Small Water Systems in the Unincorporated Area The State Water Resources Control Board’s Department of Drinking Water (DDW) staff have identified many small water systems in south Santa Clara County that from time-to-time experience technical, managerial, and financial difficulties. In response, there have been many interagency discussions on potential options for helping these current systems, including the potential consolidation of these struggling systems with better managed or maintained systems located nearby. However, there does not appear to be any readily available solution. Discussions concerning the feasibility and practicality of consolidation or infrastructure extension to these existing systems noted various challenges, including the long distances involved, terrain challenges, high costs, lack of funding sources, water supply availability, and overall uncertainty. Furthermore, it is important that any such solutions are consistent with LAFCO law, and LAFCO’s mandate to preserve agricultural lands and open space, curb urban sprawl, and encourage efficient delivery of services; and local/affected agencies’ policies. Consultant will identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County and consider the fiscal, economic, political, social and policy implications of each identified option/opportunity. Other Issues Consultant will also consider ongoing and emerging issues, including status of water quality issues in the southern part of Santa Clara County e.g. septic system concerns, nitrates, perchlorate, etc.; implications of sea level rise on water service and wastewater service, and stormwater management; and rising demand for water for data centers. IV. SERVICE REVIEW TASKS OVERVIEW The Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review will be conducted in accordance with LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (adopted August 6, 2025). Preparation of the service review will include the following key steps, although other activities may be necessary: 1. Kick-Off & Stakeholder / Public / Community Engagement and Outreach • Attend kick-off meetings with LAFCO staff and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). • Develop a community engagement and outreach approach for the service review, consisting of meetings, surveys, etc. • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops on LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review to engage the community and PAGE 6 OF 7 receive input on water, wastewater, and stormwater related issues/concerns. • Prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting and in the survey. • Consider the findings and recommendations of prior service reviews for the affected agency or service area and consider the affected agency’s implementation efforts. Prepare a memo summarizing any key takeaways and relation to current service review. 2. Development of Evaluation Criteria and Data Collection • Develop, in coordination with LAFCO staff and the TAC, appropriate criteria to be used for service evaluation and for making service review determinations, as necessary. • Develop and present to LAFCO staff and TAC, a questionnaire or a request for information related to the evaluation categories for service reviews. • Collect and compile necessary data from available data resources (i.e., agency websites, and other relevant sources). Create a custom questionnaire for each agency to collect any other necessary data and distribute the questionnaire to each agency for their completion. • Conduct interviews with affected agencies as necessary to follow up on information gaps and seek clarification on matters. LAFCO staff may attend interviews when feasible. • Compile profiles of each of the agencies using a standard format, based on the interviews and data collected and obtain a level of consistency in the data. • Provide each agency with their agency profile for their internal review and comment, to ensure accuracy prior to analysis. Work Products: Consultant must deliver to LAFCO staff a complete profile for each agency and organization. 3. Data Analysis and Preliminary Findings • Analyze data to make required determinations for each agency and to develop any recommendations, where appropriate. • Present and discuss the required determinations and any recommendations with LAFCO staff. • Present preliminary findings, as necessary to TAC. Work Products: Consultant must deliver analysis and findings and recommendations to LAFCO staff. PAGE 7 OF 7 4. Administrative Draft Service Review Report • Prepare an Administrative Draft Report for LAFCO staff review, in accordance with the project schedule. • LAFCO staff will review and provide comments on the Administrative Draft Report, in accordance with the schedule Work Products: Consultant must deliver Administrative Draft Report to LAFCO staff. 5. Draft Service Review Report & Community Workshops and LAFCO Public Hearing • Address LAFCO staff’s comments and prepare a Draft Service Review Report • LAFCO staff will distribute the Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops to present the Draft Report and receive input and prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver MS Word version and a PDF version of the Draft Report. 6. Revised Draft Report & LAFCO Public Hearing • Revise the Draft Report to address comments and submit the Revised Draft Report to LAFCO staff • LAFCO staff will distribute the Revised Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Revised Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version and a PDF version of the Revised Draft Report. 7. Final Service Review Report • Following LAFCO adoption of the Service Review, prepare the Final Report. Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version, a PDF version, and 3 hard copies of the Final Report. From:Noel, Dunia Subject:Draft RFP and TAC for LAFCO"s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 5:14:59 PM Attachments:DraftRFP&ScopeOfServices.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Affected Agencies and Interested Parties: Santa Clara LAFCO invites your review and comments on the attached Draft Request forProposal & Scope of Services (RFP) for the upcoming Countywide Water andWastewater Service Review. Your input will help ensure the scope and approach accurately reflect local conditions and needs. Please submit any comments by Thursday, October 30, 2025, at 5 PM to lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. We also welcome suggestions of qualified consulting firms for inclusion in the final RFP distribution list. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you for yourcontinued collaboration and participation in this important effort. Sincerely, Dunia Noel Dunia Noel Assistant Executive Officer, Santa Clara LAFCO 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or its content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast PAGE 1 OF 2 DATE: October 16, 2025 VIA EMAIL TO: City and District Managers County Executive City Public Works/Utilities Directors Other Affected Agencies and Departments Interested Parties FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer RE: Review of Draft Request for Proposals for LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) Attached for Your Review and Comment This letter is to request your assistance in reviewing and commenting on the attached Draft RFP (Attachment A) for LAFCO’s upcoming Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This document is being sent to each of the agencies that will be included in the service review, as well as other interested parties. This draft is only for your review and comment. Please email your comments no later than Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 5 PM to: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Santa Clara LAFCO, at its October 1, 2025 meeting, directed staff to prioritize the completion of a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review and to prepare a Draft RFP for a professional services firm to conduct this review. Taking into consideration the comments received, LAFCO staff will prepare a Final RFP for LAFCO to consider and approve at its December 3, 2025 meeting. Upon LAFCO’s approval, staff will distribute the Final RFP to potential consultants. Water and Wastewater Service Review Consultant Suggestions Appreciated LAFCO staff is preparing a list of consultants to whom the Final RFP will be distributed. If you know of a firm that may be able to perform the services noted in the RFP, please let us know so that we can add them to the RFP distribution list. We will also post the Final RFP on the LAFCO website and the California Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO) website. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for Service Review LAFCO will establish a TAC to assist with the selection of the consultant and provide advice as the project proceeds. In addition to LAFCO Commissioner Rosemary Kamei and Alternate Commissioner Teresa O’Neill, the TAC will be composed of local agency staff representatives from the County/Cities Managers’ Association, Santa Clara County Special Districts Association, County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association, and Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group. TAC Members will serve as a liaison between LAFCO and these various organizations during the service review process. Page 2 of 2 Questions? Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact LAFCO staff at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank you in advance for your participation in LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review process, and we look forward to working collaboratively with all the affected agencies and other stakeholders. Attachment: A. Draft RFP for LAFCO’s Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review Cc: LAFCO Members Cities Association of Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Special Districts Association Santa Clara County/Cities Managers’ Association County Municipal Public Works Officials’ Association Santa Clara County Water Retailers’ Group PAGE 1 OF 6 Attachment A DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW I. OBJECTIVE The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County is seeking proposals from professional service firms to prepare a Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. This work is to be completed in compliance with applicable California Government Code sections and Santa Clara LAFCO policies. In Santa Clara County, service reviews are intended to serve as a tool to help LAFCO, the public and other agencies better understand the public service governance and delivery and evaluate options for the provisions of efficient and effective public services, and to develop information to update the spheres of influence of special districts and cities in the county. LAFCO is not required to initiate boundary changes based on service reviews. However, LAFCO, local agencies or the public may subsequently use the service reviews together with additional research and analysis where necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries or spheres of influence. II. BACKGROUND The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) mandates that LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with sphere of influence updates and requires that LAFCO once every five years, as necessary, review and update the sphere of influence of each city and special district [Government Code § 56430]. The Service Review must include an analysis and written statement of determination regarding each of the following seven categories: • Growth and population projections for the affected area • The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence • Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence PAGE 2 OF 6 • Financial ability of agencies to provide services • Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities • Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies • Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission Additionally, as part of the sphere of influence updates LAFCO must prepare an analysis and written statement of determinations for each special district regarding certain factors. [Government Code § 56425(e)] Santa Clara LAFCO is responsible for establishing, reviewing, and updating Spheres of Influence for 41 public agencies in Santa Clara County (15 cities and 26 special districts). LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (amended August 6, 2025), provide guidance to LAFCO in preparing and conducting service reviews. LAFCO completed and adopted its first round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates prior to January 1, 2008 and its second round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates for all cities and special districts prior to January 1, 2015. LAFCO’s most recent Countywide Water Service Review was adopted in 2011. LAFCO’s Special District Service Review: Phase 2 was adopted in December 2013 and includes information on special districts that provide sanitary/sewer service. LAFCO’s Cities Service Review was adopted in December 2015 and includes information on wastewater service and stormwater management services provided by cities in the county. These Reports, which are all available on the LAFCO website, have been a valuable resource for LAFCO, the public, and other local agencies seeking to gain a better understanding on how these services are provided in the county. LAFCO, at its December 2, 2020 meeting set priorities for the completion of LAFCO’s third round of service reviews and sphere of influence updates. LAFCO’s service reviews work plan calls for the completion of 4 studies (i.e. countywide fire service review, countywide water and wastewater service review, special districts service review, and cities service review). It is anticipated that these studies will be conducted by professional service firms under the operational direction of the LAFCO Executive Officer. LAFCO’s first priority, a countywide fire service review was completed in October 2023. LAFCO’s next priority, a countywide review of water service and wastewater service in Santa Clara County and sphere of influence updates for special districts that provide water and sewer service, is the subject of this Request for Proposal (RFP). III. SCOPE OF SERVICES A draft Scope of Services is enclosed with this RFP as Attachment 1. A final statement of services to be provided will be negotiated with the firm selected to PAGE 3 OF 6 conduct the service review and will be included as part of the professional services agreement. IV. BUDGET A final budget amount for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching agreement. The anticipated project cost of the proposal should not exceed $TBD. V. SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the firm will start work in late January 2026. The final schedule for this project will be negotiated with the firm selected for the work prior to reaching an agreement and will be based on the key steps listed in the Scope of Services. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Response to this RFP must include all of the following: 1. A statement about the firm that describes its history as well as the competencies and resumes of the principal and all professionals who will be involved in the work. This statement should describe the firm’s level of expertise in the following areas: General Expertise • Familiarity with CKH Act, the role and functions of LAFCO, and the service review process • Ability to analyze and present information in an organized format • Ability to quickly interpret varied budget and planning documents • Ability to facilitate and synthesize input from a variety of stakeholders • Familiarity with public input processes and experience in managing the presentation and dissemination of public information for review and comment • Experience in fostering multi-agency partnerships and cooperative problem-solving • Ability to provide flexible and creative alternatives where necessary to resolve service and policy issues Water Service and Wastewater Service Expertise • Management level understanding of how water service and wastewater service are financed and delivered • Expertise in various aspects of 1) water service provision (i.e. water supply, water quality, water delivery, recycled water, water conservation and stewardship, groundwater recharge and pumping, flood control, stormwater runoff and management, etc.); and 2) sanitary/sewer service provision (i.e. wastewater collection, treatment, and management, etc.) PAGE 4 OF 6 • Expertise in the financial analysis of water and wastewater service delivery systems, including identifying financing constraints / opportunities and cost avoidance opportunities • Expertise in water service and wastewater service organization analysis, including evaluating government structure options (advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers) • Experience with the operational aspects of various types of water service and wastewater service providers in California, including special districts (water districts, sanitary/sewer districts, and community services districts), city/county departments (public works, utilities, and environmental health), and others (private water companies, mutual water companies, small water systems, and onsite wastewater management systems) • Experience in evaluating water and wastewater service delivery systems, including performance measurements and benchmarking techniques • Experience in evaluating impacts of recent climate change (floods, sea level rise) and their impact on water service and wastewater service 2. Identification of the lead professional responsible for the project and identification of the professional(s) who will be performing the day-to-day work. 3. Identification of any associate consultant firms to be involved. If associate consultant firms are proposed, describe the work they will perform and include the same information for each as required for items 1 and 2 above. 4. A statement of related experience accomplished in the last five years and references for each such project, including the contact name, address, and telephone number. 5. A statement regarding the anticipated approach for this project, including conducting community engagement and outreach, and explicitly discussing and identifying suggested changes to the draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1). 6. Identification of any information, materials and/or work assistance required from LAFCO and / or involved water service and wastewater service providers to complete the project. The expectation is that the consultant will use all available data sources to develop/update information for agency profiles in an effort to minimize the workload for affected agencies. 7. An overall project schedule, including the timing of each work task. 8. Information about the availability of all professionals who will be involved in the work, including any associate consultants. 9. The anticipated project cost, including: a. A not-to-exceed total budget amount. b. The cost for each major sub-task identified in the draft Scope of Services. PAGE 5 OF 6 c. The hourly rates for each person who will be involved in the work, including the rates of any associate consultants. 10. Comments about the draft services agreement (Attachment 2) specifically including the ability of the firm to meet the insurance requirements and other provisions. VII. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Responses to RFP will be accepted by email only at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org and should be addressed to Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer. Proposals should be submitted in a complete, single electronic file, to the email specified in this notice. DUE DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 19, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Proposals received after that time and date will not be considered. VIII. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS Firms will be selected for further consideration and follow-up interviews based on the following criteria: • Relevant work experience • The completeness of the responses • Overall project approaches identified • Proposed project budget A consultant selection committee will conduct interviews and the most qualified firm will be selected based on the above evaluation criteria and reference checks. Interviews will be held in early January 2026. The selection committee is expected to make a decision soon after. Following the selection of the most qualified firm, a final services agreement including budget, schedule, and final Scope of Services statement will be negotiated before executing the contract. LAFCO reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to issue addenda to the RFP, to modify the RFP or to cancel the RFP. IX. LAFCO CONTACT Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer LAFCO of Santa Clara County Voice: (408) 993-4713 Email: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Scope of Services (Attachment 1) 2. Draft Professional Service Agreement and insurance obligations (Attachment 2- included in Final RFP) XI. REFERENCE INFORMATION Please refer to LAFCO’s website (www.santaclaralafco.org) for general information about Santa Clara LAFCO and the following links for further information: PAGE 6 OF 6 1. LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (Amended August 6, 2025): (https://santaclaralafco.org/resources/policies/service-review-policies) 2. LAFCO Service Reviews Webpage: (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews) 3. Countywide Water Service Review (Adopted December 7, 2011): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/2011-countywide-water-service-review) 4. Special Districts Service Review: Phase 2 (Adopted December 4, 2013): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/special-districts-service-review-phase-2) 5. Cities Service Review (Adopted December 2, 2015): (https://santaclaralafco.org/cities-and-special-districts/service-reviews/second-round/cities-service-review) Attachment 1 PAGE 1 OF 7 SCOPE OF SERVICES COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES The Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Report will provide a comprehensive overview of all the agencies that provide water services (including recycled water), wastewater services, and stormwater management in the County; evaluate the provision of these services; and recommend actions to promote efficient service delivery; and review and update the spheres of influence of the 5 water districts, 5 sanitary/sewer districts, and 2 community services districts. I. SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to California Government Code §56430, LAFCO is required to adopt a written statement of determination for each of the following considerations: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. California Government Code §56425 requires LAFCO, when determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, to prepare and adopt a written statement of determination for each city and special district regarding the following considerations: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. PAGE 2 OF 7 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency 5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protections that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. 6. Nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts II. IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR STUDY Agencies that are required to have a Spheres of Influence (SOI) [i.e. special districts and cities] will be the focus of service reviews. Other agencies will also be reviewed to the extent necessary to establish relationships, quantify services, designate or map service location/facilities and provide a complete overview of services in the area. The following agencies and organizations that provide water service (including recycled water), wastewater service, and stormwater management in Santa Clara County will be included in the service review: Water Districts 1. Aldercroft Heights County Water District (serves a small unincorporated community near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) 2. Pacheco Pass Water District (serves a small unincorporated area in southern Santa Clara County and also includes lands in San Benito County. San Benito LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 3. Purissima Hills County Water District (serves a portion of Los Altos Hills and adjacent unincorporated area) 4. San Martin County Water District (serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District (countywide) Special Districts that Provide Wastewater Services 1. Burbank Sanitary District (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated islands surrounded by the City of San Jose) 2. County Sanitation District 2-3 (serves two non-contiguous unincorporated areas surrounded by or adjacent to the City of San Jose) 3. Cupertino Sanitary District (serves majority of the City of Cupertino, portion of City of Saratoga, small areas of City of San Jose, Sunnyvale and Los Altos, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 3 OF 7 4. West Bay Sanitary District (serves a small unincorporated area along the San Mateo County boundary and also includes lands in San Mateo County. San Mateo LAFCO is principal LAFCO) 5. West Valley Sanitation District (serves City of Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, City of Monte Sereno, portion of the City of Saratoga, and unincorporated areas west of these cities) 6. Lions Gate Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of CordeValle, located south of Morgan Hill) 7. Lake Canyon Community Services District (serves the small unincorporated community of Lake Canyon near Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains) Cities (review specific to water service, wastewater service, and stormwater management service) 1. City of Campbell 2. City of Cupertino 3. City of Gilroy 4. Town of Los Altos 5. City of Los Altos Hills 6. Town of Los Gatos 7. City of Milpitas 8. City of Monte Sereno 9. City of Morgan Hill 10. City of Mountain View 11. City of Palo Alto 12. City of San Jose 13. City of Santa Clara 14. City of Saratoga 15. City of Sunnyvale Other Service Providers (included for comprehensiveness and/or to address a focus issue) Private Water Companies 1. San Jose Water Company (serves Cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, part of Cupertino, parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated areas) PAGE 4 OF 7 2. California Water Service Company (serves parts of Cities of Cupertino and Los altos, parts of Los Altos Hills and Mountain View, parts of Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas) 3. Great Oaks Water Company (serves parts of San Jose, and adjacent unincorporated area south of San Jose) 4. West San Martin Water Works (purchased by California American Water, serves a portion of the unincorporated community of San Martin) Miscellaneous 1. Stanford University (serves the University) 2. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (wholesale agency to portions of North County) 3. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (provides water conservation programs and conducts water supply planning activities for their members) 4. South Bay Water Recycling 5. County Department of Environmental Health 6. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 7. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility 8. South County Regional Wastewater Authority 9. Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant 10. Mutual Water Companies, including small water systems Please note that in addition to the above listed agencies, there may be other agencies within the county that provide water, wastewater, and/or stormwater management related services. It may be necessary to include those agencies in the service review. III. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK Service Review Determinations Based on the elements above, Consultant will draft proposed service review determinations for each agency that meet the legal requirements as identified in Government Code §56430. Sphere of Influence Update Analyze and propose, if deemed appropriate, sphere of influence updates for each of the special districts that provide sewer and/or water services and prepare a written statement of determination for each district as required by Government Code §56425 PAGE 5 OF 7 Focus Issues The service review will also consider the following issue and identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County: Small Water Systems in the Unincorporated Area The State Water Resources Control Board’s Department of Drinking Water (DDW) staff have identified many small water systems in south Santa Clara County that from time-to-time experience technical, managerial, and financial difficulties. In response, there have been many interagency discussions on potential options for helping these current systems, including the potential consolidation of these struggling systems with better managed or maintained systems located nearby. However, there does not appear to be any readily available solution. Discussions concerning the feasibility and practicality of consolidation or infrastructure extension to these existing systems noted various challenges, including the long distances involved, terrain challenges, high costs, lack of funding sources, water supply availability, and overall uncertainty. Furthermore, it is important that any such solutions are consistent with LAFCO law, and LAFCO’s mandate to preserve agricultural lands and open space, curb urban sprawl, and encourage efficient delivery of services; and local/affected agencies’ policies. Consultant will identify potential options/opportunities for addressing this issue in Santa Clara County and consider the fiscal, economic, political, social and policy implications of each identified option/opportunity. Other Issues Consultant will also consider ongoing and emerging issues, including status of water quality issues in the southern part of Santa Clara County e.g. septic system concerns, nitrates, perchlorate, etc.; implications of sea level rise on water service and wastewater service, and stormwater management; and rising demand for water for data centers. IV. SERVICE REVIEW TASKS OVERVIEW The Countywide Water & Wastewater Service Review will be conducted in accordance with LAFCO’s Service Review Policies (adopted August 6, 2025). Preparation of the service review will include the following key steps, although other activities may be necessary: 1. Kick-Off & Stakeholder / Public / Community Engagement and Outreach • Attend kick-off meetings with LAFCO staff and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). • Develop a community engagement and outreach approach for the service review, consisting of meetings, surveys, etc. • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops on LAFCO’s Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review to engage the community and PAGE 6 OF 7 receive input on water, wastewater, and stormwater related issues/concerns. • Prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting and in the survey. • Consider the findings and recommendations of prior service reviews for the affected agency or service area and consider the affected agency’s implementation efforts. Prepare a memo summarizing any key takeaways and relation to current service review. 2. Development of Evaluation Criteria and Data Collection • Develop, in coordination with LAFCO staff and the TAC, appropriate criteria to be used for service evaluation and for making service review determinations, as necessary. • Develop and present to LAFCO staff and TAC, a questionnaire or a request for information related to the evaluation categories for service reviews. • Collect and compile necessary data from available data resources (i.e., agency websites, and other relevant sources). Create a custom questionnaire for each agency to collect any other necessary data and distribute the questionnaire to each agency for their completion. • Conduct interviews with affected agencies as necessary to follow up on information gaps and seek clarification on matters. LAFCO staff may attend interviews when feasible. • Compile profiles of each of the agencies using a standard format, based on the interviews and data collected and obtain a level of consistency in the data. • Provide each agency with their agency profile for their internal review and comment, to ensure accuracy prior to analysis. Work Products: Consultant must deliver to LAFCO staff a complete profile for each agency and organization. 3. Data Analysis and Preliminary Findings • Analyze data to make required determinations for each agency and to develop any recommendations, where appropriate. • Present and discuss the required determinations and any recommendations with LAFCO staff. • Present preliminary findings, as necessary to TAC. Work Products: Consultant must deliver analysis and findings and recommendations to LAFCO staff. PAGE 7 OF 7 4. Administrative Draft Service Review Report • Prepare an Administrative Draft Report for LAFCO staff review, in accordance with the project schedule. • LAFCO staff will review and provide comments on the Administrative Draft Report, in accordance with the schedule Work Products: Consultant must deliver Administrative Draft Report to LAFCO staff. 5. Draft Service Review Report & Community Workshops and LAFCO Public Hearing • Address LAFCO staff’s comments and prepare a Draft Service Review Report • LAFCO staff will distribute the Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Conduct up to three (3) public workshops to present the Draft Report and receive input and prepare summary memos of input received at each meeting • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver MS Word version and a PDF version of the Draft Report. 6. Revised Draft Report & LAFCO Public Hearing • Revise the Draft Report to address comments and submit the Revised Draft Report to LAFCO staff • LAFCO staff will distribute the Revised Draft Report for a 21-day public review and comment period • Provide written responses to comments received during the public review period • Present the Revised Draft Report at the LAFCO Public Hearing Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version and a PDF version of the Revised Draft Report. 7. Final Service Review Report • Following LAFCO adoption of the Service Review, prepare the Final Report. Work Products: Consultant must deliver a MS Word version, a PDF version, and 3 hard copies of the Final Report. From:Aaron LeMar To:editor@paweekly.com; news@padailypost.com; editor@almanacnews.com; news@stanforddaily.com;usafetypcore@stanford.edu; Eileen O"Rourke; staffersbusiness@lists.stanford.edu; Jo-Ann Cuevas; cardinalatwork;hrcommunications@stanford.edu; OConnell, M; Police; Clerk, City; City Mgr; Council, City; Dueker, Kenneth; Perron, Zachary;policechief@menlopark.org; police@losaltosca.gov; board@ctra.org; stanfordwestapartments; lucy.wicks@stanford.edu; Cynthea A. Kingsley; Norman W Robinson; Laura Jackson (SHC); Kathryn Harris (SHC); Mark C Lawrence;psa@kzsu.stanford.edu; gm@kzsu.stanford.edu; allison; Senchal; ridhima@icrichild.org; pgrajo@icrichild.org; enrollment;kimberly; Nathalie.Larsen@brighthorizons.com; cierra.webb@brighthorizons.com; mickey.alvarado@brighthorizons.com;maryann.klotovich@brighthorizons.com; Nancy.Costantiello@brighthorizons.com; sarar; nurten; Rachel Lim; keiko;susan@ccscparentcoop.org; Hope Flamenco; asheward@pausd.org; ltaylor@pausd.org; bkline@pausd.org; Jennifer.Winters@stanford.edu; Berkson, Jerry; lbutler@pausd.org; eolah@pausd.org; msteingart@pausd.org;OK_School@mpcsd.org; nscott@mpcsd.org; c.petersen@mpcsd.org Subject:FW: Community Advisory - AlertSU System Test - Wednesday, October 22, 2025 Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 3:04:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Please see below and distribute widely. Thanks, Stanford Public Safety From: Stanford AlertSU - Community Advisory <alertsudps@lists.stanford.edu> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:45 PM To: Aaron LeMar <aaron.lemar@stanford.edu> Subject: Community Advisory - AlertSU System Test - Wednesday, October 22, 2025 On Wednesday, October 22, at approximately 12:05 p.m., Stanford University will conducta test of the campus AlertSU system. Alert messages will be sent via text message and emailto the Stanford community. It will also post to the University emergency website, Public Safety website and the Stanford mobile app. The outdoor warning system will be activated. If you are outside, you should expect to hear an audible tone for approximately 30 seconds, followed by a verbal message from each of the 7 sirens at various campus locations. The sirens will be audible throughout the campus and may also be heard in parts of the surrounding communities, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos. Also, being tested are Cisco VoIP speaker phones. VoIP speaker phones are found in many of the academic and office buildings throughout campus. If you have a Cisco phone in your area, the AlertSU message will broadcast from the speaker phone and a banner message will appear in the display. In the test message sent to your device, you will be asked to acknowledge the message. This is an important step that will help us monitor the success of this test. If you receive both a text and email, you only need to acknowledge one of the messages.Prior to the test, it is important you verify that your contact information is correct inAxess (students) or StanfordYou (faculty and staff). Students: In Axess, make sure there is an entry in the mobile phone field as this is the mostrapid and direct way to communicate with you during an emergency. Faculty and Staff: In StanfordYou, make sure there is an entry in the mobile phone field, asthis is the most rapid and direct way of communication with you during an actual emergency.As a reminder: the University requires that employees maintain their directory entry and opt into AlertSU with their work phone number, email address, and any university-issued orreimbursed cell phone number. Please click here for step by step instructions on how to enteryour contact information in StanfordYou or visit https://police.stanford.edu/alert/alertsu-faq.html for more information. Additionally, in order to know you are receiving an official AlertSU message, please programthe following information into your mobile phone contacts. Email Address: alertsudps@lists.stanford.edu Phone Number: 650-725-5555 Text Message phone number: 89361 In a real emergency, the AlertSU message will contain specific instructions. Notify others near you to ensure they are aware of the situation and recommended safety precautions. Other sources of information about critical incidents include: Stanford’s emergency website: http://emergency.stanford.edu Department of Public Safety website: https://police.stanford.edu Social Media: Twitter/Instagram @Stanford KZSU 90.1 FM For more information about the AlertSU system, please visit the AlertSU FAQ page at: https://police.stanford.edu/alertsu-faq.html. Learn more about campus evacuation procedures and how to respond to emergencies at cardinalready.stanford.edu. Members of the public can register to receive AlertSU emergency alerts bydownloading the Stanford mobile app and enabling the app notifications. To stop receiving future email notifications from this organization unsubscribe here. From:Veenker, Vicki To:Council, City Subject:Re: Interview for Verde Magazine Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 2:51:07 PM Ok—this time I made a specific effort to delete you, my colleagues, before replying. I guess I should not reply from my phone because I clearly can’t seem to manage the re-addressing.Apologies. Vicki Veenker Vice MayorCity of Palo Alto Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org On Oct 16, 2025, at 2:44 PM, Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov> wrote: Sure, what’s your deadline? Vicki VeenkerVice MayorCity of Palo AltoVicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org On Oct 16, 2025, at 2:15 PM, Julie Yang <jy49395@pausd.us> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is Julie Yang and I am a student journalist for Verde Magazine at Palo Alto High School. I am currently writing an article with my story partner Jaron on Proposition 50 andhow it might affect people in our community. Would you be open to answering a few This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast questions about it, either through email or a short interview? If you are unable to doan interview, please transfer me to anyone else you think would be able to talk about this topic. Thank you so much for your time! Best,Julie Yang Staff Writer/News Editor for Verde Magazine From:Veenker, Vicki To:Julie Yang Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Interview for Verde Magazine Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 2:44:27 PM Sure, what’s your deadline? Vicki VeenkerVice Mayor City of Palo AltoVicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org On Oct 16, 2025, at 2:15 PM, Julie Yang <jy49395@pausd.us> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is Julie Yang and I am a student journalist for Verde Magazine at Palo Alto High School. I am currently writing an article with my story partner Jaron on Proposition 50 andhow it might affect people in our community. Would you be open to answering a few questions about it, either through email or a short interview? If you are unable to doan interview, please transfer me to anyone else you think would be able to talk about this topic. Thank you so much for your time! Best,Julie Yang Staff Writer/News Editor for Verde Magazine This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Julie Yang To:Council, City Cc:Jaron Leung Subject:Interview for Verde Magazine Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 2:15:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is Julie Yang and I am a student journalist for Verde Magazine at Palo Alto High School. I am currently writing an article with my story partner Jaron on Proposition 50 andhow it might affect people in our community. Would you be open to answering a few questions about it, either through email or a short interview? If you are unable to doan interview, please transfer me to anyone else you think would be able to talk about this topic. Thank you so much for your time! Best,Julie Yang Staff Writer/News Editor for Verde Magazine This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Matt Schlegel To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com Subject:FFF Follow Up from Oct 3 & 10 (Week #195 & 196) Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:04:24 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Another double follow up. Apologies for skipping last week – there’s a lot going on! On Oct 3, George, Ingrid, Rick 1, Rick 2 and I marched through downtown streets singing songs of hope and solidarity as we work towards building a better world together. It was greatto have Nicholas on drums! We were well received — nary a naysayer in the crowd — and were all very energized by the experience. Ingrid said that she especially liked singing WeShall Overcome, Release the Files, Who’s In the Files, Posse Comitatus, and Who They Come For Next. For reference, here’s a catalog of all the songs and chants we’ve been performing. On Oct. 10, we had a big turnout. George kicked us off by acknowledging that we reside onunceded lands of the Ramaytush Ohlone and bear responsibility to care for land, air, water and sea. Thank you, George! We had a wonderful group discussion and covered many topics: the Nobel Peace prize awardee, the No Kings Day, vegan cooking, the Stand Up for Science and Sanity Rally, feeling overwhelmed, the "Fascist Crawl” march, coordination betweendifferent groups, Venezuela and South American politics, Charlie Kirk, the Insurrection Act, Make Polluters Pay, the Tesla Takedown movement, Yes on Prop 50, and David’s voyagewith Greta to COP 30. Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts and feelings on all of these topics! Speaking of Tesla Takedown, Carol reminds us to sign the petition urging the City of PaloAlto to divest from all Musk-related businesses. Please sign here. No Kings Day 2 is coming up. Many thanks to Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and friends who organized a parade from Town and Country (11:30AM to 1:30PM) ending at a fair inRinconada Park (1 to 4PM). The Wolves organized a protest at the Stanford Shopping Center Tesla showroom including a march through the mall (Noon to 2PM). The Wolves alsoorganized a march in downtown Palo Alto (5 to 6:30PM) to protest the oligarch’s influence on our government followed by a social gathering at The Patio (6:30PM to whenever.) Comejoin one or more of these amazing actions! Bonus points go to anyone who does 3 or more! Aleyda’s family updated us on her status: October 1st, Yeny was moved from Bakersfield to a prison in California City,somewhere close to the Mojave desert. She is very sad and wants nothing more than to leave the country and go back to Mexico. Her new court date is October 17. Her lawyerhas advised that she try to get out on bond. Should the judge deny her request for a bond, then she will request her voluntary deportation. The lawyer makes it sound simplebut there are still hoops to get through. Keeping fingers crossed for her release soon. And don’t forget to report any ICE activity inSanta Clara County to Rapid Response at 408-290-1144. David is on board a schooner sailing to Brazil with COP30 delegates including Greta. They are on one of several ships that is part of Flotilla4Change. IG: Flotilla4Change. Pleaseconsider donating to the Flotilla4Change here. Wishing them a bon voyage. On Tuesday, several of us held a memorial for George Floyd on his birthday (Oct. 14). IndyBay covered the memorial here. At the memorial, I shared my story of how GeorgeFloyd’s murder changed the trajectory of my life. I also wrote an essay on our choice to livein a world of hate and division, or to fight for a world of diversity, equity and inclusion asinspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. I want to fight. This Friday we will have a “normal” climate strike in King Plaza. Come share your thoughts,stories and experiences as we navigate these tumultuous times. KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON!FOR A BETTERWORLD Recent Songs and Thoughts On George Floyd’s Birthday, Matt reflects (video) on how George Floyd changed hislife and the worldMatt’s Thoughts (essay) on social, climate and ecological collapse 10/15/25 The Shot - a song asking why our US Rep. Sam Liccardo voted commemorate tocommemorate racist, hate-filled Charlie Kirk Mark’s Massive Tower – a poem about SalesForce CEO Mark Benioff encouraging theTrump regime to invade San Francisco with the National GuardDemocracy Terminator – a song about how Arnold Schwarzenegger is lying to us aboutProp 50.Mark’s Massive Tower – a poem about SalesForce CEO Mark Benioff’s call to send theNational Guard into San Francisco Upcoming Events Friday, Oct 17, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of PaloAlto City Hall Saturday, Oct 18, No Kings Day II – Find an action near you! Saturday, Oct 18, 5 to 6:30PM: Fascist Crawl through downtown Palo Alto with stops atValor, Whole Foods, Amazon, Palantir and Apple. Details hereThursday, October 23, 4:30 - 6:30 p.m, Heat Pump Happy Hour: anyone who isinterested in a HPWH or has installed one already to join us; Location: Mitchell ParkBreezeway (between Library & Community Center)Tesla Takedown Rally and March :: Stanford Shopping Center, Every Saturday, Noonto 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. Detailshere. Anti-ICE rally and march, Every Tuesday, 5 to 6PM, Courthouse Square, RedwoodCity.101 Bannering: Every Wednesday, 8 to 10AM. At Adobe Creek bike and pedestrianbridge. Details here. Tesla Takedown Rally :: Tesla El Camino Real Showroom, Every Wednesday, 4 to6PM. Details here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climateaction in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. From:Charles Village Pub and PatioTo:Council, CitySubject:Join us for Local Live Music | Change of Pace: Bob & Jeff!Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:02:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Get ready for an unforgettable evening on October 24, 2025 at 05:00 PM with Local Live Music | Change of Pace: Bob & Jeff,back by popular demand only at Charles Village Pub and Patio! Copbj Hey there! Get ready to unwind and enjoy your Friday evening at Charles Village Pub and Patio on October 24, 2025, at 5:00 PM. We are thrilled to announce 'Local Live Music | Change of Pace: Bob & Jeff'! Bob and Jeff are returning to our stage, an event that has always drawn a lively crowd. There's nothing like the upbeat rhythms and smooth harmonies they bring. Don't forget; reservations tend to go quickly for this popular event. So mark your calendars now! See you there, The Team at Charles Village Pub & Patio Check Out This Event Make a booking Order online now Charles Village Pub and Patio 19 West Pennsylvania AveTowson, MD 21204 (410) 821-8155 Follow us on Social Media for more Info! You can manage your subscription at any time through our service provider Popmenu at the link below. Unsubscribe Powered by Popmenu From:Rebecca Sanders To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:27:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Members Hirsch, Jojarth and Rosenberg, Thank you for listening to the residents and rejecting AT&T’s cell tower design and insisting that they tuck those radios either underground or in a ground-mounted cabinet. Thank you as well for insisting that AT&T demonstrate whether its proposed equipment exceeds the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit for a “small wireless facility.” And big kudos to ensuring that cell towers, like all developments in Palo Alto, comply with the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. If AT&T has flouted your directions, please reject their application for a cell tower permit at tomorrow night's meeting. Thank you for working so hard on this topic and for listening to residents and insisting that AT&T comply with the City's directions. Kind regards, Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Loren Brown To:Council, City Subject:10-20-2025 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 20: OSV Parking Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:22:20 PM Attachments:CPA 10-20-25 Mtg Agenda Item 20 OSV Parking.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 10-15-2025 Dear City Council Members, On behalf of business and property owners located on streets where OSVs have congregated in significant numbers,I present the attached presentation for your consideration. We request that City Staff’s recommendations to CityCouncil associated with this Agenda Item number be modified to significantly mitigate the negative impacts ofOSVs parking on these streets. Thank you. From:Aram James To:Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; walter wilson; Susan Hayase; Musa Tariq; Cynthia Longs; Angela Swartz; RaymondGoins; Jose Valle; Sean Allen; Nancy Goodban; Bill Newell Subject:Source: San José Spotlight Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:15:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: San José Spotlight Santa Clara County sheriff touts minimal Taser use but wants more - San José Spotlight https://share.google/7jfCzzoacUIGsTiFO From:Sara Woodham-Johnsson To:Council, City Subject:Please Support Salwa Ansari for HRC Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 11:01:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council Members, As you will hear from all candidates for HRC this evening, I strongly urge you to vote for Salwa Ansari to the Human Relations Commission. I’ve come to know Salwa well, and she exemplifies the Commission’s mission to promote fair and just treatment of all people in our community, especially our most vulnerable and invisible. She is a voice of reason, inclusion, insight, and empathy. This is clear with any conversation with her. Salwa is deeply committed to Palo Alto. As you likely know, after moving away during COVID to be closer to family, she purposefully returned to our community as the place for her family to build roots for all the reasons that align with the human relations we all strive for in Palo Alto. She effectively reinvested in this community for her family, including her 2 young children. That choice speaks volumes about her commitment. Salwa brings a too-rare blend of heart and intellect. She listens carefully, thinks critically, and acts ethically. She does not judge. She is innately mindful of the scope and diversity of experiences in Palo Alto, with insight into how different groups experience living and feeling community here in Palo Alto. The Commission’s work of bringing an inclusive lens to Council and supporting community efforts to strengthen community bonds is something that uniquely qualifies Salwa for Commission member. I am sure Salwa will contribute meaningfully to the Commission’s work and help foster respectful, solution- oriented dialogue that benefits our entire city. Please give Salwa your full consideration. Sincerely, Sara Woodham 130 Bryant St, 94301 732.768.7207 mobile This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Office of Rep. Sam LiccardoTo:Council, CitySubject:How I’m Working to End the ShutdownDate:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 10:42:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Council,, Despite the shutdown, we’re all still hard at work. If you need assistance, please know that every one of our District 16 team members in our local and D.C. offices continues to show up each day to serve you. Last week, I met with federal workers who are about to miss their next paycheck, and spoke with more than a thousand of you during our telephone town hall. The through line: we all want this shutdown to end. I spent Monday on the phone with several Republican colleagues to discuss their willingness to extend ACA tax credits necessary to ward off the spike in health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans. I’ve caught the early flight back to Washington, DC, to meet any Republicans who are ready to talk, negotiate, and vote on a bipartisan plan to reopen the government. We’ll press the Speaker to reconvene the House to get back to work. SHUTDOWN Do you think Speaker Johnson should bring Congress back so we can vote to reopen the government? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Meeting with Our Federal Employees Roughly 7,700 federal employees live in our district. On Friday, during our office hours in Los Altos, I met with several who were furloughed or working without pay. We talked about how the shutdown is upending their lives—their research, their work, and their ability to pay bills. Our office will do everything possible to help our neighbors through these trying times. Telephone Town Hall Recap Thank you to everyone who joined our Telephone Town Hall last week. If you couldn't make it, you can listen to the whole event below. We’ll have more forums like this in the future, so please make sure you follow my official Facebook, Instagram, X, and Bluesky accounts to stay up to date. Video Many of you raised concerns about rising health care costs as the enhanced ACA tax credits expire. I’ve been actively talking to many of my Republican colleagues—including phone calls at 5 a.m. yesterday—about how they might protect this cost-saving lifeline for 24,000 of our neighbors and 22 million Americans nationwide. More updates will follow. Our New Office in Los Altos Last week, we opened a new office in the Neutra House in Los Altos, right next to the Los Altos Community Center. A VERY big thank you to the City of Los Altos — including City Manager Gabriel Engeland, Mayor Pete Dailey, and the City Council, who have graciously allowed us to use the Neutra House a couple of times each week—Monday and Wednesday from 9 AM to 5 PM— to serve the community. This North (Santa Clara) County location joins our Half Moon Bay satellite office and our main office in San José to give you even more ways to connect with us. I’m here in Washington, D.C. to keep fighting for you—for your jobs, your health care, and for our community. Let’s reopen the government. Sincerely, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam LiccardoTo:Council, CitySubject:How I’m Working to End the ShutdownDate:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 10:11:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Hi City, Despite the shutdown, we’re all still hard at work. If you need assistance, please know that every one of our District 16 team members in our local and D.C. offices continues to show up each day to serve you. Last week, I met with federal workers who are about to miss their next paycheck, and spoke with more than a thousand of you during our telephone town hall. The through line: we all want this shutdown to end. I spent Monday on the phone with several Republican colleagues to discuss their willingness to extend ACA tax credits necessary to ward off the spike in health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans. I’ve caught the early flight back to Washington, DC, to meet any Republicans who are ready to talk, negotiate, and vote on a bipartisan plan to reopen the government. We’ll press the Speaker to reconvene the House to get back to work. SHUTDOWN Do you think Speaker Johnson should bring Congress back so we can vote to reopen the government? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Meeting with Our Federal Employees Roughly 7,700 federal employees live in our district. On Friday, during our office hours in Los Altos, I met with several who were furloughed or working without pay. We talked about how the shutdown is upending their lives—their research, their work, and their ability to pay bills. Our office will do everything possible to help our neighbors through these trying times. Telephone Town Hall Recap Thank you to everyone who joined our Telephone Town Hall last week. If you couldn't make it, you can listen to the whole event below. We’ll have more forums like this in the future, so please make sure you follow my official Facebook, Instagram, X, and Bluesky accounts to stay up to date. Video Many of you raised concerns about rising health care costs as the enhanced ACA tax credits expire. I’ve been actively talking to many of my Republican colleagues—including phone calls at 5 a.m. yesterday—about how they might protect this cost-saving lifeline for 24,000 of our neighbors and 22 million Americans nationwide. More updates will follow. Our New Office in Los Altos Last week, we opened a new office in the Neutra House in Los Altos, right next to the Los Altos Community Center. A VERY big thank you to the City of Los Altos — including City Manager Gabriel Engeland, Mayor Pete Dailey, and the City Council, who have graciously allowed us to use the Neutra House a couple of times each week—Monday and Wednesday from 9 AM to 5 PM— to serve the community. This North (Santa Clara) County location joins our Half Moon Bay satellite office and our main office in San José to give you even more ways to connect with us. I’m here in Washington, D.C. to keep fighting for you—for your jobs, your health care, and for our community. Let’s reopen the government. Sincerely, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Hamilton Hitchings Cc:Council, City Subject:Fw: Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 9:48:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> To: arb@PaloAlto.gov <arb@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 09:47:04 AM PDT Subject: Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Members Hirsch, Jojarth and Rosenberg, Thank you for your recent decision to reject AT&T’s cell tower design—a designthat called for hanging large radios on the shaft of the streetlight pole—and to direct them to return with one that conceals the radios either underground or in a ground- mounted cabinet. Thank you as well for insisting that AT&T provide calculations showing whether its proposed equipment exceeds the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit for a “small wireless facility.” More generally, thank you for your commitment to ensuring that cell towers, like all developments in Palo Alto, comply with the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. I hope AT&T has done as you directed. If they haven’t, I hope that, on October 16th, you will reject their application for a cell tower permit. Thank you. Hamilton From:mahesh nelacanti To:Council, City Subject:Meadow crossing train grade -> our preference is Hybrid Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 4:48:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Team, As local resident and home office business we would like to give our preference to Hybrid solution due to impact on properties and cost of project. Thanks Mash Nel This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Janet Ding To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:50:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Members Hirsch, Jojarth and Rosenberg, Thank you for your recent decision to reject AT&T’s cell tower design—a design that called for hanging large radios on the shaft of the streetlight pole—and to direct them to return with one that conceals the radios either underground or in a ground-mounted cabinet. Thank you as well for insisting that AT&T provide calculations showing whether its proposed equipment exceeds the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit for a “small wireless facility.” More generally, thank you for your commitment to ensuring that cell towers, like all developments in Palo Alto, comply with the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. I hope AT&T has done as you directed. If they haven’t, I hope that, on October 16th, you will reject their application for a cell tower permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Janet Ding To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:42:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Members Hirsch, Jojarth and Rosenberg, Thank you for your recent decision to reject AT&T’s cell tower design—a design that called for hanging large radios on the shaft of the streetlight pole—and to direct them to return with one that conceals the radios either underground or in a ground-mounted cabinet. Thank you as well for insisting that AT&T provide calculations showing whether its proposed equipment exceeds the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit for a “small wireless facility.” More generally, thank you for your commitment to ensuring that cell towers, like all developments in Palo Alto, comply with the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. I hope AT&T has done as you directed. If they haven’t, I hope that, on October 16th, you will reject their application for a cell tower permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, janet This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Jeffrey Singer To:laura.wilson@stanford.edu; police@stanford.edu; svnaik@stanford.edu; nathan.barankin@gov.ca.gov;lsarafan@thekey.com; president@ucop.edu; president@stanford.edu; howard.wolf@stanford.edu;sjud.fax@sen.ca.gov; jonathan.levin@stanford.edu; pete.cerneka@stanford.edu;contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov; boardoffice@stanford.edu; alumnipresident@stanford.edu;rgonzalez@stanford.edu; ph3inator+1080@gmail.com; sndpolicy@stanford.edu; rosenbek@gmail.com;deanofstudents@stanford.edu; kevin.kish@gmail.com; bdavis@wscuc.org; megan.pierson@stanford.edu;sedn.committee@senate.ca.gov; gad@cde.ca.gov Cc:jhausaman@wscuc.org; boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; senator.becker@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; ocr.sanfrancisco@ed.gov; david_montes@padilla.senate.gov; assemblymember.mbonta@assembly.ca.gov; wascsr@wscuc.org; senator.umberg@senate.ca.gov; senator.ochoabogh@senate.ca.gov; robertc2@stanford.edu; kchisholm@wscuc.org; wasc@wscuc.org; senator.niello@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly.ca.gov; Council, City; kmatarrese@wscuc.org; senator.perez@senate.ca.gov Subject:Demand Justice: Stop SJP"s October 7 "Martyr" Event Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6:00:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Additional Recipients: Governor Gavin Newsom; U.S. Senator Alex Padilla; U.S. SenatorAdam Schiff; U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17); U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights; U.S. Secretary ofEducation Linda McMahon; Members of the Press; Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; HumanRelations Commission; Campus Watch; North American Values Institute (NAVI); Christians United For Israel (CUFI) and U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley, Chair of the Early Childhoodand Secondary Education Subcommittee. Stanford's Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), together with the Muslim Student Union, isorganizing an event on Sunday, October 5, to build a "visual display honoring our martyrs" -- to be unveiled on October 7 [1], nearly two full years after Hamas's barbaric massacre andmass hostage-taking of Israeli civilians, during which more than 1,200 innocent people were slaughtered and 48 hostages -- both living and deceased -- remain held in captivity. This planned display is a grotesque glorification of terrorism and the textbook definition of ahostile environment. It directly targets and traumatizes Jewish and Israeli students, retraumatizing those whose families and friends were murdered, kidnapped, or raped on thatday. To allow a campus organization to celebrate the perpetrators of those crimes on the anniversary of their atrocities is unconscionable, unsafe, and completely incompatible withfederal civil-rights protections. By any measure, this event would create and perpetuate a hostile environment in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [2], which obligates Stanford to protect students from 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 harassment and intimidation based on shared ancestry or ethnic identity. This duty is explicitlyreinforced by Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism, 2019) [3] and Executive Order 14188 (Strengthening Efforts to Combat Antisemitism, 2025) [4], both of which directfederal agencies to apply Title VI protections to antisemitic harassment and ensure federal funding is denied to institutions that fail to act. California law provides parallel safeguardsunder the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51) and the California Education Code § 220, prohibiting discrimination and harassment in educational institutions on the basis ofreligion or ethnic heritage [5]. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) maintains enforcement authority to investigate and prosecute such violations within the state [11]. The federal government and over thirty-five states, including California, recognize theInternational Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which defines antisemitism as including the demonization, delegitimization, or doublestandards applied to Israel [14]. By glorifying Hamas terrorists as "martyrs" and portraying the murder of Israeli civilians as resistance, this display demonizes the Jewish state, denies Israel'sright to defend its people, and holds Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel -- all examples identified within the IHRA framework. Failure of your administration to act under these statutes and executive orders can triggerenforcement by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, including loss of Title IV federal funding [9].Stanford's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status likewise prohibits any use of taxpayer resources to promote terrorism, unlawful discrimination, or antisemitic harassment [10]. Both federal andCalifornia law authorize penalties, funding suspension, and civil or injunctive action against institutions that violate these standards, and any retaliation toward students, faculty, or staffwho report antisemitism constitutes a separate violation under Title VI and California law [12]. No Jewish or Israeli student should be forced to walk across campus and see "martyrs" --meaning Hamas terrorists -- publicly glorified in Stanford's central plaza. Stanford's own Student Code of Conduct requires all students to uphold the rights and dignity of others andforbids behavior that threatens, harasses, or endangers any individual or group [6]. The Student Organization Policies further prohibit student groups from activities that "violate lawor University policy, create hostile environments, or incite violence or harassment" [7]. This planned display clearly breaches those rules. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, it is a federal crime to provide material support or resources --including coordinated advocacy -- to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Hamas has been designated by the U.S. Department of State since 1997 [8]. The promotion or venerationof its members and actions constitutes terrorist propaganda and material support for terrorism, not protected speech. Institutions that enable or host such conduct risk federal scrutiny andpotential loss of funding. The precedent is clear. George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine chapter after it projected messages such as "Glory to Our Martyrs" and otherantisemitic and pro-terror slogans onto campus buildings following the October 7 massacre [13]. GWU recognized that such behavior was not protected political expression but adeliberate glorification of terrorism and a direct threat to Jewish and Israeli students. If Stanford allows this planned display to proceed, it will be disregarding the same standards ofsafety and accountability that other universities have already enforced. Support for terrorism has no place at Stanford or any American university. Failure to act decisively will endanger Jewish and Israeli students, undermine public trust, and irreparablydamage Stanford's reputation as an institution committed to safety, equity, and the rule of law. This is not merely a matter of compliance but of conscience. By tolerating this kind of antizionist libel and incitement, your administration risks becoming complicit in the broaderantizionist hate movement -- the latest round in a centuries-old cycle of Jew-hatred that has destroyed Jewish communities worldwide. The threat extends far beyond any one campus. Antisemitism has risen at an explosive rate across the United States and worldwide. The FBIand Department of Homeland Security have confirmed that antisemitic incidents and threats in America are at historic highs, with the ADL reporting over 7,500 incidents in 2023 alone -- a360 percent increase since October 7 [15][16][17]. On college campuses, hate has escalated from intimidation to assaults and vandalism targeting Jewish students and faculty [18]. Thesedisplays of glorified terrorism and dehumanizing rhetoric do not remain confined to campus grounds -- they spill into the broader community, emboldening hate and placing AmericanJews in real danger. Stanford must decide whether it will stand against this growing wave of antiZionist hate movement or be remembered as an institution that allowed it to take root. History will remember how Stanford chose to respond -- whether it upheld its principles orturned a blind eye to the glorification of terror and the neglect of its Jewish students. Sincerely, References: [1] Placeholder - Visual Evidence https://imgur.com/a/bft4CzM?s=sms [2] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act - https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI[3] EO 13899 - https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order- combating-anti-semitism/[4] EO 14188 - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/20/2025- 10954/strengthening-efforts-to-combat-antisemitism[5] California Unruh Act & Ed Code §220 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=220.&lawCode=EDC [6] Stanford Code of Conduct - https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/student-conduct/student-conduct-process/student-code-conduct [7] Stanford Student Organization Policies - https://studentships.stanford.edu/policies/student-organization-policies [8] Designation of Hamas - https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/[9] U.S. DOE OCR - https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html [10] IRS 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501[11] California Civil Rights Department - https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/ [12] DOE & CRD Anti-Retaliation Protections -https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html and https://calcivilrights.ca.gov [13] George Washington University SJP Suspension - https://compliance.gwu.edu/students- justice-palestine-suspension[14] IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism - https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism [15] FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2023 - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/publications#HateCrime [16] ADL Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023 - https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2023 [17] U.S. DHS National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin (May 2024) -https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/may-2024 [18] U.S. DOE Guidance on Antisemitic Harassment in Schools (2024) -https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations-guidance.html Respectfully, Jeffrey C. Singer, PhD. Fellow - Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration Fellow - Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Past President New Jersey Psychological Association 2014 Past President Essex-Union County Association of Psychologists 2008 400 Rella Boulevard Suite 207-889 Montebello, NY 10901 Phone: +1(201) 264-8262 Email: jsingerphd@mac.com “If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” - Gen. George S. Patton “I’m thinking but nothing is happening.” - Curly Howard “Whenever there is a simple error that most laymen fall for, there is always a slightly more sophisticated version of the same problem that experts fall for.” - Amos Tversky, PhD “Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron “We are all more human than otherwise." - Harry Stack Sullivan, MD “There is nothing new under the sun,” - Ecclesiastes 1:9 "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. “ Elie Wiesel (1928-2016) This electronic communication, including any authorized attachments, contains information from Jeffrey C Singer, Ph.D., that may be legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from all computers on which it may be stored. Thank you. From:BWP To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s cell tower unless AT&T has complied with your September 18th directives Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 4:21:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Members Hirsch, Jojarth and Rosenberg, Thank you for your recent decision to reject AT&T’s cell tower design—a design that called for hanging large radios on the shaft of the streetlight pole—and to direct them to return with one that conceals the radios either underground or in a ground- mounted cabinet. Thank you as well for insisting that AT&T provide calculations showing whether its proposed equipment exceeds the FCC’s 28 cubic feet limit for a “small wireless facility.” More generally, thank you for your commitment to ensuring that cell towers, like all developments in Palo Alto, comply with the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. I hope AT&T has done as you directed. If they haven’t, I hope that, on October 16th, you will reject their application for a cell tower permit. My home is where a cell tower has been planned. I've been following this for years. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 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 Bruce W. Phillips From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 15, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #2: Conference With City Attorney, 156 California Avenue Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 2:44:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM# 2: CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATORNEY 156 CALIFORNIAAVENUE The letter from Holland & Knight LLP dated September 3, 2025claims the project at 156 California Avenue qualifies for theAB 130 CEQAExemption, while the City of Palo Alto says the project doesnot qualify for the exemption. At the September 29, 2025 City Council meeting, Mayor Lauingcommented that "An Ad Hoc Committee consisting of himself andCouncilmember Stone had been created for 156 North CaliforniaAvenue." The only thing that can be negotiated in this dispute is toagree on a different project at 156 California Avenue that theCity is willing to say does qualifies for the CEQA exemption,which can only occur during open public hearings on theproject's application. However, courts have ruled that it is a violation of the RalphM. Brown act to make planning decisions about a project duringa Closed Session by using the pretext that since the project isthe subject of the Closed Session you can discuss anythingrelated to the project in the Closed Session. If you want to approve a different project than the one that isthe subject of this Closed Session, you can do that only inOpen Session as part of the CEQA public hearing process on theproject that the City says is not exempt from CEQA. The Closed Session is only about the dispute regarding whetherthe current project is or is not exempt from CEQA. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock