HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-22 City Council EmailsDOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 12/22/2025
Document dates: 12/15/2025 - 12/22/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:FW: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 11:43:42 AM
Dear City Councilmembers,
Please see the below public comment received to our office.
Best,
City Clerk’s Office
From: Sharon Farr-Livingston <sharonfarr2@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 3:05 AM
To: CDSS letusno <letusno@dss.ca.gov>
Cc: speceducation@cde.ca.gov; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attachment. ACME is a K-6th grade SCHOOL. I am cc the Palo Alto City Council administrative clerk. I am not sure if the City Manager is aware that his staff who are supposed to keep tenants in compliance to the CCC, Palo Alto and children educational school codes ands
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Please see attachment. ACME is a K-6th grade SCHOOL.
I am cc the Palo Alto City Council administrative clerk. I am not sure if the City Manager is aware that
his staff who are supposed to keep tenants in compliance to the CCC, Palo Alto and children
educational school codes and standards might be dropping the ball. Those ACME children had been
neglected and forced to use the public restrooms - instead of the tenant restrooms - for many years.
They are a danger to themselves and to city property.
Many adults who use the public restrooms on the west side of the CCC complex are uneasy or
inconvenienced by these kids who "play" and destroy and soil the property. Kids will be kids; ACME
needs to supervise them during their "school hours" and instead of letting them run wild and also
harass other children/adults who use the facility. Children under age 18 and, especially, if they are only
age 5 to 10 really don't have the brain development to know the difference between right and wrong or
the harm they could do or be done to them.
Powered by Mimecast
Even the janitors see all this fiyr years and had tried to tactfully inform the ACME employees that the
ACME kids need constant adult supervision during school hours. But no one listens.
According to one janitor, the ACME director said that, during school hours, managing children are the
parents' responsibility and not ACME. Can you imagine having a teacher at a Palo Alto Union
elementary school telling parents that they must somehow also supervise their kids on campus during
school hours and not the teacher?! Or kids have the mental ability to take care of themselves during
school hours and school events? Parents who sign up for the school are at work; they entrust and pay
ACME to take care and keep an eye on their precious kids during school hours. This includes having an
adult guardian with these kids when they use the public restrooms.
If ACME school cannot "afford" to operate a respectful, safe and valid school as they rent multiple
spaces at CCC, they should have their licensure and accreditation revoked. Greed and carelessness is
no excuse.
What I am puzzled about is why the Palo Alto city employees at CCC have never addressed this for so
many years.
On Saturday, December 20, 2025, Sharon Farr-Livingston <sharonfarr2@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, Ms. Heilner.
I don't know what you are talking about. First of all, ACME is a SCHOOL that rents out an entire L-
wing and a conference hall on another wing of the CCC. They are tenants and their school operates
from 3pm onward. I do not know about other services they offer but their organization is registered as
a preschool and elementary school.
CCC is an old building that used to be a high school about 30 years ago. Once the school was moved
to a different location, the buildings were repurposed to be a Palo Alto community center. Everyone
who uses it have to apply to use the rooms, conference halls and auditoriums. The City of Palo Alto
and the Palo Alto Union School District are the official "owners" of this old complex. It seems every
few year, they have a meeting as to what to do with CCC.
I want to add that the CCC janitors also are concerned about how ACME students are not being
supervised and accounted for. For YEARS. They saw these kinds plug up the toilets, waste toilet
paper, throw objects into the toilet, damage bathroom stalls, wet the floor and slam on the faucets
so often that many of them do not work. Very seldom do they see children with parents or an adult
guardian with them engage in these dangerous and destructive activities. These acts also could
literally Harman these kids and creat dangers and inconveniences for other children and adults who
use these bathrooms. They say they complain to ACME teachers and administrators but ACME does
nothing.
There might be a cultural element to this. Almost every children, employee and administrators of
ACME are legal and illegal Chinese immigrants. They feel children don't need to be monitored or
watched over. Plus, the less adults they hire to supervise these toddlers and preteens, the less
money they gave to spend and the more profit ACME makes. They do business in America but seem
to refuse to accept American school and licensure/accreditation standards.
Let me know what else you need. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Tara
On Thursday, December 18, 2025, CDSS letusno <letusno@dss.ca.gov> wrote:
Hello again,
I conducted an internet search and was able to locate the Acme Learning Center at the Cubberley
Community Center at 4000 Middlefield Rd. If this is the child care you are referring to, CCL does not have
jurisdiction to investigate this matter, as the child care program in question is registered as a heritage
school. In California, heritage schools are exempt from licensure and are not subject to the regulations
outlined in Title 22. You may reach out directly to the heritage school or CA Department of Education
(CDE) for further assistance. CCL will not be investigating further in this matter. Attached below is a link
to their website with additional information.
Heritage School Registration System (HSRS) 2025
Thank you,
M. Heilner
She/Her
Community Care Licensing
Centralized Complaint and Information Bureau
(844) 538-8766
From: CDSS letusno
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 8:39 AM
To: sharonfarr2@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
Hello,
We received your complaint and have been trying to reach you for more information. If we do not hear
back from you with the information requested, we cannot generate a complaint. Please see questions
below.
Thank you,
M. Heilner
She/Her
Community Care Licensing
Centralized Complaint and Information Bureau
(844) 538-8766
From: CDSS letusno
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 8:37 AM
To: sharonfarr2@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
Good morning. I did not hear back from you yesterday so I am emailing again. Will you please provide the
name and address of the child care center? Also, are the children school age or do they look younger
(preschool age)?
Thank you,
M. Heilner
She/Her
Community Care Licensing
Centralized Complaint and Information Bureau
(844) 538-8766
From: CDSS letusno
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:40 AM
To: 'Sharon Farr-Livingston' <sharonfarr2@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
Hello,
Thank you for reaching out to Community Care Licensing. Will you please provide the name and address
of the child care center that you are reporting to us?
Thank you,
M. Heilner
She/Her
Community Care Licensing
Centralized Complaint and Information Bureau
(844) 538-8766
From: Sharon Farr-Livingston <sharonfarr2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 8:31 PM
To: speceducation@cde.ca.gov; SSA_CANC_eFAX@ssa.sccgov.org; CDSS letusno <letusno@dss.ca.gov>;
Wendy.Kinnear@ssa.sccgov.org
Subject: Current and future child endangerment by ACME schools and the City of Palo Alto
*CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello.
This email is feedback that I want to give to the county of Santa Clara and the California
Department of Education in the area of child abuse and child endangerment by a Chinese school
corporation (for-profit) and the City of Palo Alto (nonprofit). Based on my cursory online search
engine investigation, it seems, ACME is a repeat offender. So, perhaps, the profiteers from this
Chinese school corporation operating all over the Bay Area did not receive sufficient disciplinarian
actions.
If possible and because of the strong Chinese-centric population and what I had seen some of the
ACME management team had done to people who speak up, I ask to have my name not be
identified due to concern for extensive retaliation by the employees and even by some of the
parents of ACME students. The City of Palo Alto also are not saints either in being able to
professionally, ethically take in complaints without going after the messenger. We live in a strange
world where we all criticize Donald Trump for killing free speech, but, in our private day to day
workplace activities there are plenty of people who resent free speech when that speech is not
flattering or complimentary.
I provide the details of my claims to the best of my recollection, with the kindest of intentions and
under the penalty of perjury. My motivation: I don't want to see kids being taken advantage of,
neglected or abused when they are entrusted to a school or a city/county. I ask that the city, county
and state agencies who oversee child protection policies to do their due diligence and cite or
suspend operational licenses for the culprits involved.
I have been doing walking exercises at the Cubberley Community Center for about 10 years. Not a
gym person. I sometimes use the nearby cushiony track or just literally walk around the buildings to
get my 2 miles/day in. Because of this, I see a lot going on. I had been tempted to file a formal
complaint but, fearing that the City of Palo Alto and the ACME business managers are "not
American enough" to value children's safety and care only about career comfort and profits, I did
not follow through. However, earlier this Monday 12/15/25 early evening, I overheard an exchange
between an ACME "director" and an innocent woman using the bathroom located by Dance
Connection. This is, more or less, the ONLY public restroom, within the buildings. The only other
bathrooms are the newer ones located outside the center and off to the north end of the track. The
Cubberley Community Center administrators refused to give members of the many programs on
property access to private "tenant" restrooms. With a few pre-pubescent/toddlers with her, this
director waited to ambush the innocent woman using one of the stalls. When the woman emerged,
the director verbally attacked her - yelling and screaming and demonizing her for supposedly being
kind to the unmonitored, wild ACME children in the past.
Based on what I could make out, this was the issue:
About a month ago, like any visitor, this woman used the women's restroom. When she emerged,
she took out a transparent bag full of healthy candies. There was a group of female toddlers who
formed a circle around her. They asked her for some candies. At first the woman refused - it's her
candy after all and she did not want her supply to run out. The children persisted. And since
Halloween was just a month before and ACME trusted these kids are "mature" enough to be
unsupervised in the public restrooms, the woman gave in and told them that candies are bad for
their health and they should eat vegetables instead. So, she said, for dinner, they needed to eat
extra vegetables to make up for the tiny candies she was going to hand them. After this exchange,
she went on her way and the children kept thanking her for the candy. She did not think anything of
it.
Earlier today, a Chinese woman with very short hair and glasses ambushed this woman, and
verbally attacked her. She stated that adults were supposed to watch over ACME students and it
was "not logical" to ever give kids candy. She said to the woman that "you should know better"!
And that this director went on to publicly admonish and insult the innocent woman for about 10
minutes yelling and screaming and following her down the corridor. She also stated that she
"reported" this candy-giving incident and that "everyone knows" that she was a bad human being
and doing this to ACME students! This director also said that there was a "guardian" outside the
bathroom and down the hall (about 50 meters away) and because they are sometimes present in
their chairs all the way down the hallway, this met the legal requirement for the children being
supervised inside the restroom. The Chinese director was going at it to this poor woman like a mad
dog. She also refused to give this woman her full name or ACME business card and engaged in this
freakish fear-mongering telling her that the Cubberley Community Center employees knew about
her and the ACME students and teachers knew about her and they were going to get her ... for
giving hungry, begging, unsupervised children some candy in the public women's restroom.
The ACME director was engaging in what HR departments call harassment, intimidation and lying.
She was more concerned about creating a scene and loudly making a spectacle in front of those
ACME toddler, pre-teens than sticking to a well-known fact about how ACME had never kept their
students safe and never put money into constant and sufficient supervision of their children. Since
they do this on the outside, I do not know what ACME does to their students once they are in their
"classrooms" at Cubberley Community Center.
This is what I had seen since the last 8 years about ACME (I suspect it happens even before that):
ACME students are NEVER SUPERVISED by ACME employees while IN THE PUBLIC
CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY WOMEN'S BATHROOM. This is not unique to ACME; some of the
children's soccer programs allow many kids to go into the bathroom without supervision either.
Parents who bring their kids to the center for a dance show or an event often accompany their
children to the bathroom, but many of the program's supervisors never do. ACME is the worst
offender in not providing any adult supervision when their kids use the bathroom. ACME also
knows that the bathroom is a PUBLIC one; anyone and everyone who needs to use the bathroom
use these bathrooms. Yet, they do nothing to provide these children any kind of adult supervision.
This happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.
This is what I see these ACME kids do in the public community center bathroom that would make
most parents uneasy:
They jump from the bench onto dirty, wet floors.
Sometimes they try to climb on the shelf above the bench and onto the vanity area of the
mirror.
They crawl on the dirty bathroom doors going under the stall wall into the next one for fun.
They slam the doors of the stall over and over again to make loud noises and damage
property.
They spray the water from the sink onto the floor and try to run through the wet floor to see if
they could just slide like a hockey player.
They try to throw rocks up to the window to try to break it.
They unroll toilet papers to the point that their stall looks like a mummy's cave.
They go under the stall wall into a stall to lock all the doors from the inside so that no one
could use the bathroom.
They do not wash their hands after they poop or pee.
They play with the faucet knobs or use a hard object to get it to break and not be usable.
They lick the surface of the sink even if there is obvious dirt on it.
They stuff the toilet with toys and many layers of toilet seat covers or toilet papers so that
the toilet gets stuck.
They use profanity with each other in the bathroom and then giggle.
They EAT IN THE BATHROOM OR IN THEIR STALLS.
These kids are very gregarious and so they talk to strangers whenever they want.
Even though many of these activities are normal, mischief and mayhem that children
engage in, many of these activities are unhygienic, vandalism and physically
dangerous. Had ACME provided a legal guardian or supervisor when their students use
the public restroom, I believe none of these activities would happen. By cutting down
on labor costs and not providing a legal adult or guardian to watch over these children
during their "business hours" and when these kids are their "students", ACME and its
operators have been deliberately putting these kids in harm's way since 10 years ago.
This is a clear case of intentional child endangerment by a school for-profit
organization.
Even though Palo Alto Union School District owns a part of the Cubberley Community Center, the
City of Palo Alto administers and manages the facilities at Cubberley Community Center. The
manager of the center is a young man named Chase Hartmann. However, due to his own laziness
and complacency, he cares very little about the property, the kids on property and the program that
takes place on the property. For instance, there is rampant bicycle theft and children riding their
bicycles on the property. Mr. Hartmann thinks posting a sign will do the trick in discouraging
property theft and accidents between pedestrians and bicyclists. He also could not and will not
manage his own janitors. They close up the bathrooms whenever they want to on the weekends
instead of honoring the standard time of closure. On 11/28/25 - the Friday after Thanksgiving, he
allowed his Cubberley Community Center janitors to only open one bathroom: the women's
bathroom. This meant the janitor only had to clean up one bathroom before they went home to
start their Black Friday Christmas shopping. (I found this out when I exited my stall in the women's
bathroom on 11/28/25 only to find two teenagers staring back at me from the sinks. A gender-
specific restroom, in America, is considered a private, safe space for that gender.) Since ACME is a
major CUSTOMER who rents out many spaces at the community center, Mr. Hartmann feels that
making money is more important than confronting a delinquent and defiant customer about
child safety. Or general safety for all members, visitors and users of this important community
center.
From my position, I believe the problems that I see with ACME's abuse of trust and access to the
Cubberley Community Center to run their "school" is aided and abetted by the City of Palo Alto and
the city's unprofessional and dishonorable staff. Since Palo Alto Unified School District owns a
part of the community center, this also means that the problems of child endangerment by ACME
also rests on the school district's shoulders. The city and the school district both have ownership
in the careless, reckless and dangerous activities created by ACME and their greedy business
operators. I also observe that the "teachers" of ACME classes are all very patient and nice to the
children; however, their fluency in Mandarin (a Chinese dialect), struggle with English and need to
get a teaching job might make them less likely to speak up or demand a professional, responsible
and lawful working environment. I suspect most of the employees at ACME are undocumented
Chinese immigrants (a vulnerable population) - which is the population that ACME targets to have
more control over them and to be able to break all kinds of implied and expressed educational and
business operation laws to make the most profits.
There's all kinds of illegal activities committed by ACME; the less the state, county and city
oversight committees turn a blind eye, the more illegal activities and more escalated ones will be
committed by ACME and its business operators. For this email, I think the most concerning illegal
activities are the lack of supervision and monitoring by an adult employee of ACME when so many
of their young students use the bathroom. It's been going on for so long and happens in such a plain
view; I cannot imagine any stranger who happens to be in this area of the community center not
seeing all this and being slightly concerned. As of this earlier evening with the exchange between
the innocent woman and the ravenous, rabid ACME director, it seems this school program sees
nothing wrong with the way they conduct their business and, in fact, expect complete strangers to
take care of these ACME students. None of those kids were taught to not beg strangers for
candies. None of those kids were taught to not talk to strangers in a public bathroom. None of
these kids were ever taught about activities in the bathroom that could damage property, hurt their
bodies or introduce bacteria and pathogens into their growing bodies. And, it seems, these ACME
kids cannot distinguish between a proper place to consume food and the place where people
defecate and urinate. ACME does not teach these children these fundamentals nor provide a
supervising adult to go along with the kids to the women's bathroom to make sure they do not put
themselves in any compromising or unsafe situations.
But this director feels that ACME has no legal responsibility to these kids during their school
operating hours. They are not close to age 18, but it helps ACME make more money to recruit more
students without providing the staffing to be able to watch over and supervise all these ACME
students. And, according to her, while they use the bathroom, they could be trusted with the
intellect and maturity of a legal adult. And perfect strangers who are using the bathrooms and
minding their own business had some kind of obligation to take care of these kids, including
nurturing a proper diet of ACME students.
I think the operation license of ACME at Cubberley Community Center should be
suspended or, altogether, revoked. They had been operating below board for over a decade
now in Palo Alto. ACME managers and executives are so proud of being able to cut corners and
endangering the lives of their own students - these parents they disservice are of their own
ethnicity, too.
They seem so defiant, arrogant and belligerent, the director, today, decided to verbally attack
a complete stranger for giving into begging toddlers by giving out a few pieces of candy.
I keenly remember that she remarked that the law didn't matter. Clearly.
Maybe running a school in America is not a good fit for her or ACME business operators.
According to the new Cubberley Community Center posters, there is also to be a "teen
center" built in this community center in 2026. If the City of Palo Alto cannot even get
ACME to keep their own toddlers clean, safe and not self-harm, can this county and this
state trust the City of Palo Alto with a teen center? Based on my life experience,
teenagers are even more difficult to influence, coax and handle than toddlers.
Attached is a previous complaint filed against ACME. To avoid taking accountability, they changed
their school names and most likely continue their lawless, unsafe and corrupt school practices as
before. Like slippery snakes. Who, eventually, is harmed by educational and institutional
corruption: the kids, the parents and the community. All these parties deserve to be provided for
and protected.
I ask that this matter receive review and investigation. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
SF
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:51:36 AM
Attachments:City Council Attachments PT 6_7.pdf
City Council Attachments PT 7_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Apologies, the attachment did not attach properly. Here are the 6th and 7th supporting materials out of 7.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:48:45 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 6th and 7th supporting materials out of 7.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:47:57 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Counil,
This email includes the 5th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:47:04 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 4th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:46:16 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 3rd of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:45:29 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
ATTACHMENT N
Continued Illegal Fire Lane Parking
(December 2025)
Bus in Fire Access Road (September, October 2025)
Vehicles in Fire Access (October 2025)
Palo Alto Commons construction vehicle sin fire lane
Palo Alto Commons Bus in fire lane. It says “Do not block fire gate!”
ATTACHMENT O
Continued Illegal Parking Blocked by
Items
(December 2025)
Items Blocking Parking in Underground Garage (October,
December 2025)
October Photos
December Photo
ATTACHMENT P
El Camino Way Full of Vehicles
(December 2025)
Only full of vehicles outside of Palo Alto Commons
ATTACHMENT Q
Signed Neighborhood Petition
(Includes Avant Residents, 100+
residents)
Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo
Alto Commons (the Commons) in its current form. This is now the fourth time the project
has come before the Planning & Transportation Commission with only minimal changes,
none of which address the fundamental issues that remain. The City Council directed
the PTC to work with neighbors toward a compromise, and we continue to believe
that the appropriate compromise is to allow the 7 internal units without the 9
external units and 2 offices.
We are providing specific comments on this latest iteration, along with a previously
submitted letter to the City Council (attached) that details our concerns more fully.
Daylight Plane Violations
The proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC
18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial
developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA
housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing—which we dispute—it would
require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either
standard.
In addition, allowing this project to rely on the outdated 1987 version of the Municipal
Code rather than the current code sets a dangerous precedent. Such an interpretation
could invite hundreds of projects citywide to claim the right to bypass present-day laws
and Council policy. Staff has not fully presented Council with the significant legal
consequences of this approach.
Staff has suggested that a 10-foot setback with a 45º daylight plane angle would make
the project “consistent,” but this interpretation is inconsistent with the plain reading of
PAMC 18.38.150, which falls under “special requirements.” A project cannot be deemed
consistent with municipal code while violating its special requirements.
Additionally, the proposed massing conflicts with design standards regarding visual bulk
and neighborhood character, violating PAMC 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B),
which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. There is still
space on the front of the building facing El Camino Way to expand without having
impacts on the neighbors that the Commons refuses to consider.
38+ Years of Noncompliance with PC Ordinance
Since approval of its original PC ordinance in 1987 (PC3775), the Commons has failed
to comply with its conditions. Even when these violations were raised before the City
Council, the Commons acknowledged noncompliance but has still submitted the
required data.
Parking Violations and Safety Issues
Parking violations have been persistent and well-documented, including in the
consultant’s parking study. Recent issues include blocking fire access with buses and
vans (Attachment M), misuse of handicap spaces, equipment stored in visitor spaces,
and overflow parking onto public streets. Additional examples include:
● Visitor parking blocked with equipment (Attachment B)
● Misuse of handicap spaces (Attachment C)
● Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D)
● Overflow onto public streets (Attachment E)
● Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie (Attachment G)
● Commons vehicles in visitor spaces (Attachment H)
● Commons staff parking in the neighborhood (Attachment I)
● Therapists and visitors directed to park on Wilkie by Commons staff
● Inconsistent valet services (Attachment J)
Violation of Original Agreements with Neighbors
In 1987, the Commons agreed—explicitly, as part of the PC process—to limit density
and respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The project was “downzoned to protect
the neighbors from over-intrusion” and promised “comparable density and mass” with a
“1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line.” The current proposal violates that promise.
Further, while the developers initially claimed they could only build 16 units or none at
all due to financial infeasibility, they later admitted 13 units were possible. With unit
costs reportedly up to $15,000 per month, it is difficult to believe this project is not
financially viable. The Commons is part of FJ Management, a for-profit corporation
based in Utah that operates the largest truck stop chain in America. Their shifting claims
reflect a continued pattern of misrepresentation and profit-driven motives.
Bad Faith Negotiation Undermining Neighborhood Trust
Throughout this process, the Commons has demonstrated a pattern of bad-faith
negotiation. Initially, they stated they would reduce the number of units from 18 to 16 as
a compromise. Instead of modifying the building’s massing, they simply converted two
rooms into offices while maintaining the same overall structure.
At the City Council meeting on May 27, the developers claimed that any proposal with
fewer than 16 units “did not pencil out.” Yet, in an apparent effort to build more than 7
units, they later stated they would be willing to build 13 units. They maintain that 7 units
are financially unfeasible. Given their inconsistent statements, it is difficult to take their
claims at face value.
Our Request
We respectfully ask the Planning & Transportation Commission to recommend approval
of only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1
neighborhood. This approach reflects both neighbor feedback and the PTC’s prior
recommendation to Council, while avoiding the dangerous precedent of relying on
outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction.
Sincerely,
Janis Iourovitski Adrian Lee James Cham Jenny Chen Natalie Choo
Lily Lee James Porter Kai Porter Nia Porter Jeffrey Shore
Aaron Schultz Michael Ji Minami
Sakakibara
Tirumala
Ranganath
JP Napaa
Jinmei Tian Yanfeng Wang Mingzhuo Pei Barry Katz Cathy
Berwaldt
Maegan Chew Mona He Bill Moss Andie Reed Magdalena
Cabrera
Mircha Panduru Zhengjun Pei Ellen Hartog Susan Kemp Simon Weng
Mark Greenbaum Penny Brennan Bert Davies Heather Davies Bella Davies
Shashank Divekar Brian Xu Rob Cassin Suchana Costa Natacha
Yanling Wang Kaiwen Xu Daniel Pei Xuhao Xie Jennie Chan
Pengyi Ji Guizhi You Zhiying Chen Yaofang Zhao Lucy Wu
Devan Singh Batu
Buyukbezci
Edwin Ong Rebecca Sanders Mason
Rodriguez
Rand
Jayashree Divekar Joanne So Maofeng Lan Esther Lan Hei Chu Lau
Carol Gilbert Daniel Hansen DeAnna
Hansen
Julie Baskind Pearl Y
Jagdish Pamnani Iravati Pamnani Eva Dobrov Carol Bly Anne Mason
Andy Dobrov Jim Bly Garrett Chan Marty Douglas Zeb
Burke-Conte
Tim Pense Rowan Pense Gordon Pense Adalaide Pense Nikki Pense
Tim Zhang Greyson Assa Nick Massie Jen Owens Alex Fu
Freda Huang Eliot Jones Alex Cauthen Carly Davenport Nishanth
Salinamakki
Manas Khadka Austin Tang Jetta Chu Gabe Uribe Trent Edwards
Peter Chatain Jonathan
Victorino
Kareem
Hage-ali
Paul de Supinski Amantina
Rossi
Syler Peralta-Ramos Celine Wang Yichen Zhou Devan Shanker Akanksha
Sharan
Catherine Zhang Eric Tang Tom Tang Ellen Huang
Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto
Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and
patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further
action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing
agreements, but also to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust.
Illegal Behavior
The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and
the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987
(PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant
to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent
relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include:
● 38+ Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved
in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set
out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways.
○ Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the
ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo
Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our
community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no
evidence that the Commons has made any pro-active effort to honor this
stipulation in practice.
○ Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the
operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing
patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring
compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not
been submitted.
○ Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site
parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates not all
spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects
neighborhood congestion and quality of life.
○ No enforcement: Even more troubling is that these violations have been
documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet
no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes
public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms.
● Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking
related violations:
○ Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction
and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces,
including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility.
This occurred for several months.
○ Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle
routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not
in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has
occurred for several months and continues to occur.
○ Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is
frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior,
noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking
laws.
○ Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of
adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally
across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has
illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as
parked cars illegally block the bike lane.
● Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion
violates the Municipal Code in several ways:
○ Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings
adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor
access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent
homeowners.
○ Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural
step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve
neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections
18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density
transitions and context-sensitive design.
Bad Neighbor Behavior
Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its
residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a
cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors:
● Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC
approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural
transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion
disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive
building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was
actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion.” The original
developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density
and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a
compromise.
● Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern
over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain
unresolved nearly four decades later:
○ Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto
Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park
on Wilkie.
○ Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When
not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor
parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets.
○ Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous
residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons
parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily
identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s
logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were
instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of
available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff,
who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on
street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents
have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was
previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further
exacerbating the issue.
○ Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own
parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood
streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient
on-site.
○ Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park
in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the
facility’s own parking contact phone number was dialed, Commons staff
used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC
had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting.
○ Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and
ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking
study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is
proposed for the new development, compounding the problem.
○ Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in
the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet
helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered,
in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted
on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no
valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet.
● Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to
work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted
evergreen trees (one specifically requested Italian cyprus) and have stated this
on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting
deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus
do not grow in this region, even though one neighbor has them in her backyard.
● Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers
made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars
($588,688 in 2024 dollars). When building the Avant, the Commons made a
$100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public
benefit this time is “2 small trees,” “space for both recycling and compost bins,”
and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is
more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing.
Conclusion
The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development
agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that
surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only
reward noncompliance, but it would also set a dangerous precedent for future
developments throughout the city.
Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to
honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should
not be allowed to grow further at our expense.
I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing
violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established.
Sincerely,
Kevin Ji
Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission,
I speak today as a neighbor deeply concerned about the Palo Alto Commons’ ongoing disregard
for its residential surroundings. Over nearly four decades, this project has consistently
demonstrated a pattern of bad-faith negotiation and behavior that undermines neighborhood
trust.
When the original Planned Community (PC) was approved in 1987, the Commons agreed to
limit density, respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood, and provide a step-back design to
reduce visual impact. Today, the Commons continues to violate these original commitments,
ignoring the conditions that were meant to protect neighbors.
The Commons has repeatedly argued that anything below 16 units financially infeasible,
claiming that such a reduction would not “pencil out.” Yet now, they propose 13 units, a clear
shift in rationale that raises serious questions about the credibility of their claims. If were
misleading about how 13 units are actually feasible, it is unclear why 7 units could not also be
built responsibly without violating financial constraints.
Beyond financial claims, they have consistently failed to comply with past agreements and city
requirements. Parking continues to spill into neighborhood streets, fire access has been blocked
by vehicles, and massing and landscaping decisions ignore prior commitments. Even when
violations are documented, enforcement has been limited, and the Commons shows little
willingness to address these ongoing issues.
This pattern—claiming constraints to push for more units, violating original PC commitments,
and disregarding neighborhood concerns—demonstrates that the Commons is not acting as a
responsible neighbor. We ask the Planning Commission to recommend approval of only the 7
internal units, with no additional external units or office space, consistent with prior Commission
recommendations and community feedback.
Approving more under these circumstances would reward bad behavior and set a dangerous
precedent. Our neighborhood deserves a development that respects both the rules and the
people who live here.
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:50:31 AM
Attachments:City Council Attachments PT 5_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Counil,
This email includes the 5th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:47:04 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 4th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:46:16 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 3rd of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:45:29 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
ATTACHMENT M
Continued Illegal Bus Parking
(September 2025)
Van in Fire Lane (August 2025)
Bus Blocking Fire Access Road (September 2025)
Bus in ADA Spot with Cones (September 2025)
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:49:38 AM
Attachments:City Council Attachments PT 4_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 4th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:46:16 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 3rd of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:45:29 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
ATTACHMENT I
Palo Alto Commons Staff in
Neighborhood
ATTACHMENT J
Inconsistent Valet
There is often no one at the valet stand.
There is often no valet at all.
ATTACHMENT K
Avant Public Benefit (PC5116)
ATTACHMENT L
Current Public Benefit
(6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182)
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:49:01 AM
Attachments:City Council Attachments PT 3_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 3rd of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:45:29 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Palo Alto, CA
ATTACHMENT E
Illegal Street Parking from Overflow
Visitor Parking
Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo
Alto Commons.
ATTACHMENT F
1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes
ATTACHMENT G
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie
Attachment H
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in
Visitor Parking
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:49:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 6th and 7th supporting materials out of 7.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:47:57 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Counil,
This email includes the 5th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:47:04 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 4th of 7 supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:46:16 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the 3rd of 7 supporting materials.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:45:29 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:48:15 AM
Attachments:City Council Attachments PT 2_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
This email includes the second of 7 total supporting materials.
Sincerely,
Jenny
On Monday, December 22, 2025 at 09:42:32 AM PST, jenny chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
ATTACHMENT C
Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo
Alto Commons Bus
ATTACHMENT D
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally
Parking
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:4075 El Camino Way Public Comment for 1/12 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:44:44 AM
Attachments:1_12_26 City Council.pdf
City Council Attachments PT 1_7.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
Please see the attached materials related to my public comment on the 4075 El Camino Way project.
The first PDF contains the primary written portion of my comment. The subsequent attachments include
photographs and supporting materials referenced in that document.
Thank you for your time and for providing the opportunity to submit public comment.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Dear Members of the City Council
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto
Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7
internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood,
consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation.
When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with
neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened
recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with
additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to
uphold it.
Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise
When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any
additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in
1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property.
Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal
units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce
the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and
the PTC.
A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals (Attachment Q), including residents of
The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition
to any external expansion of the Commons.
Failure to Follow Council Direction
Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the
proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this
period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes.
38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance
Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A),
the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have
been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged
noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted.
Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved.
Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns
Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in
the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include:
● Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N)
● Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C)
● Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O)
● Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D)
● Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E)
● Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G)
● Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H)
● Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I)
● Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way
● Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J)
These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and
the PTC. As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O).
Reduced Parking and Future Impacts
Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an
area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking.
Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all
parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a
significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how
fully parked El Camino Way already is.
These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support.
Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation
Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad-faith
negotiation:
● An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting
rooms into offices, without reducing building mass.
● At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer
than 16 units was financially infeasible.
● Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while
continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.”
These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims.
Daylight Plane Violations
As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane
requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot
setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it
does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing, which
we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to
comply with either standard.
Our Request
We respectfully ask City Council to:
● Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation
● Approve only the 7 internal units
● Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood
● Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including
TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance
This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns
with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on
outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust,
and sound planning.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Palo Alto, CA
ATTACHMENT A
PC3775 (Original 1987 PC)
ATTACHMENT B
Construction Equipment in Parking
Spaces over Several Months
From:Stump, Molly
To:Benjamin David Goldberg
Cc:Council, City; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan
Subject:RE: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:35:15 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
Hello Mr. Goldberg –
The City of Palo Alto does not provide or sponsor individual accounts for Councilmembers on
Instagram or any other social media platform. Ms. Lythcott-Haims’ Instagram account is a
personal account. It is lawful for City officials to use their City title or role description, for
identification purposes, in their general personal life activities. As the as the Supreme Court
held last year in Lindke v. Freed, doing so does not convert those activities to governmental
conduct. Further, as the Supreme Court held explicitly in Lindke and as I explained to you
below, the inclusion of summaries or general information about governmental activity on an
official’s personal social media account does not constitute government action and is not
subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.
Molly Stump
City Attorney
From: Benjamin David Goldberg <goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 12:21 PM
To: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Re: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
There are still members of our community blocked on instagram on her official city council woman instagram. She uses this instagram to give city council meeting updates. I’m waiting on an update and for them to be unblocked. She can block whoever she wants on her personal instagr
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
There are still members of our community blocked on instagram on her official city council
woman instagram. She uses this instagram to give city council meeting updates. I’m waiting on
an update and for them to be unblocked. She can block whoever she wants on her personal
instagram but not the council member instagram. This is illegal
Powered by Mimecast
On Thursday, December 11, 2025, Benjamin David Goldberg
<goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com> wrote:
The account she blocked members of our community on is her official city council woman
instagram. Her personal instagram is jlythcotthaims. The image below julieforpaloalto
instagram has councilmeber as her title in the name. People were blocked on her council
member instagram and that is illegal
On Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Goldberg –
Please be advised that Ms. Lythcott-Haims did not engage in any unlawful activity with
respect to managing access to her Instagram account. Last year the Supreme Court held
that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social
media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable
for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when (1) they have
the power to speak on behalf of the government and (2) are actually exercising that power.
Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). Under Lindke, it is clear that Lythcott-Haims’
Instagram account is a personal account and that she retains discretion to determine
content and access to the site.
Regards,
Molly Stump
MOLLY S. STUMP
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
(650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Benjamin David Goldberg <goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding recent actions by Councilmember Julie
Lythcott-Haims and to request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next City
Hall meeting.
1. Blocking a Community Member Online After Political Disagreement
A Palo Alto resident recently reported being blocked by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims
on social media after expressing disagreement about her visit to a local school. As
established in multiple federal court rulings, elected officials may not block
constituents from public-facing social media accounts in retaliation for
political criticism or disagreement.
This raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I believe the City must address this
publicly. I am requesting that the Board review this incident and require accountability for
any improper blocking of community members. Residents deserve equal access to their
representatives, even—and especially—when they disagree. Julie must take immediate
action and unblock members of our community on her official julieforpaloalto instagram
account.
2. Clarification Regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ Visit to a School Campus
I also request clarification regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ recent appearance
at a Palo Alto elementary school. My understanding was that she had stepped away from
school-related assignments, and many parents were surprised to learn she was
addressing students.
Parents deserve transparency regarding:
• The purpose of her visit,
• In what official or unofficial capacity she attended,
• Who authorized the visit, and
• Whether this complies with the promises she made after her recent
scandal came out.
Given the concerns raised by families, many parents do not feel comfortable
with her returning to school grounds.
3. Request for Public Discussion at the Next City Hall Meeting
Because this issue involves parental trust, children’s school environments, and
constitutional rights, it is essential that it be discussed openly. I respectfully request that
the Board formally address this matter at the next City Hall meeting and provide the
community with a clear explanation of the City’s stance and next steps.
Thank you for your attention and for ensuring that Palo Alto’s elected officials uphold both
legal obligations and community expectations. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ben
From:Ellen Hartog
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Monday, December 22, 2025 9:19:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
From: Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net>
Date: December 22, 2025 at 8:55:39 AM PST
To: elh109@sbcglobal.net
Subject: The Commons
Dear honorable council
members,
I ask City Council to Approve only the 7 internal units as recommended by
the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC).
As a long time resident I was here during the approval of the original
construction and conditions of approval after huge negotiations with the
neighborhood. We compromised on height and density at that time and
finally agreed on the present configuration with conditions of approval this is
the extent of the massing. Today they are requesting to undermine the
neighborhood agreement. The existing situation has robbed light and air and
this design further erodes fundamental rights of property owner’s light and
air. This property is not a builders remedy and doesn’t contribute to the
housing element. They simply want to destroy the quality of life for
neighbors so to reap more money. They are an out of state franchise and
have no game in being a part of the neighborhood. The seniors they are
building units for have no idea how they impact us. They look into yards and
light at night floods into the yards. The Commons has proved they are
terrible neighbors parking on streets and under utilizing their own parking -
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
I have a formal complaint with code enforcement and have yet to see any
corrections since and continues to be very difficult to park with el Camino
parking removed. Please Enforce the conditions of approval, including
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), with real consequences.
Upon City Council's request, PTC carefully reviewed the project and
strengthened its recommendation (from 3-2 vote to 5-1) for only 7 units with
additional conditions.
Historical agreement (1986) promised no development on the Wilkie Way side;
neighbors already compromised by allowing 7
Developer violating existing PC Ordinance and using parking spaces for
construction equipment, parking in fire lanes, and causing overflow into nearby
streets such as Wilkie
The Commons are in non-compliance. Why do we expect them to be in
compliance with their proposed expansion?
Developer ignored Council’s direction to remove all third-floor units when the
project was sent back to PTC.
Parking and safety problems are serious and will worsen, with the recent loss
of parking on El Camino and planned removal on El Camino Way
Rooms cost $15K per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national
corporation that can afford to build only 7 units or expand on the El Camino Way
side instead.
Bottom line:
7 internal units is the maximum reasonable compromise.
Anything more increases safety risks, parking problems, and breaks past
agreements.
Please do not approve the Commons further destroying the neighborhood for a few more units
that ought to be built where there is space in front yard. This solution further destroys
property values for the entire street, people’s lives and quality they already compromised so
much. The units are not affordable and should have an environmental impact report done
because we can not trust them. For instance parking is not enough and the shadow study show
shadows stop on property lines, it’s not accurately portraying the reality. A proper
environmental report should be necessary.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Ellen Hartog
From:jenny chen
To:Council, City
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Kallas, Emily;
Lu, George; Lauing, Ed
Subject:The Palo Alto Commons project
Date:Sunday, December 21, 2025 7:48:08 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,
I am writing on behalf of Wilkie Way residents to respectfully but urgently ask the City
Council to approve only the 7 internal units for The Commons project, as recommended by
the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC).
Wilkie Way residents have acted in good faith, with empathy and compromise, even though
the historical agreements are clear that no expansion toward the neighborhood should
occur at all. In recognition of the need for senior housing and senior-serving facilities,
neighbors agreed—reluctantly—to allow 7 internal units as a reasonable compromise. That
compromise should be respected and treated as the absolute maximum.
The current proposal relies on outdated 1987 daylight plane rules rather than today’s code.
Allowing this would not only harm our neighborhood, but also set a dangerous precedent for
future development citywide. The Commons promised decades ago that it would not expand
toward Wilkie Way. Breaking that promise now erodes trust—not just with our neighborhood,
but with the community as a whole.
The developer’s shifting claims—from 16 units, to 13, to now asserting that 7 units are
“infeasible”—further undermine confidence. This is especially concerning given that rooms
reportedly rent for $15,000 per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national
corporation. They clearly have the financial capacity to limit expansion to 7 units or build on
the El Camino Way side instead of further impacting Wilkie Way.
Residents are already dealing with serious parking and safety issues, including blocked fire
lanes, parking spillover onto Wilkie Way, and the loss of parking along El Camino. These
impacts will only worsen if more units are added. The Commons is currently out of
compliance, which raises serious concerns about whether any future conditions would
actually be honored.
Seven internal units are not a starting point—they are the end point.
They represent the maximum compromise neighbors are willing to make, even though no
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
additional units should be allowed under past agreements.
Please hold the developer to today’s code, enforce strong conditions of approval (including
meaningful TDM requirements), and honor the commitments made to this neighborhood.
Thank you for standing up for community trust, public safety, and fair governance.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Wilkie Way Resident
From:michael ji
To:Council, City
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Request to Enforce Current Code and Limit The Commons Project to 7 Internal Units
Date:Sunday, December 21, 2025 7:33:47 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,
I respectfully request that the City Council approve only the 7 internal units for The
Commons project, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s 5–1
recommendation, and enforce strong, measurable conditions of approval.
The current proposal relies on obsolete 1987 daylight plane standards, despite being a new
project that should be evaluated under today’s municipal code. Allowing an exception in this
case would establish a precedent that undermines the City’s regulatory framework.
Historical agreements from 1986–1987 explicitly committed that The Commons would not
expand toward the Wilkie Way neighborhood. From a planning and land-use perspective,
this commitment remains relevant. While neighbors could reasonably oppose any additional
units, Wilkie Way residents demonstrated good-faith compromise by supporting up to 7
internal units due to the project’s senior-serving use. That compromise should be recognized
as the maximum allowable development, not a baseline for further expansion.
The developer’s inconsistent project descriptions—first 16 units, then 13, and now claiming 7
units are infeasible—raise concerns regarding project feasibility claims and credibility. This is
particularly notable given the project’s financial context: reported rents of $15,000 per month
and ownership by FJ Management, a national corporation with sufficient resources to
redesign the project or shift development to the El Camino Way frontage.
The project also presents ongoing compliance and enforcement concerns, including:
Violations of existing Planning Commission ordinances
Use of required parking spaces for construction equipment
Parking in fire lanes and overflow parking on Wilkie Way
Failure to comply with Council direction to remove all third-floor units when the project
was remanded to the PTC
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
Given the documented non-compliance, it is reasonable to question whether additional
conditions would be followed without strong enforcement mechanisms.
Parking and safety impacts are already significant and will be exacerbated by:
Recent loss of parking along El Camino
Planned removal of parking on El Camino Way
Conclusion:
Approval of only 7 internal units is the most defensible outcome from a policy, legal, and
planning standpoint. Any additional units would increase safety risks, worsen parking impacts,
violate historical commitments, and weaken the City’s ability to enforce its own code.
I urge the City Council to adopt the PTC’s recommendation, enforce robust TDM
requirements with clear consequences, and hold the applicant to both current regulations and
past agreements.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Micheal Ji
From:Shashank Divekar
To:Council, City
Cc:Kallas, Emily; Jayashree Divekar
Subject:Palo Alto Commons Expansion - Public Comment
Date:Sunday, December 21, 2025 3:02:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the City Council,
We (Jayashree and I - residents at 4054 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto, directly behind Palo Alto
Commons) are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the
Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve
only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1
neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC)
recommendation.
When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with
neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened
recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with
additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge
Council to uphold it.
A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals, including residents of The Avant
and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any
external expansion of the Commons.
Our (Neighbors) ask to City Council:
Approve only the 7 internal units recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission
(PTC).
Enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM),
with real consequences.
Why
Upon City Council's request, PTC carefully reviewed the project and strengthened its
recommendation (from 3-2 vote to 5-1) for only 7 units with additional conditions.
Historical agreement (1986) promised no development on the Wilkie Way side; neighbors
already compromised by allowing 7
Developer violating existing PC Ordinance and using parking spaces for construction
equipment, parking in fire lanes, and causing overflow into nearby streets such as Wilkie
The Commons are in non-compliance. Why do we expect them to be in compliance with their
proposed expansion?
Developer ignored Council’s direction to remove all third-floor units when the project was sent
back to PTC.
Parking and safety problems are serious and will worsen, with the recent loss of parking on El
Camino and planned removal on El Camino Way
Rooms cost $15K per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national corporation
that can afford to build only 7 units or expand on the El Camino Way side instead.
Daylight Plane Violations
As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight
plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150.
Loss of Property Value : As residents of Palo Alto, a City that prides itself on
its robust real estate and premier School District, we are very concerned of the
adverse impact on single family home values with the construction of new units
at Palo Alto Commons right across from us on the other side of our backyard
fence. Our next-door neighbors have sold their house and left.
Bottom line:
7 internal units is the maximum reasonable compromise.
Anything more increases safety risks, parking problems, and breaks past agreements.
Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
Shashank & Jayashree Divekar
From:Julie Baskind
To:Council, City
Cc:Kallas, Emily
Subject:Palo Alto Commons Project- 1/12/2026
Date:Sunday, December 21, 2025 11:41:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear CIty Council members:
As a long time resident and neighbor of the Palo Alto Commons, I urge you to:
Approve only the 7 internal units recommended by the Planning & Transportation
Commission (PTC).
Enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand
Management (TDM), with real consequences.
Why
Upon City Council's request, PTC carefully reviewed the project and
strengthened its recommendation (from 3-2 vote to 5-1) for only 7 units with
additional conditions.
Historical agreement (1986) promised no development on the Wilkie Way side;
neighbors already compromised by allowing 7
Developer violating existing PC Ordinance and using parking spaces for
construction equipment, parking in fire lanes, and causing overflow into nearby
streets such as Wilkie
The Commons are in non-compliance. Why do we expect them to be in compliance
with their proposed expansion?
Developer ignored Council’s direction to remove all third-floor units when the
project was sent back to PTC.
Parking and safety problems are serious and will worsen, with the recent loss of
parking on El Camino and planned removal on El Camino Way
Rooms cost $15K per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national
corporation that can afford to build only 7 units or expand on the El Camino Way side
instead.
Bottom line:
7 internal units is the maximum reasonable compromise.
Anything more increases safety risks, parking problems, and breaks past agreements.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Julie Baskind
From:Sarah Seeger
To:Council, City
Cc:Auzenne, Tom; Dailey, Karla; DiFranco, Rachel; Bailey, Diane; Abendschein, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Natural Gas Concerns
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 9:44:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I would like to speak out about the significant health effects of natural gas stoves. It is
extremely important that people are aware of this; many users of natural gas stoves are
clueless that they are being exposed to human carcinogens every time they cook. Improving
the health and wellbeing of Palo Alto residents is a very important priority, so we should
definitely make a bigger effort to improve rather than neglect it. I am sure that people would
be astonished if they knew they were worsening their air quality and being exposed to harmful
chemicals and carcinogens every time they used their stove. It would be great if city staff
could address concerns regarding the health impacts of natural gas stoves.
Personally, I know many people who have asthma and because of it, they have a limited
capability of enjoying personal hobbies and sports (like cross country). The use of gas stoves
is not helping; it is clearly making the situation even harder for people like my friends who
have asthma (or don't) by exposing us to respiratory irritants and pollutants. By doing nothing
to diminish the use of natural gas stoves, we are preventing people from doing things that
bring them joy.
It would be helpful if the city and utility staff could do more to address this problem head on
and reach out to start planning a solution and speaking out about the use of gas stoves.
Thank you!
Sarah
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Zackary Young
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: problems with billionaires
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 4:23:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Palo Alto seeks to crack down on tech billionaires, per the New York Post, who are perceived
as causing disruptions, dominating the community, and perpetuating a housing shortage. This
is understandable. But I assure you that the creation of large compounds in Palo Alto is a
positive trend. Maybe nearby communities could be sought out for the creation of such
compounds. One concern is that these tech titans have taken houses off the market in the
middle of a housing shortage. Although there are problems with housing availability, and high
prices, I think this housing shortage might be somewhat exaggerated. There are many places
where people can look for housing opportunities. This is one of them. Palo Alto should work
with both tech titans and the broader community, and bridge these divides. There is important
work being done in tech right now, including quantum and AI, and I don't want to see this
disrupted. Regardless, I think things in Palo Alto are going well. And I wish you luck.
Zackary Warren Young
12-19-2025
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:Informational Letter - Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 2:36:33 PM
Attachments:2025-12-10 Application for Alcoholic Beverage License.pdf
Dear City Councilmembers,
Please see the attached copy of an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License. This copy was
sent to the Council by the State for informational purposes.
Thank you,
City Clerk’s Office
From:Emily Coren
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Santa Clara County Medical Association: Recommendation on the Use of Artificial Turf
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 2:20:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
We are wondering what the process and timeline are for this issue moving forwards? Can you
please provide information about what that process will be?
Thank you,
Emily
Emily Coren
Director of Governance and Advocacy
Santa Clara County Medical Association
700 Empey Way, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95128
P: (408) 998-8850 x3011
F: (408) 289-1064
www.sccma.org
Membership | Upcoming Events
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
From: Emily Coren <emily@sccma.org>
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 5:08 PM
To: Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>,
Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>,
Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>, George.Lu@CityofPaloAlto.org
<George.Lu@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org
<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Keith.Reckdahl@CityofPaloAlto.org
<Keith.Reckdahl@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org
<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Marc Chow
<Marc@sccma.org>
Subject: Santa Clara County Medical Association: Recommendation on the Use of Artificial
Turf
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached letter regarding the Santa Clara County Medical Association's
recommendation on the use of artificial turf. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Emily
Emily Coren
Director of Governance and Advocacy
Santa Clara County Medical Association
700 Empey Way, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95128
P: (408) 998-8850 x3011
F: (408) 289-1064
www.sccma.org
Membership | Upcoming Events
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
From:Victoria S. Ramirez
To:Council, City
Cc:Molly Swenson (SHC); Jason Joseph Hill
Subject:2025 Annual Status Update on 2030 Seismic Requirements for Stanford Hospital
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 2:06:58 PM
Attachments:image001.png
SHC AB 1882 Notification - City Council[98].pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
In accordance with AB 1882 (2022), please find attached Stanford Health Care’s 2025 annual
status update and report on the 2030 seismic requirements for Stanford Hospital.
If you have any questions about these requirements, or the attached report, please do not
hesitate to reach out to me for further information.
Sincerely,
Victoria
VICTORIA S. RAMIREZ, MPA
she/her/hers
Director of State and Local Government Affairs
Stanford Health Care
Office of Government Affairs – Stanford University
1840 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
cell: 650-374-8729
vsramirez@stanford.edu
mailing address: 300 Pasteur Drive, M/C 5539, Stanford, CA 94305
Office of Government Affairs
Please note the Stanford Health Care Office of Government & Community Affairs'
upcoming office closure: 12/22/25 to 1/6/26.
Confidentiality notice: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the
designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and
attachments. Thank you.
December 19, 2025
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject:Annual Status Update on 2030 Seismic Requirements for Stanford Hospital
I am writing on behalf of Stanford Health Care to provide an annual status update on our hospital’s
progress in meeting the State of California’s 2030 seismic requirements. As you may know, all California
Access and Information. It lays out the state’s Structural Performance Category ratings of our buildings
Stanford Hospital has met the state’s 2020 requirements to remain standing after an earthquake. Our
—
—
—
vsramirez@stanford.edu
jtorai@stanford.edu
10035 Stanford Health Care
Bl
d
g
N
u
m
Bl
d
g
N
a
m
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Y
e
a
r
Nu
r
s
i
n
g
M
e
d
S
u
r
g
Su
r
g
i
c
a
l
An
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
a
P
A
C
U
Cl
i
n
i
c
a
l
L
a
b
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
y
Di
e
t
e
t
i
c
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
St
e
r
i
l
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Mo
r
g
u
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
E
V
S
La
u
n
d
r
y
L
i
n
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
IC
U
C
C
U
P
I
C
U
Bu
r
n
U
n
i
t
Ne
o
n
a
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
Pe
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ps
y
c
h
i
a
t
r
i
c
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
Ob
s
t
e
t
r
i
c
s
P
e
r
i
n
a
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
c
l
e
a
r
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
r
a
p
y
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Re
n
a
l
D
i
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
s
p
i
r
a
t
o
r
y
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
C
a
r
e
Ou
t
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sk
i
l
l
e
d
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
Ca
n
o
p
i
e
s
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
T
u
n
n
e
l
s
No
n
G
A
C
U
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
BLD-
02865
New Stanford
Hospital -
Generator
Building
2025 X
SPC 5
NPC 5
Earthquake Resilient
BLD-
05260
New Stanford
Hospital 2025 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SPC 5
NPC 5
Earthquake Resilient
BLD-
05880
New Stanford
Hospital -
Enclosure
2025 X
SPC 5
NPC 5
Earthquake Resilient
BLD-
05881
New Stanford
Hospital -
Utility Tunnel
2025 X SPC N/A
NPC 5
ATTACHMENT A: Building Services Report and Seismic Performance Ratings for New Stanford Hospital at 500 Pasteur Drive
X
2
STANFORD ENERGY
1 ;JATIONS
-----'~ ====gs<=
~ CONFORMING ACUTE
~ CARE STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
DD :~
D
D
D
[]
NON-CONFORMING ACllTE
CARE SIRUCTURES
0:::
:-'.)
w
f-
(./)
<(
0...
II NON-ACUTE
L__J CARE SIRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
May2015
Site/Campus Description
Stanford Hospital and Clinics is located on Welch Road at the northwest end of Stanford
University in Palo Alto, Ca lifornia.
The facility consists of multiple structures constructed in 1959, 1973, and 1984.
Buil ding Matrix
BUILDING# BUILDING NAME BUILDING TYPE YEAR BUILT SPC EXISTING NPC EXISTING
Concrele Shear 1 Central Core Wall 1959 2 2
Central Core West Concrete Shear
2 and East Wall 1959 1 2
Concrele Shear
3 Boswell Building Wall 1959 1 2
Concrele Shear 4 West Pavilion Wall 1959 2 2
Concrete Shear
5 EastPaviflOll Wall 1959 2 2
Phase I Cenbal Sleel Moment 6 Core ExDansion Frame 1973 3 2
Steel Braced
7 NuJSing Pod 'D' Frame 1983 4 2
Steel Braced
8 Nursing Pod 'E" Frame 1983 4 2
Steel Braced 9 NuJSing Pod 'F' Frame 1983 4 2
Diagoostic & Steel Moment
10 Treatment Center Frame 1983 3 2
Steel Moment 11 Atrium Frame 1983 3 2
Steel Moment 12 'P Pod Extension Frame 1984 3 2
13 NMRBuild'ing Demolished -
L.S.PaCllar<J Steel Moment 14 Children's Hospital Frame 1990 3 2
Concrete Shear
15 SOM Lane Building WaU 1960 1 2
Coocfete Shear 16 SOM Edwards Building Wall/Moment Frame 1960 1 2
Concrete Shear
17 SOM AN.ay BuTiding Wall 1960 1 2
Concrete Shear 18 SOM Grant Building WaD 1965 1 2
New Stanlool Hospital Concrete Shear
25 Generator BuildiM Wall 2017 5 5
26 Emergency Generator.; n/a 2002 4 2
27 New Stanford Hospital 2017 5 5
28 New LPCH Expansion -5 5 New LM,;H Loaoing
29 Dock -5 5
NewLPCHUlility
30 Tunnel . -5 5
31
New Stanforo Hospital
Bridae/Utilitv Tumel -5 5
North Steam Tunnel t"recast
32 Conaete Pipe 1958 2 2
South Steam Tunnel Precast
33 Conaete Pipe 1958 2 2
34 SHC-l.PCH steam Plant ·-5 5
36
stanforo Energy System
Innovations fSESll 2015 5 5
New Stanforo Hospital Steel Moment 37 Elevator/Stair Enclosure Frame 2017 5 5
NOTES:
'Building currenUy under design
OSHPDBLD#
02294
02295
02296
02297
02298
02299
02300
02301
02302
02303
02304
02305
02306
00286
02291
02290
02292
02293
llJ .. 1)-"""~ ~. :rao.
02801
,o5260l
05369
05370
05371
~i.o ··CJ ::OG :::;, I
~
05314
053 13
02802
02799
j)W) .(..l .. 'i)O~ • ...:rao-
-NPC/SPC Ratings from Central Energy Facility Seismic Evaluation. December 21,2000. WMRS Engineers. See study for details ·-Scheduled completion in 2016
·-·Scheduled completion in 2018
Stanford Health Care
Facility No. 10035 6/10/2025
Refer to Facility No. 16477
BLD-02865 - New Stanford
Hospital - Generator Building -
Bldg 32
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 5
BLD-05881 - New Stanford
Hospital - Utility Tunnel - Bldg 33
OSHPD 1 - Utility Tunnel - SPC
N/A NPC 5
BLD-05880 - New Stanford Hospital -
Elevator / Stair Enclosure - Bldg 31
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 5
BLD-05260 - New Stanford
Hospital - Bldg 30
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 5
Refer to Facility 10943
Refer to Facility No. 10943
LEGEND:
OSHPD 1
Seismic Separation
3
AB 1882 Purpose – Services and Performance Ratings
Assembly Bill 1882 requires each general acute care hospital operator to annually report the structural and
non-structural performance ratings for each individual hospital building used for providing care, and
services housed in each. Hospital operators are responsible to provide their report to specific public
entities and hospital stakeholders until seismic compliance is achieved for all buildings.
This document includes a brief explanation of Structural and Non-structural Performance Ratings,
along with details about services offered by the hospital. Additionally, it outlines the specific entities
and stakeholders to whom the facility is required to submit the report. Furthermore, the document
contains the facilities’ site plan, building numbers and names, and a comprehensive table detailing the
ratings of acute care services housed within each building.
Structural and Non-structural Performance Ratings: The Structural Performance Category (SPC) of a
hospital building, akin to bones and muscles in the human body, signifies its primary strength and stability,
ranging from the strongest SPC-5 to the weakest SPC-1. Non-structural Performance Category (NPC), like
organs in the human body, includes systems and equipment vital for daily operations, rated from
functional NPC-5 to system risk to life NPC-1. Both SPC and NPC are crucial, collectively defining a
hospital's effectiveness and quality of care.
Acute Care Services: General acute care services are grouped into four categories:
•Required clinical services: Nursing, Surgery, Anesthesia, Imaging, Laboratory, Pharmacy, Dietetic
•Required support services: Administration, Environmental Services, General Stores, Linen, Morgue
•Supplemental services – optional services requiring special licensure: Critical Care,
Emergency, Pediatric, Psychiatric, Obstetric, Rehabilitation, Skilled Nursing, others
•Infrastructure – buildings that provide utilities and support circulation: Central Plants,
canopies, corridor buildings, tunnels, skybridges
Report Distribution: Hospitals are required to issue reports to the following organizations and
stakeholders:
•Local county board of supervisors
•Local city council, if applicable
•Any labor union representing employees working in buildings not fully conforming
•Special district or joint power agencies providing fire and emergency medical services district, if
applicable
•Department of Health Care Access and Information
•Board of directors of the hospital
•Local office of emergency services or equivalent
•Office of Emergency Services
•Medical health operational area coordinator
Page 1 of 13
ATTACHMENT B: Building Services Report and Seismic Performance Ratings for Stanford Hospital
at 300 Pasteur Drive
2025 Hospital Seismic Performance Report
AB 1882
4
10943 Stanford Health Care
Bl
d
g
N
u
m
Bl
d
g
N
a
m
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Y
e
a
r
Nu
r
s
i
n
g
M
e
d
S
u
r
g
Su
r
g
i
c
a
l
An
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
a
P
A
C
U
Cl
i
n
i
c
a
l
L
a
b
Im
a
g
i
n
g
R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
D
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c
I
m
a
g
i
n
g
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
y
Di
e
t
e
t
i
c
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
St
e
r
i
l
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Mo
r
g
u
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
E
V
S
La
u
n
d
r
y
L
i
n
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
IC
U
C
C
U
P
I
C
U
Bu
r
n
U
n
i
t
Ne
o
n
a
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
Pe
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ps
y
c
h
i
a
t
r
i
c
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
Ob
s
t
e
t
r
i
c
s
P
e
r
i
n
a
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
c
l
e
a
r
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
r
a
p
y
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Re
n
a
l
D
i
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
s
p
i
r
a
t
o
r
y
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
C
a
r
e
Ou
t
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sk
i
l
l
e
d
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
Ca
n
o
p
i
e
s
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
T
u
n
n
e
l
s
No
n
G
A
C
U
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
BLD-
02294 Central Core 2025 X X X X X X Offices
SPC: 2
NPC: 3
This building does not
significantly jeopardize
life, but may not be
repairable or functional
BLD-
02297 West Pavilion 2025 X X X X Offices
SPC: 2
NPC: 3
This building does not
significantly jeopardize
life, but may not be
repairable or functional
BLD-
02298 East Pavilion 2025 X X X Offices
SPC: 2
NPC: 3
This building does not
significantly jeopardize
life, but may not be
repairable or functional
BLD-
02299
Phase 1
Central Core
Expansion
2025 X X X X X X X X X X X X
SPC: 3s
NPC: 2
BLD-
02300 Nursing Pod D 2025 X X X X X
SPC: 4
NPC: 4
BLD-
02301 Nursing Pod E 2025 X X X X X
SPC: 4
NPC: 2
Page 1 of 4
X
5
10943 Stanford Health Care
Bl
d
g
N
u
m
Bl
d
g
N
a
m
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Y
e
a
r
Nu
r
s
i
n
g
M
e
d
S
u
r
g
Su
r
g
i
c
a
l
An
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
a
P
A
C
U
Cl
i
n
i
c
a
l
L
a
b
Im
a
g
i
n
g
R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
D
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c
I
m
a
g
i
n
g
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
y
Di
e
t
e
t
i
c
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
St
e
r
i
l
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Mo
r
g
u
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
E
V
S
La
u
n
d
r
y
L
i
n
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
IC
U
C
C
U
P
I
C
U
Bu
r
n
U
n
i
t
Ne
o
n
a
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
Pe
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ps
y
c
h
i
a
t
r
i
c
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
Ob
s
t
e
t
r
i
c
s
P
e
r
i
n
a
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
c
l
e
a
r
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
r
a
p
y
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Re
n
a
l
D
i
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
s
p
i
r
a
t
o
r
y
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
C
a
r
e
Ou
t
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sk
i
l
l
e
d
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
Ca
n
o
p
i
e
s
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
T
u
n
n
e
l
s
No
n
G
A
C
U
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
BLD-
02302 Nursing Pod F 2025 X X
SPC: 4
NPC: 3
BLD-
02303
Diagnostic
Treatment
Center
2025 X X X X X X X X X Offices
SPC: 3s
NPC: 2
BLD-
02304 Atrium 2025 X
SPC: 3s
NPC: 3
BLD-
02305
F Pod
Extension 2025 X X X
SPC: 3s
NPC: 2
BLD-
02799 OSHPD Plant 2025 X
SPC: 5
NPC: 4
BLD-
02800
OSHPD
Electrical
Equipment
Yard
2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
Page 2 of 46
10943 Stanford Health Care
Bl
d
g
N
u
m
Bl
d
g
N
a
m
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Y
e
a
r
Nu
r
s
i
n
g
M
e
d
S
u
r
g
Su
r
g
i
c
a
l
An
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
a
P
A
C
U
Cl
i
n
i
c
a
l
L
a
b
Im
a
g
i
n
g
R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
D
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c
I
m
a
g
i
n
g
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
y
Di
e
t
e
t
i
c
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
St
e
r
i
l
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Mo
r
g
u
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
E
V
S
La
u
n
d
r
y
L
i
n
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
IC
U
C
C
U
P
I
C
U
Bu
r
n
U
n
i
t
Ne
o
n
a
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
Pe
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ps
y
c
h
i
a
t
r
i
c
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
Ob
s
t
e
t
r
i
c
s
P
e
r
i
n
a
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
c
l
e
a
r
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
r
a
p
y
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Re
n
a
l
D
i
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
s
p
i
r
a
t
o
r
y
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
C
a
r
e
Ou
t
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sk
i
l
l
e
d
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
Ca
n
o
p
i
e
s
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
T
u
n
n
e
l
s
No
n
G
A
C
U
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
BLD-
02801
OSHPD
Emergency
Generator
2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
02802
OSHPD
Cooling
Towers
2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
02803 Grade Fuel
Tanks
2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
02866
Modular
Steam Plant 2025 X
SPC: 5
NPC: 4
BLD-
03435
Utility
Substation 2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
03436
Emergency
Generator 2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
Page 3 of 47
10943 Stanford Health Care
Bl
d
g
N
u
m
Bl
d
g
N
a
m
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Y
e
a
r
Nu
r
s
i
n
g
M
e
d
S
u
r
g
Su
r
g
i
c
a
l
An
e
s
t
h
e
s
i
a
P
A
C
U
Cl
i
n
i
c
a
l
L
a
b
Im
a
g
i
n
g
R
a
d
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
D
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c
I
m
a
g
i
n
g
Ph
a
r
m
a
c
y
Di
e
t
e
t
i
c
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
St
e
r
i
l
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Mo
r
g
u
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
E
V
S
La
u
n
d
r
y
L
i
n
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
IC
U
C
C
U
P
I
C
U
Bu
r
n
U
n
i
t
Ne
o
n
a
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
U
n
i
t
Pe
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ps
y
c
h
i
a
t
r
i
c
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
Ob
s
t
e
t
r
i
c
s
P
e
r
i
n
a
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
c
l
e
a
r
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e
r
a
p
y
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Re
n
a
l
D
i
a
l
y
s
i
s
Re
s
p
i
r
a
t
o
r
y
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
C
a
r
e
Ou
t
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Sk
i
l
l
e
d
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
Ca
n
o
p
i
e
s
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
T
u
n
n
e
l
s
No
n
G
A
C
U
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
BLD-
03437
Utility
Substation 2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
05867
North Feed
Steam Tunnel
(OSHPD)
2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
06995
Breezeway
Building 2025 X
SPC: 3
NPC: 3
BLD-
06996 Tank Yard 2025 X
SPC: N/A
NPC: 4
BLD-
07004
Waste
Management
Building
2025 X X
SPC: 4
NPC: 4
BLD-
07289
300P
Emergency
Generator
Yard
2025 X SPC: N/A
NPC: 4s
Page 4 of 48
STANFORD ENERGY
1 ;JATIONS
-----'~ ====gs<=
~ CONFORMING ACUTE
~ CARE STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
DD :~
D
D
D
[]
NON-CONFORMING ACllTE
CARE SIRUCTURES
0:::
:-'.)
w
f-
(./)
<(
0...
II NON-ACUTE
L__J CARE SIRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
May2015
Site/Campus Description
Stanford Hospital and Clinics is located on Welch Road at the northwest end of Stanford
University in Palo Alto, Ca lifornia.
The facility consists of multiple structures constructed in 1959, 1973, and 1984.
Buil ding Matrix
BUILDING# BUILDING NAME BUILDING TYPE YEAR BUILT SPC EXISTING NPC EXISTING
Concrele Shear 1 Central Core Wall 1959 2 2
Central Core West Concrete Shear
2 and East Wall 1959 1 2
Concrele Shear
3 Boswell Building Wall 1959 1 2
Concrele Shear 4 West Pavilion Wall 1959 2 2
Concrete Shear
5 EastPaviflOll Wall 1959 2 2
Phase I Cenbal Sleel Moment 6 Core ExDansion Frame 1973 3 2
Steel Braced
7 NuJSing Pod 'D' Frame 1983 4 2
Steel Braced
8 Nursing Pod 'E" Frame 1983 4 2
Steel Braced 9 NuJSing Pod 'F' Frame 1983 4 2
Diagoostic & Steel Moment
10 Treatment Center Frame 1983 3 2
Steel Moment 11 Atrium Frame 1983 3 2
Steel Moment 12 'P Pod Extension Frame 1984 3 2
13 NMRBuild'ing Demolished -
L.S.PaCllar<J Steel Moment 14 Children's Hospital Frame 1990 3 2
Concrete Shear
15 SOM Lane Building WaU 1960 1 2
Coocfete Shear 16 SOM Edwards Building Wall/Moment Frame 1960 1 2
Concrete Shear
17 SOM AN.ay BuTiding Wall 1960 1 2
Concrete Shear 18 SOM Grant Building WaD 1965 1 2
New Stanlool Hospital Concrete Shear
25 Generator BuildiM Wall 2017 5 5
26 Emergency Generator.; n/a 2002 4 2
27 New Stanford Hospital 2017 5 5
28 New LPCH Expansion -5 5 New LM,;H Loaoing
29 Dock -5 5
NewLPCHUlility
30 Tunnel . -5 5
31
New Stanforo Hospital
Bridae/Utilitv Tumel -5 5
North Steam Tunnel t"recast
32 Conaete Pipe 1958 2 2
South Steam Tunnel Precast
33 Conaete Pipe 1958 2 2
34 SHC-l.PCH steam Plant ·-5 5
36
stanforo Energy System
Innovations fSESll 2015 5 5
New Stanforo Hospital Steel Moment 37 Elevator/Stair Enclosure Frame 2017 5 5
NOTES:
'Building currenUy under design
OSHPDBLD#
02294
02295
02296
02297
02298
02299
02300
02301
02302
02303
02304
02305
02306
00286
02291
02290
02292
02293
llJ .. 1)-"""~ ~. :rao.
02801
,o5260l
05369
05370
05371
~i.o ··CJ ::OG :::;, I
~
05314
053 13
02802
02799
j)W) .(..l .. 'i)O~ • ...:rao-
-NPC/SPC Ratings from Central Energy Facility Seismic Evaluation. December 21,2000. WMRS Engineers. See study for details ·-Scheduled completion in 2016
·-·Scheduled completion in 2018
2,848.75 sf3,011.11 sf
Stanford Health Care
Facility No. 10943 11/12/2025
BLD-02299 - Phase 1 Central Core
Expansion - Bldg 06
OSHPD 1 - SPC 3s NPC 2
BLD-02303 - Diagnostic Treatment
Center - Bldg 10
OSHPD 1 - SPC 3s NPC 2
BLD-02305 - F Pod Extension - Bldg 12
OSHPD 1 - SPC 3s NPC 2
BLD-02302 - Nursing Pod F - Bldg 09
OSHPD 1 - SPC 4 NPC 3
BLD-02301 - Nursing Pod E - Bldg 08
OSHPD 1 - SPC 4 NPC 2
BLD-02304 - Atrium - Bldg 11
OSHPD 1 - SPC 3s NPC 3
BLD-02290 - Edwards
Building-Med School - Bldg 16
OSHPD 1R - No Gen Acute Care
BLD-02296 - Boswell Building -
Bldg 03
OSHPD 1R - No Gen Acute Care
BLD-02294 - Central Core -
Bldg 01
OSHPD 1 - SPC 2 NPC 3
BLD-02291 - Lane Building
- Med School - Bldg 15
OSHPD 1R - No Gen
Acute Care
BLD-02292 - Alway
Building - Med
School - Bldg 17
OSHPD 1R - No
Gen Acute Care
BLD-02298 - East
Pavilion - Bldg 05
OSHPD 1 - SPC 2
NPC 3
Refer to Facility No. 16477
BLD-02293 - Grant Building - Med
School - Bldg 18
OSHPD 1R - No Gen Acute Care
BLD-02295 - Central Core
- East and West - Bldg 02
OSHPD 1R - No Gen
Acute Care
BLD-05867 - North Feed Steam Tunnel
(OSHPD) - Bldg T2A
OSHPD 1 - Utility Tunnel - SPC N/A NPC 4
For Enlarged Plan - See Page 3
For Enlarged Plan - See Page 2
For Enlarged Plan
- See Page 4
BLD-06568 - Nursing Pod EX - Bldg 40
OSHPD 1 - Under Construction
BLD-06567 - Nursing Pod DX - Bldg 39
OSHPD 1 - Under Construction
BLD-02300 - Nursing
Pod D - Bldg 07
OSHPD 1 - SPC 4
NPC 4
Refer to Facility 10035
BLD-06849 -
Pediatric ED
Canopy - Bldg 37
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5
NPC 4
BLD-02297 - West Pavilion -
Bldg 04
OSHPD 1 - SPC 2 NPC 3
BLD-06995 Breezeway Building - Bldg 41
OSHPD 1 - SPC 3 NPC 3
BLD-07004 - Waste Management Bldg -
Bldg 43
OSHPD 1 - SPC 4 NPC 4
BLD-06996- Liquid
Oxygen Tank Yard -
Bldg 42
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A
NPC 4
LEGEND:
OSHPD 1
OSHPD 1 - SPC 1 or SPC 2
OSHPD 1R or OSHPD 3
Local
Seismic Separation
9
STOP
DO NOT
ENTER
E
E
E
S
TS
UP
MV
~
~
C
C
C
C
C
MBOX
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DN
FEC
FE
C
J
J J
UP
QUARRY ROAD
QUARRY ROAD EXTENSION
(E) PHASE 1(E) HMP(E) LPCH
(E) REDUNDANT
(E) GARDEN SHED
(E
)
M
S
Q
0
2
0
(E
)
M
S
Q
0
2
5
(E
)
6
5
0
K
W
G
E
N
40,00 GALS. UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK
FU
T
U
R
E
L
P
C
H
PA
R
A
L
L
E
L
I
N
G
G
E
A
R
FU
T
U
R
E
L
P
C
H
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
O
R
FU
T
U
R
E
L
P
C
H
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
O
R
FU
T
U
R
E
L
P
C
H
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
O
R
FIRE PUMP HOUSE
101
FIRE PUMP HOUSE
101
40,00 GALS. UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
4'2'8'12'0'
NSTANFORD HEALTH CARE
SITE PLAN
08/28/24
'
"' I
-17"-~/-//-
-
'
L I
1 1 1-tt-'1--.':':==_=_=_=_=_=_==~~~~~~==="===="==:_!:;:"'."'."~""""'.~~ ... :""'.~L--_I
I '\.'---"------"'-....__ .. .. I
r::..::;1=="==="'=::!~ .. ==~-.. ~"';_;-; .. ;~-;;;-"~,,,_~ .. ;~-;;;-"~~-~~ .. ~;;-~ .. ~~-~;;;; .. ~~..---==--;;~~~~:...: .. ::::_ .. """'" .. "" .. ="" -~""~,"'t-t
RAMP UP ..
-~ .. ~.~ .. = .. ~ .. = .. ~ .. ~ .. = .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~1 ------
V I "' 'W V "' 'W ...V 'W "' "' V "'
"' "' \V "'
"' "' \V ""
~ "' -"' "' "
------
Stanford Health Care
Facility No.10943
BLD-02866 - Modular
Steam Plant - Bldg 100A
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 4
BLD-03435 - Utility
Substation - Bldg 100B
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 4
BLD-03436 - Emergency
Generator - Bldg 100C
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A
NPC 4
BLD-03437 - Utility
Substation - Bldg 100D
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5
NPC 4
MODULAR STEAM PLANT
(INCREMENT 2)
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
SP
-
M
D
P
Non OSHPD
Building - COPA
Jursdiction
BLD-07288 300P
Fire Pump House -
Bldg 101
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5
NPC 4
BLD-07289 300P Emergency
Generator Yard - Bldg 102
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A NPC 4s
REFER TO FACILITY
NO. 16477
BLD-07651 FT-01 Fuel
Tank - Bldg 103
OSHPD 1 - Tank -
SPC N/A NPC 5
BLD-07652 FT-02 Fuel
Tank - Bldg 104
OSHPD 1 - Tank -
SPC N/A NPC 5
LEGEND:
OSHPD 1
Seismic Separation
10
DN
DN
UP
UP
OSHPD FUEL TANKS
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
FREMONT ROAD
SEARSVILLE ROAD
OAK ROAD
TIGER SALAMANDER BOUNDARY
HEAT
RECOVERY
PLANT
STORAGE &
WORKSHOPS
CWT-1
CWT-2
HWT
ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION
LAYDOWN YARD
OSHPD PLANT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
SAFETY FACILITY
EXISTING ESF PARKING
ADMIN.
SECURITY
GATES, TYP
OSHPD COOLING TOWERS
BIORETENTION BASIN
BIORETENTION
BASIN
BIORETENTION BASIN
BIORETENTION BASIN
SECURITY
GATES, TYP
OSHPD ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
NON OSHPD
PLANT
SHOWN
SCREENED
TYPICALOSHPD
GENERATOR
HEADWALL
BELOW
A1.10-O
1OSHPD VFD
CANOPIES, SEE
1" = 40'-0"A1.01-O
1 SITE PLAN
NOTES:
1.FINISHED SITEWORK AND LANDSCAPE IS NOT IN OSHPD SCOPE OF WORK
TYPICAL.
2.SCREENED BUILDING AREAS AND SUBSTATION NOT PART OF THIS OSHPD
SCOPE OF WORK.
BLD-02802 - OSHPD
Cooling Towers - Bldg 28
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A NPC 4
BLD-02800 - OSHPD Electrical
Equipment Yard - Bldg 26
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A NPC 4
BLD-02799 - OSHPD
Plant - Bldg 25
OSHPD 1 - SPC 5 NPC 4
BLD-02801 - OSHPD Emergency
Generator - Bldg 27
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A NPC 4
BLD-02803 - OSHPD Above
Grade Fuel Tanks - Bldg 29
OSHPD 1 - SPC N/A NPC 4
Stanford Health Care
Facility No. 10943
LEGEND:
OSHPD 1
Seismic Separation
11
~ CONFORMINGACUTE ~ CARE STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
DD:~
D
D
D
[J
NON-CONFORM ING ACUTE
CARE STRUCTURES
a:
::'.)
w
f-
(/)
<(
Q_
r--J NON-ACUTE
L__J CARE STRUCTURES
SITE PLAN
May2015
Site/Cam pus Description
Stanford Hospital and Cl inics is located on Wel ch Road at the nortt
Un iversity in Palo Alto, California.
The facility consists of multiple structures constructed in 1959, 197.
Building Matrix
BUILDING# BUILDING NAME BUILDING TYPE YEAR BUILT SPCEXIS
Concrele Shear • 1 Cenlral Core Wall 1959 2
Cenlral Core Wesl Concrele Shear 2 and East Wall 1959 1
Concrele Shear 3 Boswell Building Wall 1959 1
Concrele Shear 4 West Pavilion Wall 1959 2
Concrete Shear 5 East Pavilion Wall 1959 2
Phase I CenJral Sleel Moment 6 Core Emansioo Frame 1973 3
Steel Braced 7 Nursing Pod 'D' Frame 1983 4
Steel Braced
8 Nursing Pod 'P Frame 1983 4
steel Braced
9 Nursing Pod 'F" Frame 1983 4
Diagnostic & Sleel Moment 10 Trealment Center Frame 1983 3
Sleel Momeni 11 Atrium Frame 1983 3
Steel Moment
12 'F" Pod Exlensioo Frame 1984 3
13 NMRBuilcfing Demolished -
L.~. l'aC11<110 Sleel Moment
14 Chndren's Hospilal Frame 1990 3
Concrete Shear 15 SOM Lane Building wan 1960 1
Conaete Shear
16 SOM Edwards Building Wall/Momeni Frame 1960 1
Concrele Shear 17 SOM Alway Building Wall 1960 1
Concrele Shear 18 SOM Grant Building Wall 1965 1
New Slanfunj Hospital Coocrele Shear 25 Generator BU1ldina WaU 2017 5
26 Emergency Generalors nla 2002 4
27 New Sianford Hospital 2017 5
28 New LPCH Expansioo '" 5
29
r<ew LrVM Loading
Dock '" 5
30
New LPCH Ubl ily
Tunnel -5
31
New Slanford Hospital
BridQeJUtilitv Tumel -· 5
North Steam Tunnel t'recast
32 Concrele Pipe 1958 2
Sou1h Stearn Tunnel !'recast
33 Concrete Pipe 1958 2
34 SHC-1..PCH S1eam Planl '" 5
~tanford Energy System
36 Innovations fSESll 2015 5
New Stanford Hospilal Sleel Moment 37 Elevalor/Slair Enclosure Frame 2017 5
NOTES:
'Building amen Uy under design
"NPC/SPC Ralings from Cenlral Energy Facility Seismic Evaluation. December 21,2000. WMRS En
"" Scheduled completion in 2016
'"'Scheduled completion in 2018
2,848.75 sf3,011.11 sf
BLD-05314 - North Feed Steam
Tunnel - Bldg T2
Local
BLD-02308 - Cogen
Building - Bldg 19
Local
BLD-05619 -
Storage Building -
Bldg 20B
Local
BLD-05313 - Original
Steam Tunnel - Bldg T1
Local
BLD-02310 - Cooling Tower #3 - Bldg 21
Local
BLD-02311 - Cooling
Tower #4 - Bldg 22
Local
BLD-03803 - Cooling Tower #2 - Bldg 24
Local
BLD-03802 - Cooling Tower #1 - Bldg 23
Local
BLD-03804 -
Cogen Building -
Office & Control
Room - Bldg 19A
Local
BLD-02309 - Boiler Building - Bldg 20
Local
Stanford Health Care
Facility No. 10943
Delicensed Buildings
Refer to Facility No. 16477
Refer to Facility 10035
LEGEND:
OSHPD 1
OSHPD 1 - SPC 1 or SPC 2
OSHPD 1R or OSHPD 3
Local
Seismic Separation
12
General Acute Care Hospital Building Services – Glossary
Service Category Description
Basic Clinical Services Required for hospital licensure
Nursing - General Medical/Surgical
General inpatient nursing bed units.
•Includes post-intensive care or
transitional care/telemetry units
•Excludes specialty nursing units
Surgical
Surgery Department -
•Includes patient preparation unit and
operating rooms
•Hybrid operating rooms (in-room CT,
MRI, other intraoperative surgery
modalities)
Anesthesia, Post Anesthesia Care
Unit Post surgery recovery unit
Clinical Laboratory Laboratory services
Imaging, Radiological/Diagnostic
Imaging X-Ray, Fluoroscopy, CT, MRI,
Ultrasound, Mammography
Pharmacy Main Pharmacy
•Excludes in-unit medication rooms
Dietetic
Patient meal preparation kitchen, servery
& dining
•Includes emergency food storage
location
•Excludes snack bars, unit food
storage & break rooms
13
Basic Support Services Required for hospital operations
Administration Main hospital administration location
•Excludes department administration
Sterile Processing Main instrument sterilization,
reprocessing and sterile storage
General Storage
Main Materials Management single
location
•Includes loading dock, gas storage
and similar general storage locations
•Excludes unit and specialty storage
uses
Morgue
Includes morgue, autopsy, pathology
and body holding. Not required for all
facilities.
Employee Dressing Locker rooms
Housekeeping/Environmental
Services
Main Environmental Services Office
location
Laundry/Linen Laundry, or Main Linen Storage location if
using offsite laundry services
Supplemental Services Optional clinical services
Special Procedures Cardiac Catheterization Labs,
Interventional Radiology, Angiography
Intensive Care/Coronary
Care/Pediatric ICU Critical care inpatient nursing units for
general, cardiovascular or pediatric
patients
14
Burn Unit Specialized inpatient critical care unit
with specialized capability to treat burns
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Specialized intensive care unit for
newborns
Pediatric/Adolescent Nursing Unit
Principal bed type for Children’s’ Hospital
or specialized unit if in a general acute
care hospital
Psychiatric Nursing Specialized inpatient unit for acute
psychiatric patients
Obstetrics/Perinatal Unit
Specialized inpatient units for birthing.
•Includes labor rooms, delivery rooms,
C-Section rooms, post-partum rooms,
Labor, Delivery and Recovery Rooms
(LDR’s), Labor, Delivery, Recovery &
Post-Partum Rooms (LDRP’s) and
well-baby nurseries
Emergency Emergency Departments
•Includes Trauma Rooms
Nuclear Medicine Specialized inpatient and outpatient
imaging and cardiac testing
Rehabilitation Therapy
Therapy services for inpatients and
outpatients
•Includes Physical Therapy (PT),
Occupational Therapy (OT) and
Speech Therapy
Physical Rehabilitation Nursing Unit Specialized inpatient unit for Acute
Rehabilitation patients with therapy to
support return to normal daily living
15
Renal Dialysis
Centralized inpatient/outpatient unit for
providing dialysis care.
•Excludes bedside dialysis care
Respiratory Care Respiratory Care department’s main
office and specialized storage
Intermediate Care
Specialized long-term inpatient care for
developmentally disabled persons or
those not requiring skilled nursing.
Uncommon in general acute care
hospitals
Outpatient Services Unspecified licensed outpatient services
provided in a hospital building
Skilled Nursing Care Post-acute long term skilled nursing units
Infrastructure Support for site operations
Central Plan/Utility Buildings
Buildings providing principal utility
origination
•Includes central plants, boiler,
electrical and chiller buildings, utility
yards, bulk oxygen vessels, pump
houses, etc.
•Includes main computer server rooms
•Excludes distributed utility closets
Canopies/Corridor Buildings/Tunnels
Hospital buildings supporting circulation.
Includes
•structurally free-standing canopies
•buildings that only house connecting
corridors
•underground tunnels
Excludes:
•Canopies attached to other structures
•Corridors in buildings with other
occupiable uses
16
From:Benjamin David Goldberg
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 12:21:26 PM
Attachments:image002.png
IMG_6007.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
There are still members of our community blocked on instagram on her official city council
woman instagram. She uses this instagram to give city council meeting updates. I’m waiting
on an update and for them to be unblocked. She can block whoever she wants on her personal
instagram but not the council member instagram. This is illegal
On Thursday, December 11, 2025, Benjamin David Goldberg
<goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com> wrote:
The account she blocked members of our community on is her official city council woman
instagram. Her personal instagram is jlythcotthaims. The image below julieforpaloalto
instagram has councilmeber as her title in the name. People were blocked on her council
member instagram and that is illegal
On Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Goldberg –
Please be advised that Ms. Lythcott-Haims did not engage in any unlawful activity with
respect to managing access to her Instagram account. Last year the Supreme Court held
that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social
media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable
for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when (1) they have
the power to speak on behalf of the government and (2) are actually exercising that power.
Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). Under Lindke, it is clear that Lythcott-Haims’
Instagram account is a personal account and that she retains discretion to determine
content and access to the site.
Regards,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Molly Stump
MOLLY S. STUMP
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
(650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Benjamin David Goldberg <goldbergbenjamindavid@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Formal complaint regarding Julie’s illegal activity
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding recent actions by Councilmember Julie
Lythcott-Haims and to request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next City
Hall meeting.
1. Blocking a Community Member Online After Political Disagreement
A Palo Alto resident recently reported being blocked by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims
on social media after expressing disagreement about her visit to a local school. As
established in multiple federal court rulings, elected officials may not block
constituents from public-facing social media accounts in retaliation for political
criticism or disagreement.
This raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I believe the City must address this
publicly. I am requesting that the Board review this incident and require accountability for
any improper blocking of community members. Residents deserve equal access to their
representatives, even—and especially—when they disagree. Julie must take immediate
action and unblock members of our community on her official julieforpaloalto instagram
account.
2. Clarification Regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ Visit to a School Campus
I also request clarification regarding Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ recent appearance
at a Palo Alto elementary school. My understanding was that she had stepped away from
school-related assignments, and many parents were surprised to learn she was addressing
students.
Parents deserve transparency regarding:
• The purpose of her visit,
• In what official or unofficial capacity she attended,
• Who authorized the visit, and
• Whether this complies with the promises she made after her recent
scandal came out.
Given the concerns raised by families, many parents do not feel comfortable with her
returning to school grounds.
3. Request for Public Discussion at the Next City Hall Meeting
Because this issue involves parental trust, children’s school environments, and
constitutional rights, it is essential that it be discussed openly. I respectfully request that
the Board formally address this matter at the next City Hall meeting and provide the
community with a clear explanation of the City’s stance and next steps.
Thank you for your attention and for ensuring that Palo Alto’s elected officials uphold
both legal obligations and community expectations. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ben
From:Bill McLane
To:Marguerite Poyatos
Cc:staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com;
rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno;
Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; 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; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei;
Diana Ma
Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 9:57:18 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Sure be nice to tell those cars to have. It moved in over 72 hours. No reason why that can’t be
done.
Bill McLane
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-7000
www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 8:49 AM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
wrote:
Following up on the past email that was not responded to or acknowledged regarding one of
the RV's stealing electricity from a business located in our neighborhood.
Please do a 72 hour tow notice and ENFORCE it. Attached is an image I just took of
Transport Street, as well as a google aerial of the street. An entire side of the street is being
taken up by RV's and vehicles associated with RV's except for one car. None of them move.
Even after the last 72 hour noticed were put on vehicles, none of them moved. There are
RV's/vehicles that have been in the same spot since at least 2023. Enforcement is key, or
else tax payers' money is being wasted and its really nothing more than an empty gesture.
These RV's are not just an obstruction for employee and customer parking, which affects the
businesses on the street. It is a safety concern. With there being not a single designated cross
walk in this area, there is no where safe for pedestrians to cross the street. RV's obstruct the
view of the pedestrians trying to step out in the street, as well as that of anyone driving down
Please, do something.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:45 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Afternoon,
This is what I found on my morning walk on Commercial Street.
This is an example of the rampant criminal activity that goes on around here. In this video, we see an
unhitched trailer with no plate, no registration, and numerous other violations. They are clearly
stealing electricity from 974 Commercial Street. Based on a quick GOOGLE search, I found out that
such actions are illegal. Here is what I found, just in case you are not aware of the law.
In California, stealing electricity is a crime under Penal Code (PC) 498 and is
punished as a misdemeanor for theft under $950 in damages, or as a felony for
theft of $950 or more. Tampering with, damaging, or illegally connecting to
electrical lines can also lead to charges under PC 591 or PC 593, which can be a
misdemeanor or felony with penalties including jail time, significant fines, and
Key laws and penalties
PC 498 (Theft of Utility Service):
Misdemeanor: Stealing utility services where the loss is less than $950.
Felony: Stealing utility services where the loss is $950 or more, or if the person
has a prior conviction for utility theft.
Actions: This includes diverting services, tampering with meters, making
unauthorized connections, or using services with the knowledge that they were
obtained illegally.
PC 591 (Damaging Phone or Electrical Lines):
Misdemeanor or Felony: Maliciously damaging or obstructing electrical or
telephone lines.
Actions: This can include cutting, injuring, or otherwise interfering with an
electrical line.
Penalties: Can result in up to 3 years in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000, or 16
months, 2, or 3 years in prison.
PC 593 (Interfering with Electric Lines):
Felony: Specifically prohibits maliciously interfering with electrical lines,
equipment, or facilities, such as tampering with power lines or damaging
substations.
Penalties: Felony, with a prison sentence of 16 months, 2, or 3 years, plus fines
and restitution.
PC 594 (Vandalism):
Misdemeanor or Felony: If the theft involves damaging electrical property.
Penalties: Based on the value of the damage.
What constitutes a crime
Tampering with or diverting electricity from utility lines or meters.
Unauthorized connections to power lines.
Connecting to someone else's electrical supply without permission.
Damaging or destroying any electrical equipment or property.
Important considerations
Criminal intent: For charges under PC 591, prosecutors must prove you acted
with criminal intent, meaning you acted on purpose.
Civil penalties: In addition to criminal charges, the utility company can also
pursue civil action to recover damages, which can include treble damages (three
times the amount of the actual loss), court costs, and attorney's fees, notes Quinn
Covarrubias.
Safety: Tampering with electrical equipment is extremely dangerous and can
cause electrical shock, fire, or death, and can result in the immediate
disconnection of service
Full video available if requested.
Do Better Palo Alto!
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:47 AM <staceytomson@qmsshields.com> wrote:
These RVS definitely have been here longer then 72 hours. Look at this street view picture
that was taking Oct 2024. Same RV, same place, same 6 other cars this guy owns. They are
now getting to the point where they are trespassing onto business properties, moving our
cones, taking our cones, even hitting our cones with their cars that we have to put in front of
our businesses just so we can get deliveries.
Stacey Tomson
phone:(650) 858-
2491
fax:(650) 858-2494
4047 Transport St
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:39 AM
To: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>;
peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; 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>; chantal.gaines@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; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan
McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>;
Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>;
Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please ENFORCE the 72 hour tow notice. Attached is a picture of an RV that has not
moved at all in at least 6 months, which is evident by the garden they have planted in the
strip of dirt along the fence/sidewalk. They also have a mirror glued to the outside of the
RV, which if the RV were to ever move would be dangerous. Not only is it likely to fall
off of the RV, but I would expect the glare would be a danger to other drivers - but that
is only if they are ever to actually move the RV.
Also, please do something about the propane tanks sitting on the street. Attached is a
picture of an RV that has a propane tank that has been sitting on the street since the
summer, if not longer. I believe I first emailed about this in July and nothing has been
done. I understand officers knocked on his door to talk to him in the past and he didn't
answer so it was assumed he was not home. The problem is, his six other cars are
always here so he is inside the RV. He is just not answering.
It is frustrating being told that these vehicles are following the rules for the 72 hour tow
notice when it is very blatant that most are not. It is even more concerning that we are
addressing safety issues and nothing is being resolved. Pedestrians cannot cross the
street safely because you have to step into the street to see if any cars are coming
because all visibility is restricted. The intersection right outside our business is also
dangerous because of the same problem.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 1:56 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto
Attention: City Manager / City Council
Subject: Urgent Request for Action on Homeless Encampments and
Abandoned Vehicle Parking in the Transport/Industrial/Commercial
Area
Dear City Officials,
I am writing to express serious concern and confirm all of the other
property and business owners statements regarding the growing number
of homeless encampments, RVs, and abandoned vehicles occupying our
streets in the Transport, Industrial and Commercial street areas of Palo
Alto. The situation has deteriorated noticeably, leading to safety
hazards, unsanitary conditions, and restricted access for local businesses
and employees.
Many of these vehicles appear to be long-term or abandoned, and the
associated debris and waste create environmental and public health
concerns. Residents and business owners in the area are increasingly
frustrated by the City’s lack of visible enforcement or remediation
efforts.
We are demanding that the City of Palo Alto to take immediate and
coordinated action, including:
Enforcing time limits and parking regulations for oversized and
inoperable vehicles.
Increasing patrols and clean-up efforts in the affected zones.
Providing clear updates to the community on what steps are being
taken to address this escalating problem.
The community deserves clean, safe, and accessible streets, and we ask
the City to treat this issue as a priority.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to a
timely and transparent response outlining what actions will be taken.
Sincerely,
Dave Stellman
On Oct 30, 2025, at 12:43 PM, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>
wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and
persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000
block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in
Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now
creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for
the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a
time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance
stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every
72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the
situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community
officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led
to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human
waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can
smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs,
endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation
from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the
vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines
caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous traffic conditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I
often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but
these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On
several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained
outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on
the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is
overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly caused traffic
accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for
oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and
inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not
include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it
unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of
confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself
and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also
documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’s marked parking
lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind
spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of
parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers
anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections
and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces,
sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I
counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more
parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room
for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely
on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our
workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past these eyesore, smelly,
and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair,
unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking
turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the
entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators,
and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that
threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs
come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used
as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant
violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of
legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a
critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–
Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
2. Increase patrol frequency and ensure violators are cited and removed.
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these
encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
We expect to see prompt and decisive action — not temporary
inspections or passive observation. The City’s failure to act is directly
affecting our ability to conduct business safely and responsibly.
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected
timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
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
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png><image.png>
<image.png>
From: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Manu Kumar
<manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com <peterxuvel@gmail.com>;
rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>;
RevColl@paloalto.gov <RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly
<Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; 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>; 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>; nancy@drewmaran.com
<nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch
<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder
<Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei
<cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and
persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000
block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in
Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now
creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for
the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a
time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance
stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every
72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the
situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community
officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led
to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human
waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can
smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs,
endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation
from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the
vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines
caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous traffic conditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I
often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but
these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On
several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained
outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on
the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is
overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly caused traffic
accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for
oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and
inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not
include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it
unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of
confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself
and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also
documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’s marked parking
lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind
spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of
parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers
anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections
and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces,
sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I
counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more
parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room
for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely
on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our
workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past these eyesore, smelly,
and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair,
unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking
turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the
entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators,
and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that
threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs
come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used
as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant
violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of
legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a
critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–
Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
<image.png><image.png>
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these
encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
We expect to see prompt and decisive action — not temporary
inspections or passive observation. The City’s failure to act is directly
affecting our ability to conduct business safely and responsibly.
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected
timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
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
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png>
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:37 AM
To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com
<peterxuvel@gmail.com>; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com
<rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Transportation
<transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov
<RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>;
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>; 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>; nancy@drewmaran.com
<nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-
equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider
<james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch
<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder
<Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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>; Benjamin Becchetti
<Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei
<cmei@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
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 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 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 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
<Outlook-
3lhybjrb><Outlook-logo 2
PNG.png>
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
<Outlook-Green Hear>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
From:Marguerite Poyatos
To:Bill McLane
Cc:staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; 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; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei; Diana Ma
Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 8:50:52 AM
Attachments:image002.pngimage001.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.pngScreenshot 2025-12-19 083626.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Following up on the past email that was not responded to or acknowledged regarding one of the RV's stealing electricity from a business located in our neighborhood.
Please do a 72 hour tow notice and ENFORCE it. Attached is an image I just took of Transport Street, as well as a google aerial of the street. An entire side of the street is being taken up by RV's and vehicles associated with RV's except for one car. None of them move. Even after the last 72 hour noticed were put on vehicles, none of them moved. There are RV's/vehicles that have been in the same spot since at least 2023. Enforcement is key, or else tax payers' money is being wasted and its reallynothing more than an empty gesture.
These RV's are not just an obstruction for employee and customer parking, which affects the businesses on the street. It is a safety concern. With there being not a single designated cross walk in this area, there is no where safe for pedestrians to cross the street. RV's obstruct the view of the pedestrians trying to step out in the street, as well as that of anyone driving down the street, who cannot see the sidewalks to know that any one is even there.
Please, do something.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:45 AM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Afternoon,
This is what I found on my morning walk on Commercial Street.
This is an example of the rampant criminal activity that goes on around here. In this video, we see an unhitched trailer with no plate, no registration, and numerous other violations. They are clearly stealing electricity from 974 Commercial Street. Based on a quick GOOGLE search, I found out that such actions are illegal. Here is what I found, just in case you are not aware of the law.
In California, stealing electricity is a crime under Penal Code (PC) 498 and is punished as a misdemeanor for theft under $950 in damages, or as a felony for theft of $950 or more. Tampering with, damaging, or illegally connecting to electrical lines can also lead to charges under PC 591 or PC 593, which can be a misdemeanor or felony with penalties including jail time, significant fines, and prison time.
Key laws and penalties
PC 498 (Theft of Utility Service):
Misdemeanor: Stealing utility services where the loss is less than $950.
Felony: Stealing utility services where the loss is $950 or more, or if the person has a prior conviction for utility theft.
Actions: This includes diverting services, tampering with meters, making unauthorized connections, or using services with the knowledge that they were obtained illegally.
PC 591 (Damaging Phone or Electrical Lines):
Misdemeanor or Felony: Maliciously damaging or obstructing electrical or telephone lines.
Actions: This can include cutting, injuring, or otherwise interfering with an electrical line.
Penalties: Can result in up to 3 years in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000, or 16 months, 2, or 3 years in prison.
PC 593 (Interfering with Electric Lines):
Felony: Specifically prohibits maliciously interfering with electrical lines, equipment, or facilities, such as tampering with power lines or damaging substations.
Penalties: Felony, with a prison sentence of 16 months, 2, or 3 years, plus fines and restitution.
PC 594 (Vandalism):
Misdemeanor or Felony: If the theft involves damaging electrical property.
Penalties: Based on the value of the damage.
What constitutes a crime
Tampering with or diverting electricity from utility lines or meters.
Unauthorized connections to power lines.
Connecting to someone else's electrical supply without permission.
Damaging or destroying any electrical equipment or property.
Important considerations
Criminal intent: For charges under PC 591, prosecutors must prove you acted with criminal intent, meaning you acted on purpose.
Civil penalties: In addition to criminal charges, the utility company can also pursue civil action to recover damages, which can include treble damages (three times the amount of the actual loss), court costs, and attorney's fees, notes Quinn Covarrubias.
Safety: Tampering with electrical equipment is extremely dangerous and can cause electrical shock, fire, or death, and can result in the immediate disconnection of service
Full video available if requested.
Do Better Palo Alto!
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:47 AM <staceytomson@qmsshields.com> wrote:
These RVS definitely have been here longer then 72 hours. Look at this street view picture that was taking Oct 2024. Same RV, same place, same 6 other cars this guy owns. They are now getting to the point where they are trespassing onto business properties, moving our cones, taking our cones, even hitting our cones with their cars that we have to put in front of our businesses just so we can get deliveries.
Stacey Tomson
phone:(650) 858-2491 fax:(650) 858-2494
4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:39 AM
To: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; 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>; chantal.gaines@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; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch
<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please ENFORCE the 72 hour tow notice. Attached is a picture of an RV that has not moved at all in at least 6 months, which is evident by the garden they have planted in the strip of dirt along the fence/sidewalk. They also have a mirror glued to the outside of the RV, which if the RV were to ever move would be dangerous. Not only is it likely to fall off of the RV, but I would expect the glare would be a danger to other drivers - but that is only if they are ever to actually move the RV.
Also, please do something about the propane tanks sitting on the street. Attached is a picture of an RV that has a propane tank that has been sitting on the street since the summer, if not longer. I believe I first emailed about this in July and nothing has been done. I understand officers knocked on his door to talk to him in the past and he didn't answer so it was assumed he was not home. The problem is, his six other cars are always here so he is inside the RV. He is just not answering.
It is frustrating being told that these vehicles are following the rules for the 72 hour tow notice when it is very blatant that most are not. It is even more concerning that we are addressing safety issues and nothing is being resolved. Pedestrians cannot cross the street safely because you have to step into the street to see if any cars are coming because all visibility is restricted. The intersection right outside our business is also dangerous because of the same problem.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 1:56 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto
Attention: City Manager / City Council
Subject: Urgent Request for Action on Homeless Encampments and Abandoned Vehicle Parking in the Transport/Industrial/Commercial Area
Dear City Officials,
I am writing to express serious concern and confirm all of the other property and business owners statements regarding the growing number of homeless encampments, RVs, and abandoned vehicles occupying our streets in the Transport, Industrial and Commercial street areas of Palo Alto. The situation has deteriorated noticeably, leading to safety hazards, unsanitary conditions, and restricted access for local
businesses and employees.
Many of these vehicles appear to be long-term or abandoned, and the associated debris and waste create environmental and public health concerns. Residents and business owners in the area are increasingly frustrated by the City’s lack of visible enforcement or remediation efforts.
We are demanding that the City of Palo Alto to take immediate and coordinated action, including:
Enforcing time limits and parking regulations for oversized and inoperable vehicles.
Increasing patrols and clean-up efforts in the affected zones.
Providing clear updates to the community on what steps are being taken to address this escalating problem.
The community deserves clean, safe, and accessible streets, and we ask the City to treat this issue as a priority.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to a timely and transparent response outlining what actions will be taken.
Sincerely,
Dave Stellman
On Oct 30, 2025, at 12:43 PM, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs, endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous trafficconditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly causedtraffic accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’smarked parking lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces, sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past theseeyesore, smelly, and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair, unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators, and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
2. Increase patrol frequency and ensure violators are cited and removed.
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
<image.png><image.png>
<Outlook-3lhybjrb><Outlook-logo 2PNG.png>
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.01604067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png><image.png>
<image.png>
From: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov <RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; 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>; 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>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs, endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous trafficconditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly causedtraffic accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’smarked parking lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces, sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past theseeyesore, smelly, and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair, unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators, and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
2. Increase patrol frequency and ensure violators are cited and removed.
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
We expect to see prompt and decisive action — not temporary inspections or passive observation. The City’s failure to act is directly affecting our ability to conduct business safely and responsibly.
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.01604067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png>
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:37 AM
To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov <RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; 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>; 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>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 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>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
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 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 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 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 - PresidentPhone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.0160
4067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<Outlook-Green Hear>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<Outlook-THE>
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 be allowed 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 <
-- Marguerite PoyatosOperations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Bundle - December 19, 2025
Date:Friday, December 19, 2025 8:27:43 AM
Attachments:Fw Downtown Palo Alto public safety and hygiene.msg
FW Dangerous Road Design.msg
RE CowperWebster Garage.msg
FW ANOTHER ACCIDENT ON ARASTRADERO RD. DUE TO TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE AND ROAD DESIGN
HAZARD.msg
image001.png
image002.png
FW Preservation of the William F. Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground from 1974 and 1995.msg
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 December 19, 2025.
Thank you,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Sven Thesen
To:Council, City
Cc:Auzenne, Tom; Dailey, Karla; DiFranco, Rachel; Bailey, Diane; Abendschein, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Health Impacts of Natural Gas - Staff Meeting/ Action Requested
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 8:21:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good People On City Council,
Would you please direct staff to address concerns regarding health impacts of natural gas
stoves. At the very least direct staff to meet with me.
I am particularly interested in posting this information upfront on the utility's website versus
burying this information from a ten-year old study deep in a reference footnote.
I am particularly concerned that the city is hiding its head in the sand on this issue versus
coming clean with the health impacts. This is both a disservice to our residents and opens us
to potential lawsuits.
Finally, from the s/cap meeting, it is clear that we need to shut down the natural gas
distribution system. This requires long term planning. Who at the utility is working on this
and likewise I would like to meet with them.
--
Sven Thesen,
EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, ProjectGreenHome.org and
BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
__________________________________________________
How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers
From:William Parkinson
To:Council, City; Police; board@pausd.org; wstratton@pausd.org
Subject:Post- and pre-school chaos on Maybell Avenue and ebikes
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 4:01:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To:
The Palo Alto City Council
The Mayor of Palo Alto
The Palo Alto City Manager
The Palo Alto Police Chief
The PAUSD Superintendent
The PAUSD School Board
The Principal of Gunn High School
Near miss for a possible fatal accident
Today at around 1:50pm I was walking along Maybell Avenue on my way to Juana Briones
Park. I witnessed what could easily have been a fatal accident between a pick up truck and one
or more Gunn High School students. A number of students were riding in a group and there
was a collision between them that I did not witness. I only heard a pick up truck slam on their
brakes. It's not clear what caused the accident but there was at least one scooter and an e-bike
in the group. Fortunately, the pick up truck driver was alert and driving cautiously while going
in the opposite direction. The bike accident spilled one individual off their bicycle onto the
street in the opposite lane. I cannot imagine he would have survived under any number of
circumstances, including that the bike collision had happened a few seconds later when the
truck was closer.
Numerous violations of traffic laws (or should I say and a need for new laws)
Here's what else I witnessed in my walk.
Numerous high powered e-bikes driving above the speed limit on Maybell.
E-bikes and scooters routinely (or basically always) running stop signs without even
slowing down.
E-bikes passing cars on both the right and left hand sides, including cars stopped at stop
signs, and cars waiting for pedestrians to cross in front of them..
E bikes and scooters weaving in and out of the road onto and off of the sidewalk at
speed
A number of the students riding e-bikes or scooters without helmets.
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
I know that many of these things are traffic violations. And I know that it is possible to ticket
bicycles for running stop signs. However, I am not an expert in the law as it applies to e-bikes
and motorized scooters.
This situation is HIGH RISK and I believe this could be controlled if there was the
slightest amount of community policing for the 15-20 minutes during the peak morning
and afternoon commutes that this chaos occurs
Will we have to wait for a fatality for some kind of action?
Other ebike or bike incidents I have witnessed or experienced
1. Within the past month, I was driving down Maybell and crossed El Camino to El Camino
Way. I know to be careful there because it is a bike commute route. An e-bike passed me at a
speed clearly above the 25 mph limit. Within 50 ft past me, they would have been stopped by
slow moving traffic, but they didn't slow down, they swerved to the right using a parking lot
exit, accelerated down the sidewalk, and swerved back into the El Camino Way between park
cars using a parking lot entrance. I don't think I need to say more about the implication of this
kind of behavior.
2. Since the beginning of this school year when on a walk, I was almost hit by a bicyclist who
failed to stop at the stop sign at Maybell and Amaranta as I was crossing the crosswalk.
Because my vision limited by a mini-van that stopped to wait for me to cross, I was lucky to
not be injured. Now I am more aware, and equally sure this kind of situation happens every
week if not every day.
3. Unrelated to this Gunn High School commute fiasco, I had another near miss, this time as a
driver. I was turning right from San Antonio into a Palo Alto gas station. An e-bike (it actually
appeared to be the leader of a race between 3-4 ebikes) zoomed down the sidewalk on
Charleston, passing effectively through the red light at the corner of Charleston and San
Antonio and turned right onto the sidewalk on San Antonio. There was no way I would have
been able to see them, nor expect them because the cars were stopped on Charleston. But
fortunately my peripheral vision saved me and the ebike rider and myself both slammed on
our brakes and avoided a collision.
Palo Alto school commutes are obviously unsafe
I spent years as a professional risk assessor, including participating in the drafting of codes
and standards for 3 national safety organizations. Here's the deadly mix that would be obvious
to anyone trained in safety
Vans, SUVs and pickup trucks that are hard to see past on the school commute streets
Young drivers (many of whom drive poorly, e.g., above the speed limit, distracted, etc.)
A continuously growing number of ebikes
No enforcement of traffic laws as they apply to ebikes and scooters, much less bicycles
No (or no effective) safety instruction by PAUSD school children
numerous Palo Alto school children who will be hoping for e-bikes and scooters as
presents for the holidays.
What to do?
Gunn High School and PAUSD both ought to send out communications to parents over the
holidays indicating the following:
what's the situation and the risks to their children
what they should do to make sure their children are safe
discourage parents from purchasing ebikes or scooters or from allowing their children to
commute to school using them
reminding parents they can be liable if their children hit a pedestrian or another student
or for that matter a car
announce that during the morning and afternoon commute hours the Palo Alto Police
will be ticketing ebike and scooter violating traffic laws
reminding children and parents that traffic violations will increase their insurance (or
maybe even their ability to get a drivers license, hopefully)
The Palo Alto Police Department should similarly use their communication methods to get the
word out
The Palo Alto Police Department should submit to the City Council a proposed plan and
resource commitment for targeted community policing along school commuting routes where
ebikes and scooters are most prevalent
The City Council should pass any enabling laws that are required and within their jurisdiction
to discourage this behavior and ensure public safety.
The City Council should insist that the Palo Alto Police Department enforces traffic laws for
ebikes at a minimum on school commute routes but hopefully throughout the city. And if
necessary, the City Council or City Manager should increase or reallocate funding so
resources are available
The City Council should establish a monitoring program to ensure the traffic laws are being
enforced and are reducing risks
If I do not have the proper emails for the Gunn High School principal or anyone else, please
forward this information as appropriate.
William Parkinson
P.S. Besides the safety risks to the children of our city, think of us poor retired people who are
fearful of even attempting to drive during the school commute. After all, even if the fault is the
ebike rider (or yourselves because of inaction), we will be the ones who are sued and have to
hire legal representation and experience increased insurance rates.
From:Holly Collins
To:Council, City
Subject:vote
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 11:19:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi ,
I am a property owner of , Palo Alto.
I vote for Hybrid Design.
Thanks!
Holly
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Matt Schlegel
To:Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Thank You Council Member Stone
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:38:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Member Stone,
Thank you so much for your campaign to forward legislation that will limit oligarchs from
building vast compounds in Palo Alto that disrupt the peace in our neighborhoods with
streams of employees and security staff that crowd out our neighborhood streets and jack up
real estate prices making our city unaffordable for any put the obscenely wealthy. I appreciate
you taking this stand. Please let me know how I and my fellow Palo Altans can support you
and make this campaign successful.
For reference, here is the NYT article on the topic. I am grateful that this issue now has
national attention.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/us/palo-alto-billionaire-compound-law.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.9k8.fc4N.OrvDeh-v1iLA&smid=nytcore-android-share
Also, I urge the Mayor, Vice Mayor and all other Council Members to support Council
Member Stone in this effort.
Thank you,
Matt Schlegel
Palo Alto
From:mark weiss
To:Council, City
Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; mark weiss
Subject:music at Lytton Plaza
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 12:35:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Would attracting 10,000 music listeners to Lytton Plaza
displace 500 drug users?
Posted on December 17, 2025 by markweiss86
So far (mostly presented by Earthwise) :
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Including: DJ Sep, Caroline Davis, Beth Custer, David James, Keith MacArthur, Chris Grady,
George Jackson, Rachel Baiman, Rabiah Kabir, Larry Ochs, Sonny Smith, Carmen Staaf, Jenny
Scheinmann, Jayla Chee, Maya Kronfeld, Hannah Marks, Paul Cornish, Rachel Sage, Matt
Wilson, Josh Thurston Milgrom, Bennett Paster, Will Bernard, Adam Klipple, Adam Levy, Or
Baraket, Marta Sanchez, Akira Tana, Peter Barshay, Cien Mil Mangos, Jim Campilongo, Ben
Davis, Noah Garabedian, Vinicius Gomes, and Stephan Crump—did I miss anyone?
There’s an article in the local papers that seems to revive an ongoing discussion about Lytton
Plaza. The landlords, it could be said, react against the ongoing situation of people with nowhere
else to go who congregate here. I too have observed people doing drugs. There was an overdose
right in front of the bandstand once. I am deliberately framing this in awkward and crass terms. To
me music is general good and not merely a cultural mouthwash.
I’m hoping to sit down with the sources in this article, the ones who hold the power.
Maybe we will work together, or maybe we’ll just bat some ideas back-and-forth.
The First Amendment (still) guarantees our rights of assembly. If someone is doing something
obviously illegal at Lytton Plaza, we can intervene.
I would recommend spending $500,000 on programming rather than spending another $500,000
on bricks and mortar. [Note: after I wrote this post, I realized that what triggered the article was a
$50,000 gift from a local billionaire to the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks group, and not
$500,000].
I’ve donated 50 shows to the plaza in the last five years. I can poll at least 100 or so musicians
who can testify about what they think the plaza is or isn’t. Meanwhile, I’ve also registered
something like 500 or more attendees via EventBrite.
Earthwise is a private initiative — a sole proprietorship, a business– that showcases public
facilities, public plazas and parks, mostly in Palo Alto. I do this because I think it’s important; yet
I also get absorbed when the public agenda brushes against values that overlap with my
motivation. So I’d love to influence what local leaders do about Lytton Plaza, or 3rd Thursday
street fairs on Cali Ave, or music in the parks.
I had two conversations today on this topic. One went very well. The other was frustrating.
I will probably do between four and ten events in Lytton Plaza next spring, summer or fall; and a
similar number in the parks. Plus hard-ticket events at Mitchell Park Community Center and Palo
Alto Art Center (I put on-sale tickets to see Johnny A at the art center on January 4 — for only
$20 – that’s practically free; I’m about to release tickets to see Corey Harris for $20 at the Mitch,
a three-show residency, that overlaps with a two-day run of Gary Clark, Jr. at The Guild, for $154.
I guess I’m targeting people who like country blues more than electric blues and like a bargain).
BW
CATFISH BLUES CUTTING CONTEST
Share this:
Facebook X
EARTHWISE WELCOMES
DAN BERN: FREE CONCERT,
SATURDAY, JUST ADDED:
March 19, 4 p.m. Lytton Plaza
Palo Alto
March 14, 2022
In "filthy lucre"
Spaghetti band pizzas out at
Lytton Plaza by Earthwise
May 11, 2024
Pop up jazz nooner at Lytton
Plaza Tuesday, by Earthwise
Related
Mark Weiss
July 25, 2022
In "art"
Pop up jazz nooner at
Lytton Plaza Tuesday,
by Earthwise
The free concert is from 12to 1 pm on Tuesday, July 26featuring Caroline Davis,saxophone, Hannah Marks,bass ...
From:Rachel Jin
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Please Retain Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park!!!
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 7:57:27 PM
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 City Council,
I am a Palo Alto soccer club volunteer and PA community member writing to urge you to
retain the synthetic turf fields at El Camino Park at this time. Removing these fields as
early as next year would significantly reduce field availability and disrupt year-round youth
sports for thousands of local families. The City currently does not have enough natural grass
fields that can withstand the level of use required, and grass fields are often closed during the
winter months. While I support exploring high-performance natural grass options in the future,
eliminating synthetic turf at El Camino now would have immediate negative consequences for
youth programs and access to safe, reliable play spaces. I respectfully ask the Council to
maintain the existing synthetic turf while longer-term solutions are evaluated.
Thank you for your consideration,
Rachel Jin
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:Burt, Patrick
To:Nancy Krop; Council, City
Subject:Re: Paying for Cubberley
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 4:29:09 PM
Nancy,
We are actually changing our naming rights rules to attract major donors. The gym and theatre
folks are both counting on naming rights and there are other opportunities.
Pat
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Nancy Krop <ngkrop@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 3:27:49 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Paying for Cubberley
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council Members,
I’m NOT necessarily saying to do this, but I’m wondering is there any thinking around or interest in
letting one of our local billionaires get their name on the new Cubberly community center in
exchange for paying the cost?
Thanks
Nancy Krop
Barron Park resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:Kristin Khoobyarian
To:Council, City
Subject:Natural grass vs artificial turf
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 4:27:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear honorable members of the Palo Alto City Council,
As a Bay Area resident, I’m writing in the hopes that you will choose to replace the artificial
turf at El Camino Park with organically-managed natural grass. I’m also optimistic about your
consideration of a pilot project on organically managed natural grass fields.
Artificial turf’s microplastics and chemicals are detrimental to the health of the turf’s users
and have serious broader environmental impacts. Also, this turf costs more for upkeep in the
long run.
Though I’m in the South Bay (San José), I’d love to see these solutions succeed for
Palo Alto, as they could present a model the rest of the Bay Area (and beyond) could
follow.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration —
Sincerely,
Kristin Khoobyarian
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Nancy Krop
To:Council, City
Subject:Paying for Cubberley
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 3:28:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hi Council Members,
I’m NOT necessarily saying to do this, but I’m wondering is there any thinking around or interest in letting one of
our local billionaires get their name on the new Cubberly community center in exchange for paying the cost?
Thanks
Nancy Krop
Barron Park resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:Mary Yoon
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Council, City
Subject:In favor of artificial turf
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:35:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi Councilmembers,
My daughter currently is an 11 year old in the Palo Alto Soccer Club and I also have a son
who has spent many years with the Stanford Strikers soccer club. We have spent many hours
on both the grass and turf fields in Palo Alto. I am pleading with you to keep the artificial turf
on the fields. The grass fields, JLS, Cubberly, Greer are always a concern in the winter. We
are often rained out and it is hard to maintain and we are always in fear of injury. The turf
enables the kids to practice consistently and worry free. It has been fantastic to have access to
the fields.
Thanks so much for your service and thoughtfulness on the topic.
Mary Yoon
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
From:Priscila Casanova
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Council, City
Subject:Please Protect Youth Sports: Retain Synthetic Turf at El Camino
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:16:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
As a parent in the PASC/SVSA community, I am deeply concerned about the proposal to
remove synthetic turf fields, specifically at El Camino Park.
While I appreciate the long-term goal of exploring high-performance natural grass at other
sites, removing the turf at El Camino now is premature. In Palo Alto, natural grass fields are
often closed during the winter due to weather, and they simply cannot withstand the daily
"wear and tear" that our current volume of players requires.
The removal of these fields would result in:
Reduced field availability for thousands of local kids.
Canceled practices and games during the rainy season.
Significant disruption to the physical and social well-being of our youth athletes.
I ask that you prioritize the immediate needs of Palo Alto families and retain the synthetic turf
at El Camino Park.
Best regards,
Priscila de Souza
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:clehrberg@yahoo.com
To:Council, City
Subject:San Francisquito Creek and flooding of Palo Alto residences
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 9:41:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
It’s a little more than a month less than 28 years since the terrible flood of Feb. 2, 1998. What
have you accomplished to protect your residents? Making your aging population individually
responsible for protecting their properties cannot be the complete answer. Yes, the
Pope/Chaucer bridge, designed and built by Palo Alto needs to be replaced. For many years,
Palo Alto denied that the bridge is a dam. That no longer seems to be the case.
Millions have already been spent to ameliorate flooding downstream of the bridge and nothing
has done to protect the neighborhood around Pope/Chaucer except to make it easier to get
heavy equipment by the bridge. Not enough.
During the New Year’s Eve flood, East Palo Alto quickly erected a sandbag wall by the
University Ave bridge.
I would suggest you should be doing the same west of Pope/Chaucer this week and making an
effort to protect our neighborhood.
Flood waters should be directed into the streets, not the yards, down Chaucer, University and
Hamilton.
Thank you.
Cathie Lehrberg
Get Outlook for iOS
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Kristina Kudelko
To:Council, City
Subject:Save our Turf Fields
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 9:13:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I have two children in competitive soccer who RELY on the few turf fields in Palo Alto to
maintain their skills, friendships, and physical and mental health year-round. We have lived at
Stanford West for 12 years. We do not own a backyard and grass fields are closed during
several months over the winter.
Please preserve the FEW turf fields in Palo Alto to preserve our kids' access to outdoor play
throughout the year.
Sincerely,
Kristina Kudelko MD
FACTS:
3000 children and 500 adults play soccer and lacrosse weekly on Palo Alto
turf.
Turf pitches have heavy use, typically 8 to 10 hours at high density.
Palo Alto fields are CLOSED from November through February every year
because they cannot handle heavy use / bad weather.
In order to replace one artificial turf field, the city would need to build 3-4
grass fields.
Palo Alto is already dealing with a severe shortage of athletic fields, closing
fields will only exacerbate this issue
California is in a drought. Banning artificial turf would require an additional
1.2 million gallons of water use, which contradicts the efforts to conserve
water in California.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Grass fields in Palo Alto currently have many holes, dry patches and broken
sprinklers, therefore it is more likely to cause injury than turf surfaces.
The County of Santa Clara voted this January NOT to ban turf because of the
reasons above.
From:Amir&Sandra Ben-Efraim
To:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl,
Keith; Stone, Greer; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael; Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan
Subject:Fw: City has until December 20 to challenge SF’s DEEPLY FLAWED declaration
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 8:02:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am in support of what Sky Posse describes. These members devote a lot of
time to educate themselves on this topic and are truly looking out to what is
in the best interest of Palo Alto residents.
Cheers, Sandra Ben-Efraim
Resident at
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sky Posse Palo Alto <skypossepost-gmail.com@shared1.ccsend.com>
To: "amirsandra@yahoo.com" <amirsandra@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 at 09:31:29 PM PST
Subject: City has until December 20 to challenge SF’s DEEPLY FLAWED declaration
Sky Posse Palo Alto
Dear Friends,
Thank you to all who reached out to City Council members about SFO’s expansion
plan. Please see our email to Council; it is very important to know that the City has
until December 20 to act and there are only a couple of meetings left for them to
convene on time.
If you have not yet reached out to Council to know when they will vote on this please
do so, and feel free to share the letter below.
Email to Council pdf, text below:
Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,
Reckdahl and Stone, City Manager Ed Shikada, City Attorney Molly Stump,
We agree with City Manager’ Ed Shikada’s comments to the press last week that San
Francisco’s environmental document for the SFO’s upgrade is “deeply flawed.” We
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
would like to thank the city for its second letter on November 19 (attached) explaining
what is missing from the FEIR, as well as requesting that a revised draft be circulated
for public review. The City’s most substantive comment of Nov 19 was also
mentioned during the certification hearing on November 20; however the CIty’s Nov
19 comment will not appear on the FEIR record because - per SF’s public notice -
comments after June 2 or at the Final EIR certification hearing are not responded to,
“not even” anything said or written on the day of certification.”
As a peer agency the City is best equipped to hold San Francisco accountable for the
deficiencies in the state level review; we are especially concerned with how the FEIR
is now set to influence future FAA environmental declarations such as CATEX; the
current project itself; and other relevant projects in perpetuity. Extraordinarily risky for
Palo Alto are the FAA’s recent new rules to have more CATEX. Flawed
environmental baselines, and resulting findings of CATEX lead to
concentrations of arrival flights over Palo Alto--and why we now have the most to
lose from SFO expansion. Neighboring cities and Santa Clara County are not as
impacted by flight noise and flight path air pollution like Palo Alto and, essentially,
seemed to have abandoned previous historical resolutions on flight noise.
City Council has until December 20 to formally oppose and object to the FEIR.
At a glance, this leaves December 8 and December 15 as Council meeting dates.
The broader community should please know when Council is going to vote on
this clear opportunity to protect Palo Alto, and in time to not miss the statute of
limitations.
The City needs to please also be forthcoming about the risks the FEIR certification
brings to Palo Alto neighborhoods; the potential negative health impacts from more
noise and nighttime operations. Some of the City’s more recent opportunities to
challenge false environmental declarations are below, but there are several from prior
years with lasting harm as well:
2014 Nextgen EA: the City passed on legal action; resorted to apply to the SFO
Roundtable
2018: SERFR CATEX: the City was not well advised and claimed the City did not
have a case
2018 PIRAT CATEX: City opted against legal recourse to - again - pursue regional
collaboration with the SCSC Roundtable which has since been unceremoniously
disbanded.
2020 - present: SFO GBAS has many procedures that the City could have
immediately challenged; remains a BIG problem and lacks transparency.
Previous non-legal actions to reduce air traffic noise -Congressional, regional, and
local advocacy efforts - have resulted in being ignored or abandoned. After citizens
helped build huge regional momentum and technical support from the FAA over a
period of several months with the Select Committee - Palo Alto, in conjunction with
SFO, have yet to achieve transparency; proper agreements for noise
monitoring and noise reduction initiatives; including failure to implement
nighttime programs recommended by the FAA specifically for Palo Alto and
neighbors - for all the SFO Arrivals procedures!
Thank you,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
SPREAD THE WORD
Ask neighbors to JOIN OUR CALLS TO ACTION and to get updates by sending "SUBSCRIBE" to
info@skypossepaloalto.org
MOST IMPORTANT
Report intrusive jet noise!
The number of reporters matters (enlist neighbors who are
bothered by intrusive jet noise to report!)
Use any of these methods:
The APP stop.jetnoise.net
OR
EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com
SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290.
ONLINE:
SFO traffic: click here for the link
SJC traffic: click her for the link
Other airports: click here for more info
Sky Posse Palo Alto | Suite 200 2225 East Bayshore Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Constant Contact
From:Calvin Chai
To:Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Turf at El Camino Park
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 8:01:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hi Greer,
I am writing regarding the proposed removal of synthetic turf at the El Camino Park field.
As the father of two daughters that play club soccer with PASC and their school, having quality field is very
important to their development and fulfillment into young adults. Our field space is already limited, and replacing
theturf for grass would have a clear negative impact on the experience for our kids. I fully support keeping the turf at
El Camino.
A concerned citizen,
Calvin Chai
From:Jianhong Fang
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Please Retain Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 7:26:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to retain the synthetic turf fields at El Camino Park and to vote
against their removal.
As a member of the PASC/SVSA community, our family relies on these fields for consistent
year-round training. Removing the turf at El Camino would severely reduce field availability,
particularly during the winter months when natural grass fields are often closed due to
weather.
Currently, the City does not have enough natural grass fields to withstand the volume of use
our youth require. While I support exploring high-performance grass at other locations like
Cubberley or Greer, removing the turf at El Camino now would leave thousands of Palo Alto
kids without a reliable place to play.
Please prioritize field availability and keep our youth active by retaining the turf at El Camino
Park.
Sincerely,
Jianhong Fang [Palo Alto Resident / PASC Parent]
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:Chris
To:Council, City
Subject:Keeping Synthetic Turf in Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 6:12:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear City Council,
My name is Chris Torres and I am a long-time Palo Alto resident. I grew up in Palo Alto and
graduated from Paly in 1996. I have the good fortune of being able to raise my children here
too.
My two daughters have played in Palo Alto Soccer Club. Their practices are either at
Cubberley or Mayfield.
I heard you are considering removing the turf fields at El Camino Park as early as next year. I
urge the city council to consider retaining the turf fields at El Camino Park, so that the
children and adults can use the fields year-round.
I recently saw the new turf at Mayfield and I appreciate that the synthetic turf there has cork
pellets instead of the old rubber pellets. I assume this is more environmentally friendly and
healthier for its users.
If the turf at El Camino Park needs to be replaced, I would like some consideration taken to
using the same turf that they used at Mayfield. I don't know how much more that might cost. I
would say it is worth it and that our community can find a way to pay for it.
Thanks for your consideration and thank you for making this community a wonderful place to
live.
Sincerely,
Chris Torres
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Tim Rubelt
To:Council, City
Subject:Don’t take away turf
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 5:06:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I’m a soccer player add Palo Alto I would like to express concern about you guys removing all synthetic turf fields.
This a topic that I don’t agree on please don’t do it.
Sincerely Palo Alto soccer player
From:herb
To:ParkRec Commission
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board
Subject:December 16, 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Agenda Item #4: 2100 Geng Road [24PLN-
00356] [24PLN-00357]
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:47:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 16, 2025 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #4: 2100 GENG ROAD [24PLN-00356] [2100PLN-00357]
I urge you to continue this item until both of the followingactions take place:
1. The proposed project is reviewed by staff to determine theeffect of the "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" (CLUP) for the PaloAlto Airport; the applicant is made aware by staff of whatrevisions to the project need to be made to comply with theCLUP; and the applicant desires to continue the project afterdetermining that the project is financially feasible aftermaking those revisions. (The CLUP is available atstgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_PAO_CLUP.pdf.)
2. The staff has completed the change it has just announced toconvert information about projects from BuildingEye to thecity's new search tool for projects "Palo Alto Permit View";all of the information about the project has been transferredfrom BuildingEye to Palo Alto View; and no actions have beentaken by staff related to the project that do not now appear onBuildingEye until they are available to the public by searchingPalo Alto View. (The staff-developed online tool Palo Alto Viewis described at paloalto.gov/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/New-Online-Permit-Activity-Search-Launched.)
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport
The Palo Alto Airport CLUP imposes mandatory mitigations on thesubject project that involve (1) Height Limitations; (2)Avigation Easement Deeds; (3) Additional Construction Costs toMitigate Intrusive Aircraft Noise; and (4) Required DeedNotices to Residents that they "be prepared to accept theinconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort from normal aircraftoperations" and "be aware that the current volume of aircraftactivity may increase in the future".
Building Eye and Palo Alto Permit View
The public and the press regularly access BuildingEye to obtaintimely information about Building, Planning, and CodeEnforcement activity.
Replacing BuildingEye with Palo Alto View may create a periodof time when there is not up-to-date information available oneither of those tools.
Therefore, nothing related to the subject project that mayrequire action by the public should take place until Palo AltoView is fully functional, and no tree removal should occur oneither dedicated parkland or the project site prior to approvalof the complete CEQA project.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:David Lam
To:Council, City
Subject:Invitation to VIP New Year"s greeting recording
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:26:55 PM
Attachments:NTD-LOGO_Blue1.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Honorable City Council:
On behalf of our station, I would like to cordially invite you to extend New Year greetings to
our viewer base and Chinese community. It would be a 1-minute video recording to our NTD
and Epoch Times audience as we ring in the New Year.
You may choose to have your greetings videotaped by our camera crew who can come to
your office or online via web meeting. Or we can come by an event you're attending. The
recordings will be aired during our New Year's broadcast programming for the Mandarin
channel. It reaches the entire Bay Area.
Should you like to participate, please RSVP to david.lam@ntd.com or reply to me with
your availability. It should take less than 15 minutes, and we hope to do this by
Christmas time.
This is a great way to share your best wishes with our audience in traditional custom and stay
connected with the Chinese-American community!
Here are some greetings from past years for your reference:
https://www.ntdtv.com/b5/2024/01/03/a103840024.html
https://www.ntdtv.com/b5/2022/12/29/a103610139.html
https://www.ntdtv.com/b5/2023/02/02/a103640357.html
https://www.ntdtv.com/b5/2022/12/29/a103610112.html
Warmest regards,
--
_________________
David Lam | Reporter
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
The Epoch Times | NTD | NTD Tonight
Northwest Edition | 888-557-3280P.O. Box 359Santa Clara, CA 95052
From:Allison Carlson
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone,
Greer
Subject:Please leave Palo Alto"s turf fields as they are
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:59:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposal to remove El Camino field's turf and
replace it with grass. While I understand and appreciate the idea to have a more natural field
material..... I am concerned that removing the turf would do more harm than good. Grass
fields are unplayable at many times during the year because of rain. We want to maximize the
amount of time our kids are outside playing sports....
Thanks for your consideration.
Allison Carlson
(Mom of kids who play for both Palo Alto, SV as well as Stanford Strikers)
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
From:Reina Nagai
To:Lauing, Ed
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Support for Retaining Synthetic Turf Fields for Youth Soccer
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:48:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for retaining synthetic turf fields in our community,
particularly for my children’s soccer club, Palo Alto Soccer Club. These fields have been an
invaluable resource for our young athletes, and I believe they play a vital role in promoting
healthy, active lifestyles among our city’s youth.
Synthetic turf provides several key benefits that natural grass cannot consistently offer:
Year-round playability: Turf fields remain usable in wet weather and during colder
months, ensuring that practices and games are not canceled due to muddy or unsafe
conditions.
Durability and safety: Unlike grass fields that quickly wear down, turf maintains a
consistent surface, reducing uneven patches that can lead to injuries.
Accessibility for all teams: With limited field space in our city, turf allows for more
hours of play and accommodates multiple teams without the downtime required for
grass recovery.
Community investment: The installation of synthetic turf represents a significant
investment by the city. Retaining it ensures that this investment continues to benefit
thousands of children and families.
As a parent, I see firsthand how these fields foster teamwork, discipline, and joy in our kids.
Soccer is more than just a sport—it is a community builder. By keeping synthetic turf, we
ensure that children of all backgrounds have reliable access to safe, high-quality facilities.
I respectfully urge the council to continue supporting synthetic turf fields in the City of Palo
Alto so that our youth programs can thrive. Thank you for your consideration and for your
commitment to the well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
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
Reina Nagai
From:胡婕
To:Council, City
Subject:Please retain the existing synthetic turf fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:48:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for retaining the existing synthetic turf fields at this
time. Replacing the turf with natural grass would severely reduce field availability and
significantly impact training, competitions, and year-round programming for youth players.
As you know, grass fields in Palo Alto often close during the winter months due to weather
conditions. This makes them unreliable for regular training. Synthetic turf provides a
consistent and dependable playing surface, especially during rainy or cold seasons when grass
fields cannot be used. Youth athletes need steady practice to maintain their skills, confidence,
and physical conditioning — interruptions caused by weather would greatly affect their
development.
In addition, thousands of children in Palo Alto participate in soccer. Even today, the amount of
available turf space is already very limited, and many teams struggle to find adequate training
locations. We are not asking for additional turf fields at this time; we are simply asking to
keep the current ones. If the existing turf were removed or converted, it is unclear where our
children would be able to train during the winter and rainy seasons.
For the sake of consistent access, safety, and equitable opportunity for all youth players, I
respectfully urge the council to retain the current synthetic turf fields.
Thank you for your consideration and for your support of the community’s children.
Sincerely,
Jie (One family with two kids are playing soccer)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
This person's name has non-English characters.
Mark Safe Report
From:Eduardo Chalian
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Proposed removal of El Camino turf fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:47:27 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,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for retaining synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto,
particularly at El Camino Park.
Removing synthetic turf fields would significantly reduce field availability and negatively impact
year-round training, competition, and programming for thousands of local youth and families.
The club where my son plays (Palo Alto Soccer Club) would be severely impacted given that
the City currently does not have sufficient natural grass fields that can withstand the level of
use our community requires, and grass fields are frequently closed during the winter months
due to weather conditions.
I believe that removing synthetic turf at El Camino Park as early as next year would create
immediate and serious challenges, leaving many children (not only from our club, but from
others in the area) without reliable and safe places to play.
I respectfully urge the City Council to retain existing synthetic turf fields while long-term,
sustainable alternatives are thoughtfully evaluated and implemented.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Eduardo
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:Justin Annes
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep El Camino Turf, Please
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:44:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
There is very high demand but very limited availability of playable fields/surfaces in Palo Alto. El
Camino offers a nice balance of grass for baseball and field activities, and a heavily utilized turf for
year-round use. Please maintain the El Camino Turf field – although it’s a relatively small area, it
plays a critical role in supporting year round outdoor activity with a high level of participation. I
agree with the overall conclusion of the 2025 Study & Assessment of Turf Systems for the city of Palo
Alto: “…the city should consider resurfacing El Camino
with synthetic turf while moving forward with the pilot program.” Please keep El Camino’s Turf field
and keep our outdoor activities active.
Sincerely,
Justin Annes
Justin Annes MD PhD
Associate Professor, Stanford University Department of Medicine
Director of Stanford’s Hereditary Neuroendocrine Tumor Program
Co-Director Stanford PheoPara Research and Clinical Center of Excellence
CCSR 2255-A, 1291 Welch Rd., Stanford, CA 94305-5165
Fax: 650-721-3161
From:Mauro Mondino
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Please keep synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:43:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Resurfacing again this email to reiterate the need to keep synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto, including El
Camino park.
The community is concerned about upcoming changes to El Camino Park and we would hate to see El
Camino Park field availability reduced greatly after moving to natural grass.
Thank you,
Mauro
________________
Mauro Mondino
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:17 AM Mauro Mondino <mauro.mondino@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
This is Mauro Mondino, I am a Palo Alto resident. My family and I use the turf fields for recreational
purposes on a weekly basis (Palo Alto Adult Soccer League, Palo Alto Soccer Club).
I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the existing synthetic fields.
These fields provide essential, all-year-round-durable space for our community's sports
leagues and recreational activities, and their continuation is vital for the well-being and
active lifestyles of our residents.
Thank you for considering my input.
Thank you,
Mauro
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
________________
Mauro Mondino
From:Dandan Yu
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: KEEP Turf Fields - PLEASE!
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:42:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
+city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
On Dec 16, 2025, at 1:41 PM, Dandan Yu <fannyyudan@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi City Council team,
Pls do not take away the turf fields in El Camino or anywhere in Palo Alto.
There is no other reliable venue for kids like my 7 yr old son and his team to play
soccer in winter.
Before the nature grass fields are abundant, pls do not take away what’s already
scarce for soccer kids!
Best,
Dandan Yu, 12+ yr Palo Alto citizen
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:Yongxian Lu
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Retaining synthetic turf fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:31:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear PA Council Members,
I am Yongxian Lu, a long-time resident of PA and a father of two who actively participate in sports. I am writing to
express my concern about the retention of synthetic turf fields at PA, which is an issue of great importance to
hundreds, if not thousands, of families.
While we acknowledge the potential health and environmental risks associated with these fields, we recognize their
vital role in children’s sports activities and their impact on their physical and mental well-being. Therefore, we
strongly urge you to consider retaining these fields until definitive studies demonstrate that the negative effects
outweigh the positive ones.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Yongxian & family
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:Jeff Herman
To:Council, City
Cc:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Subject:Proposed Removal of El Camino Turf Fields - Coach Jeff Herman
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:30:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
My name is Jeff Herman, and I have spent the past 20 years coaching youth soccer at the club,
high school, and Olympic Development Program levels. I currently coach with Palo Alto
Soccer Club, and I’m writing to express my strong support for retaining the synthetic turf at El
Camino Park.
I want to share a perspective that comes from working in very different communities across
Northern California.
For part of my career, I coached and worked in Vallejo, a city where youth programs often
struggle for support. I’ve seen firsthand what happens when young people lack safe, structured
environments — higher crime, poor outcomes, and teenagers drifting toward activities that
harm their futures. In contrast, I’ve also coached in Fairfield and Vacaville, where thriving
soccer programs serve as community hubs, bringing together families of all races and
economic backgrounds. These cities show what is possible when youth have consistent,
reliable access to well-maintained fields.
Since coming to Palo Alto Soccer Club, I’ve been profoundly impressed. The administrative
staff, families, and coaches are among the best I’ve worked with, and the environment they
create for kids is truly special. The City of Palo Alto has played a major role in that success by
supporting facilities that make year-round programming possible. Removing turf at El Camino
— before alternative solutions are in place — would significantly disrupt that ecosystem.
I’d like to share two brief true stories that highlight the impact a supportive sports
environment can have on a young person’s life.
The first is about a boy named Ryder, whom I coached years ago. He arrived to training in
tattered clothes, homeless at the time, but he worked hard and loved being part of the team.
One day my wife even bought him lunch when he hadn’t eaten. Unfortunately, due to neglect
at home, Ryder stopped coming to soccer. Not long after, cut off from the positive
environment that kept him grounded, he fell into the wrong crowd and became involved in a
tragic incident where another young man lost his life. Ryder was not a violent kid — he was a
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
product of losing the stability, mentorship, and community that sports provided him. Stories
like his stay with me forever, and they remind me daily why reliable access to supportive
sports environments matters.
The second story comes from right here in Palo Alto. A group of our 7th and 8th grade girls
were preparing for a travel tournament when one player mentioned that her family couldn’t
afford the trip. Without hesitation, her teammates said, “Then we’ll create a scholarship —
we’ll chip in so you can go.” These girls didn’t just talk about teamwork; they lived it. Their
compassion reflects the culture this community has built — a culture that transcends the game
itself.
Palo Alto Soccer Club is more than practices and matches. It is a safe haven, a leadership
incubator, and a place where kids develop resilience, friendships, confidence, and character.
The work we do is only possible because the City provides the fields that allow us to serve
thousands of families year-round.
I say this with deep respect: removing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park — without a
viable, high-performance natural grass alternative already established — would take away a
resource that is vital to the well-being of youth in this community. I have seen what happens in
cities that lack these opportunities, and I’ve seen the lifelong positive impact when kids have a
safe, structured place to belong.
Please continue to support Palo Alto families by preserving the synthetic turf at El Camino
Park. Your decision will directly affect the opportunities, safety, and long-term development
of the children we serve — and the benefits are truly priceless.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Herman
Palo Alto Soccer Club Coach
20 Years Coaching Experience – Club, High School, and ODP
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From:Emilia Notohardjono
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Removal of El Camino Turf Fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:20:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
As a concerned parent of a youth soccer player with the Palo Alto Soccer Club, I am writing to
strongly oppose the proposed removal of artificial turf at El Camino Park and other city fields.
Artificial turf fields are essential to our children’s athletic development and overall well-being.
They provide consistent, safe playing surfaces year-round, allowing young athletes to practice
and compete nearly every day of the year. In contrast, natural grass fields are typically usable
only 150–175 days annually and are often closed for extended periods during the rainy season.
I have personally witnessed the disappointment on my child’s face when practices and games
are canceled due to poor grass field conditions. More importantly, these closures significantly
limit our children’s ability to remain active and engaged.
Many existing grass fields in our community are frequently closed due to maintenance
challenges, leaving youth athletes with even fewer opportunities to participate in organized
sports. As the number of children eager to play soccer continues to grow, Palo Alto is facing a
critical shortage of available field space. Our club is already struggling to accommodate all
players with the limited facilities currently available.
Artificial turf fields help meet this pressing demand while promoting healthy, active lifestyles
for our youth. Maintaining these fields ensures that all children—regardless of background or
club affiliation—have equitable access to safe and reliable places to play.
While I fully support exploring high-performance natural grass solutions at appropriate
locations such as Cubberley or Greer Park, removing synthetic turf at El Camino Park at this
time would have immediate and negative consequences for thousands of Palo Alto families. It
would leave many children without a dependable space to practice and play.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider the removal of artificial turf in Palo Alto. Your decision
will have a lasting impact on the recreational opportunities available to our city’s youth.
Please support our community by preserving the infrastructure necessary to foster our
children’s physical well-being and passion for sports.
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
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Emilia Notohardjono
Concerned Parent, Palo Alto Soccer Club
From:Wangda Tan
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Keep El Camino Park playable for our kids
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:07:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
As a resident and PASC parent, I am writing to express my strong opposition to removing the
synthetic turf at El Camino Park.
With the high volume of youth athletes in Palo Alto, we simply do not have enough field
space to meet demand, especially during the winter. Natural grass fields are frequently closed
due to weather, while synthetic turf allows our children to play year-round.
Please do not take away reliable playing space from our kids. I urge you to retain the synthetic
turf at El Camino until the City can demonstrate that natural grass fields can actually sustain
the volume of use our community requires.
Thank you for supporting youth recreation in Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Wangda Tan
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:Ming Mao
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Support for retaining synthetic turf of El Camino Turf Fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:56:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
HI Palo Alto City Council
I'm a resident of Palo Alto (94306) and mom of a kid who plays soccer at PA Soccer Club.
I'm writing to support the retaining of synthetic turf of El Camino Turf Fields.
I hear the Palo Alto City Council is considering removing all synthetic turf fields, beginning
with El Camino Park as early as next year. This change would severely reduce field
availability and significantly impact training, competition, and year-round programming for
our players.
While we fully support exploring high-performance natural grass at sites such as Cubberley or
Greer Park, removing synthetic turf at El Camino now would have immediate, negative
consequences for thousands of Palo Alto families and leave many kids without reliable space
to play. This is because there are not enough natural grass fields that can withstand the volume
of use our community requires, and grass fields often close during the winter months due to
weather.
Thank you for listening,
Ming Mao
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:Stacey Kapadia
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Council, City; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George
Subject:Please preserve turf fields
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:56:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am a parent of two teenage athletes. We strongly value the existence of turf fields around
Palo Alto, specifically including El Camino Field.
While grass fields are wonderful, they are hard to maintain and often closed during the winter.
Even during the dry season, the difficulty in maintenance of grass fields makes playing soccer
on those fields an injury risk for my children. Greer and JLS fields have been uneven during
2025, and when my children play on those fields I worry about ankle and knee injury.
Giving children the opportunity to play on turf is important. It allows them to play throughout
the rainy season and also helps avoid injury when the grass fields are in poorer condition.
Please keep the turf fields!
Thank you,
Stacey Kapadia
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:Yefei Peng
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Support for Retaining Synthetic Turf Fields for Palo Alto Youth
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:55:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident and parent to express strong support for retainingsynthetic turf fields in our city so that children have adequate space and opportunity toplay soccer and other sports. Demand for field time is already high, and it is increasinglydifficult for families and youth teams to find consistent practice and game slots.
Synthetic turf plays a critical role in providing enough field capacity because it can safelyaccommodate many more hours of use throughout the year than natural grass. Unlikegrass fields, which often must be closed due to rain, mud, or recovery time after heavyuse, synthetic fields remain playable in a wider range of conditions and require lessdowntime for maintenance. This reliability is essential for scheduling youth practices,games, and school activities.
If synthetic turf fields were removed or significantly reduced, the already-limited access tofields would become even more constrained. That would mean fewer opportunities forkids to be physically active, to participate in team sports, and to gain the social, emotional,and health benefits that come from regular play and structured programs. For manyfamilies, local synthetic turf fields are what make participation in youth soccer and othersports realistically possible.
At the same time, it is important to take environmental and safety concerns seriously.These issues can and should be addressed through the use of modern, safer materials,strong maintenance and cleaning practices, thoughtful design (including drainage andheat mitigation), and clear communication with families and the community. Eliminatingsynthetic fields altogether would remove a vital resource for youth without fully exploringbalanced solutions.
I respectfully ask the Council to retain existing synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto and toconsider upgrading or improving them as part of long-term planning for youth recreationand community athletics. Please prioritize field capacity, reliability, and access for childrenand families as you make decisions about our park and school athletic facilities.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Yefei Peng
Address:
cell:
email:
From:Patricia Judge Tamrazi
To:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; City Mgr; Burton, Kaylee
Subject:CPAU - urgent - continuing safety issues
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:25:10 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council,
What have you done to make sure City of Palo Alto Utilities has maintenance schedules for the
electrical grid and is doing maintenance according to those schedules? My public records
requests suggested they don't have any. That is dangerous!
Last night, there was a post on one of Facebook's Palo Alto parents groups of someone looking
for an electrician to come out and diagnose / fix flickering lights. I private messaged and told
the person to call the City. The City came out and found that the flickering was an issue on the
City's side - a loose connection or loose neutral.
As all of you know, I fought CPAU for over 6 months to get my flickering lights fixed. A
lineman and dispatch told me they were very worried for my safety - now I know it's
because there was a loose neutral, known and chosen not to be fixed (fire risk!!!!) - and that I
needed to advocate for my neighborhood. So I did. I have contacted you many, many times -
mostly with no answer.
2 of 2 poles in my neighborhood climbed by CPAU had loose connections - this is in addition
to the loose neutral. To my knowledge, no maintenance has been done since. Public records
requests revealed that the City of Palo Alto does not have maintenance schedules for the grid.
PG&E got in big trouble for being behind on their maintenance schedules - CPAU doesn't even
have any!
This is incredibly negligent.
CPAU, as a municipal utility, falls outside of California state regulation. Council - it is on
you to act as the regulator. This is your duty. The City's policy choices to date to not do
maintenance and to not have maintenance schedules is highly negligent. What have you done
to cure this?
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
Trish Tamrazi
Concerned Palo Alto Homeowner
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:58 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
To: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org>,
<molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council,
City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>, Burton, Kaylee
<Kaylee.Burton@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>, City
Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Good morning,
Mr. Shikada - Please let me know, will you let the CPUC regulators in to help you fix
the glaring health and safety issues within Utilities?
Following up on my email below from August 2, since I have not heard back from any of
you. Today is August 13. What has been done to address the glaring safety issues in Utilities
that I have been flagging since February? What progress has there been on the list below?
I submitted a Public Records Request and the City was unable to provide any maintenance
schedule for the City's electrical system or progress on that schedule. I was told the City
complies with CPUC regulations, however, the City was unable to provide evidence of that -
so is it safe to assume the City does not, in fact, comply? That is very dangerous!! And
totally NOT in line with industry standards (again).
Why not let the CPUC auditors in to investigate, given the safety dangers this presents to
Palo Altans?
The outage yesterday and botched response to fix it, is evidence of these glaring safety
issues. Obviously the notification system needs A LOT OF HELP - what will happen in an
emergency? Given what yesterday demonstrated, are you addressing those shortcomings?
I invite you to read the comments in the linked article, which reflect the disarray in Utilities
that I have experienced first-hand since my lights started flickering in January - City
Council, these are your constituents who NEED HELP. Please see, for example, below.
Please let me know, will you let the CPUC regulators in to help you fix these health and
safety issues?
Trish Tamrazi
Palo Alto Homeowner
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 8:56 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Good morning,
As you know from my previous email this morning, I continue to experience poor power
supply at my house (first reported to CPAU on January 24 - today is August 2).
I'm now following up on my email below from July 3, since I never received an answer.
Could the City Manager's office please provide an update?
Could you please provide an update on the overarching HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
/ SOLUTIONS, which I have inquired about repeatedly?
1. Emergency line and customer service not properly staffed / trained (lack
knowledge to do their jobs; Dean Batchelor, in February, and Tomm Marshall, in
April, both agreed with me on the phone that this is a real issue) - training and
oversight needed.
2. Employees not empowered to diagnose and fix problems when identified - boots
on the ground should be empowered, not supervisors who do not understand
problems (this is per CPAU's own employees).
3. CPAU maintenance standards fall below PG&E's / industry standards (this is per
CPAU's own employees - see above and overgrown tree issues above). EDITED
TO ADD: Public Records Requests suggest there are also no proper maintenance
schedules for overhead electrical lines (City said there were, as is industry
standard, but was unable to provide, so is it correct to assume they do not exist?).
4. Contractors must abide by the City's own stated steps of performance - training
and oversight needed. (This is the dirty water / water meter swap lawsuit.)
What actions are being taken to address these issues?
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:30 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi there,
I do not know who I am communicating with - the email directly below is sent from the
email address of Tomm Marshall, but is signed with Kaylee Burton's signature. This is
of course important because Mr. Marshall would be, I believe, presenting technical
information, while Ms. Burton would not.
Thank you for sending the data from the newest transformer from Thursday, June 27,
starting around noon when it was installed. This illustrates exactly my point about
CPAU's negligence: there is no need to put a load logger up on the line and spend weeks
evaluating the voltage swings, as you say you have been doing - there should be testing
in real time, right away, as soon as work is being done, and any dangerous conditions
should be addressed then and there. This perfectly illustrates the fact here: that CPAU
left known dangerous conditions (voltage swings) up on the electrical line, unfixed, since
at least mid-March (likely February) until June 27. This is not in line with minimum
maintenance and safety standards in the industry (as many of CPAU's employees and
contractors have told me).
Your troubleshooting efforts were only "persistent," as you are now trying to spin it,
because I - a resident and customer - have been persistent. This is no way to run a utility
- this is dangerous.
Could you please provide an update on the overarching HEALTH AND SAFETY
ISSUES / SOLUTIONS, which I have inquired about repeatedly?
1. Emergency line and customer service not properly staffed / trained (lack
knowledge to do their jobs; Dean Batchelor, in February, and Tomm Marshall, in
April, both agreed with me on the phone that this is a real issue) - training and
oversight needed.
2. Employees not empowered to diagnose and fix problems when identified - boots
on the ground should be empowered, not supervisors who do not understand
problems (this is per CPAU's own employees).
3. CPAU maintenance standards fall below PG&E's / industry standards (this is per
CPAU's own employees - see above and overgrown tree issues above).
4. Contractors must abide by the City's own stated steps of performance - training and
oversight needed. (This is the dirty water / water meter swap lawsuit.)
What actions are being taken to address these issues?
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:09 PM Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org>
wrote:
Ms. Tamarazi,
The city is prepared to cover the costs of an electrician to conduct a thorough
inspection of your home. Should the electrician discover any damages that might have
been caused by the city, you have the option to file a claim through the city's website at
Submit a Claim Against the City – City of Palo Alto, CA, to seek reimbursement for
those damages.
Regrettably, this issue was not a simple repair but rather a complex matter that required
extensive troubleshooting and time to resolve.
Enclosed are the latest readings from the newly installed transformer as of Thursday,
July 28, confirming that there are currently no issues detected.
Due to the complexity of the situation, the solution did not unfold as originally
anticipated. Through persistent troubleshooting efforts, however, we successfully
identified and resolved the underlying cause.
At present, CPAU (City of Palo Alto Utilities) has not been informed of any additional
electrical concerns associated with transformer malfunctions.
I trust that I have sufficiently addressed all of your inquiries in the preceding email.
Thank you,
Kaylee Burton
Utilities Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
Phone: 650.329.2326 | Cell: 650.444.5305
E-mail: kaylee.burton@CityofPaloAlto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Williams, Kurt <Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton, Kaylee
<Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Tomm,
Thank you for your email. In response:
1. Will the City commit to paying for all damage to my house? I am waiting to get
an electrician in because I am waiting for an answer to the question I have asked
multiple times: will the City commit to paying for any damage found within my
home? My house is newly rewired and had no damage when assessed back in
late January when our flickering lights were first reported to CPAU. These
flickering lights were later attributed to being caused by severe brownouts due to
the City's poor power supply, however the City denied all possible responsibility
for over a week prior to putting a smart meter on my house, so, trusting that, I
consulted multiple electricians during that time. Thereafter, voltage fluctuations
were measured. Therefore, if the power supply to my house is safe and reliable
now and I am still experiencing issues, it is due to the damage the City's poor
power supply has caused to my house. Will the City commit to paying for all
damage?
2. Shouldn't it be up to CPAU - not me - to determine what a "proper fix" is? I
have been told that, in fact, back in February, the loose leg was tightened and the
power supply got worse, not better, but that the supervisor did not want to pay
overtime for the proper fix, so they just left it. This is per your own employees -
multiple of them told me to advocate for something better than a "Band-aid fix."
I know you have denied that being the case, but you have not provided any data
illustrating that your employees who told me to advocate for myself were wrong
(and what would their motivation be to lie to me??). What a "proper fix" means,
I do not know, nor should I, as I am simply a resident and customer. If you
replaced the transformer only upon my request, as you are now saying - wow,
that is incredibly scary and this whole situation is even worse than I thought.
3. Could you please provide data showing the issue is fixed? Do you have data
showing that the fourth transformer fixed the ongoing issue?
4. Why is the fix only at the repeated request of a resident? If I didn't push and
push and push, would you have just left the defective transformers? With the
latest swap (which you say now fixed the poor power supply, right?), Utilities
sent my neighbors notification of power shut down only after I requested the
California State regulators be let in to inspect, and even then it was not treated as
an emergency!
5. Are faulty transformers a problem throughout the City of Palo Alto? If yes, what
is being done to fix this issue to protect the health and safety of residents? Please
see one resident's account below. I have also connected with other homeowners
whose appliances were blown out by poor power supply to their houses.
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:50 AM Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
The voltage fluctuations observed in the network supplied by the transformer located
at 3480 Thomas Drive were not due to a loose neutral wire but rather stemmed from
a manufacturing defect in the transformers supplied to the City of Palo Alto.
Initially, the issue at your property was identified as a loose Hot Leg on the
transformer. The voltage fluctuation on your service was resolved upon repairing this
connection. However, following this repair, you reported persistent voltage
fluctuations. Although we did not observe any issues with your service, we
proceeded with replacing the transformer upon your request. After replacement, we
observed unexpected voltage deviations causing intermittent flickering on the new
transformer. Subsequent replacement with another unit from the same manufacturer
revealed that the issue lay in a defect inherent to these transformers.
The transformer was then replaced a third time, this time with a unit from a different
manufacturer, which effectively resolved the unexpected voltage fluctuations in the
secondary system.
As mentioned previously, if you continue to experience flickering lights or any
related issues, we remain committed to assisting you by facilitating an investigation
with an electrician of your choosing to identify and address the root cause.
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Williams, Kurt <Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton, Kaylee
<Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed
<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Tomm,
I hope this email finds you well. Following up on my email from May 31, since I
have not heard back from you yet and since Kurt Williams told me yesterday to
contact you regarding my questions on the known and unfixed loose neutral.
Could you please provide an update on fixing the loose neutral measured up on the
pole at 3480 Thomas Drive, in at least March?
It looks like they switched out the transformer again last week. I believe that this is
the third time the transformer has been switched. Why was it switched again?
Has the loose neutral been fixed?
Trish Tamrazi
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:13 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Tomm - Following up on my email from Tuesday, since you have not
replied. When will the loose neutral in my neighborhood be fixed? As you
know, utility companies treat this as an emergency, and ours was identified at least
back in March (I believe, in talking with CPAU employees,
February). https://www.luminsmart.com/blog/the-dangers-of-floating-neutral-
2262
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:25 AM Patricia Judge <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks, Tomm. My understanding is that the crews would know right away by
testing if they fixed the loose neutral, so is it correct to assume that your email
means that they did not fix the neutral issue? When will you be doing that? I’m
sure you can understand my being worried about this since it’s a serious
electrical danger (risk of surge and fire).
From what I have pieced together, there was a neutral issue with the old
transformer and a neutral issue with the new transformer, so wouldn’t that
suggest that the issue is NOT with the transformer? Is there maybe a damaged
or loose wire somewhere that needs to be found? I understand that would take
much more time to find and fix versus switching out the transformer again, and I
do appreciate the crews’ time.
2 City employees now - one back on February and one last week (May) - have
expressed to me how worried they are about overgrown trees around the
overhead wires in my neighborhood. Could that be contributing to my poor
power supply? When will the trees around the wires be trimmed?
I’m looping in Councilmember Lauing, since he has been actively working on
this.
I’m here to help. I want nothing more than to get this resolved so that I can just
live in peace - with safe and reliable power - and never have to contact you
again. I want to be clear, that is my goal.
Thank you,
Trish
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2024, at 10:13 AM, Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
The transformer was replaced, new wire connections were installed
and meters were installed to record data.
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Williams, Kurt <Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton,
Kaylee <Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
Hi Tomm,
What happened yesterday - did they find the loose neutral
(identified in early March) and tighten it?
Trish
Patricia Tamrazi
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:10 AM Williams, Kurt
<Kurt.Williams@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Patricia,
I have attached a screenshot of the neutral issue.
<image001.png>
Best,
<image002.png>
Kurt Williams.
Associate Power Engineer, EIT.
City of Palo Alto | Utilities Department
1007 Elwell Court | Palo Alto, CA 94303
O: 650-329-2445 | C: | E: kurt.williams@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Williams, Kurt <Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton,
Kaylee <Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
Thank you, Kurt. My understanding is that when my house was
on the new transformer, there was a "neutral issue" that was
picked up by the load logger. Could you please send me screen
shots of that data, showing the "neutral issue"?
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:20 AM Williams, Kurt
<Kurt.Williams@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Patricia,
I have reviewed the data from April 25th – May 1st and have
attached a screenshot below. On 4/29 at about 6AM, there was
a temporary dip of the high side voltage, causing the secondary
voltage to drop below 114V. Besides this anomaly, the
secondary voltage stayed between the required 5% tolerance
(126V -114V) and the PST value was below 1, indicating that
no flicker likely occurred expect on the morning on 4/29 where
the PST value was above 1.
<image003.png>
Best,
<image002.png>
Kurt Williams.
Associate Power Engineer, EIT.
City of Palo Alto | Utilities Department
1007 Elwell Court | Palo Alto, CA 94303
O: 650-329-2445 | C: | E: kurt.williams@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 4:21 PM
To: Williams, Kurt <Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Marshall, Tomm <Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Burton, Kaylee <Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts
Thank you, Kurt. Has the data been reviewed yet that was
taken from the last time the load logger was on the house?
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:53 PM Williams, Kurt
<Kurt.Williams@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Patricia,
I spoke with Tomm and the meter technicians will be out
tomorrow morning, 5/16, between 9AM and 10AM to
install the load logger.
Best,
<image002.png>
Kurt Williams.
Associate Power Engineer, EIT.
City of Palo Alto | Utilities Department
1007 Elwell Court | Palo Alto, CA 94303
O: 650-329-2445 | C: | E:
kurt.williams@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 8:57 AM
To: Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton, Kaylee
<Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Williams, Kurt
<Kurt.Williams@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing
brownouts
Hi Tomm,
My lights are flickering again - at 11:15am on Sunday 5/12
and in the evening of Monday 5/13. The flickering was on
different circuits. I can send video if you'd like.
I don't know whether the load logger is on or not? I think
maybe it is not, since I did see my gate closed differently
after it was installed. I don't receive notification of the work
- but I would like that, please, since I am having to be
so involved.
A couple of questions:
1. Is it possible there are loose connections from Utilities
on my panel? There was a torque test on everything
my electrician did - how about what Utilities has
done? It seemed like the flickering stopped when the
load logger was on (if it is indeed off) - so I thought
maybe it was a loose connection related to that -
especially since you had told me previously that you
found a LOOSE CONNECTION on the load logger.
This is quite concerning, of course, and should be an
easy fix? It seems like the load logger was taken off,
and the flickering returned.
2. You said previously there was a "neutral issue" when
connected to the NEW transformer, so you took us off
that and put us on the OLD transformer next to it. Can
you just fix the "neutral issue" and put me on the
NEW transformer? Will this solve my flickering
lights? What does "neutral issue" mean?
This flickering was first reported to CPAU January 24, so
this is quite frustrating that it is still going on.
Could you please fix it?
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:47 PM Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Here are more files.
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 2:16 PM
To: Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton, Kaylee
<Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing
brownouts
Hi Tomm,
Load logger. Having a meter reset - does that mean
coming out to put a load logger back on my house? My
understanding is that the smart meter will not pick up most
poor power supply issues - I need a load logger on there,
and it needs to be the correct one (I have been told there
was a "wrong" one on, for quite a while). I was told that it
was only because my brownouts were so severe that the
smart meter picked them up - generally, it would not.
Video. The video showed the light - when the light switch
is turned off - it takes a long time to go out, gets very
bright, then turns off. This is on a dumb switch. It was
flickering severely the day before this odd behavior (I do
have video of the flickering). Then this odd behavior.
Then back to normal. Please note that this is
different than the flickering, which occurs when the lights
are on. This is odd behavior when we try to turn the light
off.
Flickering. Flickering occurs on fixtures with lightbulbs
throughout the house - many have dumb switches, some
have dimmers. Since this flickering is consistent across
different switch devices and happens intermittently, it
seems unlikely that the flickering is due to dimmers. It
seems flickering is more pronouced on fixtures with bulbs
than integrated LEDs - I have been told that may
indicate low voltage - what do you think?
datasets came through to me in response to my records
request. There are many, many items missing in the
records request, which I only submitted because I've asked
for the data many times, and I have never received it. I
have been told that Utilities does not want to provide it
(folks refer to "my supervisor") - which is why I put in the
records request - as a matter of law, it is to be provided.
I'm attaching the load logger data that I have seen - but I
would like the full data set, please.
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
650-208-4802
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:36 PM Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
I am having the charts printed out so that I can forward
them to you . The original datasets were included in the
Public Records Request but they appear to require the
meter manufacturers software to decode the data. When
I have more time I will see if the files can be exported
in a data file that can be read by something like
EXCEL. The PDF files of the data from your house
should be ready by the end of the week.
I have asked the engineer to request the meter to be
reset on your house and it should be done this week.
The video showed the light flickering and going out. A
couple of questions since I don’t know the setup in your
house. Was this the only light experiencing the
flickering? Is the light connected to a dimmer switch?
Thanks for you patience.
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom patricia.judge@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 12:43 PM
To: Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burton,
Kaylee <Kaylee.Burton@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing
brownouts
Hi Tomm,
Following up from our phone discussion on Thursday,
April 18, since I have not heard from anyone yet -
Could you send all data from the load loggers
associated with the power to my house, please? When
will load loggers be put back on my house, please?
I have more video of my lights flickering on Saturday,
April 20. Could you please let me know if you'd like to
see it?
My understanding from our discussion Thursday is that
you measured the following: (1) brownouts initially
(first reported January 24 and recorded via smart meter
February 8 - these issues are also in the data from the
load loggers?), (2) power to house from new
transformer around February 12, then continuing
flickering lights due to a problem with the neutral (is
that a loose neutral?), then (3) did not fix those neutral
issues, instead moved the house to an old transformer
on the secondary pole (which also had loose
connections - so if the "proper fix" on the other pole
was a new transformer, why not on this pole too?), and
continuing flickering lights.
Did you have a chance to review the video I sent on
April 17, video recorded April 14? I've never seen a
light do this - could you please tell me what is going
on? Is this dangerous? Is this a surge due to ongoing
issues? The light did go back to normal - so the only
thing that could have changed is the power supply to my
house.
Thank you,
Trish Tamrazi
650-208-4802
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:55 AM Patricia Judge
Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Tomm,
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Thank you for your call on the afternoon of Thursday,
April 4. I'm sorry for missing it - I am dealing with
some health issues and could not answer the phone.
My understanding is that many City employees do
not work on Fridays, so I intended to call you on
Monday, April 8. However, upon walking out my
door to take my son to school on that morning, I came
upon the City's contractor replacing my water meter
(no notice) - I asked him to follow specific City
procedures laid out to my elderly neighbor whose
water was grossly contaminated by the techniques
used by the contractor, with the assurance those
procedures would be followed, but they were not, and
my water was contaminated with yard dirt. I have
been dealing with that since.
I just left you a voicemail. Attached please find the
video I referenced in that voicemail, of the weird
issue with the light in my daughter's room. This was
last Thursday, April 11. The day before, April 10, the
lights were severely flickering. The light went back
to normal as of Sunday, April 14. The only thing that
possibly could have changed is the power supply to
the house. By way of background which may be
helpful, this light fixture was new last year - it uses
lightbulbs.
Could you please provide all load logger data related
to the power supply to my house?
If you think this issue is resolved, could you please
put a load logger back on to measure these issues? I
have never seen a light act like in the video - neither
have electricians that I have consulted.
I am very worried that this is dangerous and could
start a fire.
Trish Tamrazi
650-208-4802
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:31 AM Patricia Judge
Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tomm,
It's nice to hear from you. I am free to discuss by
phone at any time. I want to start with a baseline: I
am here to help and I am open to working with
you. While I am very upset with the dysfunction in
Palo Alto, my anger and frustration is not directed
toward employees like you (as a general statement,
with exceptions for those who have been
threatening to me and/or lied to me).
A quick Google search suggests that you probably
understand the reality of what I am going through.
My lights seem to flicker evenings and weekends -
but not long holiday weekends or, it seems, during
this week which is spring break for Palo Alto
public schools.
The "EIT" (which I assume is "Engineer in
Training"), who I have been told is the point person
for my issues (an illustration of how seriously it's
been taken, that we don't even have a licensed
engineer in charge), suggested my flickering lights
are due to some sort of machine at a hypothetical
construction site nearby, which is, of course, silly.
I think it's more likely that it's the 2 EVs charging
in many driveways in my neighborhood.
It's been insinuated to me that CPAU is covering
up issues voiced by citizens like me, who are only
trying to get safe and reliable power to our houses.
Maybe it's that with the City Council's obsession
with electrification, no one dares admit what's
actually going on.
Yes, my primary transformer was upgraded, but
how about the lines?
I've been in contact with a bunch of folks with
flickering lights who are PG&E customers - PG&E
comes right out, diagnoses the problem, and fixes
it.
Here in Palo Alto is different - in a bad way. I
have been told that cutting costs is the number 1
priority - not providing safe and reliable power to
homes or empowering linemen to diagnose and fix
problems.
Do you know that another customer called in
flickering lights and 2 failed appliances (at least)
and it took 10 days plus another follow-up call plus
1 more day to get a lineman out to just check for a
loose neutral?! How unsafe!!!! They put a load
logger on, but now she's getting the runaround
from CPAU for someone to come out to pull the
data. It's exactly what happened to me.
This is too much to ask from citizens. This is no
way to run a utility.
Please let me know when a good time for a
discussion is.
Again, my anger is toward this dysfunctional city,
not toward you.
Thank you for reaching out to me, and I look
forward to working together.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 3:24 PM Marshall, Tomm
<Tomm.Marshall@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
If you have time tomorrow or sometime next
week I would like to have a conversation with
you regarding you concerns with the electric
service at your house. I am the Assistant Director
Some people who received this message don't often get
email from patricia.judge@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important
concerns. My staff has updated me on your
situation and I am familiar with the events and
the visits to your house. In addition, I have
reviewed the voltage and current recordings that
have been take at your house and in the adjacent
homes.
Please let me know when you have time to
discuss either on the phone or in person at your
home.
Thanks
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:02 PM
To: Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Batchelor, Dean
<Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City
Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stump,
Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Lythcott-Haims, Julie
<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Stone, Greer
<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka,
Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Veenker, Vicki
<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk,
City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues
causing brownouts
Dear City Council,
I last wrote to you on March 27 and still have not
received an answer. The only time I received a
substantive answer was when I expressed my
displeasure at not being able to purchase an EV
(being afraid that my neighborhood would burn
down or that my young children were in danger
didn't strike a chord with you). So, here's more
about that EV:
Here are photographs of the two places in my
garage where I had planned for EV chargers:
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
Last week, I purchased a gas powered car to
replace the old car which was totaled after being
stolen from in front of my house here in Palo
Alto.
Attached please find video of my lights
flickering on the evening of March 28. This is
visual evidence of why I cannot have an EV:
CPAU fails to provide safe and reliable
electricity to my home.
My flickering lights were first reported to CPAU
on January 24. After struggling with CPAU for
over 2 weeks, I first reached out to you regarding
this issue on February 9, after I was told by
CPAU's own employees that I needed to
advocate for a "proper fix" to our issues and was
met with a threatening environment when I did
so in person to CPAU's supervising employee. I
truly thought you would help me, but I am still
waiting.
Our flickering continues.
We now have multiple problems with the
electronics in our home, all of which are new
since we just finished renovating in late 2023.
For example (and this is not all-inclusive), our
bathroom fans act up (turn on and off randomly
and unexpectedly) and the ice in our Sub-zero is
stuck together (suggesting that it is not regulating
its temperature properly).
My family is suffering because of
your unresponsiveness. I spend countless hours
trying to navigate how to get my city
government to respond to me so that I can get
safe and reliable power to my house. My
business is suffering, my young children are
suffering, and I have developed health issues.
It is your responsibility to oversee CPAU, isn't
it? Your constituents are depending on you.
I close this 8th email to you as I have most of the
emails that came before it: I welcome any
thoughts you have on this matter.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:27 AM Patricia
Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear City Council,
since being told by Ed on March 5 that Dean
will be calling me and that Ed would join if
needed. That was over 3 weeks ago.
Episode 1 of The Invisible Shield premiered
on PBS last night. I recommend you watch it.
I found it inspiring to see the amazing impact
properly funded and functioning public health
systems can have, as well as the negative
effects that flow from cutting funding and
letting those systems fall into disrepair. A
lesson, perhaps, for your management of the
Utilities Department?
I'm sure by now you have heard of the
contamination of some houses' drinking water
that was caused by the contractor the city hired
to swap out water meters. When are you
planning on warning residents of the error and
helping them to clean up the mess? This is a
public health issue!!! As you remain silent,
citizens have been drinking contaminated
water!
In the same vein, I am still waiting on you to
notify my neighbors of the damage your poor
power supply has done to their homes. I first
suggested you do this in my email below on
February 21.
By the way, I have connected with a woman
across town - a mom with your children and a
lot on her plate - who has had flickering lights
as well as a dishwasher and refrigerator that
have gone out. My understanding is that she is
patiently waiting for someone to come out to
her house to check it out. I imagine I do not
need to state this to you, as you are the
regulators of the Utility and must know - but
just in case: utilities companies generally treat
flickering lights as an emergency!
Another thing is that, after following up, the
city's response to my Public Records Request
is still woefully unresponsive. I am simply
trying to gather information to fix the power
supply to my house! It is the city's legal duty
to respond fully. The city did, however,
produce 2 emails which are sickening:
1. Prior to anyone providing me any real
assistance or response, Dean forwarded
my desperate email pleading for help
and expressing my general displeasure
with the mismanagement in Palo Alto to
Catherine Elvert, who I gather from a
Google search is a PR professional, with
the note “Here you go !!!” Were you
getting your talking points in order,
rather than focusing on helping your
citizens??
2. 1 hour AFTER my THIRD desperate
email pleading for help (email stamp on
my email shows, "date: Feb 12, 2024,
2:05 PM"), Ed sent an email (email
stamp on Ed's email shows: "Sent:
Monday, February 12, 2024 3:16 PM")
to multiple City of Palo Alto email
addresses stating that Dean has spoken
to me a couple times (NOT TRUE!!!!!)
and “No need for further prompting.
Thanks all!” NOTHING HAD BEEN
ADDRESSED.
I close this 7th email to you as I have most of
the emails that came before it: I welcome any
thoughts you have on this matter.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:50 PM Patricia
Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank you for your note, however, I must
be very clear: I would much rather have a
responsive, caring, and ethical city
government, than bring any thieves to
justice.
The stress from having our car stolen from
in front of our house pales in comparison to
the stress and anguish we have experienced
as a family in getting the run around from
CPAU and then being ignored by City Hall,
as I try to get safe and reliable power
delivered to the houses in my
neighborhood.
Regarding the electrical issue: I should
never have been this involved or have had to
push so hard. This is too much to ask from
citizens. It is no way to run a utility. But, to
continue down that path: logically, shouldn't
the transformer also be replaced on the
"secondary pole," where loose connections
were also found? If that was the "proper
fix" on the first pole climbed (i.e. PG&E
minimum maintenance standards), wouldn't
it also be the "proper fix" on the second?
This is, of course, putting aside that perhaps
this is a long-standing issue, not unique to
my block, which has harmed many along
the way.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:28 PM Shikada,
Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Ms. Tamrazi,
I am so sorry to hear about your car being
stolen. I can only imagine how this has
impacted you and your family. While
understanding nothing can make up for
such a violation, I hope the thieves are
quickly brought to justice.
Regarding your electrical issue, I have
spoken to Director Batchelor and
understand he will be calling you to
follow up. I’m sorry to hear that their
replacement of the electrical transformer
did not resolve the problem. I will stay in
touch with him and happy to join a call as
he works with you on next steps.
Sincerely,
--Ed
<image006.png>Ed Shikada, City Manager
ICMA Credentialed Manager
(650) 329-2280 |
ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
<image007.png>
From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Batchelor, Dean
Some people who received this message don't
often get email from patricia.judge@gmail.com.
Learn why this is important
Cc: Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Burt, Patrick
<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou,
Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Lauing, Ed
<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Lythcott-Haims, Julie
<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Stone, Greer
<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Tanaka, Greg
<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Veenker, Vicki
<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>;
Clerk, City
<city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix
issues causing brownouts
CAUTION: This email originatedfrom outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links.
Good morning, City Council,
On Thursday night, our car got stolen
from in front of our house here in Palo
Alto. It looks like it's totaled. When we
completely rewired the house last year,
we future proofed to accommodate an EV
charger - 2 actually. However, CPAU is
unable to provide safe and reliable power
to our house. Because of this, to our great
disappointment, we cannot replace our
gas powered car with an EV.
My husband is a physician - if he gets a
call in the middle of the night that
someone is bleeding to death and needs
an intervention, and his EV didn't charge -
well, that's a big problem!
City Council - I see your talking points on
electrification (I'm all for electrification).
You know that your electrical
infrastructure can't support it.
This is the real world effect of your
decisions: a family that wanted to go
electric cannot.
You remain silent, as I plead for your
help, dating back to my first email to you
on February 9. We are now on March 4.
As for my flickering lights here at 3409
Greer Rd. - the latest working theory from
CPAU is that it is caused by an air
compressor at a theoretical construction
site nearby. (1) That's a laughable
theory. (2) My lights flicker evenings and
weekends - which CPAU engineers have
been told. Is the cause the 2 EVs
charging in every driveway + an outdated
electrical infrastructure that cannot
support it?
I put in a Public Records Request related
to my power issues. (a) The response was
a day late. (b) The response was blatantly
incomplete.
I believe the public policy reasoning
behind municipal utilities falling outside
of regulation is (i) elected officials, who
serve as the utlity's oversight, will be
responsive (mine - you - are silent) and
(ii) there are protections such as the
Public Records Request (my city
obviously disregards its legal duties).
In speaking with utilities attorneys last
week, one stated: When municipal
utilities are good, they're really great. But
when they're bad, it's abysmal.
I understand that you let Tesla jump
ahead of the rest of the city in the grid
update. Maybe Elon Musk's words will
resonate with you then - he said that the
world will face supply crunches in
electricity and transformers next year.
What does that result in? Flickering
lights.
City Council - Could you please take
steps to make our municipal utility "really
great," instead of "abysmal"? Your
constituents are depending on you.
I welcome your thoughts.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:24 AM
Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Good morning,
The lights continue to flicker here at
3409 Greer Rd. I still have not heard
anything substantive from anyone
except for Dean.
City Manager Shikada and City
Council - you are the regulators of the
Utilities Department, correct? Why
have I still not heard back from any of
you with anything substantive? (The
vast majority of you, I have not heard
anything at all.)
I still have not received any answer - is
this a fire risk? I am worried - I have 2
small children - I have expressed this
and no one seems to care!
The transformer that I have been told
supplies power to my house was
switched out on February 15. On
February 14, the Utilities Department
climbed another pole nearby (described
to me as my "secondary pole") and
found loose connections, which I've
been told were tightened. That's 2 out
of 2 poles with loose connections. Is
routine maintenance being done? Are
there loose connections all over the
city? My lights continue to flicker - are
other loose connections causing this?
The "secondary pole" with loose
connections would explain the
problems the neighbors have
experienced on that side of my house:
(1) one neighbor's refrigerator went out
and she had to go buy a new one last
weekend, (2) another neighbor had
flickering lights (I discovered this by
overhearing him over the fence
speaking to someone about his panel),
(3) a third neighbor had an outdoor
described it as "acting weird"). These
are the things that I have heard only in
passing - surprisingly, everyone has
complete trust in Palo Alto Utilities and
does not blame the poor power supply
they are receiving. These 3 houses are
in addition to the 6 houses experiencing
poor power supply issues from the
other pole (one of which went through
3 refrigerators in January). So that's 9
houses total with issues - and I imagine
there are more!
As an aside, shouldn't you disclose to
your citizens these issues after you
discover them? Shouldn't you inform
them that they have been receiving poor
power supply and educate them on the
damage that has possibly (or likely)
been done to the appliances and
electronics within their home? I
thought CPAU is supposed to do better
than PG&E?
On February 14, I received a call from
an engineer to get my story to analyze
the data collected by the load logger on
my house. He was unaware that mine
was not the only house with flickering
lights! How is communication that
bad?! As a reminder, the morning of
February 9 was when I first emailed all
of you to escalate this issue - at that
time we had 5 houses total with
confirmed flickering lights. The
engineer was not informed that it was
not just my house with flickering lights
- I had to explain to him then send him
notes!
On February 14, I was told that the
wrong load logger had been on my
house since February 7. It was
switched for the correct one, which I
was told would get better data.
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:05 PM
Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again, everyone,
As an update since my emails on
Friday: My lights continue to flicker
after Thursday's "Band-Aid fix," as
described by CPAU employees.
Over the weekend, I discovered a 6th
neighboring house with flickering
lights.
My understanding is that flickering
lights are a sign of possible fire risk,
as they are often caused by loose
connections that may arc.
Since I did not receive an answer
from any of you on Friday regarding
whether my neighbors and I are at
risk for fire, despite my desperate
plea, I called the Fire Department
this morning to ask. I have been told
that they are looking into it.
I talked with Dean this morning, after
I spoke with the Fire Department,
and he is looking into the issue. I do
appreciate his call.
I still do not understand why CPAU's
standard practice falls below PG&E
standards or how that is acceptable?
The Metering Department has been
out to pull the load logger from my
house and put a new one. I
understand they're analyzing the
data. Why not just change out the
transformer, as PG&E would do?
Further, there seems to be no
effective regulation of CPAU. I
think you all (with the exception of
Dean and perhaps the City Attorney)
are responsible for oversight, but I
have not heard anything substantive
from any of you.
Quite honestly, I now feel incredibly
unsafe here in Palo Alto.
Does maintenance of the gas
infrastructure also fall below PG&E
standards?
There is something up on the pole on
Greer as I walk my children to school
that makes a lot of noise. Is it a
transformer? Does the noise mean
it's old and in disrepair? I know if a
transformer explodes, my children
and I should not be under it, as we
will be harmed by the oil inside
falling on us. Do I have to reroute
our walk to keep us safe? I trusted
CPAU, and although I noted the
sound every time I walked under it, I
didn't think twice about walking
under it. Now, I do think twice.
The problems aren't just with the
Utilities Department. On December
19, the garbage cans were not
collected in my cul-de-sac. My
elderly neighbor phoned daily, and
the cans were not collected until
December 23, after my second
elderly neighbor in the cul-de-sac
called on December 22 (so it took 3
days of calling, plus it seems like it
wasn't taken seriously until there was
a second household calling). After
my experience with Utilities, I was
sure to apologize to my neighbor for
not calling as well - I had never heard
of anything like this! Recology
always comes out the next day,
whenever there is an issue.
We just spent 2 years lovingly
renovating our Eichler - it's our
dream house and we intended for it
to be our "forever home." We moved
here from Redwood City for the
schools and also to be surrounded by
a community of safety-oriented
individuals (something that became
especially important in the
pandemic). I am devastated to learn
that CPAU standards fall below
PG&E standards. We are now
considering moving, but it would be
very difficult for us to do so
financially.
I appreciate hearing any thoughts you
may have?
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 1:30 PM
Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I know you're all busy and it's
Friday, but I really do think this is
urgent. Can someone please get
back to me?
I have 2 small children in my
home, and I am worried about the
safety of the electricity being
supplied to my home and the
homes around me. Am I at risk for
fire? I've asked this to CPAU
multiple times, with no answer.
Am I safe to stay in my home over
the weekend?
I am lucky enough to have a very
close family friend who is a retired
PG&E lineman. His partner has
been in the hospital, I have just
found out, so we were only just
able to reach him late morning
today. He said that PG&E
would have changed out that
transformer - that's what Tito said
he is opting not to do and the 2
other employees at CPAU told me
I should "plead my case" for. I had
no idea what the standard is, until
now.
I am new to Palo Alto, having only
owned my home for a little over 2
years, but my understanding from
fellow residents is that CPAU is
better than PG&E. Then why isn't
CPAU doing the minimum that
PG&E would do?
As you can tell from my email
below, I had already lost faith -
given prior interactions - that
CPAU was fixing our problems. I
wasn't sure, though - maybe not
replacing a transformer was a fix,
which is why I emailed you. Now,
I have an opinion from a
knowledgeable source that the
transformer should have been
replaced.
After learning that CPAU is
possibly not meeting standard
practice - and having not heard
back from anyone with higher
authority - I contacted the
California Public Utilities
Commission and was disheartened
(to say it lightly) to hear that they
only advocate for customers of
shareholder owned utilities - i.e.,
not CPAU. I was advised that I
need to appeal to the City - which,
I think, is all you.
Is there anyone else, or any other
entity, to protect CPAU customers
when there is evidence that a
standard is not being met? Am I
reaching out to the wrong people
for help?
Am I at risk for fire? Should I call
the Fire Department and ask?
What does a "Band-Aid fix" versus
a "real fix" mean, in terms of
safety? Should I leave my home?
Are my neighbors safe?
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:46 AM
Patricia Judge Tamrazi
<patricia.judge@gmail.com>
wrote:
Good morning, Dean,
I'm at my wit's end and writing
to you, copying the City
Manager, City Attorney, and
City Council, asking you to
please ensure that my ongoing
and severe electrical issues at
3409 Greer Road are fixed by
CPAU. At least 4 of my
neighbors are experiencing these
same issues (5 houses total). I
have been told by 2 CPAU
employees that we are receiving
a "Band-Aid fix," not a real fix.
I am considering filing a lawsuit,
given how grossly negligent and,
frankly, abusive, my interactions
with CPAU have been. But - at
this time - my focus is on getting
the electrical service to my
house and my neighbors'
houses properly fixed.
Attached please find results
from my smart meter, pulled
yesterday, February 8, showing
severe brownouts to my home at
3409 Greer Rd. This smart
meter was put on my house on
February 7. As you'll see, one
brownout lasted 1 hour 9
minutes, which I have been told
is "insane." For those on the
email without an electrical
background, here is a quick
primer on the seriousness of
brownouts.
I'm also attaching a video of one
light fixture at my house,
illustrating the severity of the
flickering lights that I first
reported to CPAU on January
24. (Please excuse the paint job
- we just finished completely
renovating the inside and don't
have the nice weather yet to
paint the outside. That is a
new light fixture, installed last
year.) As reported to CPAU,
this has been happening
throughout my entire house, and
we also heard exhaust fans
throughout the house slowing
down and speeding up. My next
door neighbor had the same
experience.
From January 24 to the time this
data was looked at by CPAU
yesterday, February 8, CPAU
employees have denied that
there are any issues on CPAU's
side. Shockingly, they
continued to deny this, even
after being formally informed of
4 more houses with flickering
lights. Until yesterday afternoon
when they finally looked at the
smart meter data from my house,
various CPAU employees kept
telling me to call an electrician,
which I did (multiple, in fact).
As an aside, 1 week into my
ordeal, one neighbor called
CPAU dispatch reporting
flickering lights and was told to
call back when the flickering got
worse. Every knowledgeable
person I have talked to - with the
exception of one CPAU
employee - has thought that was
absolutely reckless, most
laughing in disbelief.
Linemen came out yesterday to
rectify the situation, but I was
told by 2 individuals within
CPAU that they were doing a
"Band-Aid fix," not a real fix. I
was told by one well-meaning
CPAU employee that I should
walk around the corner to where
the linemen were working and
find a big guy with a bald head
named Tito to "plead my case"
for a real fix. That in itself is
one of the craziest things I've
ever heard!
Tito did not seem very receptive
to this (rightfully so because
who am I as a homeowner to tell
him how to do his job?), so,
shaken up, I went home and
called the City Manager's office,
pleading for an advocate.
Ingrid, the administrative
assistant, took down my story
and my information, and I have
received attempted help from
Alex Gonzalez, Utilities
Supervisor. Alex even worked
on my issue into the evening.
However, Alex is not in charge
of the correct division of CPAU
to address my issue. This
illustrates a continued lack of
understanding of my issue, at
best, and perhaps a continued
lack of willingness to rectify my
issue. That is why I'm reaching
out to you.
Can you help?
With best regards,
Trish Tamrazi
3409 Greer Rd.
650-208-4802
From:Gita Dev
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote for health - provide natural grass
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:26:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Members of Palo Alto City Council
1. We all grew up with playing on natural grass. We did not
consider it a privilege. However, now you have the
power to decide whether our kids will be wrapped in
plastic and not have a future with nature when they are
outdoors. We hope that you will do the right thing by
our kids and not have them breathe plastics, be burned
by plastic when they fall and have a healthy childhood.
Please roll up the old plastic grass carpet, which, by the
way, cannot even be recycled, so it's pollution forever
and vote for public health with nature and clean natural
grass
2. Please do decide to go ahead with a pilot project on an
organically managed natural grass fields. For the health
of our youth and for biodiversity this is a really good
idea.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for looking after the health of our kids!
Gita Dev
-- Gita DevConservation Committee, ChairSustainable Land Use Committee, ChairSierra Club Loma Prieta415.722.3355
From:khurshid gandhi
To:Council, City
Subject:Charleston-Meadows grade separation options
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 11:02:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Palo Alto City council,
I am a resident of the Charleston - Meadows neighborhood since the last 20+ years.
I understand that 2 options are being considered for the grade separation at
Charleston and Meadows intersections.
1. The hybrid option while being visually very unappealing (ugly) has several other
drawbacks. It is a physical divide between our neighborhoods and instead of
fostering cohesiveness among the neighborhoods, it separates them. It blocks line of
sight segregating parts of the neighborhood, in addition to blocking air flow and
sunlight.
Additionally, the hybrid in spite of its hefty price tag does not considerably improve
traffic flow and seems like a colossal waste of money.
2. The underpass - while it seems to significantly improve traffic flow and does not
have the disadvantages of carving up the neighborhood, has a major issue of
property acquisitions. I request that it be looked at again through the engineering
lens of constructing it with no/minimal property acquisitions. We value our neighbors
and would not want them to be forced to give up their property and move.
Both options come with hefty price tags and so I request that we err on the side of
caution till we are very sure of the best way to move ahead. If doing nothing is an
option, I vote for that while we try and mitigate the property acquisitions issue.
At the very least, do not make a decision, till we have the information on current price
estimates as well as traffic impacts for both these options.
To recap, my vote is a no on the hybrid and a please get more information/reengineer
the underpass, and while that is happening please do not make an irreversible
decision.
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you
Khurshid
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:More Unused Parking
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 6:52:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
The lots behind all the office buildings on the “south” side of California Ave between Wellesley and Hanover are
almost always completely empty. 901 and 975 Cal8ifornia Ave have particularly large lots.
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:Unused Parking
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 6:45:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
The California Ave Station Cal Train lot. Palo Alto Central peeps will pitch a fit, but that lot is only 1/4 full at the
mostly empty most of the time.
From:Yefei Peng
To:Council, City
Subject:Charleston/Meadow Railroad grae separation planning
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 5:56:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I'm a resident at 360 W Meadow Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306.
The 1st alternative looks better to me.
My concern is that the 2nd alternative (underpass design) will make the cross more difficult,
and the long extension of the underpass will affect the residents entering Meadow Dr from
their houses.
Thanks,
Yefei Peng
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:John Hofer
To:Council, City
Subject:Meadow Drive/Charleston Road Grade Separation
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 5:47:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As 38-year track-side Park Blvd. residents, we have watched with interest the grade
separation debate since 2008. Now that it has finally reached decision time, and two
choices remain to be considered, We are of the opinion that the only design that is
fair to the residents of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood is the underpass
designs for both Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
The hybrid design, which is no doubt cheaper and easier to construct, will create an
unsightly “wall” behind over 50 residences along Park Blvd, thereby significantly
impacting the quality of life for those residents. Those of us who purchased property
along the CalTrain easement knew going in that the train would always be in our
lives, but we were able to minimize the impact with landscaping. Now the City Council
appears to be on the verge of approving the hybrid design that penalizes those
residents along the corridor by increasing the noise, decreasing the view, and
decreasing the property values, all in the name of sensible governance.
The Council needs to equally represent all of the citizens of Palo Alto and not just
take the most expedient path. The Council must select the underpass design for
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.
John and Renee Hofer
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item 26, December 15, 2025 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 5:47:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Lauing and City Council Members:
I write to support the hybrid underpass option for the Charleston Road grade separation.
Because the options for the Meadow crossing are more complex, I don't have a firm opinion
yet for that grade separation.
I commend the inclusion of information about the bike/pedestrian option for the Churchill
Avenue crossing. I believe residents will develop more informed opinions about the grade
separation choices if they are able to consider the bike/pedestrian options with grade
separation options. I hope the City Manager will do more to support better collaboration
between staff and consultant project teams who are working on the various grade separation
projects and bike/pedestrian projects, including the south Palo Alto Connectivity project
options, and make sure residents have information about how all of the grade separation
projects relate to each other.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Phyllis Rugg Brown
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on Item 3, December 15, 2025, City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 5:42:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Lauing and City Council Members:
I have read the staff report providing an update on the Cubberley Project with great interest. I
write now urging the Council to prioritize elements of the the multipart funding strategy most
likely to encourage voter approval in November 2026.
Highest funding priorities:
providing for renovation and upgrades of Cubberley
allowing the City to purchase seven acres from PAUSD for $65.5 million
Once these are funded, more extensive renovation of the facilities is more likely to be
supported.
Of the funding sources under consideration, as a homeowner I believe the $250 parcel tax is
the best alternative because it draws on resources of the residents of Palo Alto who will benefit
most (because of increases in property values) and who are best able to pay.
I hope the November ballot measure will emphasize that more of the master plan can be
implemented as other sources of funding become available.
Phyllis Rugg Brown
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: CEQA Scoping Submission - Rail Grade Separation Project
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 5:20:09 PM
Attachments:Grade Separation City Clerk 12-15-25.pdf
Dear City Council,
Please see the below public comment letter and attachment.
Thank you,
City Clerk’s Office
From: John Melnychuk <jdmelnychuk@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Burt,
Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Lu, George <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie
<Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Stone, Greer
<Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: CEQA Scoping Submission - Rail Grade Separation Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto Submitted by: John MelnychukAdjacent rail corridor resident3707 Lindero DrPalo Alto, CA 94306December 15, 2025 Parcel proximity: Residence located approximately 150 feet from the rail corridor. This submission is made by an adjacent corridor resi
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
Submitted by:
John Melnychuk
Adjacent rail corridor resident
Parcel proximity: Residence located approximately 150 feet from the rail corridor.
Powered by Mimecast
This submission is made by an adjacent corridor resident to preserve
standing and participation rights under the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code §21000 e t seq.).
Public Resources Code §21002 requires that public agencies give
consideration to alternatives to proposed actions and environmental
mitigation measures so that significant effects on the environment are
avoided or substantially lessened.
Consistent with CEQA, the City must identify and analyze potentially
significant impacts and feasible mitigation before committing to a project
alternative; deferral of such analysis may not b e curable at later stages.
CEQA further requires that a project not be segmented or piecemeal manner that obscures the
full scope of impacts.
Please see the attached PDF: Grade Separation City Clerk 12-15-2025 for further information.
Respectfully,
John Melnychuk
References:
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents o f Univ. o f Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,
395-396.
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. o f Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
1344,
1368-1370.
Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320-322.
From:Chris
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation Opinions
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 4:58:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear City Council,
My name is Chris Torres and I grew up in College Terrace in Palo Alto. I went to Palo Alto
High School in the 1990s, so we experienced passing trains all the time. I currently live in
Charleston Meadows about two blocks away from the Charleston CalTrain crossing.
For one, the traffic created by at-grade crossings is really inconvenient. Everyone in Palo Alto
knows that it is very difficult to go anywhere in the city during commuting hours. I believe
the at-grade crossings at Charleston, East Meadow, and Churchill contribute to a lot of that
congestion. At around 4pm, it can take me up to 20 minutes to get down to Cubberley from
our house off Wilkie Way.
I see the two alternatives being considered for Charleston/Meadow. While I would be of the
opinion to have a covered trench all the way through Palo Alto, I know that may not be a
viable option due to cost. I would vote for a bond measure to pay for that though!
But given the choice between hybrid and an underpass, I think I would choose the underpass
design. I realize that may take out some homes on Charleston and Meadow so that they can
depress the streets by 22-29 feet to pass underneath the tracks, but big projects like these often
have eminent domain issues.
I would like to maintain the same neighborhood character and alleviate some of the at-grade
crossing traffic we have always had. Safety is also important and the option that would make
the train tracks most secure (from people getting on them) is the option I would support the
most.
Thank you for your time!
Regards,
Chris Torres
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Davina Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail crossings option
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 4:38:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Take a little more time. Do not vote today. No raing the train.
Davina Brown
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From:Susie Robbins
To:Council, City
Subject:Tonight’s Vote
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 4:28:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My choice is for the underpass.
Or wait to study the underpass further.
Thank you,
Susan Robbins
Sent from my iPad
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Bundle - December 15 2025
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 4:15:50 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
RE Questions and comments on El Dorado Avenue could be site of Palo Alto"s next bike tunnel (at the council
meeting on 12.1.2025).msg
RE parking on Lincoln ave.msg
FW Eleanor Pardee Park Restrooms.msg
RE Grant Management Accountability and Unresolved Audit Findings.msg
RE 3606 ECR Driveway already exists.msg
FW URGENT Safety Review Driveway Visibility at 747-753 Colorado Ave (JLS Safe Route).msg
RE Urgent Request for Oversight Toxic Exposure Multiple Resident Deaths and Neglect at Supportive Housing
Facility (33 Encina Palo Alto).msg
Importance:High
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 December 15, 2025.
Thank you,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 15, 2025 City Council Meeting, agenda Item #5: Resolution Appointing Interim City Attorney, SECOND
LETTER
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 3:31:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #5: APPOINTING CAIO ARELLANO AS INTERIM CITYATTORNEY
SECOND LETTER
This is my second letter about this Agenda Item.
This letter provides a second and independent reason for myurging you to remove this item from your Consent Agenda andrefer the item of appointment of an Interim City Attorney tothe Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee.
The state's open meeting law, known as the Ralph M. Brown Actprovides that:
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions,
boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is
good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on
remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
(Government Code Section 54950.
Neither the Agenda Item description, nor the text of the staffreport state the dollar amount of Caio Arellano's currentsalary or the dollar amount of the increased salary.
It is not possible to determine his current salary by lookingat his annual compensation for the most recent calendar year.
It is not possible to determine his current salary by lookingat the range of salaries for his position in the list ofManagement and Professional Salaries.
The only way the public and the press can know how muchArellano is being paid now, and how much he would be paid ifthe proposed Resolution is adopted is for those amounts toappear in the Agenda Item description and/or the staff report,which they do not.
If the Brown Act was followed, then those amounts would haveappeared in the Agenda Packet for this meeting that was
Normally, it is the role of the City Attorney's Office toensure that Agenda Item descriptions and staff reports abide bythe Brown Act.
If someone from the City Attorney's Office had noticed that theoriginal Agenda Packet had omitted that information, then itcould have been included as a Late Packet addition that wouldbeen distributed in time to abide by the 72 hour deadline forRegular Meetings, but it was not provided by that deadline.
However, since this meeting is a Special Meeting, the missingfinancial information could have been made available 24 hoursbefore this meeting, but it was not provided by that deadline.
Providing the missing information about Arellano's currentsalary and new salary at the last minute at tonight's meetingfails to comply with the Brown Act requirement that the publicbe "informed so that they may retain control over theinstruments they have created."
Therefore, in addition to the reason provided in my previousletter about this item on your agenda, I also urge you to curethe violation of the Brown Act described in this letter byremoving this item from this meeting's Consent Calendar andreferring to the Council's CAO Committee the subject of makinga recommendation about the Appointment of an Interim CityAttorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney would then act in the absenceof the City Attorney until the Council appoints an Interim CityAttorney.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:Tejas Polakam
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: City Council voting today to advance either Hybrid or Underpass options. Please Request them to not vote today.
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 3:26:16 PM
Attachments:image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
I had signed a petition a few years ago that was presented to the council saying we wanted the train in a trench or a tunnel and we didn't want any eminent domain
property takings. Now we are here with eminent domain property takings on the table and a hideous monstrosity in the form of a train running on a berm 40-50
feet high in front of our houses.
Can you all please vote to either do nothing further on this topic or advance the underpass option with no eminent domain issues involved?
I have lived in Albany and Berkeley where BART runs on a berm, it's not pretty to say the least.
With kind regards
Tejas
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 1:47 PM
Subject: City Council voting today to advance either Hybrid or Underpass options. Please Request them to not vote today.
To: <paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com>
Hello All
The City council is planning to vote today on advancing only one option for grade separation for further review - Hybrid or Underpass or
a Combination of the two for the rail crossings at Meadow and Charleston.
The disadvantage of the Hybrid option is that the tracks are raised, so the top of the train and electric lines will be ~ 35-50’ from grade. Looks ugly.
And it doesn’t improve traffic flow on Charleston/Meadow. But a big plus versus the Underpass is that it requires less property takings.
The advantage of the Underpass is that the train and tracks look much like what they are now – at the same grade, so it doesn’t look any worse
that it does now. Charleston/Meadow streets go under the tracks. The traffic flow on Charleston/Meadow is much improved versus existing
conditions and versus Hybrid. The cons are that it involves more property acquisitions as the design stands currently.
Since both options have major drawbacks, my opinion is for the Council to
a. Not vote today to advance any option
b. Study the underpass option further to eliminate property takings, then advance the underpass option
c. If at all they are in favor of the Hybrid option then vote to not do anything at all
Please send an email to the Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) before 5PM today to convey your opinion. Council meeting is at
5:30 today.
If you want more details read “Item 2 staff presentation” on this link.
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you
Parag
Parag Patkar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Palo Alto Citizens" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to paloaltocitizens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/paloaltocitizens/001201dc6e0c%246da7d210%2448f77630%24%40virtunetsystems.com.
From:Naomi Roberts
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Preservation of the William F. Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground from 1974 and 1995
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 3:06:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Naomi Roberts <rnaomip@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Subject: Preservation of the William F. Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground from 1974 and 1995
To: <ParkRec.commission@paloalto.gov>, <Sarah.Robustelli@paloalto.gov>,
<Samuel.Tavera@paloalto.gov>, <rwr1221954@gmail.com>
Naomi Roberts December 12, 2025
Dear Mayor of Palo Alto, the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council, the Palo Alto Park & Recreation
Commission Staff Members,
I write to you on behalf of the Peoples family with deep respect for the responsibilities you carry and with sincere
appreciation for the time you have taken to consider the future of our city’s public spaces.
We ask today for your thoughtful consideration in preserving the William Frank Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground,
a place of quiet remembrance and community meaning.
This park was dedicated on June 14, 1974 in memory of my little brother, William Frank Peoples Jr. who tragically
lost his life after drowning on a school field trip, with his classmates from Ventura Elementary School. And was
rededicated April 16,1995 with the assistance of the Palo Alto Park and Recreation Department Staff.
For our family, the park dedicated in Williams' honor is not simply a parcel of land—it is a living memorial to a
young life lost far too soon.
For more than five decades - 51 years, his park has stood as a symbol of remembrance, compassion, and the
value our community places on honoring its history and its children. It also serves as a stark reminder of the
importance of aquatic safety and first aid education.
Public memorials such as this serve as an important civic purpose. It not only connects generations but reminds
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
The William Frank Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground has provided a place for reflection, recreation, and quiet
appreciation, not only for our family but for countless residents who have played there, had parties there, walked
its paths, sat on its benches, and found solace there .
We understand that cities evolve, we respectfully believe that progress does not require the erasure of meaningful
history that connects so many families.
Preserving this park affirms that our city can grow while still honoring its past, and further showcases the value of
remembrance as much as growth and development.
The history and intention behind this dedication in 1974 and in 1995 would be lost, if this park was ever removed.
It would mean the loss of a deeply personal and irreplaceable tribute to a life tragically lost.. A loss that cannot be
recreated elsewhere.
By choosing preservation, the city sends a powerful message: that the lives and stories of its residents, even from
decades past, continue to matter.
We respectfully ask the Mayor of Palo Alto, the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council, the Palo Alto
Park & Recreation Commission Staff Members, to consider the preservation of the William Frank Peoples Jr.
Memorial Playground to remain intact and protected .Preserving this space would honor not only the memory of a
12 year old child who lost his life, but also the compassion and integrity of our community.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration of our family's request.
Sincerely,
Naomi Roberts
From:Syed Jaleel
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote for the underpass or status quo for meadow drive rail crossing
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 2:50:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councillors
I live near the tracks in South Palo Alto having just bought a house not knowing that there is a
big Caltrain project on the horizon for East Meadow. I am sort of OK with the underpass
option since that keeps the view from my house the same as it is now. The hybrid option will
be an eye sore since the train will be much higher than my roofline. The hybrid will be nosier
too.
Syed Jaleel
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Nagini Chilukuri
To:Council, City
Subject:Please don’t vote to advance the Hybrid option for Charleston and Meadow
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 2:41:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members
The Hybrid option for Grade Sep for Charleston and Meadow looks ugly since the
train will visible from far. Can you please not vote to advance the Hybrid option?
Thank you
Nagini
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:John D Melnychuk
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone,
Greer
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Rail Grade Separation: Request for Holistic Impact Scope
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 2:24:48 PM
Attachments:CEQA_Scoping_Submission_Resident_Master_Indexed_v4.pdf.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As an adjacent rail corridor resident, I respectfully submit the attached
CEQA scoping materials for tonight’s agenda item regarding rail grade
separation. Consistent with Public Resources Code §21002, I ask that the
City consider a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation measures
and ensure that the project is evaluated as a single, integrated action
without segmentation.
A holistic scope that addresses neighborhood, health, environmental, and
economic impacts alongside traffic performance will strengthen both
decision-making and legal durability.
I have reviewed the following CEQA related court cases which I think
supports my request.
a) Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 395–396.
b) Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs (2001)
91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1368–1370.
c) Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th
310, 320–322.
I am concerned that alternatives have not been meaningfully considered (PRC
§21002) Impacts cannot be split, deferred, or minimized by
segmentation, consultant explanations must be written, categorical, and cited.
Thank you for your consideration,
John Melnychuk
JM-RES-0004
Exhibit A-2 — Kimley-Horn CEQA Scoping Response Checklist
Provided by an adjacent corridor resident. Kimley-Horn shall respond item-by-item. The analysis shall evaluate the
project as a whole and shall not segment construction phases, rail operations, roadway modifications, or related
infrastructure in a manner that understates cumulative or combined impacts. For alternatives previously considered, the
consultant shall disclose the basis for any rejection, including whether rejection was due to engineering infeasibility,
cost, policy considerations, or inadequate environmental study under CEQA.
Impact / Issue Analyzed (Y/N)Basis for Rejection (if any)Mitigation / Next Step CEQA Reference Notes
Previously Considered Grade-Separation Alternatives
Project Segmentation / Piecemealing Review
Baseline Noise (Day/Night)
Construction Noise
Operational Noise
Vibration
Air Quality / PM2.5
GHG Emissions
Privacy / Visual Impacts
Shadowing / Light Loss
Traffic Diversion / Cut-through
Emergency Access
Earthwork & Hauling
Business Access & Viability
Neighborhood Cohesion
Alternatives Analysis (Range & Screening Criteria)
Mitigation Enforceability
From:M Pallav
To:Council, City
Subject:Please vote to study underpass option for south Palo Alto
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 2:21:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Council members
Please vote to advance the underpass option for south palo alto since that does not change the
look of the neighborhood as much as the hybrid. The train running on a 20 ft wall will look
very ugly.
MJ Palavi
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Mukul Agarwal
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to not vote today
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 1:56:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
As a family that lives near Charleston and Park Blvd, we are requesting you to not vote today to advance
only one option for grade separation for further review.
I hope that the concerns of the community and impact to families will be an important driver for such a
decision.
We appreciate your considration.
Mukul Agarwal and family
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ted O"Hanlon
To:Council, City
Cc:Megan Watson; Lait, Jonathan; Kallas, Emily
Subject:12/15 City Council Agenda, Info Report A. – Forward-Looking Parking Policy Considerations & 788 San Antonio
Rd
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 1:54:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
The Planning Staff report and Housing Element Program 3.9B memo on parking-light housing
—while listed on the agenda—are not scheduled for discussion, yet they articulate an
important policy direction for Palo Alto’s housing future.
The analysis recognizes that parking-light multifamily development can be appropriate in
specific contexts when supported by strong mobility programs, and such approaches should be
applied thoughtfully rather than universally. 788 San Antonio Road presents a timely
opportunity to put that guidance into practice. With the San Antonio Road Area Plan in
motion, it is evolving into a transit-rich corridor, anchored by a major Caltrain station and
strengthened by frequent bus service, bike connectivity, and proximity to jobs and services.
The project’s approach will implement unbundled parking, transit incentives, bike and
micromobility infrastructure and car-shares that directly reflects the forward-thinking concepts
described in the staff report. It also acknowledges an essential point raised in the memo:
housing and parking standards are not one-size-fits-all, and residents will self-select housing
that matches their mobility needs and lifestyle.
We appreciate the Council’s attention to this item and encourage viewing 788 San Antonio as
a practical example of how the City’s own analysis can be applied on the ground, even as
broader parking and mobility discussions continue.
Sincerely,
Ted O'Hanlon
Consulting Project Executive
on behalf of Grubb Properties
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Parag Patkar
To:Council, City
Cc:Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; "Vicki Veenker"; Lu, George;
Ed.Greer@PaloAlto.gov
Subject:Please don"t vote to advance any Grade Sep option for Charleston and Meadow, since both have big drawbacks
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 1:20:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hello Council Members
At today’s council meeting, it will be great if you don’t advance any option for
Charleston and Meadow intersections.
Both Hybrid and Underpass options have major disadvantages:
The disadvantage of the hybrid option is that the tracks are raised ~ 19’, so the top of
the train and electric lines will be ~ 35-50’ from grade. Looks ugly. And it doesn’t
improve traffic flow on Charleston/Meadow. But a big plus versus the Underpass is
that it requires far less property takings.
The advantage of the Underpass is that the train and tracks look much like what they
are now – at the same grade, so doesn’t look any worse than what it looks now. The
traffic flow on Charleston/Meadow is much improved versus existing conditions and
versus Hybrid. The cons are that it involves a lot more property acquisitions as the
design stands currently.
It will be great if you can have Staff look at the Underpass option a bit more and
reduce the property takings associated with the Underpass option and then ideally
vote that (at a later date) to be taken to 15% engg review.
Thank you
Parag
Parag Patkar
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Irene Lloyd
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 1:03:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The letter from Mr. Reckdahl arrived on my doorstep on Sunday morning, November
14. Pretty short notice, I would say.
Instead of planning to eliminate RR crossings, Palo Alto should be planning on
eliminating Caltrain. Their trains are so yesterday! In our modern times there are
plenty of more efficient ways of transportation, but they insist on having dinosaurs
running on tracks.
The way it is now, most people need a car waiting for them at the station on either
end of travel, that was the problem with BART. The only time it is useful if one wants
to go to Oracle Park, otherwise it is far from everything.
Whatever you do, it should not involve any properties taken from residents. Think as it
was your house you're losing to imminent domain.
Best solution, should Caltrain demands to exist, is to put trains underground. Let them
take the financial responsibility for that as well.
Sincerely
Irene Lloyd
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Wendy Akers-Ghose
To:Council, City; Council, City
Subject:Grade Separation - Drawing of Hybrid Height Mid-Block
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 12:33:32 PM
Attachments:Grade Separation Hybrid Wall Height Grid.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Councilmembers,
Attached is a simple rendering of the hybrid option from the perspective of a person standing on Alma.
Sincerely,
Wendy