The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-11-10 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: 11/10/2025 Document dates: 11/3/2025 - 11/10/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City Subject:Please adopt strongest possible lighting ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 12:09:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Please adopt the recommendations of the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance for the strongest possible lighting ordinance. So few natural areas are left that we have to make our urban areas as safe and welcoming to birds and wildlife as we can. Lighting can be particularly disruptive to migrating birds, so please consider that as you adopt the lighting ordinance. Thank you. Emily M. Renzel Councilmember 1979-1991 From:Aiden Miao To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 12:04:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Councilmembers, I'm Aiden, a Junior at Palo Alto High School and a member of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition (PASCC). I've grown up in Palo Alto my whole life. Please adopt a strong ordinance to protect birds, people, and our night sky. There is something special about seeing the stars that I believe all Palo Alto residents should have the privilege of experiencing. Best, Aiden Miao This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Susan Hinton To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for 11/10/2025 City Council meeting Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 11:19:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Honorable Councilmembers, Please take a moment to consider: When cities and government agencies agree that plastic grass is inappropriate for landscaping, it cannot be any more appropriate for play surfaces, whether on sports fields, playgrounds, or dog parks. It is truly encouraging to see Palo Alto partnering with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to replace water-intensive lawns and swimming pools with drought-tolerant plants and permeable hardscaping. This kind of collaboration sets an important example of responsible water stewardship. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/bill-inserts/cpa- 2025_oct_waterrebates_ubi-residential-final.pdf When California cities, agencies and government districts work together to solve serious environmental and public health concerns we are all better off. As a bonus, our domesticated pets, wild birds, mammals, pollinators, fish, and so on are also better off when we conserve our watersheds and drinking water. It’s also encouraging to see that the Water District recognizes plastic for the scourge it is by prohibiting, among other items, both plastic grass and plastic sheeting, also called weed cloth or, sometimes, geotextile. https://valleywater.dropletportal.com/landscape-conversion-requirements Prohibited Materials The following materials are not permitted in the landscape conversion area and will be subtracted from the final rebate amount if installed: Artificial turf Non-qualifying plant material, including invasive species, high-water-use plants, and seeded or sod grass. For invasive species and recommended alternatives, visit Cal-IPC and PlantRight. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Plastic or non-biodegradable weed barriers, such as weed cloth or plastic sheeting. Impervious hardscapes, including: Concrete, asphalt, or other materials that prevent water infiltration Pavers or flagstone installed with grout, mortar, polymeric sand, or sealants (on the surface or in the joints) Concrete pads or slabs larger than 24" x 24” Project areas with pavers or flagstone that use grout, mortar, or polymeric sand in the joints, or have been sealed with surface or joint sealants, are not considered permeable. These areas will be disqualified from the rebate program if installed. Structures and features such as hot tubs, pools, ponds, water features, building extensions, sheds, outdoor kitchens, or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that prevent rainwater from percolating into the soil below. Valley Water's Artificial Turf Fact Sheet outlines clear reasons for excluding these products from rebate programs. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.if-us-west-2/f2-live/s3fs- public/Artificial%20Turf%20Fact%20Sheet_042922%20SL.pdf Even beyond those reasons, all plastic materials shed microplastics as they degrade, through fading, cracking, and breaking apart. These microplastics contaminate our soil, air, and waterways, ultimately reaching our creeks, streams, and the San Francisco Bay. https://lab.data.ca.gov/dataset/microplastic-and-microparticle-data-from-surface-water-san- francisco-bay-and-adjacent-sanctuari/fabe3fa4-e0f6-4db9-875a-b1776a48cde7 Plastic turf does not conserve water, does not protect health, and does not align with the City’s environmental or sustainability goals. The responsible path forward is clear: Palo Alto should lead by example and phase out the use of plastic turf in all public and private spaces. Sincerely, Susan Hinton Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention From:Phyllis Brown To:Council, City Subject:agenda item 4: special speed zones Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 9:43:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the City Council: I urge the City Council to "Adopt an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Update Speed Limit Studies for Nine Streets and Approve the 2025 Traffic Survey." The proposed ordinance will enable PAPD to enforce speed limits where they currently cannot and make our streets safer. Phyllis Brown From:Phyllis Brown To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda item 8: please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance. Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 9:33:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Lauing and members of the Council, The "Dark Skies Initiative" on the website of the McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin, lists six negative effects of light pollution: costs, energy consumption, health, safety, the invironment, and loss of nighttime sky. The website also lists four night-sky friendly lighting practices. I urge the Council to adopt "an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 (Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations." All living beings deserve to live without unnecessary and damaging artificial light pollution. Phyllis Brown From:Kat Snyder To:Council, City Subject:Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 9:23:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council, Thank you so much for taking up discussion on the Dark Sky Ordinance. Growing up in Palo Alto, I have very fond childhood memories of looking up at the stars and finding the constellations at night from my own backyard. I also have fond memories of going out camping at Sequoia National Park and being able to actually see the Milky Way! I will defer to you on any policy specifics, I just wanted to note that this is an important topic, not just to help the birds but also to create a sense of wonder among children growing up and looking at the stars. Take care, ~Kat Snyder Palo Alto Resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Kaitlyn Parkins To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Support for Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 9:10:56 AM Attachments:ABC Lighting Ordinance Support.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i November 7, 2025 Re: 11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Support for Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations Dear Councilmembers, I am Kaitlyn Parkins, M.S., Coordinator of the Glass Collisions Program for American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and I have studied and advocated for the prevention of bird-window collisions for over ten years. ABC is dedicated to conserving wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. On behalf of ABC, we thank the City of Palo Alto for its leadership in updating the Outdoor Lighting (Dark Sky) Ordinance. This effort is an important step toward protecting local ecosystems, migratory birds, and human health from the growing impacts of artificial light at night. We urge Council to adopt the ordinance with several key improvements, which will help the ordinance better achieve its intent in reducing unnecessary light at night while maintaining functionality and safety for people. Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor luminaires, Remove all retrofit requirements for existing outdoor lighting and apply standards only to new or replacement fixtures (see Request #1), and Shorten the compliance period for easily adjustable existing lighting fixtures to one year. Excessive and poorly designed lighting is a serious hazard for birds. Light pollution disrupts migration, disorients nocturnal species, and fragments habitat. The Bay Area lies along the Pacific Flyway, where millions of birds depend on dark skies to navigate safely. Beyond birds, artificial light at night affects virtually every group of organisms, including insects, amphibians, mammals, plants, and humans, by disrupting natural rhythms, feeding and breeding behavior, pollination, and sleep cycles. Palo Alto’s leadership can make a real difference in reducing preventable bird mortality and improving ecological and human health across the region. We also want to address concerns that lower color temperatures, reduced brightness, curfews, and This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report November 7, 2025 Re: 11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Support for Adop�on of an Ordinance Upda�ng Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Adopt New Outdoor Ligh�ng Regula�ons Dear Councilmembers, I am Kaitlyn Parkins, M.S., Coordinator of the Glass Collisions Program for American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and I have studied and advocated for the preven�on of bird-window collisions for over ten years. ABC is dedicated to conserving wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. On behalf of ABC, we thank the City of Palo Alto for its leadership in upda�ng the Outdoor Ligh�ng (Dark Sky) Ordinance. This eﬀort is an important step toward protec�ng local ecosystems, migratory b irds, and human health from the growing impacts of ar�ﬁcial light at night. We urge Council to adopt the ordinance with several key improvements , which will help the ordinance beter achieve its intent in reducing unnecessary light at night while maintaining func�onality and safety for people. • Amend Sec�on 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installa�on, replacement, or modiﬁca�on of outdoor luminaires, • Remove all retroﬁt requirements for exis�ng outdoor ligh�ng and apply standards only to new or replacement ﬁxtures (see Request #1), and • Shorten the compliance period for easily adjustable exis�ng ligh�ng ﬁxtures to one year. Excessive and poorly designed ligh�ng is a serious hazard for birds. Light pollu�on disrupts migra�on, disorients nocturnal species, and fragments habitat. The Bay Area lies along the Paciﬁc Flyway, where millions of birds depend on dark skies to navigate safely. Beyond birds, ar�ﬁcial light at night aﬀects virtually every group of organisms, including insects, amphibians, mammals, plants, and humans, by disrup�ng natural rhythms, feeding and breeding behavior, pollina�on, and sleep cycles. Palo Alto’s leadership can make a real diﬀerence in reducing preventable bird mortality and improving ecological and human health across the region. We also want to address concerns that lower color temperatures, reduced brightness, curfews, and mo�on sensors could compromise community safety. Responsible ligh�ng— warm, shielded, and appropriately dimmed—improves visibility by reducing glare and preserving contrast. Mo�on sensors further support safety by providing light only when and where it is needed, drawing aten�on to ac�vity while preserving darkness at other �mes. Communi�es across the country have successfully implemented similar standards. Research and experience demonstrate that safety and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. By adop�ng this ordinance, Palo Alto can take a meaningful step toward protec�ng both people and wildlife. The updated standards will reduce preventable bird mortality, conserve energy, and create a safer, healthier nigh�me environment for residents and the many species that share the landscape. Palo Alto’s leadership on this issue will set an important example for other ci�es working to balance safety, sustainability, and stewardship of the natural world. Sincerely, Kaitlyn L. Parkins, M.S. Glass Collisions Program Coordinator American Bird Conservancy motion sensors could compromise community safety. Responsible lighting— warm, shielded, and appropriately dimmed—improves visibility by reducing glare and preserving contrast. Motion sensors further support safety by providing light only when and where it is needed, drawing attention to activity while preserving darkness at other times. Communities across the country have successfully implemented similar standards. Research and experience demonstrate that safety and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. By adopting this ordinance, Palo Alto can take a meaningful step toward protecting both people and wildlife. The updated standards will reduce preventable bird mortality, conserve energy, and create a safer, healthier nighttime environment for residents and the many species that share the landscape. Palo Alto’s leadership on this issue will set an important example for other cities working to balance safety, sustainability, and stewardship of the natural world. Please find a PDF of our comments attached. Sincerely, Kaitlyn Parkins Glass Collisions Program Coordinator American Bird Conservancy kparkins@abcbirds.org US Mountain Time Zone From:Phyllis Brown To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto rail crossings Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 9:08:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the City Council, I have read reports related to the Rail Committee's study and recommendations related to quiet zones at Palo Alto railroad crossings. I urge the council to approve the option of addding four-quadrant gates at the Charleston, Meadow and Churchill crossings. Although wayside horns would eliminate the need for trains to sound horns, many residents would still be negatively impacted by the noise of the wayside horns. The wayside horns would actually create greater noise pollution for residents who live closest to the crossings. I urge you to pursue the option of collaborating with Caltrain on the four-quadrant option with the goal completing the installation of the four-quadrant gates more quickly. Palo Alto residents deserve quiet zones as soon as possible while we wait for the grade- separation projects to be selected and built. Phyllis Brown Professor Emerita Phyllis Rugg Brown English Department St. Joseph Hall Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 pbrown@scu.edu From:Armstrong, Hilary To:Armstrong, Hilary Subject:Correction: Reminder: Upcoming Webinar for elected officials, government partners, funders, and community leaders on November 13 Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 8:24:55 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Correction – the webinar is on THURSDAY, November 13th. Thank you! From: Armstrong, Hilary Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 8:16 AM To: Armstrong, Hilary <hilary.armstrong@osh.sccgov.org> Subject: Reminder: Upcoming Webinar for elected officials, government partners, funders, and community leaders on November 13 What: A virtual briefing for elected officials, government partners, funders, and community leaders to learn more about the County of Santa Clara’s Homelessness Prevention System. We’ll share how this intervention has been launched and scaled over the past eight years, present the latest data and impact, highlight key improvements from the current fiscal year, and feature partners leading this critical work on the ground. When: Thursday, November 13th 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Where: Online – Register Here Who: Chad Bojorquez, Destination: Home Hilary Armstrong,, County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing Cupid Alexander, City of San José Erin Stanton, Sacred Heart Community Service Benaifer Dastoor & Jade Bradley, Bill Wilson Center Why: Preventing homelessness before it begins remains one of the most effective, data-driven strategies to address our housing crisis and it’s working. Since 2017, the Homelessness Prevention System has helped keep more than 43,000 people stably housed, now supporting over 2,500 households annually. This briefing brings together the leaders driving this success across government and nonprofit sectors to share progress, lessons learned, and the path forward. With growing risks for families across our region, prevention is more critical than ever. If you haven’t registered yet, there’s still time to join us, we hope to see you there! Hilary Armstrong (she/her) Deputy Director Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara 150 W. Tasman Drive | San Jose, CA 95134 C: 669.226.7114 From:Armstrong, Hilary To:Armstrong, Hilary Subject:Reminder: Upcoming Webinar for elected officials, government partners, funders, and community leaders on November 13 Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 8:17:38 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. What: A virtual briefing for elected officials, government partners, funders, and community leaders to learn more about the County of Santa Clara’s Homelessness Prevention System. We’ll share how this intervention has been launched and scaled over the past eight years, present the latest data and impact, highlight key improvements from the current fiscal year, and feature partners leading this critical work on the ground. When: Wednesday, November 13th 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Where: Online – Register Here Who: Chad Bojorquez, Destination: Home Hilary Armstrong,, County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing Cupid Alexander, City of San José Erin Stanton, Sacred Heart Community Service Benaifer Dastoor & Jade Bradley, Bill Wilson Center Why: Preventing homelessness before it begins remains one of the most effective, data-driven strategies to address our housing crisis and it’s working. Since 2017, the Homelessness Prevention System has helped keep more than 43,000 people stably housed, now supporting over 2,500 households annually. This briefing brings together the leaders driving this success across government and nonprofit sectors to share progress, lessons learned, and the path forward. With growing risks for families across our region, prevention is more critical than ever. If you haven’t registered yet, there’s still time to join us, we hope to see you there! Hilary Armstrong (she/her) Deputy Director Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara 150 W. Tasman Drive | San Jose, CA 95134 C: 669.226.7114   From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Public Comment for City Council, Item 6 Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 8:05:42 AM Attachments:660 University Ave - City Council 11_10_25.docx image001.png image002.png image004.png Dear City Council, Please see the attached letter regarding Item #6. Thank you, Christine Prior Assistant City Clerk Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jack Farrell <jack@yesinmybackyard.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 5:24 AM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Public Comment for City Council, Item 6 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding item 6 on the agenda for tonight's meeting of City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/himResearch Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Good morning, Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding item 6 on the agenda for tonight's meeting of City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Powered by Mimecast Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 11/10/2025 City of Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org Via Email Re: 660 University Avenue Proposal, Agenda Item 6 Dear Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. This proposal consists of a mixed-use development with a ground floor office, 66 residential units and two below-ground parking levels. 13 units will be reserved for moderate income tenants, 1 for low income, and 1 for very low income. The proposal 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org was submitted under Palo Alto’s Planned Home Zoning community plan in an area zoned for multi-family residential use. As confirmed by previous committees and recommended by staff, this project complies with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, awning code, coordinated area plans, and design guides. The Revised EIR found no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. This project has gone through four years of successive review and modification to reach this stage, where it is consistent with all necessary local conditions. Given these consistencies, this Commission must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss From:Christopher Ream To:Christopher Ream; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:WITH LETTER ATTACHED - Re: City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder"s Remedy Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 10:18:34 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re SB330 - 20251108.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers, Sorry I failed to attach my letter. I hope I have done so now. Chris From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 7:31 PM To: Mayor Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>, Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Patrick Burt <Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember George Lu <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov>, City Council <City.Council@PaloAlto.gov>, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Cc: Kinsey Haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com>, Carol Gilbert <carol.gilbert@icloud.com>, Kay Brown <kayb49@sbcglobal.net>, Peggy Forbes <peggywforbes@gmail.com> Subject: City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder's Remedy Councilmembers, Please find attached my 2-page comment letter regarding the threat of Builder’s Remedy stepping in to take over the 660 University project. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. This is the last of my comment letters for tomorrow evening’s City Council meeting. Thank you for bearing with me. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council MeeOng on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 THIRD LETTER –There is NO Valid Threat of Builder’s Remedy Council Members, When the 660 University project was before the Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and then the Planning and TransportaOon Commission (“PTC”), there were repeated comments by Members and Commissioners that this was not an a_racOve project, that it was too big on too small a lot, that it was going to cause serious traﬃc congesOon, and other negaOves; but they felt they had to approve it because Applicant had a Builder’s Remedy project standing by to replace it, and the Builder’s Remedy would be much worse. That threat is NOT valid. As my neighbor Kinsey Haﬀner has explained to you in his comments, Applicant made incurable mistakes in ﬁling the applicaOon for the Builder’s Remedy resulOng in it no longer being a valid Builder’s Remedy applicaOon. I will go a step further and point out that Applicant’s enOre pre- applicaOon and applicaOon process was not valid because the City of Palo Alto had already adopted a Housing Element before Applicant ﬁled any of its Builder’s Remedy applicaOons. The City of Palo Alto adopted a 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element on May 8, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) sent Palo Alto a le_er with a 6-page detailed appendix poinOng out substanOal defects to be corrected. Palo Alto worked hard on it, and on April 15, 2024 a joint meeOng of the PTC and City Council adopted a substanOally revised Housing Element, which was then submi_ed to the Ream – There is NO Valid Threat of Builder’s Remedy November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 2 HCD. On August 20, 2024, the HCD approved that April 15, 2024 Housing Element with some technical modiﬁcaOons: “Thank you for submihng the City of Palo Alto’s (City) housing element that was adopted April 15, 2024 . . . .HCD is pleased to ﬁnd the adopted housing element, including all technical modiﬁcaOons, in substanOal compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) as of the date of this le_er.” HCD letter to City of Palo Alto, August 20, 2024, page 1. The law provides that an applicant cannot use Builder’s Remedy if the jurisdicOon [City of Palo Alto] had adopted a Housing Element in substanOal compliance with the State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). “(5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdicOon had adopted a revised housing element that was in substanOal compliance with this arOcle [Government Code §§65580 - 65589.11].” Government Code §65589.5(d)(5) HCD’s August 20, 2024 le_er conﬁrms that the Housing Element adopted by the City of Palo Alto on April 15, 2024 is in substanOal compliance. “SubstanOal compliance” means not necessarily 100% compliance but close to it and that leaves room for the technical modiﬁcaOons. April 15, 2024 is the date to be dealt with. Applicant cannot argue that its applicaOon for a Builder’s Remedy project on the land pre-dated the Housing Element because Applicant’s earliest ﬁling for Builder’s Remedy was a pre- applicaOon ﬁled on May 8, 2024, together with other ﬁlings stretching out to September 3, 2024. They are all aoer Housing Element ’s April 15 date and thus do not confer any rights to Builder’s Remedy. The Hamilton community strongly opposes this applicaOon for excessive development on our small block. Please make clear that Builder’s Remedy is not applicable here so that you can consider the regular applicaOon for the 660 University Avenue project without fear of a threat of Builder’s Remedy. Thank you for your consideraOon, Christopher Ream P.S.: Last of my three comment le_ers. From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder"s Remedy Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 7:31:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers, Please find attached my 2-page comment letter regarding the threat of Builder’s Remedy stepping in to take over the 660 University project. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. This is the last of my comment letters for tomorrow evening’s City Council meeting. Thank you for bearing with me. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Comments Other than the Tree Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 7:18:43 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re Other Than Tree - 20251108.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Councilmembers, Please find attached my 6-page comment letter regarding several problems with the 660 University project other than the Tree. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. I am working on one more, short comment letter which I hope to be able to get to you later today. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council Meeting on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree Councilmembers, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares a small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all our neighbors. At the ARB and the PTC hearings, the assumed threat of a Builder’s Remedy was brought up by some of the members and commissioners at those hearings. Please don’t let that happen at your hearing. As I explain in a subsequent letter to you, and my neighbor Kinsey Haffner has explained in his own letter to you, Builder’s Remedy is not a valid threat and should be ignored by you. I will address the following concerns in this letter: • Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion • Parking Mechanical Lifts Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? No Parking for Fitness Center • Setbacks • Daylight Plane Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion There is no parking on either University Avenue or Middlefield Road near the project. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton and we see the parking problem every day. Across the street is the First United Methodist Church which has activities going on most days and evenings of the week, including La Comida lunch service and a pre-school with many small children. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass. Every time a delivery vehicle stops on Byron Street during the day, it clogs and backs up Byron. The project does not provide any short-term parking for delivery vehicles, and with 66 rental units in the project’s building, most of which are 1BR or Studio, there are going to be a lot of deliveries, so Byron is going to get clogged and backed up many times a day. How in the world are they going to build this six-story building? Where will construction equipment be located? There is no room; the building will cover almost the entire lot. When The Hamilton was built in the late 1990’s, they foresaw this problem and moved the front of the building back away from Byron Street and constructed a circular driveway that is wide enough and deep enough that a delivery van or Uber/Lyft car can park on the driveway, and then a second vehicle can park behind it or drive past it; the whole time leaving Byron Street free and clear. Byron Street Building on the right is where project would be. Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Parking Mechanical Lifts Of the 69 actual stalls Applicant intends to provide, 54 of them are mechanical lifts where raising or lowering your car, or someone else’s car, is required. Now, 46 of those 54 lifts are “Stackers” on the second (bottom) floor of the underground garage. They are reasonably straight forward, but there is potential for operator error, and the likelihood of mechanical failure from time to time. Sheet A2.PO-C in Applicant’s PLAN 2 filed 10/21/2025 describes the system. The other 8 stalls come from a five-car “Puzzle” and a three-car “Puzzle” on the first floor. These are complex mechanical structures in which cars, your car and other people’s cars, are lifted and lowered, shifted to the left and shifted to the right. It seems almost inevitable that there will be operator error and somebody’s car will be damaged, probably not the then temporary operator’s car. And mechanical failure is almost certain. Interestingly, Applicant has not included any description of these “Puzzles” notwithstanding that I have repeatedly raised this concern. Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? Applicant has shown only 1,984 ft2 of non-residential office space on the First Floor (see Sheet A2.1) and has calculated that the code requirement for that is the 8 parking stalls. Last year, up until Applicant added a Fifth and a Sixth Floor in October 2024, the non-residential office space on the First Floor was 9,115 ft2 which calculated to a code requirement of 37 parking stalls, 29 more stalls than the current plans call for (37–8 = 29). I accept Applicant’s calculation of only 8 parking stalls as the First Floor is configured now. Current – 1,984 ft2 Light blue is office space But, there is a warning flag – Applicant has inserted a notice on Sheet A2.1: ALL INTERIOR DEMISING AND PARTITION WALLS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 4 of 6 If Applicant’s plans get approved, will Applicant then go back to the configuration of the First Floor it had last year and collect a lot of monthly rent on the additional 7,131 ft2 of office space without incurring the obligation for the additional 29 parking stalls? It will be tempting to Applicant. Last Year – 9,115 ft2 Light blue is office space Emily Kallas, the City Planner on this project has informally told me that Applicant could only make minor adjustments not to exceed a total of 100 ft2. If this project is going to be approved, I strongly urge that the City Attorney get a binding written contract that limits Applicant to Ms. Kallas’s understanding of a maximum of 100 ft2 in adjustments. Without such a contract, we might have another 29 cars wandering . No Parking for Fitness Center Applicant has said that the 1,829 ft2 Fitness Center on the First Floor will be exclusively for use by tenants in the building (residential and office), and thus no need to calculate any additional parking stalls. So, while the City Attorney is at it, get a written contract affirming that the Fitness Center will remain exclusive to tenants. Setbacks At the April 18, 2024 and again at the December 5, 2024 ARB meetings on this project, there was a lot of discussion about the lack of proper setback along Middlefield Road. Applicant has moved the above grade portion of the building back to form a 25-foot setback along Middlefield as requested, but the underground garage still extends right up to the property line with ZERO setback and a minimal amount of soil fill above the garage structure. (See Sheet A3.3A.) Will the City of Palo Alto be able to make improvements to Middlefield Road in the future with this garage flush up against the road? Not likely. Applicant has offered to provide a small area at the Middlefield/University corner of the property as an “accommodation” if the City were to want to make improvements along Middlefield Road. Any improvement would most likely be to improve travel along Middlefield Road. But Applicant’s Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 5 of 6 offer is only for 27 feet along Middlefield Road from the corner, leaving 46.5 feet still obstructed by the garage. (See Sheet A1.1A.) Applicant needs to make the offer to the City for the entire length of the property along Middlefield. This brings out the fact that the garage also abuts both University Avenue and Byron Street underground with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? Daylight Plane There is a single family, one-story residence zoned RM-20 at 524 Middlefield Road adjacent to the project. Upon a 1/21/2022 review of Applicant’s initial filing, Samuel Gutierrez advised Applicant of the requirement to observe a 45° daylight plane. Applicant complied, and in the next submission of plans, cut back the portion of the Fourth Floor next to the neighboring house. The Fourth Floor has remained cut back and compliant with the daylight plane in all subsequent plans submitted by Applicant including the current submission. But Applicant has now added two additional stories onto the building raising the height up to 82 feet and disregarded the fact that these additional floors egregiously violate the daylight plane. The following is from Applicant’s submission. I have enhanced it to make the line of the daylight plane and the location of the neighboring house more visible. Too Much Time Several times in ARB & PTC hearings, a member or commissioner has said that they have spent too much time on this project, so let’s just vote to move it along. Yes, they have seen this project repeatedly and they have spent a lot of time on it. But the reason is that there are a lot 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7'- 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " LINE O F D A Y L I G H T P L A N E 3' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 9' - 9 " 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 6 " 7'- 0 " FE N C E 7' - 0 " 9' - 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 7'- 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9' - 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/ - UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CAR T COMPO S T 64G CA R T COMPO S T R C 64G CA R T COMPO S T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 6 of 6 of problems with it as has also been expressed by members and commissioners at those hearings. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream PS: This is the second comment letter I have sent you today; the earlier one dealt with the Magnificent Coast Live Oak Tree. I am preparing a third comment letter about the faux threat of Builder’s Remedy raised at the ARB and PTC hearings and will send that to you shortly. From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:November 10, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item # 8: Outdoor Lighting Regulations Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 5:35:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. NOVEMBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #8: OUTDOOR LIGHTING REGULATIONS Unshielded LED Street Lights appear to be the main cause of lightpollution that I notice in the areas of the city that I walk in when inappears to be daytime instead of night when there is no light fromeither the sun or the moon, but the City's LED Street Lights are notcovered by this proposed Ordinance. Staff first implemented the conversion of High Pressure Sodium streetlights to LED street lights as a pilot project, and then obtained CityCouncil approval to install the LED street lights in phases. (See streetlight-conversion-project-map.pdf. At first it appears that staff did the conversion, but the most recentareas of the City were converted by contract. (See staff report #4116at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/final-staff-report-id-4116_led-street-lights-supply-and-installation.pdf.) The Bid Summary Sheet at page 5 of that staff report indicates thatonly 100 house-side shields and 100 cul-de-sac-side shields were to beremoved as part of that contract, which implies that for the most partshields remained, but I haven't had the opportunity to walk at nightthrough the areas of the city covered by the contract. When I walk at night on the 1100 block of Waverley Street betweenLincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue, the street lights on one side ofthe street light up the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Tonight Sunday, November 9, there will be a period of time betweenAstronomical Twilight (about 6:30 pm) when there is no light from thesun, and Moonrise (about 9:30 pm) when there is no light from the moon. If you have an opportunity to walk on the 1100 block of Waverley atthat time, check to see if the sky is dark and you can see the stars,and walk on the side of the street opposite the side with the LEDStreet Lights to see if the sidewalk is dark or light. You need to know the Color Temperature of those LED Street Lights thatmight be different for different manufacturers. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:Kay Brown To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project /Agenda date: Nov. 10 Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 5:13:30 PM Attachments:March 4th letter to Palo Altowstudy request.docx Letter to Emily kallas (follow-up).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear City Council Members, I sent the 2 attached letters below to Emily 1). March 4 letter sent to ARB 2). August 16 letter sent to PTC Local traffic safety issues described in these letters were ultimately ignored. The 2 commissions OK’d the 660 project without alternatives or mitigations being explored. The project was passed onto you (The City Council) for final approval. I’m asking that you take the time to read my 3 letters (the 3rd letter came to you on March 6). Thank you for your time and attention to these concerns. Kay Brown 650-269-1985 Powered by Mimecast Kay Brown 555 Byron St Apt 101 Palo Alto, CA 94301 kayb49@sbcglobal.net March 4, 2025 Emily Kallas Senior Planner Planning and Development Dept. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Kallas, I’m writing to express my concerns regarding the intended project slated to be built at 660 University. This large apartment/multi-use facility is scheduled to come before you for determination on March 12, 2025. I would like to familiarize you with the current traffic issues on the 500 block of Byron St. As it stands today, senior residents of 555 Byron as well as nursery school par- ents, church goers and dental office patients encounter frequent near-misses en- tering and exiting their respective parking lots. 1. Currently parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the narrow residual allotment for 2-way traffic becomes unwieldy with one car needing to pull over to allow on-coming traffic to pass. 2. Byron is utilized frequently as an auto pass-through for traffic wanting to avoid the traffic light at University and Middlefield. Residents and patients in cars must to pull-over and brake to avoid the on-coming traffic. The cars travel swiftly without regard to elderly residents that are with walkers and wheelchairs as they attempt to cross the street. 3. Large commercial vehicles deliver food, linen, packages, etc or service plumbing, electrical, wifi tele-communication issues at the various facilities. When these large trucks park on Byron, the danger factor is exacerbated. It is difficult to see or maneuver safely around the commercial vans, etc. 4. There are currently 3 large senior facilities within the 2 block radius. Con- cern for Emergency Response Vehicles ability to access the streets at all times should be paramount It is my understanding that the developer of 660 University intends to situate the ingress and egress to the underground parking directly on Byron St? With the dense apartment units and office spaces allotted to the new complex, accidents can be anticipated. Also, please consider the situation that will arise during construction of the new complex. At any given time, there will be large construction vehicles needed to demolish existing structures and erect the final facility. Where will they park so as not to worsen an already dangerous situation…on University, on Middlefield? I am under the impression that the developers are anticipating that many of the 660 University dwellers will not own cars and will be utilizing mass transport. At the previous City Council meetings, a study initiated on the developers behalf stated that a majority of the tenants will not be coming and going in automobiles by a computer generated (formulation) pie in the sky scenario? If this is an accu- rate analysis, I am asking the city of Palo Alto to verify this information and stand by it’s assessment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Appreciatively, Kay Brown 650-269-1985 Kay Brown 555 Byron St Apt 101 Palo Alto, CA 94301 kayb49@sbcglobal.net August 16, 2025 Emily Kallas Senior Planner Planning and Development Dept. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Kallas, I’m writing to you, once again, to express my concerns regarding traffic issues which will undoubtedly arise with the slated construction of 660 University. In my letter to you dated March 4, 2025, I outlined a number of already existing dangers on Byron St. as well as the potential for an exponential increase in traffic related accidents that will occur on Byron should 660 be given the go-ahead without a proper EIR traffic safety analysis and an in-depth mitigation plan to address said issues. (Below, I will attach my March 4th letter for reference). As you (inclusive of planning department) must be aware, a thorough traffic EIR analysis must include the potential for both pedestrian and vehicle accidents. Unless, I have missed some interaction at meetings or documentation in follow-up reports, I have not seen (within the constructs of the EIR report) any reference to this aspect of 660’s scheduled demolition and construction project. Nor, have I seen an analysis of how an increase in population and autos might impact the safety of existing residents, patients, church-goers and nursery school attendees. I was made aware at the last planning meeting that a few representatives from the planning commission visited the site one day to get a sense of the traffic situation. One representative stated that the lack of space on the narrow street, did present an issue. However, no mitigating solutions were presented that evening nor later in any documentation. A thorough EIR Traffic Safety Report encompasses multi-day and multi-time observations before an adequate analysis can me generated. Repeating, there is no formal EIR traffic safety analysis that has been completed that I can locate for 660. And, after such report has been submitted, there need be mitigating solutions to address said hazards. The developer must provide in advance adequate alternatives (mitigating solutions ) for parking during construction. The City of Palo Alto Planning Commission must in good conscience provide adequate mitigating traffic solutions, as well, to address increased population/traffic upon project completion. 1. Again, where will the large construction vehicles park for demolition and building erection? Will they be parking on Byron, University or Middlefield? 2. When completed, where will all the new tenants of 660 park? According to the expected population of 660, 74 parking spaces are required. Yet, there’s a 30% reduction allowed under TDM. Only 52 stalls will be available. Clearly, the excess spaces required will overpopulate parking on Byron, University and adjacent streets. (While the TDM has a lofty ambition to encourage mass transportation, a 22 slot reduction in parking will undoubtedly exacerbate an already precarious narrow street scenario.) 3. Please take into consideration multimodal conflict points with the challenged population that exists in a 2 block radius of 660. There are 3 large elderly communities that surround 660. During the day, pedestrians with walkers, wheelchairs and canes regularly cross University to attend meals and activities at the Methodist Church across Byron from 660. 4. With, the increased residents and office workers at 660, what will be the impact on an already dangerous traffic situation? (Must be included in a formal EIR traffic safety report). And, appropriate mitigation steps need to be outlined by either developer or the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission in advance of a go-ahead for construction. A transportation analysis was completed by Hexagon Transportation, a private consultant corporation hired by the developer. Hexagon addresses safety transiently. Briefly, it states that Byron is a quiet street (ie. No danger factor ). The study does not address the width of the street, the traffic patterns on Byron, University nor the pedestrian population that traverses the streets. A legitimate EIR traffic safety analysis according to California codes) must be completed by a public agency, not a private corporation paid by the developer with a vested interest. Hexagon’s report is primarily an overview of traffic patterns in Santa Clara County. Where is the EIR traffic safety analysis that is required by the State of California? Appreciate your time and attention. Sincerely, Kay Brown 650-269-1985 From:Robert Neff To:Council, City Cc:Transportation; City Mgr Subject:Support recognition for Bike Palo Alto core team Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:54:06 PM Attachments:BikePaloAltoCoreRecognition.pdf Please see attached letter to council, Robert Neff / Emerson Street near Loma Verde / robert@neffs.net November 8, 2025 Dear City of Palo Alto Council and Staff, Bike Palo Alto! (BPA) Is a treasured local event, just wrapping up its 15th year on October 5. We urge the city of Palo Alto to make a proclamation recognizing the core 2025 team of Audrey Gold, Eric Nordman, Kathy Durham, David Coale, Kavitha Tupelly, Reyansh Tupelly, Jaeyoon Kim, and Jaewon Choi for their contribution to the city of Palo Alto. A special recognition could be made for Kathy Durham and David Coale, who were among the original Bike Palo Alto organizers in 2011, have kickstarted the process every year, and then helped organize it with about 2 months of regular meetings in August and September annually. On Sunday, October 5, Bike Palo Alto celebrated its 15th year. It continued the tradition of sending Palo Altans cycling across the city, enjoying our excellent bike routes from Menlo Park to the Baylands to Los Altos, finding good routes to shopping and parks, and encouraging folks and their kids to experience biking in Palo Alto, many for the first time. It is a day of positive enjoyment for the folks who ride, and for the volunteers who make it happen. Every year this takes over 60 volunteers to put on, including introducing folks to routes, helping make minor safety repairs and upgrades to bikes for a better day, helmet fittings for safer riding, special giveaways, and operating sweet stops along the route to encourage and energize riders. The event is free to all, and benefits from an array of sponsors and partners, including the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Research Park, the Palo Alto PTA, and many more. (See: https://bikepaloalto.org/thanks-to-our-partners-sponsors/) This year over 650 folks signed up, a typical number for this event over the last 10 years, excluding the Covid years, of course. This event has been run on a shoestring budget, with a core of a few volunteers who arrange for a school site, make plans for the day, solicit volunteers, organize stops, and do publicity (BPA signs, and more) every year, collapsing on the night after the event and wondering how they will do it again next year. Without this core, the event would not happen. We feel this dedication for our community should be recognized. Thank you for your service to our city, Signed: Robert Neff, Penny Ellson, Terry Andre, Bruce Arthur, Sonya Bradski, Jim Cornett, Dale K. Gill Sven Thesen, Frank Viggiano Cedric de La Beaujardiere, Most of us have been BPA day-of volunteers for many years, and value the bicycling culture that we experience in Palo Alto. From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Save the Tree Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:29:48 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re Tree - 20251108.pdf Councilmembers, Please find attached my 5-page comment letter focused on the need to protect the magnificent coastal live oak tree that is in grave danger if the 660 University project goes forward as presently planned. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. I am working on two more comment letters which I hope to be able to get to you later today. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.Lythcott-Haims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council Meeting on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak Councilmembers, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 54 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past seven years. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (“HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that would materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block. David Babby, Applicant’s arborist, correctly reports the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its mostly uniform canopy stretches out 90 feet in diameter and is approximately 60 feet high. The Tree is on 517 Byron Street but is close to the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is much larger. The Tree is several hundred years old and is deemed a protected tree by the City of Palo Alto. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. Applicant’s proposal to build a large building close to the Tree will put it in grave danger, and we need to protect it. There are two Attachments to this letter: A – Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project, dated September 25, 2025, by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist (hereinafter referred to as “Levison Analysis”). B – Selected pages from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan, May 23, 2022 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 5 TPZ – Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s arborist David Babby prepared a “Tree Protection Report” dated November 19, 2021 which was filed with Applicant’s original application in December 2021, and was updated with an updated version dated February 7, 2024 which Applicant has included with all subsequent sets of plans filed with the City. (I will refer to that report as “Babby Report”.) The Babby Report acknowledges that the Tree is a “protected tree” under PAMC 8.10 because of its 50-inch trunk and discusses the Tree repeatedly. The Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 1.36 requires a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement (Babby Report, p. 9), but notwithstanding that, Applicant has gone ahead and arbitrarily drawn a deficient TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and positioned its proposed building right next to that 30 feet. That is 11 feet less than the protection required by the City of Palo Alto. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches over the site, a mostly balanced canopy spreading nearly 90 feet across. Babby Report, p.3. With a 90-foot diameter, the canopy has a radius of 45 feet and because the Tree is close to the property line, its canopy stretches that 45 feet over the proposed site. The TPZ applies to the canopy as well as the root structure, but Applicant has used its faux 30-foot TPZ to bring the exterior wall of the proposed building up to 30 feet from the trunk of the Tree. Applicant says it will cut back 15% of the canopy to clear the proposed building and then another 10% to allow room for construction, for a total of 25%. Babby Report, p.10. Walter Levison Consulting Arborist, retained by the Hamilton Homeowners Association, estimates 20% to 30% of the canopy will be removed. See Attachment A, the “Levison Analysis,” p.3. So, we have a basic agreement that the proposed project will cause an estimated 25% of the canopy to be lost. Applicant admits it will have to cut off many limbs and branches, a 17-inch diameter limb, an 8- inch diameter limb, a dozen or so smaller branches ranging in size from 1 to 6 inches in diameter. Babby Report, p.10. This will raise a serious risk of infection. “Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor).” Levison Analysis, p.8 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Root Structure Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reported that his GPR (ground penetrating radar) root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B). This is consistent with the general assumption that a tree’s roots extend out 2x to 3x the drip line of its canopy (Levison Analysis, p.3) which would mean the Tree’s roots are going on out to 90 feet to 135 feet. But the Tree’s root structure on the northern side, the side facing the proposed project, will be boxed in and severely cut back by the proposed two-story underground garage: auto ramp 32 feet to the west, subterranean exterior wall of the garage 36 feet to the north, and another auto ramp 30 feet to the east. See Sheet A2.P1 of Applicant’s plans. In addition, notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, the Babby Report discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ and there will be only a 20-foot setback from the Tree’s trunk for any “ground disturbance and that applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, drenching, and drilling/auguring.” Babby Report, p.10. In other words, if a construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they will be free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. The most optimistically possible outcome for Applicant would be they end up with a semicircle of roots on the north side of the Tree with a radius of 25 feet (though nothing is stopping them from cutting that radius down to 20 feet, the 20-foot setback.). Even if we pretend that the Tree’s roots all stopped at 51 feet rather than extending out to the normal 90 feet or 135 feet, the root structure on the north side of the Tree would be reduced to only 24% of what it is now, a loss of 76% of those roots. ((0.5 x ∏ x 25 x 25) / (0.5 x ∏ x 51 x 51) = 24%) And those numbers are based upon the current root structure stopping at 51 feet; it would be much worse if we used the more likely 90 to 135 feet. 1 Tree Failure “It is WLCA’s [Walter Levison Consulting Arborist] professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a “severe” degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the June and August 2025 sets of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Levison Analysis, p.13. Levison’s prediction of a spiral of condition decline comes from the significant reduction of the water, minerals and sunlight the Tree needs. In addition to that slow death for the Tree, there is the substantial probability of a sudden failure – the Tree toppling over in a windstorm, if not sooner during construction. 1 If we use the shorter normal of 90 feet, the reduction in roots would be a loss of 92% of the roots. ((0.5 x ∏ x 25 x 25) / (0.5 x ∏ x 90 x 90) = 8%) 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 4 of 5 As Applicant’s arborist reports, the Tree now has a balanced canopy. Babby Report, p.3. That balance will be completely lost if 25% of the canopy is cut off. That is 25% of the whole canopy, but all of the removal will be from the northern half of the canopy, none from the southern half.2 Simple math tells you that 25% of the whole will be 50% of the northern half. With the southern half of the canopy now twice as large as the northern, the Tree will want to tip over to the south towards The Hamilton. It gets worse: Leverage. The force effect of the weight of the canopy is a straight function of how far out that weight is from the Tree trunk: The further away from the trunk, the more force it will be exerting. You remember playing on a seesaw as kid: you could balance with your friend who weighed more or less than you by the heavier one sliding in towards the fulcrum (pivot point) and/or the lighter one sliding back away from it. Or if you don’t remember that, reach out and grab that water glass. When your arm is out straight away from your body it feels heavy, but when you pull your arm back in close to your body it feels much lighter. Applicant cutting back the canopy on the north side results in the canopy that is left there being close to the Tree’s trunk. The lighter kid has slid towards the fulcrum, not away from it. The dominance of the south side force over the north side force is even greater. How could the Tree possibly survivor such radical, unbalanced decimation of its canopy? Maybe, just maybe, nature gave it a strong root structure on the north side to hold up the against the force trying to tip it over to the south. We know from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan (Attachment B) that there is a strong root structure on the north side extending out to at least 51 feet and probably more to maybe 90 feet or even 135 feet. But wait, Applicant plans to cut off those roots, none to survive past 30 feet, many cut off at 20 feet. That will reduce the root structure down to 25% of what it is now, probably less. See page 3 above. There is no way the Tree will survive if Applicant is allowed to go forward with its plans. Conclusion If Applicant’s plans are approved and they go forward, how soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others? It would destroy the Cardinal Dental office on the property next to it and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The top of this 60- foot Tree will also reach and hit The Hamilton. Pray that none of our senior residents get hit. 2 The Tree is outside the southern property line of the project’s property. Only the canopy on the northern side of the Tree stretches over the project property (what I have been referring to as the “northern half”) and that is where Applicant intents to cut back the canopy. Applicant has no reason to cut canopy in the southern half, and indeed it would not be allowed to since that is land owned by a different person. 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 5 of 5 The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for over-excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream PS: I am preparing two more comment letters on this 660 University Avenue project which I expect to be able to send to you over the weekend. One about other problems and concerns we have about the proposed large building, and the other about the faux threat of Builder’s Remedy raised at the ARB and PTC hearings. 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Magniﬁcent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 A"achment A Walter Levison Consul0ng Arborist Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project September 25, 2025 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/15/2023 Revised: 9/25/2025 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing immediately adjacent to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. The original letter report submitted by WLCA was dated 12/15/2023 as noted on this page. The following reported information has been updated as of 9/25/2025, after WLCA’s thorough review of the most currently available plan sheets that are public record, accessible via City of Palo Alto’s official download site, such as June and August 2025 iterations of the applicant’s plan sheets: https://aca- prod.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=21PLN&capID2=00000&capID3=00 341&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=no (Record 21PLN-00341) WLCA also reviewed: A. City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff Catherine Mondkar’s testimony via Youtube, available as public record, from a formal hearing that occurred on 4/18/2024. B. David Babby Consulting Arborist’s most current arborist report iteration 2/07/2024, noted in this report as the “DB” report. C. Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022 which analyzed woody root extent using ground penetrating radar (GPR) machine, noted in this report as the “RB” report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking facility with residential facility direction over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated 2025) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the proposed site redevelopment work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. A written report was originally submitted in 2023. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David Babby (the DB report) as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the +/- 90 foot diameter spread canopy). WLCA originally reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by DB dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (DB used a topographic survey sheet for his initial site tree map markup). WLCA subsequently reviewed 2025 iterations of the project plans downloaded from the City of Palo Alto, as noted above in this letter report, as well as an updated DB Consulting Arborist report dated 2/07/2024, which I will refer to as the “DB” report. That DB report includes the City-required tree protection plan sheets often referred to as the “T” set of sheets, that detail project arborist recommendations as well as City standard tree protection methods required to be implemented as project conditions of approval (PCOA), which are legally binding conditions required to be performed by applicant project teams applying for site entitlements. Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Basic Data Diameter: Assume 50 inches, per DB report. (+/- 4 feet). Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per DB and WLCA reporting. Health (Vigor): 70% per DB, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per DB, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per DB, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk1, based on both Arboriculture 4th Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. (Refer to the RB report detailing roots mapped via use of a ground penetrating radar GPR machine). Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. Expected Construction-Related Tree Root Zone Impact and Canopy Impact Analysis Based on the most current 2025 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets • Canopy: Expect 20% to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed retaining wall excavation cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. This is a loss of roughly 50% from those sections of the canopy, and a loss of roughly 25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass. The DB 2024 arborist report notes an expected loss of some 15% of the existing canopy (assumedly referring to a 15% loss of the total canopy biomass as a whole), though it is not clear if the DB report is also accounting for loss of canopy due to pruning to clear airspace related to an unknown width “construction corridor” between the tree #10 protection zone fencing, and the proposed two balconies that will extend toward the tree. Construction corridor airspace clearance typically requires full clearance to unlimited height, in order to allow for use of lift machines to perform exterior finishing work such as window installations, balconies, painting, etc. In WLCA’s experience, the width of a construction corridor can range anywhere from 5 feet to 20 feet in horizontal width, depending on the types of machinery required to complete the exterior finish work. In some cases, a construction elevator is required to be installed along the exterior of a new building, which may require up to 20 feet horizontal width. The DB report notes there will be significant pruning involved during the airspace clearance work, including a 17 inch diameter stem, an 8 inch diameter stem, and a dozen or so stems ranging from 1 to 6 inches diameter each. Again, this appears to only account for pruning to clear the new proposed building and balconies, but is assumedly not accounting for any construction corridor width airspace clearance tree pruning that may require an additional 5 to 20 feet in horizontal width to be completely cleared to unlimited vertical elevation (not verified). • Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk (e.g. 90 feet to 135 feet radius), and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. The RB ground penetrating radar report root maps suggest that this is the case. See the 2022 RB report root map pages reproduced below in this WLCA report body for reference. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) in terms of structural root plate retention during work on a single side of a tree, is typically recommended as a so-called “tree protection zone” (TPZ) per 2016 BMP booklet “Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition” of at least 6x, 8x, or 10x2 the diameter as a lateral offset from edge of mainstem, which in the case of tree #10, calculates to roughly 24 feet, 32 feet, or 40 feet radius, depending on which standard is used. Per the BMP book, coast live oak has a good tolerance of construction damage, but as a mature specimen, the TPZ multiplication factor that is most appropriate for use for tree #10 is either the 8x or the 10x factor (i.e. a TPZ radius of 32 feet radius, or 40 feet). 2 The applicant’s sheet L4.2 does indicate that the standard City-required tree protection zone (TPZ) is 10x trunk diameter, which equates to 41 feet offset radius, per the DB report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cumulative Impact vs. Root or Canopy Impact Alone Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition rating, such that the combined root zone impact plus tree live canopy loss impact is relatively severe, even though the majority of the work would occur north of the so-called “Tree Protection Zone” of 32 feet offset radius (see WLCA markup showing hard construction related impact to 30 feet offset radius from trunk edge, which is slightly within a TPZ of 8x diameter offset). The DB report does not address cumulative impacts, and instead considers “roots” and “canopy” to be separate and distinct from one another, with a +/- 15% loss expected to each of roots and canopy per the DB report. In WLCA’s experience, construction related impacts to roots and canopy are neither separate nor distinct, and should instead be added together as a combined cumulative impact to the tree, bringing the actual impact to somewhere in the range of 30% to 40% or greater “cumulative impact”, which is “severe”.3 TPZ Radius / Multiple Distances Cited It is not clear why the DB 2024 arborist report continues to reference various different tree protection zone (TPZ) offset radius distances out from the trunk edge of oak #10. The actual required TPZ per City of Palo Alto, established in the City tree technical manual, is 10x diameter offset from mainstem, which equates to +/- 41 feet offset radius from mainstem edge of oak #10. However, per the DB 2024 report, the project as proposed per current plan iterations provides only some 30 feet offset from oak #10 mainstem as a horizontal separation between the tree mainstem edge and the new building footprint plus garage, and only a 20 foot radius protection offset from tree mainstem edge for limit of “ground disturbances” beneath the existing asphalt surfacing materials. This multi-tier TPZ setup will not be in compl iance with City of Palo Alto’s TPZ standards, unless very significant tree impact mitigation measures are adhered to with robust arborist site monitoring throughout the entire planned project buildout from start to finish, for all work that occurs within zero to 41 feet offset radius from the oak #10 mainstem edge. Note also that the proposed terrace/garden element of the project does not comply with even the shortest of the three (3) TPZ radii (i.e. the 20 foot offset radius TPZ), given that the proposed terrace will encroach to within just a few feet of the oak #10 mainstem edge, violating even this minimal 20 foot TPZ offset. Soil Compaction within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) / Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 32 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 3 This form of cumulative tree impact analysis was used by WLCA during contract consulting work for Barrie D. Coate and Associates of Saratoga, CA, under direction from firm Staff. Barrie D. Coate and Associates was considered at that time to be the preeminent arboriculture consulting firm in the Bay Area, and cumulative tree impacts were routinely determined in this manner. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). From a read of the RB ground penetrating radar report, one might think that the root system of the tree is only growing lateral woody roots at great depth (the report maps roots at highest density at distances some 5 to 7 feet below grade). However, trees do have extensively branches root systems with fine absorbing roots 1/32 inch to 1/16 inch diameter each, for example, which would assumedly not show up on the GPR root maps. The fact that the existing asphaltic surface parking lot over which the GPR testing was performed is considered a fill soil pad of great depth above the original tree #10 root system grade elevations, this does not mean that woody roots and/or fine absorbing roots are only present at great depth. In WLCA’s 27 years of consulting experience, the layer of older baserock base section just beneath older parking lot asphalt (especially very old parking lots from the early to mid 20th century) is a layer with conditions favorable to tree root extension and expansion growth in general. WLCA assumes that the root system of oak #10 extends up into the uppermost elevation of the soil profile, just beneath the asphaltic layer, where soil compaction is lowest, and oxygenation is highest. • TRAQ Risk: The removal of +/-25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass of tree #10 for airspace clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, building foundation footing excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of individual stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from a few inches diameter each, to as much as 17 inches diameter or more, on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (6/20/2025, 8/08/2025). 1. EXTERIOR: The proposed exterior of the building (solid lines) will be approximately 30 feet west of the subject oak tree mainstem edge per sheet A0.2A. 2. BALCONIES: The proposed edge of two new multi-story balconies (gray dashed line rectangles extending map- downward from the building exterior on this sheet) will be approximately 24 feet and 26 feet west of the subject oak mainstem edge, per sheet A0.2A. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 3. CONSTRUCTION CORRIDORS ETC.: An additional minimum 5 horizontal feet of airspace clearance (or possibly far greater) is expected to be required to be able to build the proposed balconies, build other exterior features per plan and maintain a free and clear space around the balconies over time. This means the actual extent of pruning will be to a distance of 17 feet west of the mainstem edge of the subject oak specimen, removing at least 20 or more horizontal feet of the existing live canopy biomass, which is a loss of approximately 54% (or more) of the west quadrant of the canopy. Note that the pruning cuts are likely going to consist of “non-ANSI A300 conforming cuts”, since there are few if any remaining stem forks at which to cut back to at that location of 17 feet west of the mainstem, which means that the cuts will then have to be made using “internodal cuts”, performed at locations between branch forks: a poor pruning technique which is often referred to as shearing, topping, or shaving, hedging, etc. when performed on shrubs. See the WLCA markup at right, showing approximately where these cuts might be performed (shown to non-accurate scale, arrows point to locations that are “roughly” 17 feet west or so of the subject oak mainstem edge). Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor). The canopy will be suddenly susceptible to sunscald/sunburn as sunlight will be able to penetrate deeply into the west side of the canopy once clearance pruning is performed to +/- 17 feet west of the mainstem edge, likely resulting in additional decline/death of remaining residual live wood and foliage in that west quadrant of the canopy. Coast live oaks as a species do tend to response relatively well to pruning and root pruning impacts during construction projects, but this degree of pruning is considered “severe”, even though it will only be impacting a single side of the symmetrical canopy. The City of Palo Alto notes that the expected pruning will be considered to be +/-15% of canopy loss overall for the entire tree canopy. However, it is WLCA’s opinion that the City and the project design team may not have actually considered the requirement that a construction corridor, of minimum 5 feet width (or far greater width) as noted above, will be cleared completely in terms of vertical airspace pruning of tree canopy live wood and foliage, and that the pruning cuts are likely going to be performed as shearing-type cuts at internodal locations, which is equivalent to topping pruning in that the tree’s long term response is going to be a profusion of epicormic shoots growing from near the pruning cut wounds, increased sunscald/sunburn, and long term progression of internal wood decay by fungi species that will progress inward and downward through the remaining stems from the large diameter pruning cut wounds made during project airspace clearance pruning. Also of note is the fact that the remaining canopy will be severely lopsided, and that TRAQ risk of whole tree failure and impact with various high value targets will be increased to some degree (as discussed elsewhere in this letter report per WLCA’s 2023 analysis). ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 4. UNDERGROUND PARKING: Sheet A2.P2 dated 8/08/2025 shows a proposed new underground parking curvilinear access road that will require deep excavation at approximately 29 to 30 horizontal feet offset from the mainstem edge of the subject oak. This position of the curvilinear underground driveway is relatively closer to the tree than shown in previous 2023 plan sheet iterations. See WLCA’s markup at right showing the gray driveway cut (deep excavation) and a vector of 29-30 feet true north of the tree mainstem edge. Note that in this image, the light gray dashed line is NOT the tree canopy dripline, and is instead a 30 foot radius demarcation by the project team on the plan sheet renderings. The actual tree canopy extends at least 37 feet north as indicated on the applicant’s plan sheets, (and extends some 45 feet radius northward per WLCA’s estimation in 2023 using a forestry tape). A tree protection zone of 10x calculates to 10 x 50” = 500 inches = approximately 41 feet radius offset from mainstem edge, for new construction. This means that the proposed underground driveway will encroach to far within the 41 foot protection zone. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) OVER-EXCAVATION There may or may not be additional “over-excavation” (industry terminology: “over-ex”) required to be performed beyond the limit of excavation shown in this applicant plan sheet in gray coloration on plan sheet A2.P1 reproduced above on page 9 of this WLCA letter report. This is a subject for further research or discussion. Example: if the proposed retaining wall is to be located at the edge of the shown gray area on sheet A2.P1, then there may be a French drain or other type of drainage corridor that needs to be installed behind the wall, requiring over-excavation of some unknown number of horizontal feet, in order to accommodate a thin diameter or a thick diameter drainage curtain (e.g. thin Mirafi “drain core”, or traditional thick gravel-filled French drain system, etc.) that allows for water to drain vertically downward behind the retaining wall, and into a PVC piped drainage system from which water is pumped out in some manner. The thickness of a drainage area behind an underground parking garage retaining wall may be as thick as 3 feet or more (see image above for an example of how a traditional thick type French drain system appears behind a retaining wall). The “overex ” or “over-excavation” required for this item is typically not shown and not understood by laypersons to even exist, until the detailed design set of plans (aka “DD” set of plans) are rendered by a project team of professionals. A 3-foot width French drain system would bring the final excavation cut to within approximately 26-27 feet of the subject oak tree mainstem edge. Use of the more narrow “Miradrain” drainage curtain product, or similar, may reduce this required thickness to as little as 6 inches diameter. During his 27 years of construction project consulting experience, WLCA has worked on Bay Area projects where “over- excavation” was not indicated on rendered plans during the pre-project design stage, resulting in horizontal excavation that extended multiple feet farther than the limits of proposed new underground parking garage retaining wall excavation cuts as shown on birds eye view plan sheets. Nearby trees being protected in place ended up with significant unavoidable root loss due to this oversight by the project engineering teams. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) At right is a snippet from Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022, which is public record as part of the applicant’s background documentation. Mr. Booty used ground penetrating radar (GPR) to determine an approximation of the root extent far below asphalt surface grade elevation, on the side of oak tree #10 facing proposed new building foundation excavation for both the building and underground parking garage retaining walls. Not shown on this image is the curvilinear underground parking garage work which will cut far more root mass than shown by Mr. Booty’s vector black line in the image at right. One of the parking garage roadways below ground is shown in a snippet above on page 8 of this WLCA arborist letter report. From the image at right from Booty arborist report dated 2022, and from the curvilinear below grade parking garage and driveway work shown on page 8 above, we can clearly see that the percentage of the root system to be removed will be very significant: possibly as much as 40-50% of the root system on the northwest side of the tree, not including damage from the proposed terrace/garden buildout area, which is discussed in item #5 below. We should assume from the Booty ground penetrating radar examination of the tree #10 root system that lateral woody roots continue to extend outward in all directions much farther than were recorded by Mr. Booty’s GPR machine, which means that an even greater percentage of the tree #10 root system will be damaged and destroyed during development of the proposed property per plans, since the tree’s structural and vigor life support system literally depends on this woody root system and the fine absorbing root mass attached to it, which is apparently far greater in extent than might have otherwise been known prior to the 2022 arborist report graphic root representations having been provided with scale bars by the applicant’s arborist Robert Booty. Note also that the RB report root maps indicate roots present at v arying depths of between +/- 30 inches depth (2.5 f eet below parking lot surf ace grade elevation) and the 7 foot depth limit of the GPR machine setting used by RB for his analysis. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCING AND MONITORING BY ARBORISTS: It is not clear to WLCA as to the exact location of the official tree protection zone fencing, with an apparent 41 foot TPZ offset alignment indicated by the City of Palo Alto. Actual distance of construction-related impacts to both root system (soil pore space compaction by machinery driving, etc.) and canopy (pruning for vertical and/or horizontal airspace clearance of building, balconies, and an additional “construction corridor” east of the balconies of unknown required width), will necessarily mean that airspace work and some driving of lift vehicles will be occurring at locations between 17 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge. Additionally, the terrace/garden construction will occur at between 3 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge as an end-of-project end-phase landscape element of the design that has yet to be detailed in the proposed plan sheets. The conditions of project approval (COPA), set forth by City of Palo planning division and public works division as legally binding conditions, should ideally include specific wordage that indicates a tiered system of root zone protection (i.e. ground protection) for tree #10, such as: • GROUND PROTECTION: Robust ground protection of 6 to 12 inches thickness for the area between the oak tree mainstem edge and out to 30 feet west of mainstem edge, with frequent arborist consultant on- site monitoring on a weekly or twice-monthly basis to verify compliance by the project build team. See image at right showing this type of protection on a WLCA project in the past in Menlo Park, CA, which was a layer of 6 inches of coarse wood chips overlaid with exterior grade 1.0 inch “actual thickness” (or greater) plywood boards screwed together with steel screw plates. • ZERO IMPACT VS. PARTIAL IMPACT AREAS: If City Urban Forestry is recommending zero impact zone of 20 feet radius, then that area between 0 and 20 feet west of the mainstem will need to be hard-fenced at all times, with no access to the ground, which then sets up a problem for the final landscape buildout portion phase of the project when that protection will be required to be removed to allow for the proposed 735 sq ft terrace/garden element of the project to be built out. • MONITORING BY A PROJECT ARBORIST: The scheduling of project consulting arborist monitoring will potentially need to include daily or weekly on-site monitoring of a much more f requent basis than on a typical construction project, if the oak #10 root system and canopy is to be preserv ed and protected to the best possible extent on sides facing proposed new site construction work. The project arborist will likely need to be present on site during relatively long periods of the tree canopy pruning work as well as the garage retaining wall excavation work. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 13 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion & Recommendations If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the June and August 2025 planning resubmittal versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience a relatively severe degree of below-ground live lateral woody root loss, and a relatively severe degree of above-ground live canopy pruning likely at internodal locations randomly dispersed along large diameter stems to within 17 feet of the mainstem edge, which, when combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact, would necessarily result in loss of tree vigor (health) and tree structure to a “severe” degree over the long term. The applicant’s Robert Booty ground penetrating radar report from 2022 substantiates the presence of oak #10 rooting out to distances f ar greater in radius than shown on the report root map images, suggesting that actual tree root loss caused by proposed construction as currently shown on the 2025 set of plan sheets may be far greater than the +/-15% loss of root system noted in the David Babby consulting arborist report. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be significantly to severely reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a “severe” degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the June and August 2025 set s of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Project airspace clearance pruning of large diameter stems at internodal locations along the stems to clear the building, the balconies, and a construction corridor of unverified additional width, is expected to result in increased activity by pest and/or wood decay causing fungi species progressing inward and downward through the cross sectional areas of the stems, starting at the pruning cut wound faces at approximately 17 horizontal feet west of the mainstem edge, potentially causing an increase in risk of stem failure over time, with ever-increasing “fungal load” within the cross sectional areas of remaining cut stems. Due to wood decay-causing fungi colonization of the cross sections of various clearance-pruned stems at the west side of the subject tree as noted above, there would necessarily be a corresponding increase in severity of the TRAQ risk rating(s) in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (note that this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project tree impact analysis assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. RECOMMENDATIONS See W LCA’s partial set of recommendations abov e on page 12 of this letter report. Note that even if all of the abov e recommendations indicated on page 12 of this WLCA letter report were to be strictly adhered to by the applicant build team and their team of professional consultants, this will not change the fact that at least +/- 50% or more of the tree’s west side of canopy live biomass will be removed to clear the proposed new building exterior, balconies, and a construction corridor of unknown required width with unlimited vertical clear airspace to the southeast of the balconies. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 14 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 15 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 16 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 17 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 18 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 19 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and • the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. • There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Magniﬁcent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 A"achment B Selected pages from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan May 23, 2022 . Arborist OnSite® Horticultural Consulting, Inc. ISA Certified Arborist Report Submitted To: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 Project Location: 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Submitted By: Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor The American Society of Consulting Arborists ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286 May 23, 2022 Copied from page 10 of the report. Adjusted so the “y” scale is the same as the “x” scale. From:justineforbes@mac.com To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project/Agenda 11/10/25 Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:07:23 PM Attachments:Justine revise copy 4word.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please include attached letter for 660 University Project on 11/10/25 agenda Thank you, Justine Forbes MD (retired) Justine Forbes, MD (Retired) 555 Byron Street. #202 Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Resident 11/07/2025 The Hamilton Speaking on behalf of pedestrians I would like to make some comments on the 660 University Ave 6 story Builders Remedy Project. Smith Developers rejected their 4 story building plans because of a requirement to maintain a 40 ft protection of an oak tree and a 10 foot Setback on Middlefield to accommodate a future bicycle lane. The Smith Developers, instead, applied for State Senate Bill 330 for Builders Remedy. The Smiths Builders Remedy will include several below city standards plans, including a 2-level below city standard parking garage and also below standard property set-backs especially on Byron St. Byron St becomes the garbage storage along with the noisy compacting and removal, the center of traffic for bike and possibly motorcycle storage and exit from parking garage. Byron St has complicated traffic and parking problems for everyone at most times. These traffic and parking space availability problems include traffic from elder pedestrians. There are very few spaces to park in the entire area which leads to recirculation hoping there will be a parking space. These traffic and parking space availability problems include traffic from pedestrians. This area could be designated Elder Care Hub at the end of the commercial part of the City of Palo Alto. All of this includes the Webster House and Lytton Gardens, very large elder care and rehab facilities (situated across University from 660). Pedestrians in this Elder Care environment also include their wheelchairs and walkers, and unsteady gait and slow reaction times, confusion when requiring multiple responses at the same time. We all have a lot to manage. Cooperation for a safe environment is an enormous and essential necessity. Getting old is tough. One may have their functioning mind but the body is a different struggle to navigate, especially to be able to walk safely even with mobility devices. We are grateful for the safe environment we have had here. We are also grateful for any opportunities to be heard. Bottom LINE of importance for elder pedestrians is safety and environmental support. Respectfully submitted, Justine Forbes, MD (retired) From:L Y To:Reynolds, Brian Cc:Planning Enforcement; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; City Auditor Subject:Formal Escalation – Unresolved Noise Complaint (935 Boyce Ave, Palo Alto 94301) Re: Follow-up and Request for Written Response Re: Follow-up and Escalation – Unresolved Noise Complaint (Filed July 16, 2025) Re: Formal Noise Complaint – Unreasonable Con... Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:00:16 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mr. Reynolds and City Leadership, I’m writing to respectfully follow up and now formally escalate my ongoing noise complaint regarding the continuous 24/7 backyard water feature at 935 Boyce Avenue, which has severely impacted our family’s ability to sleep and rest. I first contacted Code Enforcement on July 16, 2025, and followed up multiple times, including my most recent email on October 28, 2025, copied below. Unfortunately, I have not received any written acknowledgment or update since then. As noted, the water feature operates day and night, every day, producing a constant “water hitting stone” sound that is audible inside our home, especially at night. We have a 2-year-old child, and this situation has persisted for months. We have made good-faith efforts to resolve the issue directly with the neighbor, who declined to limit operation hours. The noise appears to meet the standard for “unreasonable or offensive noise” under Palo Alto Municipal Code § 9.10.040. At this point, I am requesting: 1. A written acknowledgment that my complaint has been received and logged. 2. Confirmation that an investigation or inspection will be conducted, or a clear explanation of why Code Enforcement cannot act under § 9.10.040. 3. A point of contact within the department for updates. Please understand that my intent is not to criticize any individual, but to ensure a fair and timely response after several months without progress. This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your time and attention. I would appreciate a written reply within 7 days. Sincerely, Laura Yang 727 Seneca St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: usqqmail@gmail.com Phone: 917-512-8565 On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:21 PM L Y <usqqmail@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Reynolds, I hope you are well. I am following up on my previous emails and our planned phone discussion regarding the continuous water feature noise at 935 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard back since your last message, and the issue remains ongoing — the water feature continues to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, producing continuous splashing sounds that are clearly audible inside our home at night. At this point, I would prefer a written response instead of a phone call, since I have already attached (and can re-send if needed) all relevant facts and a nighttime video recording (taken at 3 AM) demonstrating the disturbance. To summarize briefly: We have a 2-year-old child, and the nighttime noise continues to affect our sleep and health. We have made good-faith efforts to resolve this directly with our neighbor, but they have refused to turn off the feature at night. The continuous operation appears to meet the definition of “unreasonable, excessive, or offensive noise” under Palo Alto Municipal Code § 9.10.040. Could you please confirm: 1. Whether this complaint has been officially opened or assigned a case number; and 2. Whether Code Enforcement intends to investigate or issue a notice under § 9.10.040. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a written update within the next few days, as this issue has been pending since July 16, 2025. Sincerely, Laura Yang 727 Seneca St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: usqqmail@gmail.com Phone: 917-512-8565 On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 5:19 PM L Y <usqqmail@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Reynolds, Thank you very much for reaching out and for looking into my complaint. I really appreciate your time and attention. I’m not available this afternoon, but I would be glad to discuss the matter tomorrow around 4:00 p.m. if that works for you. Please let me know if that time is convenient, or if there’s another time tomorrow that you would prefer. Thank you again for your help. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Best regards, Laura Yang 727 Seneca St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: usqqmail@gmail.com Phone: 917-512-8565 On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:07 AM Planning Enforcement <Planning.Enforcement@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Ms. Yang, I apologize that you have not received any updates as of yet. I will research this complaint and get in touch with you via phone later this afternoon if you are available to discuss this matter. Would you be available around 2 p.m. for a brief call? I look forward to helping you resolve this matter. Sincerely, Brian Reynolds Lead Code Enforcement Officer Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2358 | Brian.Reynolds@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: L Y <usqqmail@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:42 PM To: Planning Enforcement <Planning.Enforcement@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Follow-up and Escalation – Unresolved Noise Complaint (Filed July 16, 2025) Re: Formal Noise Complaint – Unreasonable Continuous Water Feature Disturbance (935 Boyce Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Code Enforcement Team, I am writing to follow up on my formal noise complaint submitted on July 16, 2025, regarding a continuous water feature noise at 935 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. As of today, October 22, 2025, I have not received any acknowledgment or update on my complaint. This issue remains ongoing and continues to severely affect my family’s ability to sleep at night. The water feature operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, creating continuous water- splashing sounds audible from inside our home. The situation appears to meet the criteria of “unreasonable, excessive, or offensive noise” as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.10.040, which prohibits noise that disturbs the peace, quiet, or comfort of reasonable persons. I have previously provided a video recording (taken at 3 AM) as evidence and am happy to resend or provide additional documentation upon request. Please confirm receipt of this email and provide an update on the status of my case. If the case has not yet been assigned, I respectfully request immediate escalation to a supervising code enforcement officer or the Planning & Development Services Director. Sincerely, Laura Yang 727 Seneca St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: usqqmail@gmail.com Phone: 917-512-8565 On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 1:58 PM L Y <usqqmail@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto Code Enforcement, I am filing a formal complaint regarding a continuous noise disturbance coming from a backyard water feature located at 935 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. This water feature runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, producing a persistent splashing sound as water hits stone. While the noise is somewhat tolerable during the day, it becomes significantly disruptive at night. At approximately 3:00 AM, my family—including our 2-year-old child—was again unable to sleep due to the constant sound. I have recorded a video of the noise from my property, which is attached as evidence. IMG_0478.MOV We have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue with our neighbor— including offering thoughtful gifts and suggesting alternatives like indoor white noise machines. Unfortunately, our efforts were met with flat refusal, and the neighbor insists on keeping the water feature running all night, stating it is for personal enjoyment and that they do not wish to compromise. This lack of consideration has left us with no choice but to pursue formal enforcement. After reviewing the Palo Alto Municipal Code §9.10.040, I believe this situation qualifies as “unreasonable, excessive, or offensive noise” that disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. I am therefore requesting that your department investigate this matter and determine whether it constitutes a violation under §9.10.040 or others, and require the neighbor to cease or limit operation of the water feature during nighttime hours. Please advise on next steps and whether any additional documentation is needed. Thank you for your attention and assistance. Sincerely, Laura Yang Email: usqqmail@gmail.com Phone: 917-512-8565 From:Sydney Sukuta To:Sydney Sukuta Subject:General Public Comment - Invitation to Participate in a Job Fair Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 2:33:13 PM Attachments:C-2-C_You_Are_Invited.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i We are inviting members of the pubic to participate in our upcoming virtual job fair on Friday November 15th 2025. In particular, please encourage the youth who are still exploring career pathways, as careers in photonics and lasers remain elusive thus creating a skills gap in our workforce. They may find this job fair to be inspiring t Virtual Job Fair Sign-up Link: https://freelasercareerexpo.rsvpify.com Best Regards, advancementofficer@sukutafoundation.org sukutafoundation.org/home.aspx 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:Andrea Wald To:Council, City Subject:City Council meeting - Thurs 11/10/25 - non-agenda Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 2:24:11 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'm writing to bring up in advance the issue of the Lloyd Study and discussion Council members will be having at the next Council mtg on Nov. 17th (currently showing as agenda item 9). I know many will be emailing prior to the mtg on the 17th and also make public comments that evening - either in person or via zoom. I also hope by emailing now, you will have even more time to think about the issue at hand which asks you to: Approve the study issue, make a decision regarding El Camino field and also consider staff recommendation for a pilot study of natural grass fields. Unfortunately the study issue has so many flaws in it that its shocking to think you will most likely approve it. There are many of us who still believe that converting El Camino to natural grass is the best option for the health and well-being of the community. Claims by the AT industry of new and improved artificial turf are undeniable but what is FACTUAL is that this still is a toxic, plastic product, that to date has no proof of being fully recycled (burning and dumping, and even cutting into smaller pieces for use in a dog park, back yard, etc. is NOT recycling). Per staff recommendation - conditioning a new artificial turf field "consistent with current environmental standards and best practices" does not change the fact that the fields are plastic - and god only knows there is already way too much plastic in our lives. No matter the decision on the 17th, I am strongly advocating for a "pilot to enhance natural grass field performance citywide". The sooner this is put into motion, the better chance of having quality grass fields for participants to enjoy and a way to accurately compare any artificial turf (ie Mayfield) with the new pilot field. The pilot should hopefully be one of a well-maintained, organically managed natural grass field with the appropriate soil composition, good drainage and the best grasses available for drought tolerance and durability. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and state my opinion. I hope it will make a difference in your decisions and have a more positive impact for future generations. Andrea Wald Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Xenia Hammer To:Council, City Cc:emily.kallas@paolalto.gov Subject:660 University Project Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 1:42:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am very supportive of adding housing, and the location at 660 University is a good one for housing. However, there are significant problems with the project proposal before you, and I urge you to correct these problems before approving the project. The project location at University and Middlefield is a crucial intersection and a gateway location at the entrance to downtown. These problems with the current proposal include: 1. Lack of passenger loading space 2. Disregard for required setbacks on 3 sides of the building 3. Impact on traffic on surrounding streets and traffic safety 1. Need a loading space in front of main residential entrance on University Ave: Section 18.52.040, chapter (d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code clearly states: “Residential and mixed use structures with fifty (50) or more dwelling units shall provide at least one (1) on-site, short-term loading space for passenger vehicles, to be used by taxicabs and similar transportation and delivery services.” This requirement makes sense anywhere. In this location, on University Avenue immediately before Middlefield, this requirement is crucial. This is a This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report gateway for traffic in and out of downtown and for through traffic connecting 101 and Stanford. Imagine food delivery and rideshares pick-ups stopping on that block and tying up University Ave traffic. There is a bus stop on University before Middlefield in front of the proposed building. Without a loading space, any rideshare drop off or any food delivery will block the buses! Also, the parking provided for this project is already reduced, so residents will be using more rideshares, making the loading space even more important. All other buildings in that area have circular driveways with loading space. The requirement for the loading space has been brought up by you in prior meetings, and yet, the current plans do not accommodate this reasonable and necessary requirement. Please insist on a loading space in front of the main entrance on University Avenue 2. Setbacks – this project as proposed encroaches on required setbacks: University Ave: 7 feet vs required 16 feet Byron Street: 12 feet vs required 16 feet Side Yard garage ramp: 2 feet vs required 10 feet Middlefield: above grade setback requirement is met This is a gateway location to downtown, and setbacks are important for maintaining a welcoming feel with sidewalks that feel open and safe for everyone - including older people who live in nearby senior housing and families with strollers. In addition, setbacks are important for traffic safety to ensure visibility for cars making turns to and from University Ave. Setbacks are also necessary for any future traffic improvements on University Ave! Please insist on required setbacks! 3. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety at street crossings: Passenger loading space on University is crucial for smooth traffic flow in and out of downtown. In addition, it is important to provide for safe pedestrian senior citizens going to lunch from Lytton Gardens to First Methodist Church. Byron is a narrow street; and the traffic on Byron needs to be addressed. These concerns have been brought up at every stage and meeting on this project. Please note that the Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission noted these issues as serious problems with the project, but they voted to advance this project because of the threat of a larger Builders Remedy project. However, questions have been raised as to whether the Builders Remedy application is valid (see correspondence in the packet). In summary, I urge you to work with the developer to provide required setbacks and a passenger loading space on University before approving this project. Thank you very much, Xenia Hammer Palo Alto resident From:Tom Fountain To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Cha, Kelly Subject:Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 12:24:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, With respect to the proposed lighting ordinance, I am writing to support the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance’s position on the following: I support the exemption of homes on the creek-side of Edgewood Drive given their unique circumstances, including encampments in the creek, crime and quality of life issues, and access from East Palo Alto which lacks barriers to creek entry. There is a well-documented threat to health and safety of residents that demands this reasonable exemption. The exemption for Edgewood properties contains an error and should be corrected to the following: “(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A).” More generally, I oppose the proposed ordinance. I hereby incorporate by reference my prior objections expressed in writing to the City Council, the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and city staff. This ordinance fails to adequately establish the relationship between the new regulation and the proven benefit. The proposed ordinance imposes an unreasonably high burden on existing residences. In many cases it requires homeowners to replace entire fixtures, not just bulbs. As but one example, the estimated cost to bring my property into compliance is $210,000 between new light fixtures and having to replace custom cuts of stone, siding, and other materials upon which these fixtures are mounted. The environmental waste produced by this poorly considered ordinance more than offsets the stated environmental benefits. There are many problematic issues raised by this proposed ordinance. The City Council is misguided in stating this is “only” a future cost; every Palo Alto homeowner selling their This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast property must now disclose this future cost to potential buyers. The City’s inability (and stated intent not) to enforce this code only serves to further pit neighbors against one another in a community that is already too acrimonious; City Council should use guidelines and incentives rather than criminalize lighting. There are many other similar technical issues with the proposed code that I have raised on multiple occasions, particularly its applicability to already built residences; it is incredibly disheartening that after 6+ months, staff chose not address even a single issue raised. It leads me to conclude this is entirely performatory and not at all about actually improving the lives of Palo Alto residents. I strongly urge City Council take a more measured and practical approach to advancing this environmental goal. First, these changes should only be applied to new residential construction and not retroactively applied to existing residences. If existing properties must be covered, then limits should be expressed in lux rather than lumen so that practical techniques such as dimming can allow existing fixtures to comply. The current proposed ordinance fails to balance property owner cost with the claimed benefits, creates unreasonable expense for homeowners, causes environmental harm from the premature replacement of fixtures and related construction, and fails to apply even practical solutions such as dimming to lighting issues. As a resident of Palo Alto, I beg City Council to send the ordinance back to Staff to better address these issues. Sincerely, Tom Fountain Palo Alto resident From:Laura Granka To:Council, City Subject:Support of Four-Quadrant Gate as preferred Quiet Zone - Nov 10 @ 9:10pm Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 11:38:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, This letter offers strong support on behalf of my family and neighbors for four quadrant gates as the preferred quiet zone implementation. Train horn noise significantly impacts our quality of life I have written many times in the past about the daily disturbances of the train horn noise throughout our daily life, as someone who lives on Churchill Ave, near the Churchill crossing. The train horn noises wake up my children, frequently leaving them tired and sleepy for school. Quiet zones would be a huge improvement for the Palo Alto community. Please approve four quadrant gates During your Monday Nov 10 City Council meeting please approve four-quadrant gates as the preferred quiet zone implementation. In addition to providing environmental noise improvements, they offer significant safety advantages, which is critical near our 3 Palo Alto intersections which see very heavy pedestrian, cyclist—including thousands of high school students daily, and vehicular traffic. Hard NO on wayside horns While one member of council is interested in Wayside Horns, please do not support wayside horns. I've shared many resources over the past year with City Council and Rail Committee explaining why wayside horns are an inferior solution, with frequent malfunctions, and actually produce more noise for those immediately at a crossing. They are primarily designed for remote areas with few people, and your own consultants note "some cases where wayside horns have been installed, local agencies have subsequently chosen to remove the horns." I previously shared an article (https://myedmondsnews.com/2019/08/city-still-working- to-address-wayside-horn-glitches) about a town that implemented wayside horns in their downtown area ~2018, which "can go off 15 or 20 times per train crossing". Seven years later, articles are still being written about the nuisance and noise from this town's wayside horns, including comments like: "We have lived right on the tracks about a half mile north of the bowl for over half a century and can clearly hear the newer and supposedly quieter warning siren – which is much longer and far more annoying than This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Thank you very much for your consideration and support of four quadrant gates as a quiet zone implementation. If you would like to spend any time at my home near the Churchill intersection to observe the noise and heavy pedestrian / cyclist traffic, please let me know, I'd be happy to have you. Best regards, Laura Granka From:Marie Evitt To:Council, City Subject:outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 10:58:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Councilmembers, I urge you to adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance to protect birds, people, and our night sky. I am a Mountain View resident and I hope to reduce light pollution throughout the peninsula and Bay Area. Sincerely, Marie Evitt Mountain View This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Angela Dellaporta To:Council, City Subject:Playing time Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 8:14:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I feel strongly that using acres of plastic carpet instead of natural grass on city playing fields directly contradicts the city’s stated goals of maximizing sustainability and reducing plastic waste. In addition, it is not at all clear to me why the children in the City of Palo Alto need more playing time than they used to need before artificial turf was available. Indeed, there are fewer students in the city now than there were in the past, when only natural turf playing fields were available. If we are actually interested in reducing stress in our students, perhaps keeping playing time to a reasonable level — say, where it was before AT was available — would be a good idea. Truly, this is something worth considering. When it comes to playgrounds, and school playing fields, it seems to me that we would be foolish to expose the children to the toxic chemicals in artificial turf — and foolish to expose the animals and insects in our city’s ecosystems — to those chemicals unnecessarily. Permitting artificial turf in the name of increased playing time for athletes is short-sighted in terms of how negatively it will affect our environment and — even more importantly — how it will increase the stress levels of our over-scheduled youth. Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of our city. Angela Dellaporta This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Kristin Sato To:Cha, Kelly; Council, City; Lauing, Ed Cc:Tom Fountain Subject:Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Line Item #8 Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 8:00:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Council, City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org Ed Lauing, Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, With respect to the proposed lighting ordinance, I am writing to support the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance's position on the following: I support the exemption of homes on the creek-side of Edgewood Drive given our unique circumstances, including encampments in the creek, crime and proximity to East Palo Alto, which have no barriers to enter the creek. The exemption for Edgewood properties contains an error and should be corrected to the following: “(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A).” It should be noted though that I generally oppose the proposed ordinance as previously addressed in prior objections to the City Council, the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and city staff. This ordinance fails to adequately establish the relationship between the new regulation and the proven benefit. The proposed ordinance imposes an unreasonably high burden on existing residences -- I moved into my new build house 2 years ago and will now have to spend an inordinate amount of money to bring my residence into compliance. This This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report environmental benefits. Further, there are many problematic issues raised by this proposed ordinance. The City Council is misguided in stating this is "only" a future cost; any homeowner selling their property will now need to disclose this future cost to potential buyers. The Edgewood Properties are already being targeted by real estate brokers recommending that we sell quickly because the City's proposed changes will more likely decrease our home values. The City's inability (and stated intent) to not enforce this code only serves to pit neighbors against one another in a place that is already so acrimonious; City Council should use guidelines and incentives rather than criminalize lighting. There are many other similar small issues with this proposed code; it is incredibly disheartening that after 6+ months, staff did not address even a single issue raised. It appears that this is entirely performatory and not at all about actually improving the lives of Palo Alto residents. I strongly urge the City Council to take a more measured and practical approach to advancing this environmental goal. First, these changes should only be applied to new construction and not retroactively applied to existing residences. If existing properties must be covered, then limits should be expressed in lux rather than lumen so that practical techniques such as dimming can allow existing fixtures to comply. The current proposed ordinance fails to balance property owner costs with the so- called proposed benefits, creates unreasonable expense for homeowners, causes environmental harm from the premature replacement of lights and related construction, and fails to apply even practical solutions such as dimming to these issues. Seriously, where is the environmental impact studies that would show the cost benefit to impose such onerous rules on whole City? As a resident of Palo Alto, I ask the City Council to send the ordinance back to Staff to be rewritten. Thank you. Kristin Sato From:Andrea Eckstein Gara To:Council, City Cc:Hilary Glann Subject:Support for Stronger Dark Sky Ordinance from 350 SV Palo Alto Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 5:54:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Councilmembers, As advocates for the environment, our group enthusiastically supports the more robust dark sky ordinance under consideration. Motion sensors and controlled, time-activated lights will keep us safe, as well as supporting the nocturnal creatures in our community. Dark skies are an important part of their ecosystem, and should be protected in the same way that we protect other natural habitats, such as Bay Lands and our canopy. Nearly half of the species on earth are nocturnal. Dark skies cue important behaviors and help them to navigate, nest, mate, forage, and hide from predators. Insects are particularly vulnerable to light pollution. This is just one modern stressor, and scientists have reported that we are experiencing an insect apocalypse with 75% of the insect biomass disappearing in just 30 years. As insects are a critical component of many food webs, we know that there will be ripple effects for birds, fish, mammals and humans. About 75% of our crop varieties depend on insect pollination. Reduced yields lead to cascade events that have real human health impacts. Finally, a dark sky can be a form of natural beauty that is available to anyone, even those without easy access to gardens and parks. We know that exposure to natural beauty and awe has many physical and psychological benefits, lowering anxiety, improving concentration, and reducing inflammation and heart rate. Thank you for continuing to focus on this important topic, and please take the steps needed to make this an ordinance that truly gives us back our night sky. 350 SV Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Andrea Eckstein Gara, Co-chair Hilary Glann, Co-chair From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Bhatia, Ripon Subject:November 10, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #7: Quiet Zone Implementation Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 5:33:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NOVEMBER 10, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #7: QUIET ZONE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE If and when four-quadrant gates are implemented at streetscrossing the Caltrain tracks, there will still be noise fromtrain horns along the Caltrain right-of-way, as discussed inthe email messages forwarded below from two years ago that Ihad previously forwarded to you. One of the responses I received to my request for informationtwo years ago was that Caltrain protocols replaced horns withvisual message systems when passing through stations. However, those visual message systems are useful only topassengers waiting to board a train, but horns have anotherpurpose, namely, to warn people at the station that they riskserious injury and possibly death if they fall, jump, or arepushed into the path of an oncoming train. The sounding of train horns between stations and while passingthrough stations are determined by both: (1) FRA Regulations,Caltrain Protocols, and UPRR Protocols; and (2) the behavior ofindividual train operators. I believe it would be helpful to document the extent to whichtrain horns are used, when they are used, and by whom they areused to enable you to determine whether action is required tomodify that behavior that is independent of any benefitobtained should you decide to implement four-quadrant gates toeliminate train horn noise at street crossings of Caltrain. Establishing a system similar to a shot-spotter system shouldprovide you the information you would need to determine whataction you may need to take to reduce the noise from thoseother sources. The loudness of train horns at those locations, especially whenthe ambient sound is low, may result in residents complainingthat they still hear train horns after you implement four-quadrant gate for noise reduction. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From: Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:03 PM You don't often get email from herb_borock@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important To: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: RE: Caltrain Crossings Quiet Zones Dear Mr. Borock, With regard to your follow-up questions, we have the following information. The UPRR protocol includes using a short horn before entering station areas. Noting that UPRR runs 4-6 freight trains along the corridor on a given day. Train engineers' (Caltrain or UPRR) certainly have their discretion on using the horn. We understand that they can use horns if there is any safety hazard or concern along the track including stations. We like to thank you for these questions and feedback for Quiet Zone consideration. Sincerely, Ripon Bhatia From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:29 PM To: Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Caltrain Crossings Quiet Zones Thank you for your prompt response. Does Union Pacific have protocols for use of train horns by itsfreight trains prior to those trains entering Caltrainstations? If not, does that mean that each freight train engineer candecide whether to sound the freight train's horn whenapproaching a Caltrain station? From: Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:50 PM To: herb_borock@hotmail.com <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: RE: Caltrain Crossings Quiet Zones Dear Mr. Borock, On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto. We sincerely appreciate your feedback for consideration of Quiet Zone at Palo Alto Avenue. While the Quiet Zone project is a way to reduce train horn noise near public at-grade crossings, you have certainly raised good questions regarding the regulation of sounding horns before entering the platforms and its effectiveness over the corridor. FRA Regulations: The FRA does not require trains to use horns prior to the stations. The FRA website, Title 49 provides information about these regulations for train horn use. The following link with information on “When the locomotive horns must be used” provides greater information. Link. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title- 49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part-222 Caltrain Protocols: In addition to FRA requirements, we also looked into Caltrain specific protocols. Based on the Caltrain website, in 2017 Caltrain also eliminated the use of continuously sounding horns when passing through stations (Link https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-reduce-horn-noise) except where they have pedestrian crossings. Caltrain uses visual message signs when passing through stations in Palo Alto ( Palo Alto, California Avenue, and San Antonio Stations). We are reaching out to Caltrain to verify their protocols and in finding information for Stanford Station. We sincerely appreciate your comments on this quiet zone study at Palo Alto Avenue. Please let us know should you have any further questions or concerns. Thank You Sincerely, Ripon Bhatia From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 12:51 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Caltrain Crossings Quiet Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto and Menlo Park are considering establishing QuietZones at Caltrain at-grade crossings because federalregulations require locomotive horns to begin sounding beforeentering those crossings. A community meeting is scheduled onthat subject for March 23, 2023. Do federal regulations also require locomotive horns to beginsounding before entering a Caltrain station when thoselocomotives do not stop at a station, even during periods ofthe day when no trains are scheduled to stop at the station? For example, when the Stanford Caltrain station is not beingused, a locked fence prevents people from accessing the stationplatform and, therefore, there is no reason for locomotivehorns to sound when approaching and passing that station duringthose times. However, during the time of day when some trains stop at theUniversity Avenue and California Avenue Caltrain stations,other trains do not stop at those stations. Are thelocomotives that do not stop at those stations during thosetimes required to begin sounding their horns before enteringthose stations? Also, during the time of day when there are no trains scheduledto stop at those stations, but the passenger platforms can beaccessed, are locomotives required to begin sounding theirhorns before entering those stations? If so, creating a QuietZone at the Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street Caltrain crosssingwould not eliminate the sound of locomotives sounding theirhorns when entering the nearby Caltrain station. View this email in your browser You're warmly invited to join us for this cherished tradition. Enjoy a delicious meal, great company, and festive cheer as we gather to honor our community and look ahead to an exciting new year! From:LWV Palo Alto Winter Luncheon Committee To:Council, City Subject:Please join us! LWVPA Winter Luncheon - Thursday, December 11 Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 3:24:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. In conversation with Dr. Didi Kuo Explore the importance of political parties in strong democracies, changes that would make democracies more likely to survive, and the importance of building pro-democracy coalitions. Dr. Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, whose research interests include democratization, political parties, state-building, and the political economy of representation. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave - and Why They Don't (Oxford University Press) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the Rise of Programmatic Politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press 2018). She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America, and is an adjunct fellow at the Niskanen Center. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University; as a Marshall Scholar, she studied economic history at Oxford University and politics at the University of Essex. She received a BA in political science from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, her hometown. Tickets are $20/person and include lunch, drinks and dessert. Or, reserve a seat and bring your own brown bag lunch. Members are welcome to bring a guest Space is limited - register before December 8! Register Now LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Bruce England To:Council, City Cc:Bruce England Subject:Comment on agenda item 8 at 11/10 City Council meeting Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:58:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello council members: I would like to voice my support for an outdoor lighting ordinance you will consider at your meeting. Although I'm a Mountain View resident, our own city is working on this as well, and the issue is regional in many respects. We truly need these update rules throughout the South Bay Area, and beyond for that matter. Also, please consider incorporating suggestions from the Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club in the ordinance. During public comments on this, I request that you cede my time to Shani Kleinhaus. Thanks for your attention, Bruce England 328 Whisman Station Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Cathy Brown To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 11:11:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To whom it may concern, Please consider adopting a strong lighting ordinance that helps reduce the amount of light pollution that is created in Palo Alto every night. I have lived here for most of my sixty years and remember being able to see the stars and moon on evening walks. Rarely does that occur now. There are SO many lights everywhere, from solar powered ones that stay on all night, to extremely bright flood lights triggered by someone passing by a home, to bright car and street lights. Lighting helps for safety but we must do it with more care. We are affecting the flights of birds and insects with unknown ripples throughout our ecosystem. Migratory patterns are shifted. As well, every evening I must close doors within my home to block light from my neighbors' myriad of lights which shine all night to have semi-darkness within my bedroom. We have lost the dark of night. Please consider adopting resolutions that will help restore this. Thank you, Cathy Brown Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:Needed - The locals need Dark Skies Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 11:04:58 AM Dear Council Members - It is time our City, often a policy and issue leader, now joined other large and small cities in our state, country and abroad in adjusting needed lightening to a responsible, reasonable level. You are on a Council that pays attention to local residents. It is on their behalf, as seen below, that I write this email (furry feet, nails, hooves and talons prevent them doing so themselves). For the migrating birds, the fish and wildlife along our creeks, for the owls and hawks hunting in our parks and open space that keep vermin in check. And for our own species to see the night sky and to reap the many benefits darker skies foster. An egregious example of over the top lighting is in Bol Park where a very big light is bolted high up in an old Oak tree shining on the path along Matadero Creek, shining way beyond the path onto big grassy areas. There is no need for this. Path lighting needs to be changed so that is low, pointing down on the path and only as needed. Science supports darker skies. Palo Alto should too. Winter Dellenbach From:Paul Lynam To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:44:51 AM Attachments:ATTN_Palo_Alto_Couuncil--PLynam_2025-11-08.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Mayor and City Council, Please find attached a pdf file comprising written public comment regarding "Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code [...] for Protection of the Environment", scheduled to come before the Council on 10 November 2025. The University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) endorses the proposed Palo Alto Outdoor Lighting (Dark Sky) ordinance. Furthermore, the Council is encouraged to incorporate the recommendations compiled by expert environmental advocacy groups such as the SCV Bird Alliance. Since light pollution/(A)LAN is a regional trespass, it is best addressed by regional coordination. The proposed ordinance demands ‘increasing efforts to raise awareness’. It is recommended that some of these efforts be directed towards coordinating with neighbouring local authorities with a view to ultimately developing a regional strategy to reduce the light pollution (A)LAN phenomenon. Thank you for your attention and service to the community. Yours faithfully, Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS Astronomer UCO/Lick Observatory This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory 7281, Mount Hamilton Road, MOUNT HAMILTON, CA 95140 8 November 2025 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Item 8. Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 (Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations; CEQA Status — Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment) This communication comprises written public comment regarding the above-titled matter scheduled to come before the Council on 10 November 2025. The University of California Observatories/Lick Observtory (UCO/Lick) endorses the proposed Palo Alto Outdoor Lighting (Dark Sky) ordinance for the following reasons: •Public opinion: Experience shows that invariably, the majority public opinion is in favour of measures to control light pollution1 . The needs of astronomical observatories are in accord and well-aligned with Council direction from 7 April 2025, and sentiment expressed by environmental advocates and many public participants in the process. •Astronomy, Environment, Economy: Dark Skies benefit multiple aspects of the environment and economy (including, but not limited to, noturnal nature-based pursuits such as stargazing and astronomical research as well as agricultural pest control). •Public Health: Reduction in harms of (A)LAN to human health, circadian disruption, etc. This correspondent has been an advocate for dark skies for 40+ years, informing local and regional authority lighting policies in Europe and North America. The writer holds a degree in astronomy with applied physics, masters in physics, doctorate in astrophysics and has worked at academic research insti- tutes and/or observatories in the UK, Germany, Chile and the US for 30+ years, joining the University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) — the world’s first high altitude astronomical observatory — in 2011. Lick Observatory hosts over 10 telescopes, plus multiple cutting-edge research and technology development instruments, serving hundreds of faculty (including Nobel laureates) and students of the University of California system, in addition to 35,000 visitors annually. Named in classic literature2 and during the Apollo program3 , Lick Observatory leads the world, setting standards on astronomical matters and responsible lighting. 1 Also referred to in academic literature as Anthropogenic Light At Night (ALAN) or simply Light At Night (LAN) 2 H. G. Wells (1897)The War of the Worlds. 3 NASA Apollo 11 (20 July 1969) CAPCOM to Tranquility Base: ‘The Lick Observatory in California reports a return on the laser experiment’. A fundamental problem pervading California is that the night sky is not considered an environmental phenomenon under CEQA4 ’. This, despite the United Nations declaration: An unpolluted night sky that allows the enjoyment and contemplation of the firmament should be considered an inalienable right of humankind equivalent to all other environmental, social, and cultural rights. By excluding the night sky from its description of ‘the environment’, CEQA is deficient. Hence, it becomes the responsibility of California’s local authorities to safeguard the protection of dark skies and public health. The nature, physics, regional trespass and harms of light pollution/(A)LAN have been understood for decades. The scientific concencus (based on multitudinous, multi-disciplinary, independent, peer- reviewed studies) is indisputable: (A)LAN harms the mission of astronomical observatories; (A)LAN causes changes in the environment that have adverse direct or indirect effects on fauna and flora (e.g. bats, insects, trees) altering our sense of place; (A)LAN is a hazard to human health and probable carcinogen. Blue light (primarily from LEDs5 ) is toxic for all life. Harm to Dark Skies & Astronomical Pursuits The prevalence of light pollution/(A)LAN across the industrialized world is accelerating at a rate out- pacing population growth. Over the past 25 years, growth rates of between 49% and 270% have been measured. For rapidly developing conurbations in the industrialized world (e.g. San Francisco Bay Area) this figure could be as high as 400%. Some estimates suggest growth rates of 7% to 10% annually (Kyba et al. 2023). Light pollution trespasses regionally: Metropolitan light impacts astronomical sites up to 200–300 km away (Duriscoe et al. 2018). Regardless of the technology or originating fixture,any and all light sources which interact with the atmosphere contribute an additive effect to scattered light, elevating the intensity of the diffuse sky background. Every additional light source elevates the problem. Additional scattered light does not simply ‘blend in’ to the pre-existing level of diffuse sky background light. Blue light — particularly (since circa 2013) blue-rich LEDs — contributes disproportionately to light pollution. LEDs combine emission from peaks of intensity across many colors — particularly blue — thus contaminating the entire visible spectrum, whereas incandescent or discharge (e.g. sodium) lighting consists of isolated spectral peaks, with adjacent spectral regions free from contamination. In particular, with few exceptions, practical electric lights prior to LEDs were wholly absent of a blue component. In contrast,LEDs produce a preponderance of blue light. In large part, sky-glow is a consequence of the physics of ever-present aerosols (e.g. water vapor, particles, etc.) which redirect, or scatter light — not exclusively direct illumination. Scattering is responsible for twilights, renders clear daytime skies as blue and cloudy skies as gray. One of the dominant scattering processes,Rayleigh scattering, has not simply an additive or multiplicative dependence, but a fourth-order power law dependence, such that bluer (shorter) wavelengths are much more strongly scattered than redder (longer) wavelengths . 4 CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act. 5 LEDs: Light Emitting Diodes 2 DarkSky Recommendations The proposed ordinance incorporates best practice guidelines recommended by DarkSky International 6 to minimize damage to dark skies,and address the pleas of researchers to reduce, curb, mitigate or reverse the proliferation of light pollution/(A)LAN: To maintain our ability to carry out top-grade astronomical research, it is nec- essary that the [A]LAN affecting observatories is reduced as soon as possi- ble . . . [this] might be the last call for a serious, collective, unambiguous, no- compromise action to lower light pollution now. — Falchi et al. (2023) Harm to Public Health from Pervasive Light Pollution: ‘Edison’s Cancer Epidemic’. Light pollution from artificial light is harmful to human health — considered by some ‘the biggest public health crisis going on right now7 ’. Every major disease is associated to some extent with short sleep/long light. Sleep disorders are now arguably the most prevalent health concern in the industrialized world (Bogard 2013, Winter 2017).The consensus that has emerged from over 10,000 peer- reviewed scientific articles published by over 30,000 scientists cements the conclusion that light at night is carcinogenic, as well as causing a host of other medical problems. Mammals are highly sensitive to light at night, which has the power to dramatically, negatively affect circadian rhythms. Circadian rhythms control aspects of physiology, behavior, metabolism, body temperature, blood pressure and pineal hormone (e.g. melatonin) secretion. It is the shorter wavelengths of light (i.e. blue) that most affect melatonin production. LEDs — with their preponderance of blue emission — are of most concern. Beginning in 1970s, multitudinous studies have identified links between circadian disruption to behav- ioral changes,sleep disorders, (e.g. Wang et al. 2022),mental disorders, (mood and anxiety disorders e.g. Paksarian et al. 2020),diabetes, (e.g. Zheng et al. 2023),depression,obesity,coro- nary heart disease, (e.g. Muenzel et al. 2020, and references therein), Mild Cognitive Impairment, MCI (a transitional phase between normal aging and dementia e.g. Chen et al. 2022),dementia and Cerebrovascular disease (including stroke and other conditions affecting blood flow to the brain e.g. Wu et al., 2024). Circadian disruption, induced by light pollution, is harmful — considered a probable human carcino- gen by WHO8 (Stevens et al. 2011, Bogard 2013). The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) concurs: review panels at the WHO and US NIH have confirmed the carcinogenic risk of electric light. The American Medical Association (AMA) and groups (e.g. The American Heart Association, heart.org/stroke.org;breatscancer.org; The Sleep Foundation) advocate for light pollution control efforts for public safety. Hundreds of scientific studies have shown the association between electric light exposure and cancer, and the biological mechanisms by which it occurs. Electric light has been called ‘the tobacco of breast and prostate cancer’. These two cancers — along with 6 DarkSky International (formerly, the International Dark-Sky Association). 7 Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [02:16–02:24]. 8 The World Health Organization. 3 cancers of the lung, colon and rectum have multiple, well-established causal pathways between those cancers and light pollution. Modern texts describe the prevalence of light at night as ‘Edison’s Cancer Epidemic’ (Moore-Ede 2024). Over the past decade, ‘mitigation’ has gradually been expunged from the lexicon of students of (A)LAN and dark-sky advocates. Multi-disciplinary, independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies plead: We advise people, especially those living in urban areas, to consider reducing exposure [to outdoor artificial light] to protect themselves. — Jianbing Wang, Ph.D (25 March 2024)9 Harm to Public Health from LEDs: ‘The New Asbestos’ We are now realizing that ‘blue light is toxic for all life10 ’. Light at night originating from LEDs directly damages cellular mitochondria via ‘the same process produced by Chernobyl radiation [. . . ] a slow death11 ’. Public health experts refer to the effect of growing light pollution as ‘21st century scurvy’. LEDs are described as ‘the New Asbestos12 ’. We may regret [introducing LED and fluorescent light tubes] due to to health hazards as well as economic and social costs associated with it, and, therefore, it should be considered unsustainable. — Haim & Portnov (2013) Conclusion The message is clear, the astronomical community, dark-sky advocates, environmentalists, public health researchers are pleading for: Serious, collective, unambiguous, no-compromise action to lower light pollution now. — Falchi et al. (2023) Curb the surging light pollution at night. — Chen et al. (2022) Reduce artificial light at night. —Al Nagger & Anil (2016) 9 American Heart Association/heart.org/stroke.org 10 Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Concerns on the impact of life from blue light LEDs (12 May 2022) [05:52–06:03]. 11 Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [01:02:05–01:02:16]. 12 Clip: Prof. R. Fosbery: Interactions between light & life (21 October 2022) [01:04:40–01:04:52]. 4 Regulations on nighttime advertising [. . . ] and switching off. — Haim & Portnov (2013) The City of Palo Alto is not alone in considering and/or adopting new outdoor lighting regulations: In nearby communities such as West Marin and Santa Rosa, citizens have been proactive in demanding DarkSky-compliant lighting ordinances. Similar efforts are gaining traction at State level (witness the progression of legislation to reduce light pollution13 ). The time is coming when light pollution will be as strictly regulated as noise or air pollution (Ecklof 2023). Again, the University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory (UCO/Lick) endorses the proposed Palo Alto Outdoor Lighting (Dark Sky) ordinance. Furthermore, the Council is encouraged to incor- porate the recommendations compiled by expert environmental advocacy groups such as the SCV Bird Alliance. Since light pollution/(A)LAN is a regional trespass, it is best addressed by regional coordination. The proposed ordinance demands ‘increasing efforts to raise awareness’. It is recommended that some of these efforts be directed towords coordinating with neighbouring local authorities with a view to ultimately developing a regional strategy to reduce the light pollution (A)LAN phenomenon. Thank you for your attention and service to the community. Yours faithfully, Dr Paul D. Lynam FRAS Astronomer UCO/Lick Observatory 13 Legislation to reduce light pollution progresses to Senate Committee on Appropriations (4 August 2023). 5 References Al Nagger, A., Anil, S. (2016) Artificial Light at Night and cancer: Global Study Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 17 (10), 4661. Bogard, P. (2013) The End of Night: Searching for natural darkness in the age of artificial light Back Bay Books / Little, Brown and Company ISBN 978-0-316-18290-4 (hc) / 978-0-316-18291-1 (pb). Bauby, J-D. (1997) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly Vintage ISBN 9780375701214. Chen, Y., Tan, J., Liu, Y., Dong, G., D., Yang, B. Li, N., Wang, L., Chen, G., Li, S., Guo, Y. (2022) Long-term exposure to light at night and mild cognitive impairment; A nationwide study in Chinese veterans Science of the Total Environment, 847, 157441. Duriscoe, D., Anderson, S., Luginbuhl, C., Baugh, K. (2018) A simplified model of all-sky artificial sky glow derived from VIIRS Day/Night band data Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 214, 133. Eklof, J (2023) The Darkness Manifesto: On Light Pollution, Night Ecology and the Ancient Rhythms that Sustain Life Scribner ISBN-13 978-1668000892. Falchi, F., Ramos, F., Bara, S., Sanhueza, P., Arancibia, M., Damke, G., Cinzano, P. (2023) Light pollution indicators for all the major astronomical observatories Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 519, 26. Garstang, R. (1989a) Night-sky brightness at observatories and sites Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101, 306. Garstang, R. (1989b) The status and prospects for ground-based observatory sites Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 19. Gaston, K. J., Sanchez de Miguel, A (2022) Environmental Impacts of Artificial Light at Night Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47, 373. 6 Green, R. F., Luginbuhl, C. B., Wainscoat, R. J. Duriscoe, D. (2022) The growing threat of light pollution to ground-based observatories The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 1. Haim, A., Portnov, B. (2013) Light pollution as a New Risk Factor for Human Breast and Prostate Cancers Springer Dordtrecht ISBN 978-94-007-6219; Published 12 June 2013. IARC (2020) Night Shift Work IARC Monogr. Identif Carcino Hazards Hum, 124: 1–371. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/iarc- monographs-volume-124-night-shift-work/ Kyba, C., Altintas, Y., Walker, C., Newhouse, M. (2023) Citizen scientists report global rapid reductions in the visibility of stars from 2011 to 2022 Science, 379, 265. Miller, S., Cajochen, C., Green, A., Hanifin, J., Huss, A., Karipidis, K., Loughran, S., Oftedal, G., O’Hagan, J., Sliney, D., Croft, R., van Rongen, E., Cridland, N., d’Inzeo, G., Hirata, A, Marino, C., R¨o¨osli, M., Watanbe, S., and International Commission on Nin-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (2024) INCNIRP statement on short wavelength light exposure from indoor artificial sources and human health Health Physics 126(4), 241–248. Moore-Ede, M. (2024) The Light Doctor: Using light to boost health, improve sleep and live longer Circadian Books ISBN 978-8-9906869-0-8 (pb). M¨unzel, T. Hahad, O., Daiber, A. (2021) The dark side of nocturnal light pollution. Outdoor light at night increases risk of coronary heart disease European Heart Journal 2021 Feb 21; 42(8), 831–834 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7897459/ Paksarian, D., Rudolph, K., Stapp, E. (2020) Association of Outdoor Artificial Light at Night With Mental Disorders and Sleep Patterns Among US Adolescents JAMA Psychiatry 2020, 77(12), 1266–1275. Stevens, R., Hansen, J., Costa, G. et al. (2011) Considerations of Circadian Impact for Defining ‘Shift Work’ in Cancer Studies: IARC Working Group Report Occupational Environmental Medicine 68, 154. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20962033/ 7 Winter, C. (2017) The Sleep Solution: Why Your Sleep is Broken and How to Fix it Berkley ISBN-13 978-0399583605. Wang, L., Gong, Y., Fang, Q. et al. (2022) Association Between Exposure to Outdoor Artificial Light at Night and Sleep Disorders Among Children in China JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2213247 Wu, Y., Shen, P., Yang, Z., et al. (2024) Outdoor Light at Night, Air Pollution, and Risk of Cerebrovascular Disease: A Cohort Study in China Stroke (American Heart Association Journals), Vol 55, No 4 (25 March 2024) Zheng, R., Xin, Z., Li, M., et al. (2023) Outdoor light at night in relation to glucose homeostatis and diabetes in Chinese adults: a national and cross-sectional study of 98,658 participants from 162 study sites Diabetologia, 66, 336. 8 From:Orly Schube To:Council, City Subject:Support a Strong Dark Skies Ordinance to Support Our City Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 5:17:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council members, My name is Orly Schube, I'm a junior at Paly and part of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition. I'm writing to express my strong support for Palo Alto's Dark Skies Ordinance. This policy is an opportunity for our city to take meaningful action that benefits people, wildlife, and the environment. Light pollution has far-reaching effects on both ecosystems and human health. Migrating birds rely on natural light cues from the moon and stars, but excessive artificial light disorients them, leading to collisions with illuminated buildings. Insects, which are critical to healthy food webs, are also fatally attracted to bright, unshielded lighting. By implementing this ordinance, Palo Alto can help reduce bird collisions and insect mortality, restoring balance to local ecosystems along the Pacific Flyway. Light pollution affects people, too. Studies show that artificial light at night disrupts sleep, circadian rhythms, and hormone balance, and has been linked to insomnia and other health risks. Over-lighting and glare can even make streets less safe by reducing contrast and impairing night vision. Adopting this ordinance would make Palo Alto a leader in sustainability and environmental stewardship, protecting our skies, wildlife, and our community's well-being. Thank you for your leadership and for considering this important step toward a healthier, more sustainable future for all of us. Sincerely, Orly Schube Palo Alto High School Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Dashiell Leeds To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Cha, Kelly; Clerk, City Cc:James Eggers; Mike Ferreira; Gita Dev; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Frick, Coleman Subject:SCLP Response to Letter From Stanford Re Nov 10 Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 4:38:55 PM Attachments:SCLP Response to Stanford re Nov 10 Dark Sky Ordinance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, In reviewing the letter sent by Stanford University to the City, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has some responses that are relevant to consider as Council deliberates on topics raised by this ordinance. Please read the attached letter for more details. Sincerely, Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES November 7, 2025 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Pave ALto, CA 94301 Responses to Comments Received by the City from Stanford Regarding the Draft Dark Sky Ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, In reviewing the letter sent by Stanford University to the City, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has some responses that are relevant to consider as Council deliberates on topics raised by this ordinance. 1. Safety concerns regarding motion sensor outdoor lighting are already addressed by the ordinance The letter from Stanford states the following. “Motion-activated lighting does not provide a sense of safety or security, especially in a complex where tenants do not have fixed closing hours. Maintenance, janitorial, and security staff are often on-site after midnight, and researchers and engineers regularly work late as deadlines approach.” We believe that the concerns raised in this letter would already be addressed by the lighting curfew section of this ordinance, which reads as follows. “(4) Lighting Control. (A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, the Lighting Curfew shall apply to all outdoor luminaires for new and existing buildings and structures, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 12:00 a.m., two hours after the close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 The underlined wording of this curfew language is extremely flexible, and allows for consistent lighting in situations where people are still present in exterior areas, even after midnight. In areas in Stanford where people are regularly present after midnight, as claimed in the letter, those areas would be allowed to remain consistently lit, according to the curfew language of the ordinance. The ordinance as-written would not require Stanford to use motion-sensor lighting at times when people are usually or regularly present in certain outdoor areas. 2. The lighting levels established by the ordinance offer sufficient lighting for public safety, and avoid the hazards of glare caused by overly bright and ‘cool’ lighting. The letter from Stanford makes the following claim, without citing any scientific studies or specific evidence. “Requiring changes such as adding motion sensors, shrouds, or altering fixtures and bulbs would lead to poor and unsafe lighting conditions.“ However, DarkSky International’s 2025 State of the Science Report1, which is based on an analysis of more than 500 scientific studies regarding artificial light at night, makes the following conclusions regarding over-lighting and its negative effects on public safety. “Glare from bright artificial light sources is a particular concern for nighttime safety. It results from intense light rays entering the eye directly from a source. Some of that light scatters inside the observer ’s eye, reducing the contrast between foreground and background. This effect makes it difficult to see objects as distinct from what surrounds them. Glare reduces the visibility of objects at night for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Although some older observers report stronger sensations of glare from certain sources, it seems to affect people of all ages2. Some modern lighting sources like LED can make glare worse by emitting considerable light at very shallow downward angles3 and also by using non-uniform light sources with insufficient optical diffusion4. The perception of glare seems to vary with the wavelength of light involved. In general, short-wavelength (‘cool’) light causes stronger glare than long-wavelength (‘warm’) light5.” 5 Bullough, J. Spectral sensitivity for extrafoveal discomfort glare. Journal of Modern Optics, 56(13):1518–1522, jul 2009. doi: 10.1080/09500340903045710 4 Yang, Y., Luo, M.R. and Ma, S. Assessing glare. part 2: Modifying unified glare rating for uniform and non-uniform LED luminaires. Lighting Research & Technology, 49(6):727– 742, apr 2016. doi: 10.1177/1477153516642622 3 Kyba, C.C.M., Hänel, A. and Hölker, F. Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy Environ. Sci., 7(6):1806–1809, 2014. doi: 10.1039/c4ee00566j. 2 Davoudian, N., Raynham, P. and Barrett, E. Disability glare: A study in simulated road lighting conditions. Lighting Research & Technology, 46(6):695–705, nov 2013. doi: 10. 1177/1477153513510168. 1 https://darksky.org/app/uploads/2025/06/ALAN-State-of-the-Science-2025-EN-2.pdf sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 The current ordinance, by requiring lights to be fully shielded, prevents the direct light scattering inside the observer's eye that would lead to difficulty seeing objects around them. By avoiding short-wavelength ‘cool’ light, the ordinance avoids the sources of stronger glare that would also reduce nighttime visibility. By ensuring that lighting is not unnecessarily bright at night, the ordinance allows for pedestrians to clearly view lit areas while maintaining situational awareness of their nighttime surroundings. Regarding motion-sensors, we have already established previously in this letter that the existing curfew language is flexible to allow for consistent lighting in outdoor areas where people regularly present after midnight. The ordinance, as written, adheres to the science regarding light pollution and public safety. We are concerned that if the ordinance is modified to allow for un-shielded, brighter, and ‘cooler ’, lighting, that those modifications would actually have a negative effect on public safety, according to the scientific literature on this subject. Furthermore, Palo Alto’s Police Department was consulted by the City regarding the standard of 2700 Kelvin for lighting fixtures, and found that threshold acceptable for public safety. 3. The ordinance as written establishes clear precedence for state and federal laws. The letter from Stanford makes the following claim. “We are also concerned about potential conflicts with California Title 24 and Cal/OSHA lighting\ requirements. These state and federal standards may supersede local regulations, rendering parts of the proposed ordinance unenforceable. We urge the City to carefully evaluate these overlaps to avoid legal and practical inconsistencies.” The letter does not identify any specific conflicts with state or federal law in the ordinance as written. Furthermore, the ordinance contains language that already addresses these concerns in the following section. “(i) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. Lighting required by the Building Code, Fire Code, or state or federal law shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section, unless these requirements necessarily conflict with the aforementioned Codes and laws. In the event of a conflict, the standards in the applicable Codes and laws shall prevail.” Since no specific conflicts with state or federal laws have been identified, and the ordinance clearly establishes the precedence of state and federal laws, we believe no modifications to the draft are necessary at this time to address this topic. Should unforeseen conflicts arise after adoption, the ordinance is already equipped to address them. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 In Conclusion We hope that our explanations provide sufficient justification that the draft ordinance is already equipped to resolve the concerns from Stanford noted above. Sincerely, Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Victoria S. Ramirez To:Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly; Molly Swenson (SHC) Subject:SHC Comment Letter: Item 8 - Lighting Ordinance (11/10/25) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 4:35:22 PM Attachments:image001.png Lighting Ordinance SHC Comment Letter - 11-7-25 FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, Attached you will find a letter from Stanford Health Care providing feedback and expressing our concerns with Item 8 on the November 10 Council Meeting Agenda –Proposed Lighting Ordinance. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. 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 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. November 7, 2025 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Council Consideration of Proposed Lighting Ordinance VIA EMAIL city.council@paloalto.gov; kelly.cha@paloalto.gov Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, Stanford Medicine appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the current iteration of the proposed Lighting Ordinance. As it relates to our medical campus, we have several concerns with the proposal, particularly related to applicability, safety, implementation costs, and compliance timeline. We were invited to attend the virtual outreach meeting with Planning staff in October . Based on the verbal comments from our organization and others, there is an overall alignment on concerns and the notion that the business community at large has not been adequately engaged by the City in the crafting of the ordinance compared to proponents of the policy. Based on the review of the most current information, our organization will have great difficulty on multiple fronts in achieving compliance. With respect to applicability, we assert that the ordinance should be targeted to areas where excessive light has the greatest impact. Considering regulations in other jurisdictions, these would mainly be in hillside and coastal areas; in the City, the Foothills and the Baylands are prime candidates. Urban environments, such as our medical campus, are inherently expected to have additional light for safety and operational purposes. Regarding safety, as noted by many in October’s outreach meeting, this is a primary concern. As our campus includes hospital uses, our operations run 24/7 and, consequently, adequate lighting is critical. Internally, prior to recent implementation of exterior lighting upgrades on our campus, we received regular comments from our medical staff that they did not feel safe traversing through the walkways and parking lots on our campus during the nighttime. In addition, we have emergency vehicles, patients, and visitors that rely on our nighttime lighting to navigate to their destinations in an expedient manner. Having to reduce our current overall light output through the measures recommended (motion sensors, shrouding, etc.) would represent a step backward in terms of nighttime safety . Another comment we echo from the business community is that implementation costs would pose an undue burden on our organization. Implementation would not just constitute the replacement of existing features (i.e. replacing the head of a parking lot light); it would include costly wholesale site lighting redesigns, requiring new light poles, trenching, and landscape restoration. It has been noted by staff that implementation costs for businesses have not been assessed. Having recently engaged in a parking l ot lighting upgrade at our 900 Welch Road facility which required significant trenching and installation of new poles, we are aware that lighting installation / modification costs—even for a small property--can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given this is a small sample of our campus, the costs of having to make wholesale changes across the board in a five-year timeframe would be unreasonable. Finally, the currently proposed ordinance includes a compliance timeline in which all of our lighting would need to meet the new code requirements in five years. This timeline places further financial and operational strain on our organization. For example, additional funds and resources would need to be expended within five years on the new installation at 900 Welch Road to achieve code compliance. We would ask that the City allow existing lighting to have legal non-conforming status and that the ordinance only apply to new construction projects. We appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns. We would like to request a continuation of this item so that comments from us and others in the business community can be thoroughly assessed by staff and City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact me at vsramirez@stanford.edu if any questions arise. Sincerely, Victoria S. Ramirez Molly Swenson Director of State and Local Government Affairs Director of Land Use & Licensing Stanford Health Care Stanford Medicine From:Aram James To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Steve Wagstaffe; Enberg, Nicholas; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Yusra Hussain; policechief@menlopark.gov; Chief.sjpd Subject:Nov 7, letter to OIR Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 4:25:25 PM Attachments:October 7 of CJA letter to OIR.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 1 c/o ALA 991 West Hedding Street, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 287-9710 rkonda@asianlawalliance.org abjpd1@gmail.com November 7, 2025 OIR GROUP Michael Gennaco Julie Ruhlin 6510 Spring Street #613 Long Beach, CA 90814 Dear Mr. Gennaco and Ms. Ruhlin: Review of each Taser 10 deployment with specificity Your review of each Taser 10 deployment helps the public understand how and why deputies are deploying this lethal weapon in our jails. Please report out with specificity where each probe/barb was successfully embedded subsequent to each Taser 10 deployment. This will allow us to judge if the Taser is being deployed in areas of the incarcerated person’s body that are recommended by the manufacturer’s eight page warning or in areas that pose a risk of serious injury or death to the incarcerated person. Critical to review and report on custody health records for each deployment It is critical for OIR to carefully review the Custody Health medical records of each Taser deployment for Taser probe/barb embedding issues, and related medical concerns. OIR should also report on all follow-up medical care that was provided for each incarcerated individual who was the subject of a Taser deployment. We are sure that OIR is aware of the 7-page detailed protocol that Custody Health is required to follow after each Taser deployment. (See attached protocol issued: 5/2025) Also, note that the Taser 10 probe is heavier than the probes used in prior Taser models. In addition, the fishhook barbs are longer than used in earlier Taser models. The additional weight of the probes and the longer fishhook barbs will potentially penetrate the skin at a deeper level. This presents an increased risk of internal injury, e.g. to body organs. (See attached Taser 10 article) see: https://omegaresearchfoundation.org/news/taser-10-the-new-taser-weapon-destined-for-uk-policing/ 2 Incarcerated individuals on a No Taser list due to preexisting conditions Does the Sheriff review each incarcerated person’s medical and psychiatric records at the time of classification to determine who should be on a No Taser list? If the Sheriff fails to use a No Taser list to avoid Taser use where underlying medical and psychological vulnerabilities are known does this constitute systemic negligence? Will your office suggest such a list to the sheriff’s department if one does not exist? Sheriff to comply with policy to interview each person tased and witnesses During the first six months of the Taser Pilot Project, the sheriff’s department failed to follow its own use of force policy. They did not interview incarcerated individuals who were tased and witnesses to the tasing. The sheriff also failed to preserve the body worn camera footage of interviews of each person who was tased and witnesses to the Taser deployments. This was a significant oversight and needs corrective action. Studies of Taser 10 raise serious health and safety concerns that must be addressed Concerns highlighted by at least one UK study on the Taser 10 needs to be part of the next OIR report on the Taser Pilot Project. The UK study reveals problems and concerns about the Taser 10 such as the how deeply the Taser barbs can embed, causing potentially very serious injuries. Similarly, the Taser 10 is designed to travel much longer distances, 45 feet versus 25 feet, then earlier models. The UK report addressed concerns that as the Taser 10 travels longer distances it can become unstable in reaching its target, and break from its wiring system putting bystanders at risk. The concerns regarding Taser 10’s safety issues should be brought to the attention of the Board of the Supervisors in your next report. See UK Taser 10 report https://share.google/OyX0Ygn5GL2jOnC9r Concerns regarding Taser misuse and Torture The Sheriff’s Department has a problematic record of improper conduct in the jails. It is reasonable to believe that the Taser 10 may be used to torture people incarcerated in our jails. (See attached 2018 letter to former Sheriff Laurie Smith highlighting UN oversight bodies concerns regarding the misuse of Tasers in jails and prison settings.) Also, see the Reuters series part 6 on Tasers in the Jails – which includes 22 videos of Taser abuse and torture. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-jails/ Important to interview Custody Health Staff It is important that OIR interview Custody Health staff to see if deputies in the sheriff’s department are applying pressure to under report medical concerns regarding Taser deployments. Is Custody Health truly exercising their independent medical judgment free of any overreach by deputies in the sheriff’s department? Amnesty International raises questions on the Safety of Taser 10 and Axon Enterprise’s failure to provide data to oversight authorities 3 The Amnesty International October 2, 2025 press release addresses problematic issues with the safety of the Taser 10, as well as Axon’s refusal to provide access to data on the Taser 10 to Amnesty’s police practices expert so a truly independent review of the Taser 10 can occur. See attached Press Release, Giving police ’10 shot super taser’ after fresh BBC footage of abuse raises fundamental safety concerns. Release of Video footage, medical reports and use of force reports Finally, we are asking OIR to encourage Sheriff Jonsen to release to CJA and the public at large the video footage of each taser deployment, redacted medical reports and all related use of force reports. We believe this is consistent with the Sheriff’s promise of transparency made at the outset of the Taser Pilot Project. Meet and discuss critical issues re Taser 10 addressed above We look forward to meeting with your team about the issues we have raised in this letter. Sincerely, Richard Konda Aram James From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Dark Skies Ordinance Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 4:24:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Diane McCoy <dianemccoy10@comcast.net> To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.gov <city.council@cityofpaloalto.gov> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025, 04:16:57 PM PST Subject: Dark Skies Ordinance Dear Palo Alto City Council. Thank you very much for your hard work and service. I have a resident of Palo Alto since 1978. I live in the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood of the city. I am writing regarding the Dark Skies Ordinance up for discussion on Monday, Nov. 1 city council meeting. Please adopt a STRONG outdoor lighting ordinance. A strong ordinance would protect birds, people and our night sky. Please incorporate the suggestions from the SCVBird Alliance and the Sierra Club in the ordinance. Have you had a chance to see some of the comments people have written in response to the Palo Alto Weekly's article about the ordinance: "Dark skies are important to human health because they support a balanced circadian rhythm, improved sleep, hormones and metabolism. Minimally, lightg should be down lit, and softer, rather than blinding white spots lights. " Education for motion detection lights would be excellent. Many have these; they are cost effective and efficient. We have our phones with us all the time; equipped with flashlights! Thank you for your consideration of this situation. Best, Diane McCoy This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Greer Road From:Victoria S. Ramirez To:Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly; Molly Swenson (SHC) Subject:SHC Letter of Support Item 8 - Lighting Ordinance (11/10/25) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 4:13:38 PM Attachments:image001.png Lighting Ordinance SHC Comment Letter - 11-7-25 FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, Attached you will find a letter from Stanford Health Care providing feedback and expressing our concerns with Item 8 on the November 10 Council Meeting Agenda –Proposed Lighting Ordinance. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. 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 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. November 7, 2025 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Council Consideration of Proposed Lighting Ordinance VIA EMAIL city.council@paloalto.gov; kelly.cha@paloalto.gov Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, Stanford Medicine appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the current iteration of the proposed Lighting Ordinance. As it relates to our medical campus, we have several concerns with the proposal, particularly related to applicability, safety, implementation costs, and compliance timeline. We were invited to attend the virtual outreach meeting with Planning staff in October . Based on the verbal comments from our organization and others, there is an overall alignment on concerns and the notion that the business community at large has not been adequately engaged by the City in the crafting of the ordinance compared to proponents of the policy. Based on the review of the most current information, our organization will have great difficulty on multiple fronts in achieving compliance. With respect to applicability, we assert that the ordinance should be targeted to areas where excessive light has the greatest impact. Considering regulations in other jurisdictions, these would mainly be in hillside and coastal areas; in the City, the Foothills and the Baylands are prime candidates. Urban environments, such as our medical campus, are inherently expected to have additional light for safety and operational purposes. Regarding safety, as noted by many in October’s outreach meeting, this is a primary concern. As our campus includes hospital uses, our operations run 24/7 and, consequently, adequate lighting is critical. Internally, prior to recent implementation of exterior lighting upgrades on our campus, we received regular comments from our medical staff that they did not feel safe traversing through the walkways and parking lots on our campus during the nighttime. In addition, we have emergency vehicles, patients, and visitors that rely on our nighttime lighting to navigate to their destinations in an expedient manner. Having to reduce our current overall light output through the measures recommended (motion sensors, shrouding, etc.) would represent a step backward in terms of nighttime safety . Another comment we echo from the business community is that implementation costs would pose an undue burden on our organization. Implementation would not just constitute the replacement of existing features (i.e. replacing the head of a parking lot light); it would include costly wholesale site lighting redesigns, requiring new light poles, trenching, and landscape restoration. It has been noted by staff that implementation costs for businesses have not been assessed. Having recently engaged in a parking l ot lighting upgrade at our 900 Welch Road facility which required significant trenching and installation of new poles, we are aware that lighting installation / modification costs—even for a small property--can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given this is a small sample of our campus, the costs of having to make wholesale changes across the board in a five-year timeframe would be unreasonable. Finally, the currently proposed ordinance includes a compliance timeline in which all of our lighting would need to meet the new code requirements in five years. This timeline places further financial and operational strain on our organization. For example, additional funds and resources would need to be expended within five years on the new installation at 900 Welch Road to achieve code compliance. We would ask that the City allow existing lighting to have legal non-conforming status and that the ordinance only apply to new construction projects. We appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns. We would like to request a continuation of this item so that comments from us and others in the business community can be thoroughly assessed by staff and City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact me at vsramirez@stanford.edu if any questions arise. Sincerely, Victoria S. Ramirez Molly Swenson Director of State and Local Government Affairs Director of Land Use & Licensing Stanford Health Care Stanford Medicine From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Action Item 6 Public Hearing 660 University Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:58:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I write in support of the proposal for the new 6 story Mixed Use Building with 70 Multi-Family Residential Units at 660 University. The Smith Family has worked for four years to get this approved. They are a LOCAL family investing in their community. Something I think we want to value greatly. The location is excellent for persons to live productively. They are in walking distance to schools, transportation, work sites, and many services. I live in the general area myself and can do many things without a car. Please realize that in many cases you will get pushback for any changes made to our neighborhoods. This limits our vision of what is possible and also what is needed by others. Please think of the people who will benefit from living here - who may work here and drive long distances now. Also you are probably aware that the schools need additional children to be at their best. This housing will give some children a chance to go to our excellent schools nearby. Thank you for all your attention to housing at this time. It is an urgent need. And one you can help remedy. Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 -- Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? Virus-free.www.avast.com From:John Miller To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:53:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am a former resident and frequent visitor to Palo Alto. I’m emailing to ask you to adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance to protect wildlife, people and the night sky. Light pollution in and around the Bay Area has become a serious problem that can impact people by disrupting sleep patterns and can interfere with (if not entirely prohibit) the ability to see and appreciate dark skies. I urge you to incorporate into the proposed ordinance best practices from the International Dark-Sky Association and the Illuminating Engineering Society, ensuring that outdoor lighting is shielded, controlled and used only where and when it’s needed without compromising safety or commerce. Thank you for your attention to this most important issue. John Miller Los Gatos From:Annette Herz To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:44:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council I am a resident, a certified California Naturalist and a docent at several of our local nature preserves. I am also VERY concerned about the state of our local environment and the impact our human activity has on them. As you know the SF Bay Area is a major route for bird migrations - and human population concentrations like the Bay Area Cities can have a disastrous effect on their behaviour. I noticed even on a much smaller scale the impact (less visitors) my backyard has since the neighbor behind the fence has installed security lights. Less skunks, less raccoons, less fox - but more non-native rats. For the bird population our city lights is MUCH more dangerous - it can confuse their navigation and lead to avoidance and mistakes that impact not only the single birds, but future generations (a bird that dies on migration will not reproduce..). With that we have a huge responsibility - and I hope that my city of Palo Alto followed the good example of other cities - and the suggestions set forward by the Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club (both formidable local leaders against climate change and for nature conservation) and PLEASE ADOPT THE STRONGEST ORDINANCE TO PROTECT BIRDS, HUMANS and our NIGHT SKY. Thanks for making me a proud resident Annette Herz -- - Annette This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:ROBERT HIRT To:Council, City Subject:City Council 11/10 meeting:Agenda item 8 Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:19:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance and use the suggestions from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. Dark skies are very important to protect the many species of birds that migrate primarily at night. Bright lights confuse and disorient them often causing collisions with buildings. I addition dark skies produce a more restful condition which produces better sleep for our people. It has been shown (by the Cleveland Clinic) that better sleep (a full 8 hrs) is important for keeping immune systems well and which help prevent diseases like cancer from developing. For the health and happiness of our community please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordnance. Very truly yours, Bob Bob Hirt Bobhirt@aol.com (408) 821-2732 Please excuse the brevity, the typos, and the sometimes humorous autocorrect changes. From:Kinsey haffner To:Kallas, Emily; Council, City Cc:Yang, Albert Subject:Development project for 660 University (660 University) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:58:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i 660 University is on the Council agenda for its meeting on 12/10. Please include and consider these comments in connection with that agenda item. 1. Builder's Remedy: The developer of 660 University filed a parallel application to develop a project for 680 University (680 University). The 660 University and 680 University are development alternatives for the same three combined parcels. 680 University was filed, and to date has been treated as, a Builder's Remedy (BR) project. Analysis: There are two pivotal dates in this analysis. The first is the date a complete BR Preapplication is filed with the City (the project application’s “deemed complete date’” for BR purposes). The second is the date the State certified the City’s Housing Element (HE) was certified by the State. (HE Certification Date). To have BR status, 680mUnivrrsity must have a “deemed complete date” that is prior to the HE Certification Date (8/3/2024), which no longer is the case. The preapplication filed by the developer for 680 University met all the necessary BR criteria, so its filing date (5/14/2024) initially was the “deemed complete date” for the project. However, the formal application for 680 University filed by the developer on 9/3/2024 had technical defects (see other 660 University public comments by me) that made the BR Preapplication “deemed incomplete” (words from the relevant statute). As a direct effect and consequence, and automatically and by operation of law, 680 University lost and ceased to have a “deemed complete date.” Those defects probably can be remedied, but the result would be a new “deemed complete date” (i.e., the date the correction occurs). Since this correction has not yet happened, there is no complete BR Preapplication on file. Also, any new “deemed complete date” would be after, not before certification of the HE. However, 680 University continues to be treated by the City as if it is a BR application even though it does not qualify as such. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Tellingly, I am informed that the developer has not submitted any rebuttal to the above analysis. This implicitly acknowledges its correctness. Importance: We repeatedly heard at the past ARB and PTC hearings regarding 660 University that the Commissioner’s felt compelled to approve the project because, although they had very serious reservations and concerns, the BR alternative (680 University) would be worse. Thus the prior determinations of the ARB and PTC are biased and do not reflect their true and fulsome evaluation of 660 University. Also, the faux existence of a BR possibility in the form of 680mUnivrrsity effectively prevented consideration of the very challenging questions and concerns expressed below. Actions Required: The 660 University project must be either disapproved by the Council or referred/sent back to both the ARB and the PTC for additional review and action. If the Council declines to act otherwise, then additional specific actions are required, as noted below. 2. Traffic Impacts: While I recognize the City’s mandate to address the housing crisis and acknowledge that the Final EIR may technically satisfy VMT requirements, I must formally object to the project based on three critical, unmitigated operational and legal deficiencies. 1. The Operational Failure of TDM and the Need for a Performance Guarantee The City’s reliance on the TDM plan to achieve a 40% vehicle trip reduction is conceptually flawed. A legal mandate for success is not the same as guaranteed success. If the TDM measures—which include easily ignored or unused incentives like transit passes and bike parking —fail to achieve the target, the project, as currently proposed, will significantly worsen the existing traffic problems on Byron and surrounding major arterials by introducing the trip generation of 70 units and ground-floor office space. This has a further ripple effect out into the neighborhoods. The proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) for remedial TDM measures are a weak enforcement lever that triggers after the safety hazard has already manifested. Recommendations for Strengthening: The City must demand strong TDM remediation efforts and a robust TDM Performance Bond from the developer. This bond should be equivalent to a substantial mitigation fee, held in escrow, and only released after the City confirms the 40% reduction target has been met for a minimum of three years of full occupancy. If the target is missed, the funds must be used by the City for punitive, enforceable mitigation measures (e.g., dedicated staff for traffic control or aggressive parking buyouts). 2. Unmitigated Public Safety Hazard on Byron Street The decision to place the primary vehicular access and egress for 70 high-density units and an office component onto the single 500 block of Byron Street, which dead-ends on University and Hamilton, creates an operational conflict that is an unmitigable public safety hazard, regardless of TDM success. Byron Street is narrow and serves as a high-vulnerability over-55 community (555 Byron). The inevitable queuing from the garage entrance onto Byron Street inevitably will create "nose-to- nose" and "plugged bottle" traffic congestion and traffic conflict on Byron and potentially on University and Hamilton, severely compromising both regular traffic in and out of, and emergency access to, both 555 Byron and 660 University. The problem here is that small incremental traffic additions to any already saturated situation can trigger significant problems. This operational flaw cannot be resolved with signage or a stacking lane; it is a fundamental design conflict. The Council must find that this specific, localized unmitigated safety hazard is unacceptable. On-demand stop lights at both ends of the 500 block of Byron would ease the ability of the new Byron traffic to merge into University and Hamilton, but the City must also evaluate (which it has not done) the broader impact of that possible solution. The lack of adequate delivery vehicle and traffic loading/unloading zones in proximity to the building entrance substantially increases the chance of double-parked vehicles on University, which is equally bad. 3. The Requirement for Explicit Findings on Cumulative Housing Element Impacts The Council is legally obligated under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to make explicit, deliberate findings justifying its approval. This cannot be an implicit finding. We urge the Council to explicitly consider the systemic, cumulative risk the project poses to the entire Housing Element. If this project, due to its operational failure on Byron Street and related major and minor arterials, is allowed to possibly create severe, unmitigated gridlock, it will set a disastrous precedent. If and to the extent it will be legally and practically impossible to approve the surrounding MFA and Planned Unit sites that the City is mandated to develop, the "realistic achievability" of the entire Housing Element site inventory is in jeopardy. For these reasons—the lack of guaranteed TDM performance, the unmitigable safety hazard on Byron Street, and the potential negative ripple effect on the Housing Element—I urge the Council to reject the project as currently conditioned and demand the PTC evaluate the traffic effects of 660 University in the broader context of the HE as a whole in addition to requiring significant design revisions or robust, financially-backed TDM performance enhancements and guarantees. 3. HE Impacts: The current design for 660 University fails to align with the core purpose and legal mandates of the City’s certified HE and the underlying state law requiring housing for diverse household types. This concern is distinct from the previously raised issues regarding traffic, VMT, and public safety. 1. Failure to Accommodate Diverse Household Needs The California Housing Element law mandates that jurisdictions plan to accommodate "a variety of household sizes and types." The proposed unit mix at 660 University—comprising primarily of ~400 square foot studios, a small number of ~600 square foot 1-bedroom units, and minimal number of ~900 square foot 2-bedroom units—demonstrates a strategic effort to maximize density and revenue per square foot, at the expense of family and long-term residential needs. Micro-Unit Functionality: A 400 square-foot studio, equivalent in size to a mid-range hotel room, is functionally constrained. Such units offer minimal storage, compacted kitchenettes space necessary for a multi-year resident with standard possessions. This design effectively filters out couples, families, and individuals seeking long-term stability. Constrained Family Housing: The proposed 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units are only very marginally better in this regard and are also inadequate for comfortable family living. The 1-bedroom is not significantly better than the studio, and the 2-bedroom square footage is more aligned with a generous 1-bedroom unit in the Bay Area. The designed bedrooms within this footprint leaves insufficient common living area for families with two or more children or even two unrelated long-term roommates. The resulting building is architecturally structured to create a form of slightly more lengthy form of transient housing intended to serve almost exclusively single, highly mobile, high-income individuals—a specific niche that does not address the required "variety" of household types central to the HE mandate. 2. High Cost-Per-Square-Foot and Subversion of Purpose Market analysis of comparable nearby developments (such as The Mia on nearby Everett Ave.) shows that this model of hyper-dense, small units commands an exceptionally high rent per square foot, often in the $8.00 to $10.00 range, significantly exceeding the general Palo Alto market average of $4.00 to $7.00 per square foot for significantly larger units. This financial optimization suggests the project is designed for use as de-facto temporary but extended-stay lodging for Stanford students, corporate transferees, weekday "sleep only units" for workers whose permanent residences are far from Palo Alto, or temporary workers, in all instances other than, and rather than, permanent residential housing. When new housing development is overwhelmingly optimized for this transient, high-premium market, it raises serious policy questions: 1. Is this truly "housing" as envisioned by the HE, or is it a commercial lodging product designed to maximize revenue from corporate clients? 2. Does the creation of a building optimized for rapid resident turnover contribute to the stability and long-term community goals of the City? A pattern of approving projects that function as transient corporate housing, renting at an extraordinary premium, risks subverting the underlying purpose of the Housing Element, which is to identify sites that meet the general, long-term residential needs of the entire community. 3. Risk to Housing Element Compliance (Realistic Achievability) While a single market-rate project may not violate the technical unit count of the HE, approving a project template that results in inadequate unit diversity and high turnover creates systemic risk. The State's HCD reviews Housing Elements for “realistic achievability.” If the majority of the City’s new market-rate housing is characterized by these functionally constrained, premium-priced micro-units, HCD could credibly find that the City is failing to meet the diverse needs of its workforce, particularly families. This pattern could be cited as evidence that the HE is not realistically achieving the goal of accommodating all economic segments and household sizes, thereby making the entire HE vulnerable to a finding of non-compliance. Note, in this regard, the HE-related discussion with respect to traffic issues above. in this regard, note that the HE (Schedule D) does not allow more than 65 Toal Units for 660 University. In that regard, note that "maximum allowable amount" of units is not the same as "optimal amount" of units when 660 University is considered in its broader HE context. Conclusion and Call to Action I urge the City Council to utilize its discretionary authority to require addition ARB and PTC reviews of, and significant modifications, to 660 University. To align this project with the spirit and requirements of the Housing Element, the Council should demand a unit mix that includes: 1. A minimum required square footage for studio and 1-bedroom units to ensure basic livability for long-term residents. 2. An increase in the number and a substantial increase in the size of 1- and 2-, and possibly an addition of 3-, bedroom units to demonstrate a genuine commitment to accommodating family and non-single-person households. Approving the current design without these changes risks setting a problematic precedent that prioritizes maximum developer profit over the genuine, diverse, and stable housing needs of the Palo Alto community. Kinsey Haffner traffic problems by introducing the trip generation of 70 units and ground-floor office space. The proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) for remedial TDM measures are a weak enforcement lever that triggers after the safety hazard has already manifested. Recommendation for Strengthening: The City must demand a robust TDM Performance Bond from the developer. This bond should be equivalent to a substantial mitigation fee, held in escrow, and only released after the City confirms the 40% reduction target has been met for a minimum of three years of full occupancy. If the target is missed, the funds must be used by the City for punitive, enforceable mitigation measures (e.g., dedicated staff for traffic control or aggressive parking buyouts). 2. Unmitigated Public Safety Hazard on Byron Street The decision to place the primary vehicular access and egress for 70 high-density units and an office component onto Byron Street creates an operational conflict that is an unmitigable public safety hazard, regardless of TDM success. Byron Street is narrow and serves a high-density, high-vulnerability over-55 community (555 Byron). The inevitable queuing from the garage entrance onto Byron Street will create "nose-to-nose" traffic congestion and conflict, severely compromising emergency access to both 555 and 660 University. This operational flaw cannot be resolved with signage or a stacking lane; it is a fundamental design conflict. The Council must find that this specific, localized unmitigated safety hazard is unacceptable. 3. The Requirement for Explicit Findings on Cumulative Housing Element Impacts The Council is legally obligated under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to make explicit, deliberate findings justifying its approval. This cannot be an implicit finding. We urge the Council to explicitly consider the systemic, cumulative risk the project poses to the entire Housing Element. If this project, due to its operational failure on Byron Street, is allowed to create severe, unmitigated gridlock, it will set a disastrous precedent. It will be legally and practically impossible to approve the surrounding MFA and Planned Unit sites that the City is mandated to develop, thereby jeopardizing the "realistic achievability" of the entire Housing Element site inventory. For these reasons—the lack of guaranteed TDM performance, the unmitigable safety hazard on Byron Street, and the potential negative ripple effect on the Housing Element —I urge the Council to reject the project as currently conditioned and demand significant design revisions or robust, financially-backed TDM performance guarantees. Get Outlook for iOS From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com To:Council, City Cc:Yang, Albert; Chelsea.Maclean@hklaw.com; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Alysa Tibbitts Subject:Applicant"s Public Comment - 21PLN-00341 (November 10th Council hearing) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:34:51 AM Attachments:660 Univ - Letter addressing Builder"s Remedy status 11-7-2025 FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers, On behalf of our client the Smith Development Group, attached please find the applicant’s public comment ahead of your November 10th hearing to consider approval of their PHZ Project at 511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue (#21PLN-00341). Thank you, Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE She/Her/Hers Partner Holland & Knight LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910 genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com ________________________________________________ Add to address book | View professional biography NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality. 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com Genna Yarkin +1 415-743-6990 Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com Chelsea Maclean +1 415-743-6979 Chelsea.Maclean@hklaw.com Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach November 7, 2025 Via E-mail (city.council@paloalto.gov) City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 Re: 511 Byron St, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Project - Builder’s Remedy Application Status (Application #21PLN-00341) Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers: Holland & Knight LLP represents Smith Development Group (the "Applicant") in connection with its proposed residential development at 511 Byron St, 660 University Avenue, 680 University/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the status of the Applicant's Builder's Remedy application (which was also applied for under the protections of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or “SB 330”), and which has been the subject of recent public comment suggesting it may have expired. We note that it remains the Applicant’s strong preference to proceed with the 66-unit Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) version of the development (the “PHZ Project”), which is before you for consideration of approval on November 10, 2025. By contrast, the current Builder’s Remedy application contains 88 units, and could be increased to up to 131 units. Over the course of several years, the Applicant team has worked closely with City staff and incorporated significant feedback from various City decisionmakers to ensure that the PHZ Project is a vibrant and successful addition to the community. While the Applicant does not currently intend to return to the Builder’s Remedy application given the strong momentum behind the PHZ Project, we reiterate here that it remains viable and can be reactivated if necessary. Background and Timeline The Applicant is currently pursuing approval of a 66-unit residential project through the City's PHZ process, which includes 20% affordable housing. The Applicant also submitted an alternative Builder's Remedy application, which is currently tolled while the PHZ application proceeds City Council November 7, 2025 Page 2 #529057035_v1 through the approval process. The relevant timeline of the Builder’s Remedy application is as follows: • May 14, 2024: The Applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application proposing 110 dwelling units pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act (the “Builder’s Remedy Project”). • June 11, 2024: o The Applicant submitted a new/revised SB 330 preliminary application for the Builder’s Remedy Project, also proposing 110 dwelling units. o This submission established a new vesting date and created an obligation to submit a formal application within 180 days, or by December 8, 2024. (Gov. Code § 65941.1(e)) • August 20, 2024: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) certified the City’s Housing Element, cutting off the ability for any new Builder’s Remedy projects to be proposed, but allowing any Builder’s Remedy projects that had previously submitted SB 330 preliminary applications, to proceed so long as they subsequently meet deadlines and maintain vesting. • September 4, 2024: The Applicant submitted a formal application for development of the Builder's Remedy Project, proposing 88 dwelling units (an exactly 20% change from the previous 110 units). • October 2, 2024: The City responded to the Builder's Remedy Project application without raising any concerns about the unit count change. • December 2, 2024: The Applicant and the City executed a Tolling Agreement, pausing all deadlines related to the Builder's Remedy Project application while the PHZ Project application proceeds. • December 8, 2024: As noted above, prior to the tolling of all processing deadlines for the Builder’s Remedy Project’s application, this would have been the deadline to submit a formal application for development, and still maintain the Builder’s Remedy Project’s SB 330 vesting and its ability to proceed under the non-compliant Housing Element status that existed as of its SB 330 preliminary application date. The Builder's Remedy Application Remains Viable At the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) hearing for consideration of the PHZ Project on October 8, 2025, a member of the public argued that the Builder's Remedy Project application had expired because the formal application reduced the unit count by exactly 20% (from 110 to 88 units). Under Government Code Section 65941.1(d), if a development proponent City Council November 7, 2025 Page 3 #529057035_v1 "revises the project such that the number of residential units... changes by 20 percent or more," the preliminary application's vesting protections may be lost. However, as the City Attorney correctly noted during the PTC hearing and as the Staff Report for this hearing reiterates, this issue is readily curable. The Applicant retains the ability to submit a revised formal application for the Builder’s Remedy Project that adds one or more dwelling units, bringing it within the permissible change threshold. Specifically: • The Applicant had a right to submit a new formal application for the Builder’s Remedy Project within the original 180-day deadline. • When the Tolling Agreement was executed on December 2, 2024, the Applicant had 6 days remaining until the December 8, 2024 deadline. • If the Applicant chooses to terminate the Tolling Agreement and reactivate the Builder's Remedy application, it can immediately submit a revised formal application adding one or more units (and even up to 131 units, which would be a 19% increase from the original 110 units). In conclusion, the Builder's Remedy Project application remains a viable alternative should the PHZ Project application face any obstacles that are significant enough that the Applicant chooses to return to the Builder’s Remedy Project application. The unit count concern would be easily remedied, and it does not invalidate the Applicant's vesting rights under SB 330. Mr. Haffner’s Written Public Comment dated October 30 Included in your hearing packet is public comment that Mr. Haffner provided via email on October 30, to which we provide the following responses. We first wish to address the idea that the existence of the Builder’s Remedy application unduly influenced the PTC. It is important to note that the Applicant has been open to a significant amount of feedback from City staff, the public, and PTC members in multiple rounds of review. The version of the PHZ proposal that is coming before you has had the benefit of many changes to address that feedback, and the Applicant feels strongly that this process has been extensive, appropriate, and fair to all. Second with regard to Mr. Haffner’s mentions of the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)’s certification of the City’s Housing Element, it is abundantly clear that regardless of the date of certification, the Builder’s Remedy Project gained vesting on the date of its SB 330 preliminary application. The date of the Builder’s Remedy Project’s formal application for development, is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing initial vesting (other than that it needed to occur within 180 days of the preliminary application to maintain such vesting). First, 2024’s AB 1886 established that a housing element is only "substantially compliant" for purposes City Council November 7, 2025 Page 4 #529057035_v1 of the Builder's Remedy when either HCD or a court makes that determination.1 AB 1886 further clarified that a housing element’s “substantial compliance” status is pegged to the date that a Builder’s Remedy project submits an SB 330 preliminary application, regardless of whether a jurisdiction later achieves certification from HCD, whether that certification is before or after a formal application is submitted.2 Mr. Haffner also makes much of the Tolling Agreement’s mistaken reference to a certain number of units contained in the Builder’s Remedy Project. However, it is abundantly clear from the agreement that the proposal is meant to toll deadlines related to processing of the Builder’s Remedy Project. A mere typographical error in description of the application, does not nullify the agreement between two parties who intended to bind each other to certain commitments and mutually understand themselves to be so bound. Finally, Mr. Haffner insists without adequate support that because the Applicant already submitted one formal application for development of the Builder’s Remedy Project, it may not substitute that application with a revised application. However, it is common practice for applicants to revise or replace proposals with new ones in the course of processing. Further, SB 330 simply does not indicate that a new or revised formal application may not been submitted within the 180 days following the submission of a preliminary application. Conclusion The Applicant remains committed to working with the City through the PHZ process to deliver housing, including affordable units, to Palo Alto. We believe this process offers benefits to both the City and the community, and we look forward to your consideration of the PHZ application when it comes before you on November 10. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Chelsea Maclean 1 Gov. Code § 65585.03 (as amended by AB 1886). 2 Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (as amended by AB 1886). From:Margaret Hinebaugh To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:18:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I strongly urge the Palo Alto City Council to adopt a strong lighting ordinance to protect birds, people, and our night sky from light pollution. Light pollution harms wildlife and ecosystems, and it disrupts humans' natural circadian rhythms, which has negative impacts on our health. Nighttime lighting is wasteful and unnecessary; we do not need a string of bright, outdoor lights on at every house 24/7. There is no good evidence that increased lighting reduces total crime. Please incorporate the dark sky/outdoor lighting suggestions from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club in the ordinance. Thank you, Margaret Hinebaugh (408) 247-8474 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:November 2025 Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:01:29 AM BOOK SALE NEWSLETTER THIS WEEKEND AT CUBBERLEY Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES Saturday November 8 Main Room 11am - 4pm Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Popup Music Sale 10am - 2pm (outside Main Room) Sunday November 9 All Rooms 1pm - 4pm FEATURED IN NOVEMBER Agatha Christie Science Dept 56 Snowbabies Holiday Books & Puzzles 4000 Middlefield Road Palo Alto NE corner of the Cubberley Community Center (650) 213-8755 www.fopal.org Maps and Directions More information on the sales Donate your used books, DVDs, &c ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO ALTO LIBRARIES Main Room In our Main Room, prices are way below what used book stores charge. Hardcover books start at $3 and softcover books start at only $2. No numbered tickets this month! Please note that due to crowding during the first two hours of the Book Sale, no strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be brought into the Main Room. This is for the safety of shoppers and volunteers alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins out and shoppers are welcome to bring these items into the sale. Children's Book Sale The Children's Room is located in the portable next to the soccer field near Greendell School. It is entirely filled with children's books and toys. You'll find picture books, school age fiction and non-fiction, fiction for teens, award winners, non-English titles, CDs and DVDs, and books for parents and teachers, many for 50 cents or $1. Strollers are welcome in the Children's Room at any time. Bargain Books in H-2 The Bargain Room is located in Rooms H-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley main campus, between our Main Room and Middlefield Road. On Saturday, paperbacks are $1, hardcovers are $2, and children's books are 50 cents each. The room also contains many records, CDs, and DVDs at $1 each. On Sunday, the room opens at 1 pm and all prices are half off. Or, save even more on Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable bags from us for $4/ea (or bring your own grocery-size reusable bag) and stuffing them with any items in the room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at $5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE! Library News The Library is celebrating Diwali on Sunday November 9, 1pm to 3pm at Mitchell Park. More info on the Library's events page. The Library (all branches) will be closed on Tuesday, November 11, for the Veteran's Day holiday. The Library (all branches) will close early on Wednesday, November 26, and remain closed Thursday and Friday November 27 and 28 for the Thanksgiving holiday. You could find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner by subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per month, more usually one. You can find out about other things they want you to know from the Palo Alto City Library Blogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader. -Frank McConnell Politics With the government shutdown, and everything uncertain, people may wonder: what's something we can actually trust? Thankfully we have the Politics section of the Main Room. With books explaining everything from political maneuvers in other countries, to explanations of past shutdowns, this section has everything for politics enthusiasts, and books that politics newcomers need. Curling up on the couch with a book from the Politics section and the news playing in the background, sounds like a perfect winter evening. -Emma Chen Puzzles The holiday season is here and so are those puzzles saved throughout the year and now on the shelves for you. Plus, as a gift for you all are priced no higher than $5. We also have a few unique items that would make great gifts. -Vicky Evans Home & Crafts This month show your gratitude to family and friends. For Thanksgiving make your own invitations and holiday table decorations: flower arrangements, wall hangings, place mats and cards, even coasters. Our shelves are filled with ideas to create the perfect celebration. We are thankful for you every month, dear customers. See you at the sale! The Floral Arts shelf holds several resources: Carolyne Roehm's Flowers, Jane Packer's Celebrating with Flowers, and Kenneth Turner's The Floral Decorator, among others. Personalize your home with The Gourmet Paper Maker, Gift Wrapping & Greeting Cards, and 1-2-3 Calligraphy! There are Craft books on everything from origami to pottery. Fabric arts include all the Fassett Glorious Knits titles, and we have many knitting patterns for scarves, socks, and hats. Quilting titles feature The Quilter's Handbook by Rosemary Wilkinson. Don't miss all our useful guides for sewing, crocheting, needlepoint, and embroidery. On the Beauty shelf, look for 101 Do-It-Yourself Face Masks by Jennifer McCartney. In Fashion you'll find The Story of the Kimono. For the student, there's Technical Drawing for Fashion and Fashion Law and Business: Brands and Retailers. New Home decorating titles include: Nate Berkus' Home Rules and Bobby Berk's Right at Home. Here's an idea: Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich. Also on the shelves: Sustainable Home by Christine Liu. This month there's a good collection of kitchen and bath designs, plus Decorative Paint Effects: A Practical Guide. Regional styles include Paris, Barcelona, Greece, and Japan, and range from metropolitan to country. Don't miss Monet's House and a pop-up companion, A Walk in Monet's Garden. eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Antiques & Collections In the month of November you'll find The Complete Encyclopedia of American Antiques in two volumes. Then there's The Queen's Silver: A Survey of Her Majesty's Personal Collection (Queen Elizabeth that is). We have the Postage Stamps Album of the Seoul Olympics 1988, and Scott's Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue from 1929. We also showcase guides for The Great American Paperback, Collectible Record Albums, and Jazz Albums 1949-1969. Back this month is a holiday favorite, Nutcrackers. You'll find more vintage doll books, plus the Antique Porcelain Digest. Just to keep everything in perfect condition, try Family Treasures Heritage Preservation: A Concise Guide to Caring for Your Cherished Belongings. eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Mystery Mystery section got lots of Agatha Christie books in new or almost new condition. Treat yourself or make a gift to Christie fans in your life! They are located in the hallway shelves. -Irina Poetry November rain! November rain! Beating on the window pane. Perfect for a rainy time, Read the Classics all in rhyme. Learn how heroes came to be And other feats of poetry. Then turn your eyes to foreign parts https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html -Mandy MacCalla Philosophy For this month's sale there are two very different books to call out, both making their first appearance. The first is a coffee table size book, The Annotated Emerson, coming in at 541 pages. Considered to be one of America's finest nonfiction prose writers this an ideal book to learn more about Emerson. Also, we have what is perhaps the only comic fiction novel based very loosely on part of Wittgenstein's life, Saints and Scholars. Written by an Oxford Professor, Terry Eagleton, it tells of Wittgenstein's regular trips to live in an old cottage in a remote part of western Ireland. He did do this, mostly in the 1930s. However the book is written as if he were there in 1916, the time of the Easter Rebellion, giving him an opportunity to meet a wounded James Connolly, and have a chat with Leopold Bloom. A witty spoof, it will be on the top shelf awaiting a lucky customer. -Nigel Jones Humor We have received so many great cartoon books that they have almost taken over the top shelf! David Sedaris wins the most books category with ten books for sale. We also have books from the classic era of American humor including Art Buchwald, James Thurber and Robert Benchley. And as a reminder ... HUMOR HAS MOVED!!! Humor used to be in the Cooking aisle but has now moved over one aisle to B3, the Science Fiction aisle. -Nigel Jones Collectables We have a ton of Department 56 Snowbabies®. These are available at the ridiculously low price of $4 each!?! Buy Grandma her Christmas presents for the next 10 years and still have money in the bank. These will be across the aisle from the DVDs. -Sven-Erik Geddes Magazines We have vintage (60+ years and older) National Geographic magazines for $1 each. We also have a few Playboys from the 1960s for $3 each. (The customer with the dirtiest trench coat, clammiest palms and shiftiest eyes gets first pick at these!) -Sven-Erik Geddes Judaica Browse the Judaica section for books on the Jewish religion and culture including editions of the Torah and other basic texts, Kabbalah, Jewish history, the Holocaust, memoirs, Israel, Jewish Women, the Jewish American Experience and other related subjects. Special this month -- The Mezuzah in the Madonna's Foot: Marranos and Other Secret Jews Can We Talk About Israel?: A Guide for the Curious, Confused, and Conflicted A Voice Called: Stories of Jewish Heroism Is It Good for the Jews?: More Stories from the Old Country and the New 3 Volumes of Chronicles: News of the Past The Idea: to retell the ancient, hallowed story of the Bible as if it were happening today - or, differently expressed, as if the ancients had been in possession of all the facilities and know-how connected with the production of a modern newspaper! Most fiction with Jewish themes will be found in Modern Literature/Classics or Current Fiction. Books entirely in Hebrew are shelved in the European Languages section. Shelf photos at <https://fopalbooks.com/judaica.html> -Charlotte Epstein, Judaica Section Manager Ephemera This month, we have an exciting new section--Ephemera! The Ephemera section will contain various interesting themed collections of historical significance all at fantastic prices to add to your personal historical archive. You can find it to the right of the photography section. The star of this month's section is a trove of authentic political pamphlets from the Cold War, including those produced by the former U.S.S.R. and the Communist Party of New York. Another great selection up for sale consists of (non-circulating) money in multiple vintage forms--a $1,000 bill from 1972 (from the George McGovern campaign), a real stock certificate, and more! We will also have pre-1900 newspapers from across the country and vintage Republican presidential campaign materials. -Angela He Music Books and Pop-Up This month's Pop-Up Music sale has an expanded section of great CDs as well as a fresh trove of vinyl and holiday music. Find us under the tents in front of the Main Room entrance. Additionally, the Music book section in the Main Room has many new selections in Jazz and Pop/Rock/R&B/Country. -George Chaltas, Music Sales Religion In addition to regular donations, a large religion donation arrived last week heavy on the scripture side. Look for: Three volume set of Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Eadie's Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul's letter to the Colossians Dever, The Message of the Old Testament Dictionary of the Old Testament. Two volumes, Historical Books and Pentateuch Keener, Galatians Waltke, Genesis Look under the vintage books in Aisle 6 for the Anchor Bible Series Turning to Christianity: Horton's Christian Faith Evans, Imputation and Impartation Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Smeaton, Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement A Theology of Leadership four-volume series on doctrines And many more -Nancy Mahoney Cohen Mitchell Park Store Mitchell Park is winding down a special of Large Print Books. For those of you who have started your holiday shopping they are great gifts for those who have difficulty with small print. We have had many recent fiction titles as well as some classics and non-fiction books. There is still a nice variety of large print books on the front kiosk. Our next special features Holiday Books, CDs, DVDs and Greeting Cards. We have boxed greeting cards as well as small packets of cards. In the past we've had customers who said this was where they always bought their holiday cards. For the past few years cards were not available but this year we have a large assortment of cards at very inviting prices. The store has also endeavored to have as many interesting as well as unusual books on our shelves for your gift giving this holiday season. We hope that you enjoy the selection. We know that your pocketbook will! A reminder that we are open during all library hours. Mitchell Park is staffed by a volunteer every afternoon who can assist you if you have questions. Rinconada and Downtown libraries have smaller stores that are also accessible during all library hours. In addition to the main monthly sale we hope that you enjoy shopping at our library stores. -Suzanne Little, Manager Children's Room The fall and winter holidays are almost here, and we're ready! We have some lovely Thanksgiving books for all ages, both fiction and non-fiction. Also this month is your first chance at our voluminous collection of books for Hanukkah (it begins December 14) and Christmas. We've curated them carefully; they are gift-quality and offered at unbelievably low prices. Shop our November sale and check off some of the names on your gift list! (Books make terrific teacher gifts, too!) The World Languages shelves are full, with books in languages from Chinese, Korean, and Japanese to Hebrew, Russian, Polish, Dutch, Spanish, and many more. New this month are many books in Italian and French, including a selection of French Christmas books. Beginning Readers again has lots of Mo Willems Elephant and Piggie books, along with many other books for early readers. Nearby you'll find DVDs--all kinds of family favorites-- and in the Parenting section, a great selection of books on parenting kids with special needs. This month brought a deluge of donations of beautiful hard-cover picture books, priced for our sale at a fraction of their retail prices, just in time for gift-giving. And look in the blue bins on the picture books table for more bargains, both paperback and hardback. Under the front windows the bins of board books, flap books, and pop-ups are bursting. We all remember favorite grade-school teachers who read wonderful poems aloud as they settled the class. Teachers, this month the School-age Fiction section has brand new, beautifully illustrated poetry collections, displayed in the entry area to Fiction. In the same display there's a gorgeous full-color read-aloud collector's edition of Katherine Applegate's The One and Only Ivan (list price $24.99, our price $7.00). On the Classics shelves you'll find two collector's editions of The Complete Tales of Winnie the Pooh, and two editions of Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, also with lovely illustrations. Check out our Fantasy shelves, where you'll find Monsterology and Dragonology, both full of surprises on every page. And this month we have several of the early volumes of the Harry Potter series, perfect for hooking your child on the young wizard's adventures. Shop our Activity section for a great selection of gifts at unbeatable prices. Our shelves are packed with games the whole family can enjoy, and our ever-popular graphic novels section fills its bookcase and then some. Our Activity section is also "hands-on" with Klutz books, origami instructions, paper plane kits, and coloring books. We have dozens of music CDs at 50 cents each--create your own playlists. For stocking stuffers, there are loads of action figures plus extra capes and swords. Or buy a big bin containing an airport set, perfect for a rainy day or fireside fun. -Carolyn Davidson Children's Vintage Wooboy, have we got books in Children's Vintage this month! With the holiday season right around the corner, we have a few honoring the Thanksgiving holiday, and we have many more celebrating Hanukkah! Plus we're beginning the Christmas rush, with books both religious and secular and two German advent calendars. But in addition to the holidays, we are featuring three oversized (and very nice!) versions of Pinocchio and ten Encyclopedia Britannica science books for the young ones (time, sizes, nature, etc). We also have some very nice copies of Alfred Hitchcock's Three Investigators (both hardback and paperback) plus 25 junior deluxe edition classics (Verne, Dickens, Twain, Stevenson etc). And another shelf of what is becoming our usual assortment of games and vintage puzzles. Shelf pictures are available for all of these items at www.fopalbooks.com. And you can find even more children's vintage books at our eBay store -Lisa Heitman History This month History received two specialized donations - Armenia History, and assorted biographies of 20th century European royals - curiosities, but priced reasonably for collectors. There is also the usual assortment of books, including some nice editions of ancient Greek historians. -Lin McAllister Computers The AI area has several classic texts from as far back as 1971(!). Opinion/analysis has several provocative works. Look for a couple of jokes near the Java books. -David Cortesi Donations We accept donations on Monday through Saturday from 3-5 pm in the Main Room, with extended hours on Saturday so that we are open for donations from 1-5 pm that day. But we close to donations in the week before the sale so that we can prepare the Main Room for the sale, which means that we are closed for donations from Sunday November 2 through Sunday November 9. Please hold your donations until Monday November 10. We will also be closed on Thursday November 27 and Friday November 28 for the Thanksgiving holiday. Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us. Also look at that page if you need to bring us a donation larger than six boxes or outside our usual donation times, it has information on scheduling appointments and requesting a pickup. Suggestions? We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org. This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online. Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcoming books sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than to send you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply with the words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text. From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Ed Lauing; Clerk, City; cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: Attend Mayor"s Press & Community Briefing Thursday, November 6 at 5 p.m. Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 9:16:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Meghan, Coming so soon after the 10/29 notice of the dead-end CPAU 2025 Residential Water Customer Survey at the end of this email, I'm sharing our group's response to your Mayor Press Briefing announcement so you're aware people do notice these ongoing problems / reschedulings etc. that seem designed to discourage resident participation. Thanks for so little notice about this event -- noon on the day of the meeting -- then moving the location and THEN not simultaneously live-streaming the meeting on Youtube like the rest of the city meetings with NO warning that the video would ONLY be available sometime after the meeting. Here are just a FEW of the comments our little group had: *Check your email, if you were going to the Mayor's address. It is now at Rinconada Library. I will be at PAN. * (sent Thursday at 2:21) I think I'll be able to stop by this event before I head out for the weekend. I have a jet noise question. In case anyone can make it to add a Consultants question. Or other topics. FYI today at 5 pm https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Attend-Mayor-s-Press---Community-Briefing- Thursday--November-6-at-5-p-m-.html?soid=1138677838929&aid=--WUeUNeves * Love the advanced notice. First I heard about it was noon, today. * It's quite ironic how Trumpian this blue city is. * "Your input and participation are very important to us." Hah! As if. * My sense is that was done on purpose. * At the ARB meeting on 10/16, morning of, Staff announced that the cell tower issue would be considered first, not last. They did not explain why, nor were they, apparently, apologetic. (I wasn’t in Chambers yet. That’ll teach me.) I damn well know that was done on purpose Fortunately, the ARB came to the rescue, and we had our say. * Fyi my complaint ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 Subject: Suggestions for when the order of topics on the Agenda is changed To: city.clerk@paloalto.gov Cc: city.council@paloalto.gov Dear City Clerk Team, On October 22, I scheduled myself to attend and make a public comment on Agenda Item #3; I joined the meeting 15-20 minutes earlier than the expected time for the item which I believe was 7:30 PM. When I logged in, another item was being discussed - sounded like Item #2 so I assumed the meeting was running late. I waited for #3 which never happened. I only figured out what happened when the meeting replay was available, that the entire team to present item #1 or #2 was not ready and the decision was made to switch #3 to go first almost an hour earlier than the expected time. It used to be that we didn't have approximate times, so that has been an improvement but what is missing is a real time web page to make "last minute" Agenda schedule announcements. Understood that last minute changes can happen, but they should ideally be noticed in real time so people who organize themselves for a topic can check if something is switched. There was only 1 public comment for the 10/22 #3 topic, and I wonder if others were also confused. So, my other suggestion is that when a topic is switched, for Council or your team to note on the record that the change will be cutting short public participation. I also understand that our input can go by email, but then the preparation to be thoughtful with our comments and to make them in 2 minutes or 3 is undermined. I have at times spent hours drafting something to fit 2 minutes. It's also different and sometimes more efficient to build on or add to something that is raised in the Council discussion during the meeting. Thanks for any understanding. Best, Jennifer * I hope you hear from the City Clerk, Jennifer, and I hope you share her response. * I remember that Jeanne re: switcheroo. That is their WAY. We need to call them out. * As weI were joking, these dead-end maneuvers "Your participation/ thoughts/ etc are SO important" are getting so absurd they may need their own award categories * It's quite ironic how Trumpian this blue city is. * And they advertised it as being “on YouTube”, but not live. Only the recording AFTER the event Please do add Improved Communications, Outreach to Residents and Staff Oversight of Consultant Surveys to your ongoing work on Best Practices Regards, Jo Ann Mandinach Hello, The City of Palo Alto Water Division (CPAU) is always seeking ways to improve services for customers, like you. Part of this process involves conducting surveys to gauge satisfaction and perceptions of the organization, its services, and communications.     Please take a few moments to provide your opinions and comments through the survey link below. The information will be used to enable CPAU to improve its programs, products, and services. Click Here to Start the Survey Your candid responses and opinions are completely confidential and will only be presented as part of the overall report. CPAU has contracted GreatBlue Research, a third-party data collection agency, to analyze your responses. The 1974 U.S. Privacy Act requires that GreatBlue Research maintain the anonymity of respondents to surveys the firm conducts.  No information, by law, will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of a respondent.    If you have any questions about the survey, please feel free to contact GreatBlue Research at research@greatblueresearch.com or by phone at 860.740.4000.   Thank you in advance for participating and helping CPAU improve its customer service! Clicking doesn't START THE SURVEY but goes to a THANK YOU page 2025 Residential Water Customer Survey Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. 100% On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 12:00 PM City of Palo Alto <meghan.horrigan-taylor@paloalto.gov> wrote: Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. MAYOR'S PRESS & COMMUNITY BRIEFING TODAY AT 5 P.M. Participate in-person at the Rinconada Library or Watch Live on YouTube YouTube Link & More Mayor's Press & Community Briefing Hear about community updates in an informal setting. The briefing is intended for community members and press, with a question and answer session after the Mayor shares updates on community topics of interest. Mayor Lauing and City Manager Ed Shikada will be sharing updates on housing, addressing oversized vehicles, Caltrain safety improvements and more. Question and answer session to follow. NOTE LOCATION CHANGE: Returning to Rinconada Library, Embarcadero Room, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto. Questions or RSVP: Meghan Horrigan-Taylor Chief Communications Officer City Manager's Office Office Phone: (650) 329-2607 Email: Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@PaloAlto.gov City of Palo Alto | 250 Hamilton Ave 7th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact From:mark conover To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 11:17:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Congratulations on your proposed updated Lighting Ordinance. I have assisted in writing our Santa Cruz lighting ordinance which we submitted to our Mayor in June. Hopefully we will be following in your footsteps. Following a quick review, I have some comments: Edgewood Drive Exemption: As Edgewood Drive borders the sensitive San Fransquito Creek Riparian area, the light limits should not be exempted but if anything strengthened. Our Santa Cruz Lighting Ordinance attempts to limit light trespass on the San Lorenzo River to “unmeasureable”. You should definitely prohibit unapproved luminaires on properties adjacent to the river. A super-bright LED wall pack would be very disruptive to the birds, amphibians, beavers, insects, fish and all other living organisms including the Steelhead Trout and Red Legged Frogs. Regarding security concerns, the 1 lux limit should be adequate for modern security cameras. And motion detection lights would highlight trespasser in the yards. Shorten compliance period for easily adjustable lights I suggest shortening the compliance to one year for easily adjustable lights. People tend to procrastinate work until last minute. I doubt that this change would be too much of a burden on the residents. Blanco Texas allowed existing luminaires to be grandfathered in compliance until they were repaired or replaced. Twelve years later “few if any grandfathered lights were voluntarily brought into compliance.” The town passed a new ordinance with a firm date for compliance Ordinance Name We started developing a “DarkSky” ordinance but quickly decided to rename it as an “Outdoor Lighting Ordinance”. DarkSky lighting implies limiting lighting toward the sky. But in addition, it is important to limit the light below the horizontal to prevent glare in the eyes of pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers and all living things. Mark Conover Santa Cruz CA From:Timothy Lee To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:34:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Mayor Lauring and Palo Alto city council, My name is Timothy Lee, a local highschool junior. I, alongside the fushd climate collective and the Santa Clara Valley bird alliance are calling for the strengthening of the dark sky policy in the the city of Palo Alto. I view light pollution to be a harmful force to our society and ecosystem that often goes unrecognized. Light pollution dilutes the night sky, stripping many childhoods from being able to truly experience the stars, limit local astronomical research, and also affects health, causing insomnia, depression, and in some cases, cancer too. This cause can be prevented by the Dark Sky policies strengthening, a relatively low cost policy for a high reward. Please take this matter into consideration. Sincerely, Timothy Lee This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Kenneth Low To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 7:44:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, With respect to the proposed lighting ordinance, we are writing in support of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance and the following: We support the exemption of homes on the creek-side of Edgewood Drive given their unique circumstances, including encampments in the creek, crime and proximity to East Palo Alto, which has no barriers to enter the creek. The exemption for Edgewood properties contains an error and should be corrected to the following: “(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A).” Thank you. Kenner Low Sent from my iPhone This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Sherry Listgarten To:Council, City; Cha, Kelly Subject:Strongly in favor of dark(er) skies Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 7:35:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and Staff, I am very supportive of stronger limits on outdoor lighting, which you will be considering on November 10. Light pollution is bad for our health and that of birds, insects, and the fauna that depend on them. Many essential natural behaviors like breeding, foraging, and migration rely on dark nights. But too many of our streets and yards are now unnecessarily lit up at all hours. This is a relatively new phenomenon for our city. The pervasiveness of LED lighting has caused Palo Alto to become much lighter at night, with an almost industrial-quality tone. LED lights are inexpensive to operate and often blue-ish in color, which is leading to unhealthy levels of outdoor light pollution. A good ordinance will get us back to our more natural norm, at least over time. I agree with the Sierra Club and SCV Bird Alliance that the ordinance should apply to all new and replacement lighting, but not to existing fixtures that would not otherwise need replacing. I also agree that a one-year (and not two-year) heads-up period of education about adjusting timers/angles/etc should be sufficient, particularly since enforcement will largely consist of more education anyway. One thing I would suggest is to consider a shut-off period of 11pm or 11:30pm rather than midnight, simply because midnight is difficult for a lot of people to set correctly on timers. This is a relatively small but powerful and hopefully visible thing that Palo Alto can do to better support the people and the wildlife in our city. Thank you, -- Sherry. From:gel@theconnection.com To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield at Lincoln (A Solution) Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:59:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, This is a follow up to my email f a few days ago. In that email I addressed the accident issue at Middlefield and Lincoln. The problem is caused by the lack of visibility by a high hedge. The solution noted in my email was to change building code to corner hedges no higher than 4 feet. This could work for new construction or remodel. But this won’t work here. I suggest to get 2 city employees speak to the owner(s) about the problem and plead to lower the hedge and even offer to have the city complete the work. If this doesn’t work offer $25,000 to the owner for encouragement. In other words negotiate. Take Care, Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Chinese proverb Be Like Costco…do something in a different way Don’t trust Atoms…they make up everything Fortune Favors The Brave A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky From:Faith Brigel To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily; Faith Brigel Subject:660 University Ave. Builders" Remedy, Separate delivery entrance, Four stories. Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:54:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Councilors of City Council, At the last Planning and Transportation Meeting an attorney from Stanford spoke publicly and brought to our attention a very interesting point. He explained that the Builders' Remedy is not as applicable to the 660 University construction as was originally thought, and he gave several reasons. The City attorney present did not seem to have that information. I am hoping that he has contacted you, or you have heard about this. Several of the commissioners stated that though there were several codes that were not being adhered to, the building is very large, and a lot of traffic will be generated in that already busy location - due to the Builders' Remedy they felt obliged to vote it in. However, if this is accurate and the Builders' Remedy cannot be enforced it seems that that would change how the commissioners ( and possibly yourselves) view this building. Another concern, is that now that they are putting the front area on Byron Street, but I believe that there are only two parking spots for any and all of the delivery vans, trucks, cabs, and other cars coming and going, etc. for this massive mixed use building; would it be possible to require that they place a separate entrance for delivery vans and trucks on Middlefield or University to thin out a little of the traffic off of Byron Street? This narrow street does not have the capacity to deal with ALL of the traffic, and deliveries that will be coming and going on a daily basis just for this one building not even considering all of the traffic for the church, the Hamilton building, the other buildings on Byron, plus the large complexes across the street of Lytton Gardens and the Webster House. It is very possible that there will be cars backed up on University and on Hamilton and this will be a traffic nightmare. My final concern, is the acceptance of this construction being six stories. There are no other buildings on Byron being that high. The Hamilton project is four stories high. And at four stories it looks very tall.This is an overly tall, compacted, dense building in an area that cannot contain it. I understand that the owner wants to increase his financial rewards, but he is not the only person to consider. I would like you to also consider the neighborhood. Pls revisit the acceptance of four stories for this building, and most important pls find out if it is accurate that the Builders’ Remedy is not applicable. Much appreciated, Faith W. Brigel 518 Byron Street From:Daniel Hansen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Cha, Kelly Cc:Francois, Matthew; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Cha, Kelly Subject:Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250) Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:35:37 PM Attachments:Letter Regarding Lighting Ordinance - Edgewood Exemption.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Ms. Cha, Please see the attached letter submitted on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance regarding the Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250). Best regards, Daniel Hansen This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Via Email [City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org; Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org; kelly.cha@paloalto.gov] November 6, 2025 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Kelly Cha City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18; Agenda Item # 8 City Council, Regular Meeting, November 10, 2025 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Ms. Cha: At the City Council meeting on April 7, 2025, the Council unanimously agreed that the creek-side properties on Edgewood Drive should be excluded from the security elements of the proposed lighting ordinance due to their unique circumstances, including encampments in San Francisquito Creek and proximity to East Palo Alto. The revised ordinance in Staff’s report includes this exemption; however, it contains an error. As drafted, only 15 of the 52 properties on Edgewood Drive would be excluded. Specifically, the “if” language that refers to reconfiguring a portion of the site subject to a 2002 easement has no bearing in this context and would unfairly restrict the exemption. Here is the error: (7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A). The added language was apparently copied from the City’s fencing ordinance (PAMC 16.24.020(d)) where the flood control context is relevant. It should be removed so that the Council’s intent can be accomplished. Respectfully, EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE By, its representative, _____________________ Daniel Hansen cc: Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Ed Shikada, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney From:Dashiell Leeds To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Cha, Kelly; Clerk, City Cc:shani@scvbirdalliance.org; James Eggers; Mike Ferreira; Gita Dev; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Frick, Coleman Subject:SCLP and SCVBA Comments on Nov 10 Draft Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:10:39 PM Attachments:SLCP SCVBA joint letter to Palo Alto re Dark Sky Ordinance Nov 10, 2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter support the adoption of Palo Alto’s Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance, and suggest a few critical corrections. We appreciate the extensive work by City staff, and the clear direction from the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to develop a measure that protects migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and human health while conserving energy and restoring the City’s night sky. The ordinance follows best practices from DarkSky International and the Illuminating Engineering Society by ensuring that lighting is shielded, directed, and used only where and when needed. Please consider incorporating the following four requests: Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor luminaires, Amend Section 18.40.250(d)(7) to ensure that prohibited lighting types are not allowed in the exempted Edgewood Drive properties, Remove 18.40.250(L)(2)(A)(B), removing retrofit requirements for existing outdoor lighting, and Retain and shorten the compliance period in Section 18.40.250(L)(1) for easily adjustable existing lighting fixtures to one year. Please read the attached letter for more details regarding our suggested improvements. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES November 6, 2025 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: November 10 Agenda Item 8 - Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter support the adoption of Palo Alto’s Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance, and suggest a few critical corrections. We appreciate the extensive work by City staff, and the clear direction from the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to develop a measure that protects migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and human health while conserving energy and restoring the City’s night sky. The ordinance follows best practices from DarkSky International and the Illuminating Engineering Society by ensuring that lighting is shielded, directed, and used only where and when needed. Please consider incorporating the following four requests: ● Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor luminaires, ● Amend Section 18.40.250(d)(7) to ensure that prohibited lighting types are not allowed in the exempted Edgewood Drive properties, ● Remove 18.40.250(L)(2)(A)(B), removing retrofit requirements for existing outdoor lighting, and ● Retain and shorten the compliance period in Section 18.40.250(L)(1) for easily adjustable existing lighting fixtures to one year. Request #1 Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor luminaires. Current text (3) If a building permit is required: New installation of outdoor luminaires, replacement of existing outdoor luminaires, or modifications to the lighting type or system. Proposed Text (3) If a building permit is required: New installation of outdoor luminaires, replacement of existing outdoor luminaires, or modifications to the lighting type or system. Justification Both the Planning and Transportation Commission (October 30, 2024) and the City Council (April 7, 2025) explicitly directed that the lighting standards apply to all new and replacement outdoor lighting. The April 7th City Council minutes1 and the staff report for Item 8 confirm this directive, yet the draft ordinance retains the inconsistent “building permit” qualifier. Limiting applicability to projects requiring a building permit creates a major loophole that exempts most fixture replacements and new lighting installations. Since lighting installations do not typically require permits, much new and replacement lighting would remain unregulated. Removing the “building permit” qualifier will bring the ordinance into alignment with Council direction and ensure it functions as intended. Request #2 Amend Section 18.40.250(d)(7) to ensure that prohibited lighting types are not allowed in the exempted Edgewood Drive properties. Current Text “(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood 1 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16025&compileOutpu tType=1 control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A).” Proposed Text (7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements under Sections 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) and 18.40.250(g). Justification While we appreciate that Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) applies the lighting curfew, the exemption in (d)(7) inadvertently allows the use of prohibited lighting such as blinking, flashing, or rotating lights, and searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights, all forms of illumination that are unnecessary for safety and highly disruptive to wildlife. Safety can be achieved using fully shielded, dark-sky-compliant luminaires. Extending the prohibited lighting clause to this area will prevent excessive glare and protect one of Palo Alto’s most sensitive riparian corridors along San Francisquito Creek. Request #3 Remove retrofit requirements in (L)(2) for existing outdoor lighting. Current Text (Section 18.40.250(L)) “(L) Existing Nonconforming Lighting (1) Within two years of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for the shielding requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply. (2) For all existing outdoor luminaires, the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e) shall apply within the following timeframes from [the effective date of this ordinance]: (A) Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts: Within ten years. (B) Nonresidential Zoning Districts: Within five years. Proposed Revision Keep (L)(1) to retain the requirement that all easily-adjustable luminaires be adjusted to be compliant with the ordinance. We recommend adjusting the timing window of (l)(1), as described below in Request #4. Delete subsections (L)(2)(A) and (B), removing the retrofit schedule. (2) For all existing outdoor luminaires, the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e) shall apply within the following timeframes from [the effective date of this ordinance]: (A) Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts: Within ten years. (B) Nonresidential Zoning Districts: Within five years. Justification Requiring retrofits for all existing lighting would be difficult to administer and monitor, and can create hardship for residents and businesses. Applying the ordinance to all new, replacement, and easily-modified lighting would achieve gradual citywide compliance through equipment turnover while avoiding confusion and unnecessary administrative burden. Retaining the hardship exemption (Section 18.40.250(j)) and clear applicability to all new and replacement lighting ensures that future installations meet dark-sky standards without imposing mandatory retrofits on existing luminaires. Request #4 Shorten the compliance period for easily adjustable existing lighting fixtures. Current Text (Section 18.40.250(L)(1)) “(1) Within two years of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for the shielding requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.” Proposed Text “(1) Within one year of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for the shielding requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.” Justification A two-year grace period is unnecessarily long for fixtures that can be corrected through simple adjustments such as dimming, re-aiming, or resetting timers. Comparable Dark Sky ordinances, including Brisbane’s, require compliance within one year. A one year window provides sufficient time for the City to distribute educational materials and for property owners to make straightforward adjustments, achieving measurable reductions in light pollution much sooner. In Conclusion With the brief but critically important modifications we have suggested, Palo Alto’s dark sky ordinance will reduce light pollution over time and improve public health and public safety and protect migratory birds and wildlife. The provisions of this ordinance are in line with successfully adopted dark sky ordinances throughout the nation. The requirements are extremely flexible, ensuring that business in Palo Alto will not be impeded, and are robust enough to protect residents and wildlife from the dangers of over-lighting. Please move to adopt this ordinance, with the modifications we have suggested. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter From:San Mateo County Transit District To:Council, City Subject:Your November Adventures Await — Hop Off Here! Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 12:34:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. • HOP OFF HERE - November 2025 | View online • IN THIS EPISODE: Explore a unique coastal park. Learn about Mexican traditions in RWC. Celebrate local veterans! LISTEN: Hop Off Here! • • • Get Next Stop sent to your inbox | Subscribe• • • SHOW NOTES EXPLORE Our first stop is on the Coastside to explore Quarry Park in El Granada near Half Moon Bay. This San Mateo County Parks gem offers trails and coastal views. Best of all, SamTrans Ride Plus can take you there with free transfers from routes 117 and 294. Ranger Tommy Hart shares his insights for exploring this activity-packed destination. SPORTS & CONCERTS November is packed with games and concerts: Football: The 49ers vs. Rams and 49ers vs. Panthers matchups at Levi’s Stadium are easy to reach by Caltrain to Mountain View and a quick hop on VTA Light Rail. College Football: Take Caltrain or SamTrans to see the Stanford Cardinal at three home games in November, including the Big Game — Cal vs Stanford — Soccer: The 2025 NWSL Championship comes to PayPal Park on Nov. 22, just a short walk from Santa Clara Station. Hockey & Hoops: The San Jose Sharks face off at SAP Center, and the Golden State Warriors light up Chase Center — both an easy Caltrain ride away. Music fans can look forward to a November with Shane Gillis and Billie Eilish at the Chase Center in SF, and Bryan Adams, Pat Benatar, Christian Nodal, Ramón Ayala, and Banda MS performing at SAP Center in San Jose. FOOD & DRINK We roll into Redwood City to speak with Verónica Escámez, founder of Casa Círculo Cultural, about pan de muerto. Verónica's favorite bakeries (note — slightly different than spoken-word version): Panadería Michoacana #2 – 2940 Middlefield Rd. Chavez – 775 Arguello St. Mi Tienda – 812 Fifth Ave., North Fair Oaks Visit Redwood City’s Día de Muertos Celebration, Sunday, Nov. 2. OTHER EVENTS Daly City Veterans Day Celebration – Nov. 6, 11 a.m.–1 p.m., War Memorial Community Center (via SamTrans ECR) San Francisco Veterans Day Parade – Nov. 9, Fisherman’s Wharf (Caltrain + Muni 30-Stockton) San Jose Veterans Day Parade – Nov. 11, San Jose (walkable from Diridon Station) LISTEN: Hop Off Here! Forward Next Stop to your friends, so they can subscribe too! Editor: Randol White WhiteR@SamTrans.com Copyright (C) 2025 San Mateo County Transit District. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe From:Shannon McEntee To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 8, Please Adopt a Strong Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:45:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and council members: Being a passionate environmentalist I’ve known for a long time how night light endangers species, including humans! Every night I sleep with an eye coverbecause the street lamp outside my condo building penetrates into my bedroom. Other cities have Dark Sky Ordinances so we are behind in this simpleprotection. Please do the right thing and protect our neighboring species,including me and fellow residents. Our world is changing so fast — we need tokeep up. Thank you for your all your good work in managing our special city. You havemy deep respect and admiration. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee From:Kay Brown To:Council, City Subject:Comment: 660 University Complex/Agenda 11/10/25 Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 8:31:07 AM Attachments:660 letter to council--114.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Dear City Council Representative, Please include the following attachment below (5 Pages ) in letters/ comments re 660 University Project. The 660 development is slated to be on agenda this Monday November 10. Thank you for your help. Kay Brown 650-269-1985 Powered by Mimecast To: The Palo Alto City Council 11/4/25 From: Kay Brown Chart Below from Final EIR Report Pg 103 660 University The above chart appears in the Final EIR Report (Pg 103) completed by Rincon Consultants March 2025. I have searched through the Draft and Final EIR’s to locate mitigating measures for the above concerns. Reference to these issues are located in the Draft EIR 4.3 (pgs. 12-14). In the analysis compiled by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (hired by Smith Developers) which utilizes VMT to analyze trafﬁc issues for the project, there is no mention of limitations of Byron Street, the intersection of Byron and University and safety issues regarding the popula- tion of the area. Smith Developers engaged Hexagon to respond to above potential impacts. In Hexagon’s transit overview, statement below is the only mention of Byron St. Byron Street is a north-south street that extends between University Avenue to the north and Hamilton Avenue to the south. Byron Street has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. There are no existing bike facilities on Byron Street. On- street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Byron Street runs along the western boundary of the project site and provides direct access to the site via one full access driveway. 1). Hexagon’s conclusion (Draft EIR: 4.3 Pg 11), after giving a boiler plate analysis of Santa Clara transit, responds to Rincon’s concerns in chart above. “This impact would be less than signiﬁcant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.” ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Hexagon (Appendix E EIR) addresses Emergency Access (d. chart above). Access to the project site would be provided via one full access driveway on Byron Street, which emergency response vehicles would be able to use. The TIA (trafﬁc impact analysis) evaluated site access and circulation and concluded that the project’s driveways and internal roadway network would be designed to current City standards and would accommodate the access requirements for emergency and passenger vehicles. In addition, all roadway users must yield to the right-of-way of emergency vehicles when emergency sirens and lights are on. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and this impact would be less than signiﬁcant. The above (answer to d. chart) addresses access only to 660 for emergency vehicles. It does not also take into consideration Emergency Response Vehicle access to senior communities that surround 660. This area is visited frequently by Emergency Response teams that arrive in mul- tiple vehicles. Hexagon’s analysis does not address the narrowness nor the limited parking that already exists on Byron. Even with siren’s blaring, it is very difﬁcult for cars to pull over to allow Emergency Vehicle access. __________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 3). The initial draft EIR study ( page 78), also addresses Emergency response plans. “f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emer- gency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project would involve the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a four-sto- ry mixed-use building. The new building would not obstruct existing roadways, require full road closures during construction, or require the construction of new roadways or access points. Therefore, the proposed building would not block emergency response or evacuation routes or in- terfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. No impact would oc- cur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.” (NO IMPACT) Where are demolition and constructions vehicles going to park? Again, there is no adequate parking on Byron. Will they park on University or on Middleﬁeld? The set-backs have been minimized and cannot accommodate large vehicles. Emergency Access will certainly be im- pacted. (trafﬁc safety alternatives/mitigations have been side-stepped). _____________________________________________________________________________ 4). On April 11, 2024, at a planning commission meeting, Eric Carlson, a Palo Alto resident, raised local trafﬁc/safety concerns. The commission’s response to Mr. Carlson’s concerns… “As discussed in the Draft EIR, Byron Street is a local residential street that carries light trafﬁc volumes throughout the day. Because the speed and volume of vehicular trafﬁc would be low on Byron Street it is anticipated that trafﬁc accessing the project site would not result in safety or operational impacts. In addition, the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc on February 15, 2024 (Appendix E to the DEIR)” No research consultants, no city entities mention the idiosyncrasy of Byron St, its narrowness, the elderly population that traverses it daily, nor the safety problems that currently exist. There is no adequate study that addresses Rincon’s “potentially signiﬁcant impact” chart above. Rincon concludes "impacts would be signiﬁcantly impacted and would be further ana- lyzed in the EIR.” Where are local concerns further analyzed by the EIR? Where are the miti- gation measures? ___________________________________________________________________________ In previous letters (dated 3/4/25 and 8/17/25) I sent to Emily , The Planning Commission, and City Council, I outlined existing trafﬁc safety issues which will be exacerbated by the densely populated 660 project. Situation as it exists now…. 1.Currently parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the narrow residual allotment for 2-way trafﬁc becomes unwieldy with one car needing to pull over to allow on-coming trafﬁc to pass. Page 3 2.Delivery trucks, tele-communication repair trucks, food delivery trucks for the church, linen deliveries, plumbers, electricians, multiple nursery school transport vehicles are parked along Byron which obstruct an already congested street. 3.Drivers on University that choose not to wait for light on Middleﬁeld use Byron in attempt to side-step the trafﬁc light. They zoom through Byron. The cars travel swiftly without re- gard to elderly residents with walkers and wheelchairs attempting to cross University on their way to daily church lunches. 4.This is not a normal residential street. The church is an event venue. Several times a week music, dance, ethnic and religious events are held. Parking exceeds spaces in the lot which ﬂows out to Hamilton, Byron and adjacent residential streets. At times, church attendees park in the existing dental bldgs (660-680 University) lots on weekends and will not be available after 660 is erected. Architects of 660 were not required to provide a circular drive nor loading dock to accommo- date commercial vehicles. With the density of 660, there will be enumerable Amazon type de- liveries. The width of the driveway speciﬁed cannot accommodate commercial vehicles and also allow ingress and egress of occupants. Where will the garbage trucks pull up and not clog an already impacted Bryon St? The architects plan currently is for large vehicles to park along Byron (maybe 1 or 2 spots may ﬁt on the Byron portion of 660. How will emergency vehicles access Byron efﬁciently? ___________________________________________________________________________ CEQA/EIR CEQA requires an EIR to identify potential signiﬁcant safety related impacts. Rincon did this in above chart. CEQA advises the necessity to offer feasible mitigation measures to minimize outlined impacts (none). CEQA requires the need to explore alternatives to address safety con- cerns (none). CEQA requires technical studies to address safety issues (none). A comment by a transportation commissioner at recent October meeting, “Studies are expensive.” Agreed, studies are expensive. When Palo Alto commissions costly studies, better oversight is needed to address local issues. The city cannot be satisﬁed with boiler plate VMT studies that regurgitate Santa Clara thoroughfares and skirt over EIR matters of signiﬁcant con- cerns. CEQA requires public input regarding safety concerns. Existing safety issues were dismissed outright by the Hexagon Study and no technical trafﬁc safety studies were initiated. And, ﬁ- nally…safety considerations must take into consideration the surrounding population (3 large elderly communities). Public comment re the safety conﬁgurations of University, Hamilton, and Byron were ignored. Page 4 Hexagon Conclusions (Transportation Study 2024/ restated in revised ﬁnal EIR pg 13 Appendix E) “The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the procedures and guidelines speciﬁed by the City of Palo Alto. The analysis resulted in the following key ﬁndings: •Based on the City of Palo Alto VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Policy, the project would have less- than-signiﬁcant VMT impact for its residential and ofﬁce components”. •The project would not create any impacts on pedestrian, bike, or transit facilities.” Developers cannot disregard public safety, including trafﬁc concerns and cannot invoke Builders Remedy without providing some mitigations or modiﬁcation to the project. In or- der to use Builders Remedy, they must provide alternative solutions to secure the safety of the population surrounding the planned development. A Builders Remedy project cannot be approved without considering local trafﬁc safety. Palo Alto can impose conditions on a project requiring further studies, alternatives and mitigations if it poses a "speciﬁc adverse impact on public health and safety,” (Housing Accountability Act) The analyses offered by Hexagon have failed to take into consideration the cumulative impact on Byron and University. Hexagon has failed to conduct realistic local trafﬁc assessments (only viewing it at off-hours?). This omission compromises the project's long-term viability, quality of life and safety for the surrounding community. And, lack of local data collection has skewed responses to Rincon’s EIR Chart of ‘Potentially Signiﬁcant Impact’. Relying heavily on Santa Clara VMT requirements, Hexagon, the Developers and the Transportation Commission have leap-frogged over CEQA concerns / EIR consequential impacts (above chart) with the portent of potentially signiﬁcant repercussions. Appreciate your time and attention, Kay Brown 650-269-1985 kayb49@sbcglobal.net Page 5 From:Amy Kacher To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Urging City Council to write in opposition to FCC Proceeding 25-276 Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:06:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am writing to ask that the council submit a joint statement by 11/17, on behalf of our Palo Alto to oppose FCC Proceeding 25-276 which will strip our city of the right to control placement of cell towers in our town. Just two weeks ago you all unanimously approved ARB having control over the approval of cell towers and equipment. Thank you for that. Something new has come up and now we are about to have NO control over these towers and equipment in our town unless we collectively advocate in opposition against the FCC Rule. This rule they are trying to pass will give them 100% control and our city 0% say going forward. This is not about having good cell service or not, it’s about placing poles in aesthetically pleasing spots. With thoughtful placement we can still have great service connectivity and at the same time not have ugly poles close to our homes. This is about keeping cell towers at a safe distance from our homes and schools as well-such as the safe distance that Palo Alto had determined to be 1200 feet from schools. If the FCC doesn’t hear from enough citizens and cities by 11/17, this rule will be passed and quite literally any of us could have a pole or new equipment placed right next to our house (literally-this has been happening in San Mateo where they were just rubber-stamping applications and not double checking that poles were being placed thoughtfully.) AT&T and others do NOT consider aesthetic or home values in placement choices. Palo Alto (or any other town for that matter) will be left with no recourse for a pole being placed in front of a home, next to a school. Please, will you send a collectively written letter or at the very least send individual letters opposing this rule. Here are links to send comments: You can file a comment of 2000 characters or less here, or a comment of more than 2000 characters here. Enter 25-276 in the Proceedings box (if it’s not already there), and you’ll be good to go. Here’s a sample comment: “I strongly oppose the FCC's proposed new rule that would limit local control over where cell towers can be located and what they can look like. And I remind the FCC that, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit roundly rejected an earlier attempt by the FCC to impose such restrictions on local authority.” Sincerely, Amy Kacher -- hey, we are all just people From:Laura Prentiss To:Council, City Subject:Cell Tower Placement Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:49:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I support the City of Palo Alto writing a letter to the FCC to ask them to NOT adopt the new cell tower placement control rule. Laura Prentiss 2171 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Lauren Goody To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower control rule Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:42:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I support the City of Palo Alto writing a letter to the FCC to ask them to NOT adopt the new cell tower placement control rule. Thank you. Lauren Goody 2448 Greer Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 -- Lauren R. Goody (m) 917-853-1137 lauren.goody@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Christina Hall To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower concerns Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:35:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I strongly support the City of Palo Alto writing a letter to the FCC to ask them to NOT adopt the new cell tower placement control rule. I’d love to keep our city beautiful. Thank you! Christina Christina Tavella Hall 954 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 christinatavellahall@gmail.com 650-575-4072 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Tracy Ferea To:Council, City Subject:Please Pass a Strong Dark Skies Ordinance 11/10/25 Agenda Item 8 Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:31:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council,As a PhD Biologist I would like to ask you to pass a strong scientific based DarkSkies Ordinance. Light pollution is one of the fastest growing and mostpervasive forms of environmental pollution. Scientific research suggests thatlight pollution can have lasting adverse effects on both human and wildlifehealth. My family deals with this pollution nightly as our neighbors and aChurch shine light into our house and yard. Some of the Many Specific Human Health Impacts Sleep disorders: Lack of darkness can lead to sleep deprivation and disorders like insomnia and delayed sleep-phase syndrome. Mental health: It is linked to depression and impaired thinking. Hormonal disruption: Artificial light at night can suppress the production of melatonin, which is essential for regulating metabolism, the immune system, and sleep. Cardiovascular problems: Nighttime light exposure has been linked to higher risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, and increased stress- related activity in the brain. Metabolic issues: Studies have linked light at night to an increased risk of obesity and diabetes. Cancer risk: Lowered melatonin levels, which are a consequence of nighttime light exposure, have been correlated with increased rates of some cancers, such as breast cancer. 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 Vision problems: Direct glare from bright, poorly designed lights can impair vision, reduce sensitivity to fine details, and cause safety issues, particularly for the elderly. Melatonin production: Melatonin is a hormone released in the dark that is vital for sleep and has protective health functions. Circadian rhythms: The human body relies on a natural day-night cycle to keep internal rhythms in sync. Artificial light at night disrupts this cycle. Negative Impacts on Wildlife and the Environment Disruption of circadian rhythms: Artificial light can interfere with the natural day- night cycle, affecting the sleep patterns and feeding habits of animals. Misorientation and collisions: Bright lights can confuse migratory animals and birds, leading them off course and into dangerous situations. Altered predator-prey relationships: Artificial light can make nocturnal animals more visible to predators, disrupting their natural patterns. Loss of biodiversity: Light pollution can drive away sensitive wildlife species, reducing the biodiversity of ecosystems. Altered plant growth: Artificial light can affect the growth and flowering patterns of plants, potentially disrupting plant-animal interactions. Increased leaf toughness: Leaves exposed to artificial light at night are often physically tougher and more difficult for insects to chew, disrupting the basis of the food web. Resource allocation: Plants may shift resources from producing nutrient-rich leaves to supporting structural compounds, leading to lower nutrient levels in leaves decreasing the nutrient value in the food web. Light pollution poses a significant threat to both ecosystems and human health. The good news is that you as council members have the power to reduce its impact and improve both our health and that of our environment. It is time to take action now and bring back the darkness for a healthier, more sustainable future for us all. Sincerely, Tracy Ferea, PhD From:Alice Smith To:Council, City Subject:Item 6 on November 10th Agenda : Approval of 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:47:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. RE: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). To the City Council of Palo Alto, I write to ask you to support the above-described New Six Story mixed use building to provide 70 multi-family residential units which I consider to be necessary and proper for the betterment of the future of the City of Palo Alto. Consider the benefits to the merchants, the schools, the community generally. The location is near already in place businesses and services (schools, public transportation, fire station, parks, accessible shopping, library and so on), The height is reasonable and the parking appropriate with more available nearby. As a nearby neighbor, I do support this new housing project in the Planned Home Zone and trust that you will vote yes. Alice Schaffer Smith Channing House 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA From:Niu, Isabelle To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:32:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Palo Alto City Council, My name is Isabelle Niu and I am a high school junior in the Bay Area. As a student deeply interested in astronomy and our environment, I wanted to advocate for the adoption of a strong lighting ordinance to protect birds, people, and our night sky. Being someone who loves to visit Palo Alto facilities (Palo Alto library, Stanford mall, etc.), I've noticed that while the city already does better than many areas in limiting skyglow, there are still places where lights are brighter than needed or shine upward rather than toward the ground. Some fixtures also illuminate trees directly, which can disrupt their natural growth cycles and harm overall plant health. Simple changes like setting standards for adding shielding, lowering brightness, and ensuring lights point only where illumination is needed can maintain safety while reducing unintended environmental impacts. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Warm regards, Isabelle Niu This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; Shanetta Anderson; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bballpod; Becky Vagim; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; John; kdeem.electriclab@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; hennessy; huidentalsanmateo; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; MY77FJ@gmail.com; Mayor; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Jensen & Nokia CEO discuss the ptnership Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 3:50:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:29 PM Subject: Jensen & Nokia CEO discuss the ptnership To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 At GTC in Washington, D.C.: Well worth seeing: Nvidia's Huang, Nokia CEO Talk Partnership and AI Push Jensen thinks this is an important development. Can you tell him whiy it's not one? L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Michael Hindery To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda item 8: please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 3:09:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi -- I am a 30 year Palo Alto resident and am writing to urge the Council pass a strong outdoor lighting ordinance at next week's meting. We need the Dark Sky Ordinance to reduce light pollution and maintain the ability to see the stars. Thank you. Michael Hindery m: 650-740-0004 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Kay Bushnell To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda item 8 Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 12:45:04 PM Dear Mayor Lauing and members of the Palo Alto City Council, Please establish a strong Dark Sky Ordinance (outdoor lighting ordinance). It is an important way to benefit both human and wildlife well-being. We must prevent Palo Alto's natural darkness from being polluted with unhealthy artificial lighting. Please remember that we are city that often serves as a role model for other communities. Our strong Dark Sky Ordinance may benefit them, too. Thank you, Kay Bushnell Palo Alto, CA From:Cha, Kelly To:Tiffany Griego; Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Shweta Bhatnagar; Diana O"Dell; Jean G. Snider; Kelly Kline; Jamie S. Jarvis; Inglis, Jim Subject:Re: Stanford Comments: 11/10/25 City Council Hearing on the Lighting Ordinance Update Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 11:51:55 AM Attachments:Outlook-a1naulif.png Hi Ms. Griego, Thank you for taking time and submitting comments. This email acknowledges that the City received your comments and that your comment letter will be shared as part of the public comments for the upcoming hearing on 11/10. Thanks, Kelly Cha (she/her) Senior Planner Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2155 | Kelly.Cha@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:24 PM To: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Shweta Bhatnagar <shwetab@stanford.edu>; Diana O'Dell <dodell@stanford.edu>; Jean G. Snider <jsnider@stanford.edu>; Kelly Kline <khkline@stanford.edu>; Jamie S. Jarvis <jjarvis@stanford.edu>; Inglis, Jim <jinglis@stanford.edu> Subject: Stanford Comments: 11/10/25 City Council Hearing on the Lighting Ordinance Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, Please find enclosed Stanford University’s comments related to the Dark Sky Lighting Ordinance as it affects Stanford Research Park. Thank you in advance for your efforts to respond to these comments. Respectfully submitted, Tiffany Griego Senior Managing Director, Stanford Research Park Take advantage of our transportation programs: www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park From: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:54 AM Cc: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Subject: 11/10/25 City Council Hearing on the Lighting Ordinance Update Hi everyone - Thank you for your continued interest and participation in the Lighting Ordinance Update effort. The Lighting Ordinance Update item is scheduled for the upcoming City Council Hearing on November 10, 2025. Please review the staff report and associated attachment from the City Council Meeting Agenda page here. The Lighting Ordinance Update is Item #8 on the agenda. Please review the PUBLIC COMMENTS section of the agenda to find out how to send your written comments in advance of the meeting, and how to participate and provide your comments orally in- person and virtually. As always, if you have any questions or problem accessing the staff report and associated attachments for the Lighting Ordinance Update item, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again for your continued interest and participation in this effort, Kelly Cha (she/her) Senior Planner Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2155 | Kelly.Cha@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Tim Persyn Cc:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Subject:Re: 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:54:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. thanks!!! On 2025-11-05 10:27, Tim Persyn wrote: Dear City Council, I'm writing today to support the proposed development at 660 University Ave and I respectfully ask the council to approve it. As a Palo Alto resident for the past 10+ years, this housing proposal has been under review by the city for nearly one-third of the time that I've been a resident. Needless to say, it's been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. There are many reasons to support this development. Its downtown location puts it within walking distance of retail and services. It's also near Caltrain and adjacent to transit. Most importantly, 20% of the homes in this development will be affordable housing. This fact will help the city make progress on its fair housing goal. As we know, Palo Alto has developed a reputation as an exclusive city, but this proposed housing could help open up opportunity and change that direction. For these reasons, I support the proposed development at 660 University, and I ask the city council to support it, also. Sincerely, Tim Persyn 1 Dear Mayor Lauing and Council members, I write in support of the staff recommendations to approve the application for the 660 University project. I note that the site was adopted by council in the Housing Element site inventory for a project of this size. In addition, the applicant has worked for four years in an open and transparent process that offered multiple opportunities for both supporters and opponents to make public comments. The applicant has adopted many of the requests for modifying the application from both the ARB and PTC. The staff notes that the project has no significant negative environmental impacts and conforms to the Comp Plan. Adoption by the council will send a strong signal to other potential applicants that the City is serious about adding market-rate/mixed use housing downtown. As the applicant enters the fifth year with this project, it is time to approve it and move forward. Thank you Stephen Levy A suupportive downtown resident From:Tim Persyn To:Council, City Cc:Palo Alto Forward; slevy@ccsce.com Subject:660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:27:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I’m writing today to support the proposed development at 660 University Ave and I respectfully ask the council to approve it. As a Palo Alto resident for the past 10+ years, this housing proposal has been under review by the city for nearly one-third of the time that I’ve been a resident. Needless to say, it’s been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. There are many reasons to support this development. Its downtown location puts it within walking distance of retail and services. It’s also near Caltrain and adjacent to transit. Most importantly, 20% of the homes in this development will be affordable housing. This fact will help the city make progress on its fair housing goal. As we know, Palo Alto has developed a reputation as an exclusive city, but this proposed housing could help open up opportunity and change that direction. For these reasons, I support the proposed development at 660 University, and I ask the city council to support it, also. Sincerely, Tim Persyn This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Avenue application Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:58:02 AM Attachments:Aupport for the 660 University project.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! letter of support for the staff recommendations This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Dave Stellman Cc:Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; 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; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei; Diana Ma Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:47:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 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 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– <image.png><image.png> 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> 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. <Outlook- 3lhybjrb> <Outlook-logo 2 PNG.png> 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 <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 <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com> Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 <image011.png> Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operations phone: (650) 858-2491 mobile: (650) 804-4225 <image012.jpg> 4047 Transport St Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno' <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>; 'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti' <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Dave Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete Moffatt' <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley' <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; 'Melissa McDonough' <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider' <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation' <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Lydia Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker' <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims' <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety + Staceytomson@qmsshields.com fax: (650) 858-2494 From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches from the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws. <image013.jpg> Bill McLane Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operations phone: (650) 858-2491 mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 <image012.jpg> 4047 Transport St Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote: + staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific- equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Chantal, Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and gave out the 72 hour tow notices. I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all tow notices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the notices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) that has been sitting in the street for a few months now. Can that be addressed? The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of these end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering? As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there is no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians. Thank you. On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by the RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and the safety of my students and their families. As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining a safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families. However, recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult. One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose of everything myself—at my own expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This is unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. I understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing similar challenges. Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about bringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditions surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience; it poses a direct risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school. I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address these challenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community and the ability for small businesses to operate without disruption should be a priority. I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that includes: Proper and reliable waste management enforcement Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for intervention. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well- being of our local business community. Sincerely, Ramon Moreno Owner & Director Ramon Moreno School of Ballet Please feel free to text or call: 650-304-1909 Thank you, Ramon Moreno www.ramonmorenoballet.com www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council <image014.jpg> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to help but there will be a time when they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached Maor Greenberg <image015.png> CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325 908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <image016.png> <image017.png> <image018.png> <image019.png> <image020.png> <image021.png> From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem and inaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was, wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem. -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) Stacey Tomson phone:(650) 858-2491 fax:(650) 858-2494 4047 Transport St Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us From:staceytomson@qmsshields.com To:"Marguerite Poyatos"; "Dave Stellman" Cc:"Steve Wong"; "Manu Kumar"; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation; RevColl; "Patrick Kelly"; "Osbaldo R"; "Xenia Czisch"; "Bill McLane"; "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:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:47:54 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i 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. 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. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report <image.png><image.png> 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. 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> 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! <Outlook- 3lhybjrb> <Outlook-logo 2 PNG.png> 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 - 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 <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 <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. Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operations phone: (650) 858-2491mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 <image012.jpg> 4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us Xenia Czisch Vice President of Operations phone: (650) 858-2491mobile: (650) 804-4225 fax: (650) 858-2494 <image012.jpg> 4047 Transport St Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.qualitymetalspinning.us O.R. Builders Inc. Osbaldo Romero President 939 Industrial Ave Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Phone: 650.938.2222 Fax: 650.938.2224 Cell: 415.215.6788 <image011.png> From: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:53 PM To: 'Bill McLane' <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Cc: 'Marguerite Poyatos' <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; 'Ramon Moreno' <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; 'Lester Wong' <LWong@wongelectric.com>; 'Maor Greenberg' <maor@greenberg.construction>; 'Dave Stellman' <davestellman@gmail.com>; 'Patrick Kelly' <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; 'Manu Kumar' <manu@k9ventures.com>; 'Benjamin Becchetti' <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Cathi Lerch' <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Dave Stellman' <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; 'City Mgr' <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Pete Moffatt' <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; 'Steve Wong' <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; 'Dan McKinley' <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; 'Melissa McDonough' <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'James Reifschneider' <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Transportation' <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'John Lerch' <john@lerchconstruction.com>; 'Andrew Binder' <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Jade Jin' <JJin@wongelectric.com>; 'City Attorney' <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Ed Lauing' <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Lydia Kou' <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Vicki Veenker' <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Patrick Burt' <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Greer Stone' <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Julie Lythcott-Haims' <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com Subject: RE: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety + Staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:48 PM To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety I didn’t get my tape measure out, but I’d be willing to bet this is more than 18 inches from the curb. I believe that’s a violation of California parking laws. <image013.jpg> Bill McLane --------------------------------- Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 Office www.paloaltoglass.com On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com> wrote: + staceytomson@qmsshields.com From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:13 PM To: Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> Cc: Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; osbaldo@or-builders.com; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety Chantal, Please see the attached images. An enforcement officer went around this morning and gave out the 72 hour tow notices. I watched the gentleman with the Raiders RV (in attached image) remove all tow notices from his vehicles and will not move them. I will be taking pictures of his vehicles in the next coming days to show that he will be in violation of the notices. Also, he has a propane tank (also in attached image) thathas been sitting in the street for a few months now. Can that be addressed? The other picture shows a tow notice sitting in the gutter, which is where many of these end up. Can there be any enforcement for littering? As others are stating, I would also hope something can be done for the safety of pedestrians. As I was walking to my car today, I was almost hit by a car because there is no visibility for cars coming down the street or pedestrians. Thank you. On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issues caused by the RV encampments in Palo Alto, which are directly impacting my business and the safety of my students and their families. As the owner of the Ramon Moreno School of Ballet, I am dedicated to maintaining a safe, clean, and welcoming environment for our students and their families. However, recent circumstances are making that increasingly difficult. One of the most pressing issues is illegal dumping. Individuals from the RV encampments have been using my business’s garbage disposal for their personal waste, resulting in contamination. Because of this, the city has refused to collect the trash, and I have now been left to clean and dispose ofeverything myself—at my own expense. If I don’t, I’ve been informed that I may face additional charges. This is unacceptable and places an unfair financial and operational burden on my business. I understand that I am not alone—many neighboring businesses are facing similar challenges. Additionally, the presence of these encampments has created ongoing safety concerns. Several families have shared their discomfort and hesitation about bringing their children to class, due to the unpredictable and sometimes unsafe conditions surrounding my studio. This is not just an inconvenience;it poses a direct risk to the well-being of the children, their families, my staff, and the reputation of our school. I would like to know what specific actions the city is taking to address these challenges. While I understand that this is a complex issue, local businesses should not be expected to shoulder the consequences alone. The safety of our community and the ability for small businesses to operate withoutdisruption should be a priority. I urge the City of Palo Alto to present a clear and immediate plan of action that includes: Proper and reliable waste management enforcement Increased monitoring and enforcement of local ordinances Measures to ensure public safety for local families and business owners Attached to this email are photos documenting the contamination of my garbage disposal and the resulting conditions. I hope these images convey the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for intervention. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing meaningful steps taken to support the well-being of our local business community. Sincerely, Ramon Moreno Owner & Director Ramon Moreno School of Ballet Please feel free to text or call: 650-304-1909 Thank you, Ramon Moreno www.ramonmorenoballet.com www.facebook.com/pg/RamonMorenoSchool On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:43 PM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: Commercial St. was cleared last night. Thank you for your efforts! Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 46th Anniversary 1978 – 2024 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council <image014.jpg> From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:37:47 PM To: Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Cc: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety The wooden RV seems to be a severe safety issue. A former coworker spoke to the man living in it a couple years ago and was told there is a wood burning oven/stove inside the RV, which he uses. Seems like that could be a severe safety hazard not only for the man residing in it, as well as for the surrounding RV's/vehicles & businesses if it were ever to catch fire. We have had to face a number of safety hazards on this street. It is unsafe for pedestrians. We have had attempted break ins at night. We have been harassed by people associated with these RV's, as well as loose dogs, just to name a couple issues. Luckily, police officers do respond and try to helpbut there will be a time when they will be too late to prevent injury. The community officers coming through and putting notices on vehicles is nowhere near the solution needed for this area. The notices are thrown away and the vehicles rarely move. I believe this email string started in 2023 and we have had minimal progress with the actual issues at hand. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:19 PM Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> wrote: City of palo alto!! please let me know how this is Legal for driving also come and clean the street as it’s not safe see attached <image015.png> Maor Greenberg CEO maor@greenberg.construction | 650-610-7711 Greenberg.Construction | 650-600-9536 x101 | Fax 925-269-2325908 Industrial Ave, Palo Alto 94303 <image016.png> <image017.png> <image018.png> <image019.png> <image020.png> <image021.png> From: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:56:09 AM To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> Cc: Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <MARGUERITE@paloaltoglass.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; osbaldo@or-builders.com <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction> Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety What is it going to take for the city of Palo Alto to catch up to the rest of the country? A lawsuit when someone in our neighborhood is injured because of the unsafe conditions that exist here? This email chain alone would be enough evidence to show the city’s knowledge of the problem andinaction. With newly enacted laws giving cities the legal right to clean up our public spaces, local cities like Mountain View, Santa Clara and San Jose have already begun the process of relocating and housing these people that need it. Why not Palo Alto? Its not a money issue here, and even if it was,wouldn’t it be less costly to tow some vehicles and help relocate them to a safer area than to pay the cost of litigation? We are asking the city to stop ignoring this issue before it becomes an even bigger problem. -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) -- Marguerite Poyatos Palo Alto Glass, Inc. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 494-7000 (650) 494-7087 (FAX) From:karendrohde@gmail.com To:Council, City; Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong, science-based Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:51:06 AM 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 urge you to adopt a Dark Sky (outdoor lighting) Ordinance. Establishing this ordinance would help protect migrating birds, nocturnal wildlife, and human health, while saving energy and restoring our view of the stars. Artificial light at night affects every level of food webs and ecosystems. We are located on the Pacific Flyway used by migrating birds. Artificial light disorients them, drawing them into urban areas when collisions are often fatal. Insects are irresistibly drawn to lights, where they circle until they die of exhaustion. Because insects are vital prey for birds and other wildlife, insect declines ripple up the food web. Controlling outdoor lighting can reduce bird and insect mortality and restore healthier ecosystems along the Pacific Flyway. Artificial light harms people too. Artificial light at night disrupts sleep, mood, and hormone balance, and has been linked to insomnia, depression, metabolic disease, and cancer risks. Glare from over-lighting can make streets less safe by reducing contrast and night vision. I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood of Palo Alto in a community of Eichler Houses. The houses have beautiful ceiling to floor glass windows as exterior walls. At night, the lights from my neighbor’s back yard aim upwards and towards our house. They are so bright -- all the trees are “lit up” and it looks like a spotlight is aimed over the fence and into our windows. After the neighbors go to bed, these lights are set to go off as motion sensors. When something moves in their yard at night, I get woken by the glaring light coming through my windows. Besides interrupting my sleep, it can’t be good for the other living creatures in the neighborhood. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report I hope you will consider all the health benefits, energy savings, and safety attributes of adopting the best practices from the International Dark-Sky Association and the Illuminating Engineering Society. Warm regards, Karen Rohde 3360 Thomas Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 2025-2026 President, The Woman’s Club of Palo Alto Past President, the Rotary Club of Palo Alto Sent from Outlook From:Jack Oliver To:Council, City Subject:We are offering a floating loan scheme at 3% interest rate Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:52:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this message finds you well. J.C. Oliver Consulting LLC is a U.S.-based financial consulting and venture capital firm with a global reach. We provide a range of financial services to support businesses and individuals in securing funding for new ventures or expanding existing operations. Our offerings include both short- and long-term financing solutions for qualified clients seeking project or investment capital. Our goal is to empower entrepreneurs and organizations with the financial tools needed to achieve sustainable growth. Please contact us if you would like more information on our services or eligibility requirements. Kind regards, Jack Oliver J.C. Oliver Consulting LLC Jack Oliver 1037 Budapest, Bokor street 15-21., Budapest, 1037 U - 2025 From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; Shanetta Anderson; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Becky Vagim; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; John; kdeem.electriclab@gmail.com; Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; MY77FJ@gmail.com; Mayor; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Mark Tilbury gem! Why AI could be a bubble. Don"t miss Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 12:21:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 12:08 AM Subject: Fwd: Mark Tilbury gem! Why AI could be a bubble. Don't miss To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, November 3, 2025 To all- Why AI could be a bubble: This is priceless by Mark Tilbury. See "the AI money machine" at ~5 minutes: It's Happening Again and Nobody’s Talking About It This too is well worth seeing. 11 min. Hinton, Nobel laureate, big gun founder of AI. 'Musk will get richer, people will get unemployed': Nobel Laureate Hinton on AI $206.88: Closing price for NVDA today, Monday, Nov. 3, 2025. It closed at $181.16 on Tuesday, October 21, two weeks ago. Jensen has been selling shares in NVDA. None today, but a few days ago on the NVDA website, you saw the SEC document showing his selling. For about 50 days in the past three mos., he sold 75,000 shares of NVDA per day. You do the math at ~$85 per share. Around $318 million. Why would he be selling so much when the price will go where the analyts are forecasting? Only safe thing to do, I am sure. His total net worth is ~$155 billion. Here is a smart Brit: "What will happen when the stock market bubble bursts?" What will happen when the stock market bubble bursts? I asked recently if Jensen could be the Asian Bernie Madoff. Bernie didn't have a Master's in EE from Stanford and Jensen's company makes real products worth huge money, But stll one wonders if we are in a developing bubble. BTW, today, Tuesday, November 4, 2025, NVDA c. at $198.69, down $8.19, down 3..96%. In addition, my TSLA shares fell 5.16%, so I shouldn't feel too bad, I guess. Investors sold both stocks like drunken sailors today. Just not this sailor. Here are good analyses of the sell-off today of tech stocks: CNBC Today On NVIDIA Stock, Market Sell-Off - NVDA Update Nvidia invests $1 billion in Nokia. Big deal, important importand dea. I saw another vid about this which said the problem right now is that the connections between data centers and users is too slow. If your Tesla is about to crash, it can't log onto the internet for directions. There are loads of vids on Youtube about the Nvidia-Nokia deal. NVIDIA Invests $1 Billion in Nokia to Build AI-Powered 6G Networks (1031) Nvidia Invests $1 Billion in Nokia to Build GPU-Accelerated 6G Networks - YouTube CCR "Cotten Fields": Creedence Clearwater Revival - Cotton Fields - ( Pelicula 164) L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Peter Coughlan To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda item 8: please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 7:45:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I live on Mariposa Avenue. A street lamp shines directly into my bedroom, even through a dark cloth curtain. I understand the benefit of street lamps (reduced crime, safe walking, etc., but perhaps Palo Alto could adopt lampshades that keep the cone of light from spreading so broadly, and lamps that are a bit gentler on the eyes. Thanks for your consideration, Peter Coughlan Homeowner Mariposa Avenue From:Carolyn Davidson To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 6:51:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am a Palo Alto resident, a grandparent, a birding enthusiast, and someone interested in the constellations. I urge you to pass a strong, science-based ordinance to protect birds (and people) and to make the constellations a bit more visible from my yard, where I enjoy trying to find them after dark. I'd love to introduce my grandchildren to the stars, their patterns, and the stories behind the constellations. A little less ambient light would be a big help! Looking forward to learning that you've passed a strong outdoor lighting ordinance. Best regards, Carolyn Davidson 1919 Barbara Drive Palo Alto. 94303 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Government Shutdown Updates Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:57:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, The ongoing shutdown is about to become the longest in U.S. history. That’s not the kind of record anyone wants to set. While more than one million federal employees–including our own District 16 staff–go without paychecks, many take on second jobs and loans to pay rent. Every week, I return to Capitol Hill ready to negotiate to reopen the government, but Speaker Johnson has not called us back to session. The unprecedented nature of this shutdown lies not merely in its duration, but in the fact that the House of Representatives remains out of session. We have seen no willingness by House Republican leadership to negotiate to reopen the government, nor to conduct any other legislative work. We can’t solve problems that we’re not willing to discuss. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I’m especially frustrated. Our committee planned to consider a housing legislation package in October to tackle our nation’s housing crisis. I have introduced five bipartisan housing bills focused on accelerating the financing and construction of housing and improving affordability with Republican cosponsors. Feeding Our Community Over the weekend, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as CalFresh, was halted. A federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to immediately disperse contingency funds set aside for this purpose. After alluding to defying the court order, the administration ultimately indicated it would comply, but would cover only 50 percent of eligible households’ current allotments. SNAP SURVEY Do you think Donald Trump should authorize more funds to ensure 100% of SNAP benefits are covered? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Forty-two million Americans, including nearly 40,000 of our neighbors, rely on this program to put food on the table–and food banks like Second Harvest of Silicon Valley step up to try to fill the gap. We teamed up with the Golden State Warriors to shine a light on how our community can step up and help one another. Thanks to Warriors forward Trayce Jackson- Davis for proving that in times of trouble, there’s “strength in numbers” as our community pulls together again. For our neighbors facing food insecurity, please know you are not alone. There are resources and options to help you and your loved ones through these difficult times. Reading Corner Our servicemembers and their families deserve consistent access to affordable groceries. After learning that the commissary at Moffett Field may close—with the next nearest location nearly 75 miles away—I urged the Defense Commissary Commission to keep the current site open or find a nearby alternative. You can read more in the San José Spotlight. We’ll keep you updated as this situation develops. Be kind to one another, and know our team is always here to help. With gratitude, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Government Shutdown Updates Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:56:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, The ongoing shutdown is about to become the longest in U.S. history. That’s not the kind of record anyone wants to set. While more than one million federal employees–including our own District 16 staff–go without paychecks, many take on second jobs and loans to pay rent. Every week, I return to Capitol Hill ready to negotiate to reopen the government, but Speaker Johnson has not called us back to session. The unprecedented nature of this shutdown lies not merely in its duration, but in the fact that the House of Representatives remains out of session. We have seen no willingness by House Republican leadership to negotiate to reopen the government, nor to conduct any other legislative work. We can’t solve problems that we’re not willing to discuss. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I’m especially frustrated. Our committee planned to consider a housing legislation package in October to tackle our nation’s housing crisis. I have introduced five bipartisan housing bills focused on accelerating the financing and construction of housing and improving affordability with Republican cosponsors. Feeding Our Community Over the weekend, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as CalFresh, was halted. A federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to immediately disperse contingency funds set aside for this purpose. After alluding to defying the court order, the administration ultimately indicated it would comply, but would cover only 50 percent of eligible households’ current allotments. SNAP SURVEY Do you think Donald Trump should authorize more funds to ensure 100% of SNAP benefits are covered? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Forty-two million Americans, including nearly 40,000 of our neighbors, rely on this program to put food on the table–and food banks like Second Harvest of Silicon Valley step up to try to fill the gap. We teamed up with the Golden State Warriors to shine a light on how our community can step up and help one another. Thanks to Warriors forward Trayce Jackson- Davis for proving that in times of trouble, there’s “strength in numbers” as our community pulls together again. For our neighbors facing food insecurity, please know you are not alone. There are resources and options to help you and your loved ones through these difficult times. Reading Corner Our servicemembers and their families deserve consistent access to affordable groceries. After learning that the commissary at Moffett Field may close—with the next nearest location nearly 75 miles away—I urged the Defense Commissary Commission to keep the current site open or find a nearby alternative. You can read more in the San José Spotlight. We’ll keep you updated as this situation develops. Be kind to one another, and know our team is always here to help. With gratitude, Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Tiffany Griego To:Cha, Kelly; Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Shweta Bhatnagar; Diana O"Dell; Jean G. Snider; Kelly Kline; Jamie S. Jarvis; Inglis, Jim Subject:Stanford Comments: 11/10/25 City Council Hearing on the Lighting Ordinance Update Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:25:12 PM Attachments:2025-11-04__ Comment Ltr Dark Sky Ordinance - Stanford University.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, Please find enclosed Stanford University’s comments related to the Dark Sky Lighting Ordinance as it affects Stanford Research Park. Thank you in advance for your efforts to respond to these comments. Respectfully submitted, Tiffany Griego Senior Managing Director, Stanford Research Park Take advantage of our transportation programs: www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park From: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:54 AM Cc: Cha, Kelly <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Subject: 11/10/25 City Council Hearing on the Lighting Ordinance Update Hi everyone - Thank you for your continued interest and participation in the Lighting Ordinance Update effort. The Lighting Ordinance Update item is scheduled for the upcoming City Council Hearing on November 10, 2025. Please review the staff report and associated attachment from the City Council Meeting Agenda page here. The Lighting Ordinance Update is Item #8 on the agenda. Please review the PUBLIC COMMENTS section of the agenda to find out how to send your written comments in advance of the meeting, and how to participate and provide your comments orally in- person and virtually. As always, if you have any questions or problem accessing the staff report and associated attachments for the Lighting Ordinance Update item, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again for your continued interest and participation in this effort, Kelly Cha (she/her) Senior Planner Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2155 | Kelly.Cha@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov 1 of 1 November 4, 2025 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Council Consideration of Lighting Ordinance VIA EMAIL kelly.cha@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the City Council for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes to the Lighting Ordinance. As the landowner of Stanford Research Park, we are concerned that the proposed Lighting Ordinance poses substantial design and implementation challenges for both the University and our tenants in the Research Park area. We attended the October webinar outreach meeting that was organized by the Chamber and City staff to engage with business owners. We echo many of the concerns shared by fellow owners and tenants during the discussion. Based on our preliminary review, we believe that it may not be feasible to comply with the proposed standards while also maintaining the safety, security, and regulatory compliance that are essential to our operations and responsibilities as a property owner. Safety Considerations: Outdoor lighting in the Research Park is intentionally designed to provide consistent and adequate coverage based on fixture type, bulb strength, and layout. Requiring changes such as adding motion sensors, shrouds, or altering fixtures and bulbs would lead to poor and unsafe lighting conditions. Motion-activated lighting does not provide a sense of safety or security, especially in a complex where tenants do not have fixed closing hours. Maintenance, janitorial, and security staff are often on-site after midnight, and researchers and engineers regularly work late as deadlines approach. This could also apply to future tenants. A low-lit campus, particularly with motion sensors, would feel unsafe and unwelcoming at night. This is also concerning as it relates to parking garages, where consistent lighting is essential for visibility and security. We urge the City to reconsider these proposed requirements and allow more flexibility for multi-tenant office sites. Implementation Costs: The commercial office market is already under significant stress, and the proposed lighting standards would place an added burden on property owners. Upgrading lighting can be costly and may require extensive parking lot redesign, including relocating light poles and trenching to modify concrete, asphalt, trees, utilities, and drainage systems. We urge the Council to consider the financial and practical impacts on property owners and explore more flexible approaches to implementation. Policy Standards and Regulatory Alignment: Retrofitting existing lighting fixtures for Dark Sky compliance requires a qualified lighting designer to ensure all specifications are properly met. This process includes conducting photometric studies to achieve correct lighting levels, ensuring JA8 and Title 24 compliance, meeting ADA requirements, and incorporating a 3000 Kelvin LED light source for improved visual acuity. To provide more detail: a light source with a color temperature of 2700 Kelvin, while ideal for indoor settings, appears too yellow for nighttime outdoor environments. This warmer tone can reduce visual acuity and is not suitable for an outdoor environment that is based on a bluer light. Conversely, color temperatures above 3000 Kelvin tend to appear too blue. A 3000 Kelvin light, which produces a neutral white tone, is considered optimal according to studies. Considering this, Stanford respectfully requests that the maximum allowable standard be adjusted to 3000 Kelvin. This adjustment would also ensure greater product availability and flexibility in meeting the ordinance. We are also concerned about potential conflicts with California Title 24 and Cal/OSHA lighting requirements. These state and federal standards may supersede local regulations, rendering parts of the proposed ordinance unenforceable. We urge the City to carefully evaluate these overlaps to avoid legal and practical inconsistencies. Finally, the current proposal would require all properties to come into full compliance within five years of the ordinance’s effective date. This timeline may place an undue burden on property owners, particularly given the costs and logistical complexity involved. We request that the City exempt existing buildings and apply the new standards only to new construction projects. We want to encourage the City to keep Palo Alto attractive to business and appreciate the City Council’s thoughtful consideration of our comments. Please reach out to our team with any questions. We appreciate your consideration, and please let me know if you have further questions at tgriego@stanford.edu Sincerely, Tiffany Griego Senior Managing Director, Commercial Real Estate Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University tgriego@stanford.edu cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services Coleman Frick, Long-Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Schedule required police oversight meeting with Council ASAP Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:15:29 PM To: City Council members From: Winter Dellenbach Date: November 4, 2025 RE: Need to agendize meeting with Council and Independent Police Auditor and Police Chief for 2025 For over 4 years, the IPA and PAPD Chief have produced two sets of yearly information reports to Council as required. They are also required to meet with Council, “…shall meet with the City Council two times per year” (IPA contract). Only one such meeting has been held in 2025, in April. These reports and meetings are key policing oversight reforms passed by Council in November of 2020. They have helped reduce the use of force and excessive force that Palo Alto that our policing became notorious for by 2018, with the City paying multi federal civil rights lawsuit settlements to victims. The current IPA and Police reports are available for the first half of 2025, but this year's second meeting with Council is not yet scheduled. Please ask the City Manager to do so ASAP. The first page of your Nov. 10th Staff Report, Information Item A, states - “…In light of heavy Council agendas through the end of the year and the straightforward contents of this report, staff has not scheduled a study session with the Independent Auditor at this time. Should Council members wish to schedule a study session in early 2026, please advise the City Manager.” It’s not clear if the above means the 2nd meeting with the IPA and Police Chief will be held in 2025 unless Council members want it delayed to 2026? Or will this second required meeting simply be skipped should Council members not ask for a 2026 delay? Time management is a constant for Council, and by years end typically intensifies. This pattern is foreseeable year to year and does not justify delaying or skipping a 2nd meeting. If delayed to 2026, then are 3 Council overight meetings to be scheduled to cover the first and last half of 2025 and the first half of 2026? This would exacerbate time management pressure. We must not backslide Palo Alto’s commitment for Council oversight of law enforcement. Yes, we are doing better, but as is said, Don’t throw away your umbrella in a rain storm because you aren’t getting wet. Please advise the City Manager ASAP that you want the 2nd yearly study session agendized for 2025 as required. See (g) and (o) below from partial list of reforms: From:Bob Lenox To:Shikada, Ed Cc:board@paloaltoairport.org; Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Council, City Subject:Critical Airport Infrastructure Date:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 8:27:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mr. Shikada, I was in Council chambers last night, anticipating agenda item 11. I was quite surprised and dismayed that the projects were pulled, at the last moment, from last night’s Council consent agenda. I will be following up by phone later today to request an urgent in-person meeting to learn more about why this was done. Principally FAA funded, these projects were bid, and because of delays, rebid. Contracts had been negotiated and refined. May I remind you that all the work is for safety related items. There is no ramp lighting due to an ancient transformer that cannot handle the demand. The new Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will replace old, non-functioning or currently nonexistent capabilities with state of the art reporting. Other electrical upgrades are to bring our visual landing aids up to FAA standards. This work is already overdue, and further delay is not acceptable. These safety measures do nothing to change the airport’s configuration or capabilities for increased traffic. There should be no adverse impacts, only positive safety enhancements that benefit pilots, their passengers and residents. I’m happy to discuss further. Please let me know your availability for a meeting. Thanks and Best Regards, Bob Lenox, President Palo Alto Airport Association Bob.Lenox@PaloAltoAirport.org 1-650-387-3110 From:Joanna Holmes To:Council, City Cc:Brad Foy Subject:3rd Thursday Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:55:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Please keep Carol Garston as the event producer for 3rdThursday. My partner and I are fans and patrons of 3rdThursday. Music brings people together, and we need that right now more than ever. We've had some really wonderful evenings there, and it's led us to patronize Cal Ave businesses when we might not have otherwise done so. I believe the same is true for other attendees. Carol has done an outstanding job growing this monthly event into a strong community asset. Please keep her on. Sincerely, Joanna Holmes Whitsell Ave, Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:gel@theconnection.com To:Council, City Subject:Middlefield at Lincoln Ave. Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 5:04:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello City Council, We are all aware that the intersection at Middlefield Ave. and Lincoln Ave. has had an accident problem for many years. People can’t see clearly traffic on Middlefield because of the corner hedge obstruction. For me I have to creep across the crosswalk if I want to cross Middlefield. The building code requires that fences can’t be higher than 4 feet at the front facing residence. But what about a tall hedge at the fence. The solution is to change the building code for corner properties that fences and hedges can’t be higher than 4 feet. Can you make the change? Palo Alto has lost a law suit recently regarding the is intersection. Please act on this. Take Care, Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Chinese proverb Be Like Costco…do something in a different way Don’t trust Atoms…they make up everything Fortune Favors The Brave A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky From:Carol Garsten To:Council, City Subject:PA Weekly 10/31 article re: cancelling 3rdThursday cal Ave music festival Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 4:44:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Greetings Palo Alto City Council members - Please read attached article and the following numerous comments on article. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/business/2025/10/30/cal-ave-concert-series-halted-amid- producer-spat/ Best wishes always, Carol Carol Garsten Founder/Producer 3rdThursday Cal Ave Music Festival 650.387.3778 Best wishes always, Carol Carol Garsten Nature Gallery www.nature-gallery.com 650.387.3778 This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast View this email in your browser. From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA - Be heard! Your vote is your VOICE! Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 4:39:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 4 Return your ballot by mail, at a drop box, or in person at a Vote Center on Nov. 3 or Nov 4. Drop it off: see cavotes.org for drop box and vote center locations. In-person: Vote Centers are open 7 AM - 8 PM By mail: your ballot must be postmarked by Nov. 4. Still time to register - and vote! Live in Palo Alto but missed the October 20 deadline to register for a mail- in ballot? We have good news! You can still register to vote - and cast your vote at three Vote Centers on Nov. 3-4: Mitchell Park Community Center (3700 Middlefield Rd) Palo Alto Buddhist Temple (2751 Louis Rd) Ventura Community Center (3399 Ventura Ct) Vote Centers are open 7 AM - 8 PM Handy link! CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS: https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/ Volunteers Needed! Interested in helping to register people, get out the vote and educate voters on the issues and candidates in the special election? We've got a spot for you! Please contact us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com - subject “Voter Services.” Come join us - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram. Stay informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Richard Johnsson To:Council, City Subject:3rd Thursday Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 3:36:38 PM I met Carol Garsten through 1st Friday in Los Altos a few years ago. When she closed her store and had more free time she set her sights on doing something similar for her home city of Palo Alto. As a 48 year resident of Palo Alto I thought it was an excellent idea. Carol has the passion and energy that was needed to make 3rd Thursday happen. I have been to almost every 3rd Thursday, usually with three to eight friends for dinner and music. I always see Carol there working very hard to keep things running. I do not have confidence that the event can continue without her in the short term. Please find a way to keep Carol involved in 3rd Thursday. Richard Johnsson 1772 Hamilton Avenue From:Shannon McElyea To:Council, City Subject:Please save Carol Garsten and 3rd Thursday Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 3:25:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City council, When Carol Garsten told me about her idea to bring a 3rd Thursday to Palo Alto California Avenue I told her that is a brilliant idea. It’s what the world needs. It’s what the community needs. It’s a wonderful place and space and a perfect venue for bringing people together to celebrate life. (I am a little biased toward Palo Alto since I am the great, great, great granddaughter of the first resident of Palo Alto.) Carol has worked so hard night and day with only $10k compensation this year from sponsorship funding she raised. This is less than minimum wage for the time she has put into 3rdThursday. Clearly this is a labor of love for Carol. The other compensation is seeing the beautiful smiles and hearing the laughter - watching little children, families and others dancing. Seeing the joy of the musicians playing. It’s a magical experience. I’ve also used 3rd Thursdays to arrange informal business meetings, partnership building, and reuniting with friends in a relaxed, informal and fun venue. This event is an opportunity for my friends from other cities to learn about new shops and restaurants - and get them hooked. I love meeting the store and restaurant owners and the waiters and waitresses and people who contribute to making the Evening so very memorable. It’s blissful experiencing excellent food and marvelous meals with one another, along with great music. There are several bands I’ve spoken with who would love to play, and have also recruited a dozen friends from Saratoga - tragically, this is now gone. There is so much more I would like to say, however I am pressed for time and also lack the ability to eloquently convey my love for Third Thursday and Carol Garsten’s magnificent production. ~ "The quality I would most like to magnify is empathy. It brings us together in a peaceful, loving state.” - Stephen Hawking Shannon McElyea Shannonm@gmail.com +1 650 303 4858 Alumna TechWomen, an Initiative of the State Department https://www.techwomen.org/ ~ “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” - Helen Keller Board Member and Trustee Rising Worldwide ‘Empowering women locally and globally to rise out of extreme poverty” Safe and Sound Program “Human Trafficking Prevention For Youth In the U.S.” This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report ~ "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.” - The Dalai Lama "Ending the oppression of women is the greatest moral challenge of our time." - Nicolas Kristof, journalist, author, Pulitzer prize winner From:LWV of Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:City Council meeting Nov. 3, agenda item 6, 660 University Ave. Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 2:18:15 PM Attachments:ltrsupporting660universityCC10.3.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! LWV Palo Alto supports the project at 660 University Ave, Agenda Item 6, based on the attached letter. -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 903-0600 Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org November 3, 2025 City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Re: Nov. 3, 2025, Council meeting-- 660 University Ave, item 6 Dear Mayor Lauing, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports the staff recommendation to move the 660 University mixed-use project forward to Council. The project proposes 70 residential units, including 14 BMR units. The League supports increasing the diversity of housing opportunities for all income levels, with particular attention to increasing the very low, low and moderate housing stock. This proposal maintains the city's base requirement of 20% allocation to BMR units, with 2 very low income, 5 low income, and 7 moderate income units (studio, one and two bedrooms.) The downtown location close to shopping, dining, services, jobs and transit allows many residents to take downtown trips by walking and biking--a plus for the environment. Building 100% affordable units in Palo Alto by a non-proﬁt developer would cost nearly $1million per unit and likely take more than 4 years. Building mixed income housing, as this project does following the city's inclusionary requirements, is currently the fastest way to increase BMR units. The 660 site is in the Council's adopted site inventory for this number of units. The applicant has made many changes at the recommendation of the ARB and PTC. There have been many opportunities for public comments pro and con. It is now time (after 4 years) to approve this project and add to our downtown housing stock. Sincerely, Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu Co-Presidents, LWV Palo Alto League of Women Voters of Palo Alto From:devora3@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Carol garsten and 3rd Thursday-do better city council Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 1:23:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Shame on the City Council showing poor leadership style especially in Silicon Valley. There are merchants that stood up for her and while a few complain- they get to shut her down? Good and fair management requires a meeting of all parties to hear each other out, dialogue and communitcate on how they can compromise, remedy, do better, or make amends to what they feel isn’t working. Work together people! To “throw the baby out with the bath water” is not aligned with good, fair leadership or management. Carol founded, developed, loves, and works her heart out for the Cal Ave series... taking little compensation and creatively bringing joy and crowds to the Ave. Also for those who complain, come on, it’s one day a month! Work with her, sit down and communicate- don’t throw her away. Shame on you and for only 2 members to decide it’s fate is disappointing. You can be and do much better as leaders. Debra Palo Alto resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:cindyn11 To:Council, City Subject:Third Thursday support! Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 12:50:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello I support Third Thursday and Carol's work in coordinating this regular event. Blown away by her energy and commitment to our community. I love what live music has done for Cal Ave and re- connecting people in person. If there are issues with merchants, of course, they should also be heard, and mediated and measured in terms of the impact Third Thursday is having on them. This is a great, ongoing way to make sure the event is serving the entire community well. As with any event with many stakeholders, there should be no one or few people that makes the decisions on their own without input from all.. Best regards, Cindy Nelson Sent with Proton Mail secure email. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Public Comment on 3rd Thursday Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 12:40:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am on the hook for babysitting tonight, so I can't speak in person at public comments, but I would like this email submitted to council under that category. Considering 3rd Thursday: Who benefits from cancelling that event? 3rd Thursday was a fabulous community building event. Some merchants didn't like Carol so it got cancelled? To what degree did our city manager and Ms. Lythcott-Haims take the value that 3rd Thursday brought to our community into the caluculus of their decision? Or how about this: Is one of the complaintants associated with the developer who owns 414 California? I know they plan a music venue. Seems to me they have a vested interest in geting 3rd Thursday nixed. But we won't know unless the list of people who object is made public will we? Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306