The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-11-17 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: 11/17/2025 Document dates: 11/10/2025 - 11/17/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Clerk, City; City Mgr Subject:Council Bundle - November 17, 2025 Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 11:37:25 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png FW Immediate Action Needed Ongoing RV Infestation and Safety Hazards on Industrial Transport Commercial Streets.msg FW IndustrialTransportCommercial Safety.msg Response to Concerns Regarding Oversized Vehicles and RVs on Park Boulevard.msg FW Public Comment Letter from Joette Farrand.msg FW No turn signs when light is red.msg RE Two way stops in downtown north Palo Alto.msg FW Slides for public comment and presentation at 3Nov2025 City Council Special Meeting; carcinogenic emissions from methane stoves the CH4 natural gas tobacco industries..msg Fw IndustrialTransportCommercial Safety.msg FW Palo Alto Link and Sherman Avenue Garage.msg RE CMO Call - 311Leaf Blower Complaint.msg RE Request for Consideration Restricted Parking Along Fabian Way.msg RE Support recognition for Bike Palo Alto core team.msg RE Attend Mayor"s Press Community Briefing Thursday November 6 at 5 p.m..msg RE_ A question about CSLC.msg Importance:High Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through November 17, 2025. Thank you, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Robert Hall To:Council, City Subject:Public comment, Item 9: Turf Systems Assessment Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 11:04:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i RE: 9. Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems: Findings and Recommendation for El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement as Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission; CEQA status - categorically and statutorily exempt. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the turf-field replacement decision before you— particularly the discussion regarding the fields at El Camino Park and the broader implications of synthetic (“artificial”) turf versus natural grass in our city parks. I urge you to reject the installation of new artificial turf and instead embrace well-managed natural grass that better aligns with the City’s sustainability, health and long-term-cost goals. My comments are informed in part by the City’s recently released turf study on synthetic vs natural athletic fields. paloalto.gov+2paloalto.gov+2 Key reasons why artificial turf is the wrong choice for Palo Alto: 1. Environmental and health risks from plastics, infills and micro-pollutants. Synthetic turf is made of plastic fibres and infill materials (often rubber, sand, cork, or other options) which degrade over time and can release micro-plastics, rubber granules, and chemical additives into the surrounding soils, drainage, and air. Wikipedia+1 The City report specifically raises concerns about emerging chemical issues (for example PFAS/“forever chemicals”) in synthetic turf installations. San José Spotlight+1 Unlike natural grass, synthetic turf offers no ecosystem service of soil- sequestration, transpiration cooling, or biotic soil life. Once installed, it acts as an impermeable or semi-impermeable surface with less ecological benefit. 2. Life-cycle, disposal and long-term cost issues. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report While artificial turf may appear to reduce mowing or watering in the short term, the long-term costs (replacement of the turf carpet, disposal of worn-out synthetic mats, infill replenishment, seam repairs, etc.) are significant and often under- accounted for. The City’s own study emphasizes a life-cycle cost analysis of the alternatives. paloalto.gov+1 Disposal of synthetic turf is problematic: many turf fields are only usable for a defined lifespan (e.g., 8-12 years), and the worn-out materials often go to landfill or worse. The study advises that the City considers end-of-life management in its evaluation. paloalto.gov 3. Reduced ecosystem services and climate resilience. Natural grass contributes to cooling (via evapotranspiration), infiltration of storm water, carbon sequestration (albeit modest), and supports soil microbial life. In a warming climate and with storm-water/run-off concerns, natural turf is more aligned with sustainability goals. Artificial turf surfaces absorb solar heat and raise local surface temperatures significantly compared to grass, thereby increasing urban heat island effects and making fields less comfortable, especially during hot summer afternoons. 4. Maintenance, injury and field-use trade-offs. Some proponents of synthetic turf argue the ability to support very high-use athletic scheduling. However, I would caution: higher usage means greater degradation, faster heat exposure, and ultimately faster replacement. The City of Palo Alto study acknowledges that greater hours of play on synthetic turf must be weighed against durability and health concerns. paloalto.gov+1 While natural grass does require thoughtful maintenance (irrigation, mowing, aeration, rest periods), Palo Alto already has a strong parks program and community capacity to maintain grass fields sustainably, especially given our mild climate and local water-efficiency advances. 5. Alignment with Palo Alto’s sustainability values and policies. The City has committed to strong climate, zero-waste, and environmental justice goals. Choosing a plastic-based field replacement runs counter to these values: it places a heavy-plastic, high-energy, disposal-intensive infrastructure at the heart of a public park. In light of the study’s recommendation to include “compatibility of field options with Palo Alto’s broader sustainability and climate action goals” in the evaluation process, the decision to go synthetic must show strong, defensible rationale that it does more good than harm. San José Spotlight+1 Why natural grass is the better choice for Palo Alto: With proper drainage, irrigation, soil health programs (compost, organic amendments), supports athletics and ecological health. Natural grass supports the goals of open-space parks—not just as athletic fields—but as green infrastructure, air-cooling, neighborhood amenity, and place for community relaxation. It avoids the plastic burden, avoids disposal issues, and keeps us aligned with a longer- term mindset (not just “install now, dispose in 10 years”). Maintenance costs can be stabilized through best practices (reduce water use via drought-tolerant species, smart irrigation, turf-grass blends suited for our climate) and the City can invest in monitoring and adaptive management rather than overseeing a plastic carpet replacement treadmill every decade. Recommendations for the City Council to adopt: Before approving any synthetic turf installation, require a full life-cycle cost and environmental impact comparison (including manufacturing, transport, installation, maintenance, disposal) between synthetic turf and a best-practice natural grass rebuild (or hybrid system). The City’s own study provides this framework. paloalto.gov Prioritize field redesign so that natural grass becomes the standard unless a very compelling case is shown that synthetic turf offers significantly greater public benefit and minimal environmental trade-offs. If synthetic or hybrid turf is proposed, ensure stringent specification of materials (low or zero PFAS infill, guaranteed recyclability, documented disposal/recycling plan, heat- mitigation design) and full disclosure of usage hours, maintenance costs, expected lifespan, and replacement/disposal. Invest in ongoing soil health and turf-grass management programs so that natural grass fields in Palo Alto become long-lived, high-functioning assets rather than planning for frequent replacement. In conclusion: The choice of field surface is not just a “mowing vs no mowing” operational question—it is a substantive sustainability decision for the City of Palo Alto. By choosing natural grass over plastic-based artificial turf, the City will uphold its environmental leadership, reduce long-term risk and cost, deliver athletic fields that serve the community and the climate, and avoid the hidden burdens of plastic infrastructure. I strongly urge the Council to direct staff to prioritise natural grass rebuilds for El Camino Park (and other City-owned fields) and to only consider synthetic turf as an exception after rigorous comparative analysis. Thank you for your time and for your leadership in stewarding Palo Alto’s parks for present and future generations. Bob Hall San Francisco, 94117 From:Ben Baum To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; City Mgr Cc:Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Benjamin Baum Subject:Please help urgently with egregious violation of neighborhood safety, peace and wellbeing by Waymo-Google driverless cars on South Court Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 10:56:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council and City Manager and cc to PAPD - I'm writing to plead for your swift assistance in addressing a sudden, egregious and unacceptable violation of my neighborhood street's (South Court) safety, peace and quiet by Waymo-Google and their incessant driverless car trips down our block that began suddenly these past few days. Beginning in the pre-dawn hours of this past Saturday morning, all day and through the night to Sunday and throughout today Monday, what had previously been a tolerable and reasonable amount of Waymo- Google driverless car traffic became truly unbelievable and awful: UP TO 7 CARS AT A TIME IN SUCCESSION, CROSSING OUR BLOCK MORE THAN 50 TIMES PER HOUR (Yes my neighbor and I counted the incursions), AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (certainly too fast to stop in time if a child or pet ran out into the street, or neighborhood walkers didn't see the oncoming cars coming around the corner at the intersection). This has been relentless since Saturday, running all day and all night. There appears to be no thought on the part of Waymo to distributing the routes to ease the burden on any one block, nor on limiting the density of cars that travel the block at any one time. Had you been here this weekend, you would have experienced it as an assault on the safety and peace of our residential street -- where we have many, many young children who play, thow balls, ride bikes in the street, outdoor pets, not to mention our seniors and others who simply value the quiet ambiance of our street on the weekend. We were turned into a Waymo-Google testing RACETRACK with no notice and no input. We need your help urgently to rein in this unscrupulous and dangerous behavior. Please do not respond that this falls only within the purview of the CA DMV and the CPUC. I am well ware of this worthless and disappointing answer -- yet another example of unreasonable state overreach into day-to-day local control of our neighborhoods. Given the baseline irresponsibility and immorality of our local big tech giants, you would think that that a program like this would be tightly managed, well overseen and offer effective avenues for input and redress by impacted residents. But this doesn't seem to be happening. And I can be sure that whatever adolescent Waymo employee is overseeing this local program run amok, the wealthy Waymo executive ultimately in charge of it, or the state bureaucrat theoretically in charge of policing against such abuses, do not live in my neighborhood -- and are not affected where they live by this dangerous madness. As a Palo Alto CERT and block safety coordinator myself, I feel responsible for my street, and my neighbors and I will not allow this to continue unchecked. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report I write you pleading for your immediate help for 3 reasons: 1) To bring an irresponsible corporate abuse of a local neighborhood and public utility into line with more reasonable behavior 2) To put you, our local officials, on notice that this is happening. No matter what the official authority of the state is in 'regulating' and licensing such activities, I have faith that there are actions our local officials can take to safeguard our peace, wellbeing and safety here in our own neighborhood. When the inevitable accident or tragedy does happen, you will not be able to say 'you didn't know' this was going on. 3) It would be highly preferable if our officials took swift action to rein in such abusive and nuisance- creating behavior, so that residents are not forced to take matters into their own hands. But that is absolutely what is going to happen on South Court if this outrageous behavior does not cease and soon. The current situation is unacceptable. Here on South Court we have many children and young families who value playing in the street and the quiet, residential feel of the neighborhood. My street, my neighbors and my children and their safety are not props for a commercial enterprise to monetize its product while disturbing the peace and endangering residents. I don't believe the voters or the residents were given any opportunity for input on this, and I doubt that there is any serious oversight going on by public bodies to ensure these abuses don't happen in the first place. Please respond to my urgent request and let me know what tangible steps Palo Alto officials will take to curtail this unfortunate yet predictable and avoidable behavior by Waymo-Google. Thank you. Sincerely, Benjamin Baum 3435 South Court [the Waymo invasion I am describing is South Court between East Meadow and El Verano in both directions] Benjamin C. Baum benjaminbaum@yahoo.com (415) 378-7593 From:Pam Bond To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment Action Item 9, Approval of the Study & Assessment of Turf Systems Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 10:30:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, Please see attached my comments regarding the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems. Consider the full life cycle of the plastic journey from manufacture to end of life. I am sharing local examples of plastic blade loss and storm water pollution in hopes that you will carefully consider the environmental harm that these plastic fields perpetuate. Sincerely, Pam Bond 2025.11.17 Palo Alto City Council - caution regar… This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report   From:Clerk, City To:Sven Thesen; Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Avroh Shah; sm49493@pausd.us; Sarah Mercea; 350-sv-palo-alto@googlegroups.com; Hodge, Bruce; David Coale; weChris Cocca Subject:RE: Chef"s that Love Induction - Presentation for public comment this evening"s city Council Meeting, public comment period. Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 10:19:50 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png Hello Mr. Thesen, Thank you for your email. As stated on the published agenda, powerpoints, videos, and other media to be presented during public comment are only accepted when emailed at least 24 hours in advance. This email is past the deadline so unfortunately we cannot present the slides at tonight’s meeting. You are welcome to speak during public comment if you’d like. Your email and slides will be included in today’s compilation of public letters to City Council. Thank you, Christine Prior Assistant City Clerk Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:53 AM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; sm49493@pausd.us; Sarah Mercea <sacoarme@gmail.com>; 350-sv-palo-alto@googlegroups.com; Hodge, Bruce <hodge@tenaya.com>; David Coale <david@evcl.com>; weChris Cocca <chris_cocca@yahoo.com> Subject: Chef's that Love Induction - Presentation for public comment this evening's city Council Meeting, public comment period. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Attached please find a pdf for presentation at this evening's city Council Meeting, public comment period.Pls confirm that you receivedit & that it is OK for presentation. Life is wonderful!Thankssven -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, Pro ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Attached please find a pdf for presentation at this evening's city Council Meeting, public comment period. Pls confirm that you received it & that it is OK for presentation. Life is wonderful! Thanks sven -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers From:Sven Thesen To:Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Avroh Shah; sm49493@pausd.us; Sarah Mercea; 350-sv-palo-alto@googlegroups.com; Hodge, Bruce; David Coale; weChris Cocca Subject:Chef"s that Love Induction - Presentation for public comment this evening"s city Council Meeting, public comment period. Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 9:54:08 AM Attachments:251116 Induction Stove Chefs.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Attached please find a pdf for presentation at this evening's city Council Meeting, public comment period. Pls confirm that you received it & that it is OK for presentation. Life is wonderful! Thanks sven -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers November 2025 We Love our Chefs! And they love induction!!! “But the main reason celebrated vegetarian chef, Dirt Candy’s Amanda Cohen, loves induction is the precise temperature control it offers professional chefs. Amanda shared one of her favorite soup recipes with Rewiring America which she cooked up on her own induction cooktop” (Rewiring America). ●James Beard nominated (recognize chefs, restaurateurs, authors and journalists in the United States) ○Prestigious award with high recognition ●Owner of Dirt Candy (vegetable forward restaurant) ○Michelin starred restaurant in New York November 2025 Amanda Cohen “He talked about the beneﬁts of making salsa with a traditional mortar and pestle, the convenience of steaming vegetables in a microwave oven, and his love of induction burners” (Great Chefs). ●Award winning restaurant owner of Frontera Grill and Topolobambo in Chicago ●Makes authentic Mexican cuisine ●Has a show called “Mexico–One Plate at a Time” ●Nominated and won multiple Daytime Emmy nominations for Best Culinary Host November 2025 Rick Bayless “Naturally, there's more--things like induction burners that can cook rapidly without the need to apply direct heat; geothermal air conditioning (French Laundry) that cools rooms by pulling air from shafts dug twenty feet or more below ground” (CNET). ●Owns many restaurants including the French Laundry in California ●Specializes in making French cuisine ●Published The French Laundry Cookbook ●Uses induction stoves in his home too November 2025 Thomas Keller “And in another unconventional pro-chef move, he opted for an induction stove. “I thought it would be difﬁcult to give up gas, but it wasn’t at all,” he says. “The kitchen is cooler and cleaner, and all the steel and iron we cook with couldn’t be better suited.” Well-worn skillets hang on the wall like art. “One cast-iron skillet came from my great-grandmother, who was the ﬁrst cook I watched fry chicken” (Garden and Gun) ●Host of Food Network ●One of the main commenter for Iron Chef America and Cutthroat Kitchen November 2025 Alton Brown "When I moved into this house, there was a really beautiful old gas stove. But over time, I realized it was slowly killing me. My carbon monoxide monitors were going off no matter how many times I had the oven or stove repaired," she shared in her customer story…Copper helped Samin get the world’s best induction, and she helped us design a range worthy of her kitchen” (Copper Home) ●Persian American chef ●TV host ●Author of many books ●Host of Netﬂix TV popular show Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat November 2025 Samin Nosrat “[He] adopted induction years ago because it keeps his kitchen cool and his air cleaner. Kung, who grew up in Toronto and Hong Kong, learned to love induction while training in China, where induction is more common than in the US. He considers the climate beneﬁts of a stove powered by an increasingly clean grid an added bonus” (VOX). ●Detroit based chef ●Learned to cook in Toronto and Hong Kong, found a love for induction stoves there ●Tiktok cooking tutorials ○1.5 million followers on the platform November 2025 Jon Kung Works Cited Amanda Cohen “6 Questions with Amanda Cohen.” Modern Adventure Magazine, https://modernadventure.com/magazine/6-questions-with-amanda-co hen/ “Soup’s On! With Amanda Cohen: Savor some slow-cooked soup made on a portable induction cooktop.” Rewiring America, https://www.rewiringamerica.org/go-electric/electric-enthusiasts-aman da-cohen-induction-stove-soup-recipes Rick Bayless Day, Ashley. “Culinary Career Advice from Rick Bayless.” Institute of Culinary Education, 15, September. 2020, https://www.ice.edu/blog/rick-bayless-how-to-become-a-chef Barry, Keith. “In Chef Rick Bayless’ Kitchen, Tradition Meets Tech.” Great Chefs, 8, April. 2015, https://greatchefs.com/news-posts/in-chef-rick-bayless-kitchen-tradit ion-meets-tech-usa-today/ Thomas Keller Terdiman, Daniel. “The high-tech tools of Keller's kitchens.” CNET, 10, July. 2010, https://www.cnet.com/culture/the-high-tech-tools-of-kellers-kitchens/ Muhlke, Christine. “How Thomas Keller Became America’s Most Decorated Chef, and Why He Still Isn’t Satisﬁed.” W Magazine, 10, July. 2025, https://www.wmagazine.com/culture/chef-thomas-keller-interview Alton Brown Chen, Eddy. “Alton Brown Bio.” Television Food Network, 2014, https://www.foodnetwork.com/proﬁles/talent/alton-brown/bio Everett, Jenny. “See Inside the Splendid Home Kitchens of Three Southern Food Pros.” Garden & Gun, September. 2025, https://gardenandgun.com/feature/see-inside-the-splendid-home-kitc hens-of-three-southern-food-pros/ Adrian-Diaz, Jenna. “Samin Nosrat on Stocking Your Kitchen, Comfort Food, and Her All-New Home Cooking Podcast.” VOGUE, 7, April. 2020, https://www.vogue.com/article/samin-nosrat-home-cooking-advice- podcast Kennedy, Weldon. “Samin's story: ‘I'm not risking this anymore. I'm switching’." Copper, 3, October. 2024, copperhome.com/blogs/news/samin-nosrat-copper-stove Leber, Rebecca. “A TikTok food star on why gas stoves are overrated.” Vox, 9, December. 2021, https://www.vox.com/22744866/tiktok-food-star-gas-stoves-induc tion Azzopardi, Chris. “TikTok Chef Jon Kung Cooks Up Sizzling Success.” David Magazine, https://www.davidatlanta.com/tiktok-chef-jon-kung-cooks-up-sizzlin g-success/ From:Claire E To:Council, City Subject:El Camino Park Turf causing Plastic Pollution Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 9:49:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council members, I sent you a list of concerns related to the Lloyd study and installation of more synthetic turf at El Camino Park (see below.) Today I am sending photographs I took at El Camino Park. It had recently rained but was not raining at the time. So no water was running toward the storm drain but it was clear that plastic grass blades were migrating off of the field and into the storm drain. Photos below include a Google map image with the storm drain labeled. In the following photos, you can see the plastic grass blades migrating across to DG path, collecting in fall leaves, and on the storm drain grate. Many had also entered the drain and it is certain that a lot had already entered a creek. On the map image you can also see El Palo Alto, the namesake tree of Palo Alto on the banks of San Francisquito creek. So although it is an urban area, there are important ecosystems to protect from plastic and its toxic components, as well as human health. Thank you for your time and attention, Claire Elliott This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 1. Lloyd study should not be approved in its current biased and incomplete form: a. A large concern is the poor attention paid to the health impacts of synthetic turf. i. The “Heath Hazards” section lists one chemical hazard for synthetic grass (PFAS) and several for natural grass, even though the chemicals listed for natural grass are all pesticides that Lloyd must know Palo Alto does not use. 1. The report downplays the PFAS concern by saying the city can procure PFAS free turf. a. This is a serious problem because it is not yet possible to confirm any product is PFAS free, due to the large number of PFAS compounds that could be incorporated into feed stocks used by the turf manufacturer. b. Many of these compounds have no approved analytical method to identify their concentration in a material. ii. In addition, synthetic turf often contains a large number of compounds besides PFAS that are known to be toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. iii. Also during its use, plastic grass blades often break off and then turn into microplastics which are known to have many negative health and environmental impacts. b. A second concern is uneven focus of environmental concerns for all three turf types evaluated by the study. i. No more mention of PFAS is made, in this case the only concern about synthetic turf is the release of microplastics. ii. For hybrid and natural grass, carbon footprint and water use were described, but not for synthetic turf even though its carbon footprint is high and water is used in washing and cooling the turf. Sometimes antibacterial solutions are also used which can be released into the environment. iii. No other chemical releases form synthetic grass is mentioned (like health impacts they should have include the thousands of chemicals that can be included and leached out of synthetic turf, including many that are toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. c. The cost figures are also misleading in the final report. i. The cost per hour calculated for natural grass fields assumes these fields are only used for an average of 500 hours per year when the study itself lists nine grass fields in Palo Alto that are currently used over 1,000 hours per year. ii. The cost per hour for synthetic turf assumes El Camino was used for 2700 hours per year. This calculation included some “double-dipping” because when the two halves of the field were used at the same time, two instead of one hour was used. The consultant admitted if this method is changed, the usage would be 1,900 instead of 2700 hours per year. It should be changed because the cost for installing and maintaining the fields is based on the full sized field, not half of a field! iii. When you redo the cost estimate per hour of usage, these corrected numbers result in the cost per hour for grass changing from $179 to $89 and synthetic turf changing from $79 to $92. Showing natural grass can cost less. iv. The cost for synthetic turf would go up further from $92/hour of play if you include the cost for recycling the turf which was left out of the study. v. The cost for synthetic turf would go up even farther if the study included an estimated cost for the environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf during manufacture, use and disposal. vi. In the October 28th Parks and Recreation meeting, the Lloyd consultant stated that recycling turf is expensive so the turf might be repurposed for batting cages, as substrate for horse arena soils or shipped south of the border. What is the eventual fate of these “repurposed” turf fields? vii. What is the economic impact of synthetic turf chemicals and microplastics in our soil and waterways, the cost to clean up contamination caused by reuse and disposal, or the price of medical bills and shortened life spans for those in plastics manufacturing industries who are known to have significantly higher cases of many diseases? 2. One recommendation of the Lloyd study that makes a lot of sense is to design and implement a pilot project of a well-designed and maintained grass field. a. This would allow Palo Alto to gather data to compare costs and carrying capacity of a high quality organic grass field with drought resistant grasses and good surface drainage. These types of fields have been shown in other parts of the country and world have provided up to 2,000 hours of use per year. b. This pilot project would be ideally implemented now at El Camino Park. The design could start this year and by installing sod instead of seeding you could shorten the project timeline. c. The lighted field at El Camino would also allow extended play many grass fields in Palo Alto do not offer. d. Saying no to plastic grass and implementing a natural grass pilot project would help Palo Alto maintain a reputation as an environmental leader and avoid the well known environmental and human health impacts of a synthetic field before, during, and after its useful life. 3. The Lloyd study gives little detail about what a pilot project design should include. Some ideas include: a. Partner where possible with the county, other cities in the region, school district, etc, so the costs and results can be shared regionally. b. Develop the plan with expert help of agronomists who have already had success designing and maintaining organic grass fields. Beyond pesticides may be able to provide some of this expert help at no or low cost to the city. c. Save money and water and make organic management more successful by NOT using a sand capped field. Provide internal drainage by amending the native soils with organics, and aerating often. Provide surface drainage with careful grading that provides a smooth surface with a slight crown in the middle. d. Include high efficiency irrigation (e.g. MP rotators) to mimic rainfall and reduce drift and puddling of water. e. Selects a grass species that has been shown to allow additional play time (possibly a warm season grass that has been shown to work in California.) f. Use organic management that adds carbon and nutrients that are less likely to runoff into stormdrains. g. Grass field monitoring and maintenance is critical. Increase the budget for these necessities. Ensure contracts for maintenance are detailed, hold back funding to ensure the contractor performs well. h. Control gophers and fill holes and ruts caused by animals, people, vehicles, etc. i. Ensure maintenance protocols are detailed in contracts and funding held aside until contractors prove they are following the required protocols. Ask for logs of maintenance and photo documentation of improvements made. j. Develop an easy to access and use crowd sourcing method of evaluating field conditions (online tool for reporting gopher holes, irrigation problems leading to dry or soggy conditions, etc. k. Use adaptive management to alter practices as results from monitoring show improvements are needed. From:Ann Balin To:Ria.HutabarateLo@paloalto.gov Cc:Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Proposed Stop Signs for California Avenue Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 7:59:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chief Transportation Official Hutabarate Lo, I want to thank the city of Palo Alto for implementing mitigating measures at the intersection of Columbia Street and California Avenue. As a result of these measures there has been few if any vehicles rolling through stop signs on Columbia Street. The signage and large painted STOP at University Terrace and Columbia Street have made a difference. The four curbs have been painted red for unobstructed sight lines which has made an impactful difference.There have been no accidents. My husband Fred Balin and I live on the corner of Columbia Street and California Avenue. We are keenly aware of the traffic patterns at this intersection. Thursday night’s College Terrace Residents’ Association meeting was the first that I learned that Hayden Kantor the President of the HOA University Terrace wants the city to install stop signs on California Avenue. The information was not given until I asked just what are their safety concerns. I mention this because the HOA University Terrace’s Kantor has asked the city to change the intersection but College Terrace residents are not aware of this intention which effects them. I had arranged for my arborist (McClenahan now Bartlett) to come and prune my trees this winter so any greenery that is partially covering a sign will be addressed. Neighbors on California Avenue will not be able to back out of our driveways should stop signs be placed at the intersection on California Avenue. As ‘friction’ would undoubtedly ensue because cars will be backed up possibly to Dartmouth. There is a speed issue on California Avenue where residents and other drivers drive too fast. One suggestion is to place a speed table between Columbia Street and Bowdoin. We need the speed limit to be reduced to no faster than 20 miles a hour or 15 miles a hour between Hanover Street and Amherst. Safety is paramount to all of us. The residents of University Terrace choose to exit their housing tract adjacent to Columbia Street. They could encourage their residents to also exit University Terrace across from Bowdoin Street which would lessen some of the friction on the avenue as the main exit at Columbia is the pressure point. Pedestrians and cyclists can also get to Escondido and Stanford via Bowdoin as well. Stanford Land Management elected to deny the existing easement behind University Terrace housing which would have permitted the inhabitants to go south to Page Mill Road. The easement was there for decades. Now all traffic must go through College Terrace which puts much pressure on the neighborhood exacerbating cut through streets and avenues. A traffic study was completed regarding Peter Coutts traffic patterns. Fifty percent of the vehicles leaving Peter Coutts drive south to Page Mill Road and the remaining fifty percent drive north to Stanford Avenue. Installing stop signs does not solve the problem. They will increase friction, pollution and noise. Please consider a speed table, lowering the speed limit and including more signage to help residents in both neighborhoods. Thank you. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Alice Smith To:Council, City Subject:Artificial Turf Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:56:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I urge the city of Palo Alto to ban artificial turf anywhere in city owned property in Palo Alto: not only on playing fields, , at parks, everywhere. We need to stop runoff with poisonous chemicals, let the earth breath and allow worms, bugs and grass to be part of our landscape, enhancing the quality of our town. We should ask our community members to change from grass to wild grasses if practicable, and to remove artificial turf because the turf is polluting the streams, increasing runoff and killing the natural soil under it. We re supposed to be an environmentally aware city, proud of our certifications for new buildings, but then you put chemicals down instead of grass and pollute our streams, expose children to dangerous chemicals. Why? Because you might not have to mow grass and keep it growing. "Turf is harmful to health, safety, and the environment. It contributes to urban heat as turf field surfaces can get anywhere from 40-70 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than surrounding areas on hot days. Because of this, injuries such as turf burn and heat stroke are more common on artificial turf fields. Additionally, artificial turf contains harmful chemicals such as PFAS, a class of toxins linked to cancer and reproductive harm which can be dangerous to users of artificial turf fields. Artificial turf also poses a threat to the environment and aquatic wildlife when chemicals like PFAS and particles like microplastics get washed into our waterways. By banning new artificial turf on city land and using natural grass fields instead, the county can protect people and the environment." (Save Our Bay) Alice Schaffer Smith 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 283 2822 From:Meredith Martin To:Transportation; Council, City Subject:Concerns over proposed Stop Sign for California Avenue @ Columbia Street Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 5:51:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chief of Transportation Ms Hutabarat Lo and City Council Members. My neighbor, Ann Balin, has shared with me that at Thursday night’s College Terrace Residents’ Association meeting, the President of the HOA University Terrace would like the city to install stop signs on California Avenue. We do have concerns that this is being put through without our consultation. We will be affected directly should a stop sign be placed at the intersection. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the city of Palo Alto for implementing mitigating measures at the intersection of Columbia Street and California Avenue. As a result of these measures there have been few if any incidents on Columbia Street. The signage and large painted STOP at University Terrace and Columbia Street have made a difference. The four curbs have been painted red for unobstructed sight lines which has made an impactful difference.There have been no accidents. There is a speed issue on California Avenue where residents and other drivers drive too fast. One suggestion is to place a speed table between Columbia Street and Bowdoin. We need the speed limit to be reduced to no faster than 20 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour between Hanover Street and Amherst. Safety is paramount to all of us. The residents of University Terrace choose to exit their housing tract adjacent to Columbia Street. They could encourage their residents to also exit University Terrace across from Bowdoin Street which would lessen some of the friction on the avenue as the main exit at Columbia is the pressure point. Pedestrians and cyclists can also get to Escondido and Stanford via Bowdoin as well. In other words, Columbia Street is not the only exit out of the Stanford Terrace development. Stanford Land Management elected to deny the existing easement behind University Terrace housing which would have permitted the inhabitants to go south to Page Mill Road. The easement was there for decades. Now all traffic must go through College Terrace which puts much pressure on the neighborhood exacerbating cut through streets and avenues. A traffic study was completed regarding Peter Coutts traffic patterns. Fifty percent of the vehicles leaving Peter Coutts drive south to Page Mill Road and the remaining fifty percent This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report drive north to Stanford Avenue. Installing stop signs does not solve the problem. They will increase friction, pollution and noise. Please consider a speed table, lowering the speed limit and including more signage to help residents in both neighborhoods. Thank you. Respectfully, Meredith and Jason Martin 1440 California Avenue From:Robert Marinaro To:Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto RVs (OSVs) - - 11/15/25 vc Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:11:46 AM Attachments:RV Inventory_11Nov25.xlsx Fabian Way Parking Lot.png PA Org Chart.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attentionThis is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, I have several issues and questions I would like to address regarding Palo Alto’s OSV issue. First, I would like to provide you with an update on my OSV count (Bob’s PTT). As you can see the numbers have dropped from 220 to 208 over a 20 day period. This reduction is a step in the right direction. 12 less OSVs over 20 days - - at this rate it would take 347 days to remove all OSVs from Palo Alto streets. I would think that this would be a good goal to strive for - if not sooner! That would be 347 days to ‘Palo Alto OSV Net Zero.' Potential Safe Parking Lot Where Fabian Way intersects East Meadow Drive, where the cluster of 17 OSVs are located, there is a rather large vacant commercial parking lot that might be a potential candidate for a safe parking lot. Perhaps the city could discuss a lease option with the owner. Also, do these safe parking areas need to be in Palo Alto? Several individuals on Nextdoor. com suggested we have them outside of Palo Alto. Possible Safe Parking Lot OSVs Blocking the Bike Lane Here are two photos of OSVs blocking the bike lane on Fabian Way. Surely this is an infraction that can be addressed immediately. I have tried to contact a member of the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycling Advisory Committee on two occasions but have not heard back. I also mentioned this to the Council in my October 22, 2025 e-mail, but still no action from either inquiry. Powered by Mimecast Palo Alto On Street RV Count Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs 10/21/25 &10/26 10/30 11/2 &11/10 & 10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 8 7 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 51 52 52 4 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 5 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 6 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 7 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 8 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 13 10 10 10 9 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 13 12 12 12 10 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 11 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 12 13 12 12 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 13 10 13 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 24 23 23 14 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 15 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 16 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 17 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 18 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 19 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 20 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 21 Matadero Ave.0 1 220 211 208 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 (PA/MV Border)7 Ventura Area C:\Users\stavera\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\05N9IUBJ\RV Inventory_11Nov25 11/17/2025 12:06 PM Sewage/Waste Pick-Up ServiceI have talked to a business in Mountain View near Costco that is on a designated RV parking street and was told that the city used to provide this service, but has since stopped. Now the individual OSVs need to pay for this service - - as it should be! Ordinances - - If many neighboring cities such as San Francisco, San Mateo, and Menlo Park can implement strict ordinances and bans on RVs why can’t Palo Alto? Why do we need to provide incentives to squatting RV dwellers by being so accommodating? Moral Responsibility - - If you can’t afford to live in Palo Alto - - Don’t! Squatting on our streets and degrading our environment is not welcome to the vast majority of the 68,000+ residents of Palo Alto. This is far from the reasons why we moved to Palo Alto. The moral responsibility of the city should be to its tax-paying residents, not to any individual who just chooses to live in a vehicle on its streets. Remember you work for the 68,000+ tax-paying residents of this community, not the 208 non-resident RV squatters on our streets. It is an embarrassment when friends and families visit from out of town, which has become a common occurrence. And, I am not one to get on my high horse and advocate to political officials about issues, but this issue is one that I will stand up to because it is sooooo… wrong. And here are a few choice photos to keep the issue front and center… Regards, Bob Marinaro From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:(Frustrated) Public Comment - Meeting Nov. 17, 2025 - Action Item 9, Approval of the Study & Assessment of Turf Systems Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:49:49 AM Attachments:TigerTurf-Championship-Plus-1.625-in-56-oz-Spec-Sheet.pdf Pivot specs.pdf Brown lead n1782_astroturf_cj,_final-signed (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councillors, Below is an email I sent to Parks and Rec. In summary: There is a standard for lead of <50 parts per million for artificial (plastic) turf in California. Some in the plastic turf industry are defining "non-detectable" for lead as <100 parts per million. Simple math shows 100 parts per million is double the California standard for plastic turf. The Parks and Rec response to my simple math was that they (consciously) didn't include lead in the report and that "lead thresholds for synthetic turf have been established by the State." So it seems they did not even read my email. I know there is a threshold BUT for some products there's no sure indication these thresholds are being met!! And NO ONE is keeping the plastic turf industry in check. The plastic turf industry is self-regulating! So, as Councillors who make the final (conscious) decision on this report, please SIMPLY require that the Final Turf Report include: the health impacts of lead on children and why they are more vulnerable to toxic effects, the California state standards for lead in artificial turf, the attached Consent Judgment in the report's appendix. In line with this please then use your power to protect our kids and require that ALL (if any) artificial turf components selected for Palo Alto City MUST be under the 50 parts per million lead limit in line with the California standard and that this must be proven with lab reports This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report precautionary measures for our kids, demand the lead limit be set to zero parts per million given that the CDC has stated "NO safe blood lead level in children has been identified and the effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected." Please do not let the issue of lead fall under the radar. Even better still, avoid unnecessary exposure to any lead, PFAS, microplastics or any cocktail of other chemicals in plastic turf and chose real turf for field replacements and renovations. What you ultimately decide will not only protect children and youth in your own city but also those in surrounding cities and towns that will follow your lead. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clara county resident From: Leanne McAuliffe <leannemcauliffe@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:09:06 PM To: Kristen.O'Kane@paloalto.gov <Kristen.O'Kane@paloalto.gov>; parkrec.commission@paloalto.gov <parkrec.commission@paloalto.gov> Subject: Synthetic Turf and Natural Grass Turf study - Draft Report - Please incorporate lead standards Dear Palo Alto City Community Services Director Kristen O’Kane and Parks and RecreationCommission Chair Nellis Freeman, With regard to the Turf Study Draft Report, please include lead in this draft report and set a standard that either requires artificial turf products have ZERO lead in them or that they at least have <50ppm (less than 50 Parts Per Million). The only reference to lead that I can find in this entire draft report is in the appendix in a County of Santa Clara, Office of The County Executive communication to the Board of Supervisors. See pages: - 663 (& 739 where the same document is repeated) where there is reference to the fact there is no safe level of blood lead. - 701 (& 777 again in repeated document) where lead was found in tire crumb infill above CA DTSC levels and EPA regulatory limits. This is disturbing because lead has been a huge issue for artificial turf in the past and it should not be left to fall completely off the radar. (Lead issues do not only apply to the tired crumb rubber infill so removing this as an infill option doesn't necessarily remove the lead risk.) Lead was found in artificial turf at dangerously high levels and as a result a standard for artificial turf was set in 2009 by then Governor Brown limiting lead in artificial grass carpet to <50ppm from 2010 (with an exception ONLY for field lines of <100ppm). However, some companies apply <100pm to their entire product and at times even equate this to "lead free". As a concerned parent and consumer, I would expect "lead free" to mean ZERO lead. Anything other than that should be transparently defined to allow informed consumer choice. Likewise, anyone using the final version of this draft report should be able to make a fully informed judgement and decision. Some products are confusing when it comes to lead content. For example, TenCate, who have been promoting their latest product, Pivot, have lab reports simply stating that Pivot has <100ppm lead content. This doesn't meet the <50ppm standard set by Governor Brown. In the event that the Pivot product actually has less than 50ppm, Tencate were asked months ago to define exactly how many ppm of lead the Pivot product has but no answer was received. Likewise, Tiger Turf is marketed as lead free and yet lab reports simply state <100ppm lead content. Always Green Company even inaccurately states the standard to be <100ppm with a certificate stating Tiger Turf to be "Lead Free" but the certificate itself defines this as no "detectable" traces of lead. Does this just mean no lead detected over 100ppm since lab reports simply state the lead level to be <100ppm? This alone would not meet the <50ppm standard. We all know that lead is a huge problem when it comes to children's health and the CDC has stated "NO safe blood lead level in children has been identified and the effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected." Given how much artificial turf can disintegrate over time, any lead content in artificial turf is concerning. Hence, the safest level is really zero. Since the report is about being proactive and not reactive please don't allow scenarios like that in New Jersey in 2012 reoccur. Back then extremely unsafe levels of lead had been found in plastic grass fields. At that time only 5 of 50 schools allowed their fields to even be tested for lead. So 45 refused? Basically, it seemed school funds took priority over children’s health. We can’t have this happening again with any toxin be that lead, PFAS or any other chemical for that matter. When looking at El Camino Park, have funds already dictated decisions? I was at this park on a cloudless May morning at 11am and the temperature was only F65 and yet the artificial turf field was already F129.5. Even on this cool morning the smell of the field was nauseating. I could not imagine what it was like for kids/youths playing on that field in those temperatures let alone warmer temperatures. I appreciate the original infill was a disaster and that it was "fixed" but there was still a lot of the original infill in the field even all after those years, so was it really "fixed" sufficiently? Or did funds dictate how well the issue could be addressed? So, in line with making the draft report as robust as possible to avoid issues for users, the environment or public funds, please also incorporate some basic lead information and standards into this report for all artificial turf components (preferably ZERO, but at minimum <50ppm) especially since the primary users, kids and youths, are also the most vulnerable to the effects of any toxins. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clara Resident (Though I am not a Palo Alto resident I know my own town, Los Gatos, has eagle eyes on this report so it is incredibly important to me that your report more robustly protects our kids and youths.) SIDE NOTE: the attached TenCate document markets the Pivot product as no infill, no microplastics, no PFAS, but: "no infill"? (they also state later that a cooling infill is available to help deal with heat issues - Santa Clara County has a hot climate), "no microplastics"? (if you visit John Mise Park you'll see a whole lot of microplastics from the Pivot field there), and "no PFAS"? (on TenCate's website it says artificial turf has less than 100ppm PFAS which does not equal "no" PFAS) Just like other industry claims like "lead free" these statements cannot always be taken at face value. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-creates-nations-first-enforceable-lead- standards-artificial-turf Brown Creates Nation's FirstEnforceable Lead Standards forArtificial Turf - State of California -Department of Justice - Office of theAttorney General OAKLAND-Fighting to ensure the safety of children’splaygrounds and ball fields, Attorney General Edmund G.Brown Jr. today signed off on an agreement requiringGeorgia-based AstroTurf, LLC to virtually eliminate leadfrom its artificial grass, creating the country’s firstenforceable lead standards for artificial turf products. “Asschools and daycare centers replace grass with ...oag.ca.gov https://alwaysgreensyntheticgrass.com/artificial-grass-safe-families-pets/ https://peer.org/lead-limits-needed-on-tire-crumb-playgrounds/ Lead Limits Needed on Tire CrumbPlaygrounds - peer.org Lead Limits Needed on Tire Crumb Playgrounds CPSCRuling on Artificial Play-Areas as Children’s ProductsSought Washington, DC — The Consumer ProductSafety Commission (CPSC) should prevent children frombeing exposed to lead and other harmful heavy metals inplaygrounds and school sports fields made fromshredded tires, according to a formal request for anadvisory opinion filed by Public ...peer.org Combining durable XPS slit film and playable Diamond monofilament fibers with thatch at the base, players get a heavier, more consistent playing surface. The texturized monofilament thatch helps to reduce infill splash, decrease infill migration and provide additional shock absorption. Teams will enjoy a field that not only looks great, but feels and plays great, as well. CHAMPIONSHIP+ TENCATE GRASS | 1131 BROADWAY ST. DAYTON, TN 37321 | (855) 773-6668 | VERSION 2023 TIGERTURF CHAMPIONSHIP+ SPECS YARN DENSITY (DENIER) 10,000/1 (XPS), 12,000/6 (XWRD), 5,000/8 (thatch) THICKNESS (MICRONS) 120 (XPS); 365 (XWRD), 100 (thatch) MELTING POINT 128° C | 260° F BREAKING STRENGTH 24 lbs/force (XPS/XWRD); LEAD CONTENT (PPM) <100 Pile Height, Max Thickness, Face Weight, Primary & Secondary Backing, and Total Weight can differ by ±10%. The Stitch Rate will change according to the exact specifications and can differ by ±1. Roll Width can differ by ±0.8 inch. TenCate Grass has the right to alter each product specification in order to improve the system according to the latest standards. TenCate Grass is not legally liable in case of noncompliance with the above mentioned specifications. *Face Weight reflects entire length of yarn, including portion woven into backing, which is consistent with standard ASTM method of measuring tuft including back stitch. **For details on thatch color, refer to the Standard Color Sheet. ***Lime Green is shown for color reference only. Lime-only turf is not available. BEST FOR BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, INDOOR AND MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDS TURF PILE CONTENT TenCate U.V. resistant XWRD, monofilament and TenCate U.V. resistant XPS Plus slit film combined with TenCate TXT monofilament root zone PRIMARY BACKING 7.5 oz/yd2; TenCate K29 Backing (Double Layer Thiobac, black, U.V. stabilized; Layer 1: 100% PP, Layer 2: PET/PP blend) SECONDARY BACKING 20 oz/yd2 Polyurethane coating with drainage holes TOTAL WEIGHT 83.5 oz/yd2 PILE HEIGHT 1 5/8 inch FACE WEIGHT* 56 oz/yd2 MACHINE GAUGE 1/2 inch SET UP 2 ends/needle, A/B (face fibers) ROLL WIDTH 182 inch WATER PERMEABILITY > 50 inches/hour TUFT BIND (ASTM D1335) > 8 lbs GRAB TEAR (ASTM D5034) 250/250 lbs PILL FLAMMABILITY (ASTM D2859) Pass - BLEND OF MONOFILAMENT AND SLIT FILM FIBERS WITH TEXTURIZED MONOFILAMENT STANDARD COLORS** NAVY BLUE Pantone: 282C FLORIDA BLUE Pantone: 281C BROWN Pantone: 1545C GRAY Pantone: 422+429 RED Pantone: 185C BLACK Pantone: 000C BLUE LAGOON Pantone: 2925C ORANGE Pantone: 166C RED CLAY Pantone: 7526C CRIMSON Pantone: 202C TAN Pantone: 728C BLUPLE Pantone: 268C BRIGHT YELLOW Pantone: 136C VEGAS GOLD Pantone: 466C WHITE Pantone: 000 FIELD GREEN Pantone: 575C LIME GREEN*** Pantone: 7496C FIELD GREEN/ LIME GREEN WHEN USED WITH LIGHTWEIGHT INFILLS No Infill. No Microplastics. No PFAS. Pivottm by TenCate is a true game changer. Designed with extensive feedback from top-level athletes, Pivottm by TenCate provides ultimate performance, maximum player comfort and ultra-durability. The unique combination of yarns plays and responds like the best natural grass and will perform at Year 10 like it does on Day 1. Additionally, Pivottm by TenCate is the environmentally-friendly choice – no infill is needed and real-grass feel is achieved without any resource intensive maintenance. PIVOT BY TENCATE TM TURF PILE CONTENT TenCate XP+ U.V. resistant slit film, combined with TenCate semi-TXT and TXT monofilament root zone. PRIMARY BACKING 7.5 oz/yd2; TenCate K29 Backing (Double Layer Thiobac, black, U.V. stabilized, Layer 1: 100% PP, Layer 2: PET/PP blend) SECONDARY BACKING 20 oz/yd2 Polyurethane coating with drainage holes TOTAL WEIGHT 117.5 oz/yd2 PILE HEIGHT 1 1/8 inch FACE WEIGHT* 90 oz/yd2 MACHINE GAUGE 3/8 inch SET UP 3 ends/needle ROLL WIDTH 182 inch WATER PERMEABILITY 64 inches/hour (unfilled) TUFT BIND (ASTM D1335) > 9 lbs GRAB TEAR (ASTM D5034) 274 lbs length, 395 lbs width PILL FLAMMABILITY (ASTM D2859) Pass - TENCATE AMERICAS | 1131 BROADWAY ST. DAYTON, TN 37321 | (855) 773-6668 | TENCATEGRASS.COM | VERSION 202 BEST FOR SOFTBALL, BASEBALL AND WARNING TRACKS. YARN DENSITY (DENIER) 5,040/1 (XP+); 5,400/6 (semi-TXT); 7,200/10 (TXT) THICKNESS (MICRONS) 100 (XP+); 152 (semi-TXT); 145 (TXT) MELTING POINT 128° C | 260° F BREAKING STRENGTH 11 lbs/force (XP+); 20 lbs/force (semi-TXT); 20 lbs/force (TXT) LEAD CONTENT (PPM) <100 BLEND OF DURABLE SLIT FILM AND SEMI-TEXTURIZED AND TEXTURIZED MONOFILAMENT FIBERS Pile Height, Max Thickness, Face Weight, Primary & Secondary Backing, and Total Weight can differ by ±10%. The Stitch Rate will change according to the exact specifications and can differ by ±1. Roll Width can differ by ±0.8 inch. TenCate has the right to alter each product specification in order to improve the system according to the latest standards. TenCate is not legally liable in case of noncompliance with the above mentioned specifications. *Face Weight reflects entire length of yarn, including portion woven into backing, which is consistent with standard ASTM method of measuring tuft including back stitch. PIVOT BY TENCATE 1.125" SPECSTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ, Chief Assistant Attorney General KEN ALEX, Senior Assistant Attorney General EDWARD G. WEIL, Supervising Deputy Attorney General DENNIS A. RAGEN, Deputy Attorney General, Bar No. 106468 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, California 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2016 Fax: (619) 645-2012 CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, Los Angeles City Attorney EARL E. THOMAS, Chief of Criminal and Special Litigation PATRICIA BILGIN, Assistant City Attorney, Environmental Justice Unit ELISE RUDEN, Deputy City Attorney, Bar No. 124970 VAUGHN MINASSIAN, Deputy City Attorney, Bar No. 203574 200 North Main Street, 500 City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012-4131 Telephone: (213) 978-8080 Fax: (213) 978-8111 DAVID W. PAULSON, District Attorney of Solano County CRISELDA B. GONZALEZ, State Bar No. 146493 Senior Deputy District Attorney 675 Texas Street, 4th Floor, Suite 4500 Fairfield CA 94533-6396 Telephone: (707) 784-6859 Fax: (707) 784-9001 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Attorney General, CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, Los Angeles City Attorney, DAVID W.PAULSON, Solano County District Attorney Plaintiff, v. BEAULIEU GROUP, LLC, et al. Defendants Case No. RG 08407310 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF , LLC CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On September 2, 2008, the People of the State of California (“People” or “Plaintiffs”), by and through the Attorney General of the State of California (“Attorney General”), the Los Angeles City Attorney and the Solano County District Attorney, filed a complaint for civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of Proposition 65 and unlawful business practices in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The People’s Complaint alleges that the named Defendants failed to provide clear and reasonable warnings that their artificial turf products (the “Products”) contain lead, and that use of, and contact with, those Products results in exposure to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. The Complaint further alleges that under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.6, also known as “Proposition 65,” businesses must provide persons with a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing individuals to these chemicals, and that the Defendants failed to do so. The Complaint also alleges that these acts constitute unlawful acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. 1.2 AstroTurf, LLC , Crystal Products Co., Inc. d/b/a SYNLawn, UGTH Equipment, LLC, General Sports Venue, LLC, and Synthetic Turf Resources, LLC (“Settling Defendants”) are among the Defendants named in the complaint. 1.3 Settling Defendants are alleged to be interrelated corporations that, separately and together, employ more than 10 persons and employed ten or more persons at all times relevant to the allegations of the complaint. 1.4 Settling Defendants manufacture, license, distribute and/or sell Products in the State of California and/or have done so in the past four years. 1.5 For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the People and the Settling Defendants stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of violations contained in the People’s Complaint and personal jurisdiction over Settling Defendants as to the acts alleged in the People’s Complaint, that venue is proper in Alameda County, and that this Court CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment as a full and final resolution of all claims which were or could have been raised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein. 1.6 The People and Settling Defendants enter into this Consent Judgment as a full and final settlement of all claims relating to Covered Products (as that term is defined below) arising from the failure to warn regarding the presence of lead in such Products. By execution of this Consent Judgment and agreeing to provide the relief and remedies specified herein, Settling Defendants do not admit any violations of Proposition 65 or Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. or 17500, et seq. or any other law or legal duty. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing in this Consent Judgment shall prejudice, waive or impair any right, remedy, or defense the People and Settling Defendants may respectively have in any other or in future legal proceedings unrelated to these proceedings. However, this Paragraph shall not diminish or otherwise affect the obligations, responsibilities, and duties of the parties under this Consent Judgment, or the res judicata impacts of this Consent Judgment on other litigation brought under Proposition 65 or the Business and Professions Code. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 The “Effective Date” of this Consent Judgment shall be the date on which the Consent Judgment is entered as a judgment by the trial Court (“Effective Date”). 2.2 Covered Products shall mean (a) the products listed in Exhibit A to this Consent Judgment and (b) any other artificial turf products that Settling Defendants may manufacture or sell after the Effective Date. 2.3 “Cushioning Products” shall mean any foam layering or other products that are installed under the Covered Products but are not attached to the Covered Products by the manufacturer. 2.4 “Infill Products” shall mean any granular product, including, without limitation, crumb, tire crumb, pellets, sand, or synthetic sand, that is installed under, on, or in connection with any Covered Product. 2.5 “Old Covered Products” shall mean Covered Products that were Sold In California before the Effective Date of this Judgment. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.6 “Sold in California” means any Covered Product that is sold in the State of California by Settling Defendants or by any, distributor, wholesaler or retailer that is authorized by Settling Defendants, to sell the Covered Products. For purposes of this Judgment, the date of sale shall be the later of the following: (a) the date of the sales contract; (b) the date that Settling Defendants transport or dispatch the Covered Product into California; (c) the date that Settling Defendants deliver, or cause the delivery of, the Covered Product to the installation site. 3. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: LEAD REDUCTION 3.1 Immediate Product Reformulation. Immediately upon the Effective Date of this Consent Judgment, Settling Defendants shall reduce the level of lead in the Covered Products Sold in California from the current levels to a level no higher than 100 parts per million (“Compliance Level”) as determined pursuant to the testing protocol in Exhibit B. 3.2 Further reductions in lead levels in Covered Products. In addition to the requirements of Paragraph 3.1, and effective June 15, 2010, the Covered Products shall meet the following additional requirements (which shall be referred to as the “Further Compliance Level”): (a) No portion of the Covered Product may have lead levels in excess of 50 parts per million, except: (b) Field lines and markings (such as yard lines, goal lines and team names or logos) may not have lead levels in excess of 100 parts per million. In the event that Settling Defendants’ Covered Products violate the Further Compliance Level, Settling Defendants will (i) consult with their suppliers and technical consultants; (ii) attempt to locate the source of the elevated lead seen the laboratory results; and (iii) provide the Plaintiffs with a report on this investigation and a proposal to prevent the situation from occurring in the future. On approval by the Attorney General, Settling Defendants will implement this proposal. In the event that the Attorney General incurs laboratory costs in reviewing such a proposal, Settling Defendants will reimburse the Attorney General for reasonable laboratory costs actually incurred. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: CLEAR AND REASONABLE WARNINGS 4.1 The People allege that warnings are necessary as to the Old Covered Products because these products cause continuing exposures to lead. Without admitting such allegations, Settling Defendants agree to implement the following program to provide clear and adequate warnings to persons who come into contact with turf products that were installed before the Effective Date of this Judgment. (a) Settling Defendants shall provide the mailed warnings and informational materials attached hereto as Exhibit C, in English and Spanish, to all parties who purchased Old Covered Products for installation within the State of California on or after April 1, 2004 for Astro branded products and November 1, 2006 for the remaining Covered Products. Settling Defendants will send these mailed warnings within thirty days after receiving instructions to do so from the Attorney General. (b) Beginning thirty days after the Effective Date, and for a period of two years thereafter, Settling Defendants will establish a web site that complies with the provisions of Exhibit C, which shall provide the following information, in English and Spanish, about its products: • Range of lead content for each Covered Product • The date lead was phased out of each Covered Product • A warning informing consumers that the products in question contain lead, which is a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. • Proposition 65 and other regulatory levels applicable to lead in consumer products. • Links to specified sites • Good maintenance practices to minimize lead transfer from Covered Products to consumers. • Actions consumers can take to minimize lead transfer from Covered Products to consumers. • Options for Lead Transfer Testing of Covered Products. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The initial design and content of the website, and any later changes to the website will be subject to the advance approval of Plaintiffs, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If a trade association, a group of turf companies, or other responsible entities create a web site that is approved by Plaintiffs and satisfies the provisions of this Paragraph 4.1(b), Settling Defendants may comply with the terms of this Paragraph by placing a conspicuous link to that website on the websites maintained by AstroTurf and SYNLawn. 5. ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS 5.1 Plaintiffs have agreed to accept the settlement payment set forth in Section 5.2 - 5.4 below (Civil Penalties, Cy Pres, Other Payments) based on Settling Defendants’ commitment to take additional actions. Specifically, Settling Defendants shall do the following: (1) Replacing Certain Old Covered Products. Settling Defendants shall replace any Old Covered Products in place as of the Effective Date and installed in the State of California after April 1, 2004 for Astro branded products and November 1, 2006 for the remaining Covered Products, if i. The Old Covered Product was (i) installed at a licensed day care facility, a school, a public playground, or a public playing field and (ii) has been in place for more than 3 years but not more than 8 years. ii. the Lead Transfer Testing conducted pursuant to Exhibit D shows Available Lead Levels in excess of 0.1 micrograms per square centimeter; iii. The owner or operator of the day care center, school, playground or playing field makes written request to AstroTurf that the field be replaced, and this request is received by AstroTurf no later than February 1, 2012. Settling Defendants shall not be CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 required to honor any requests for replacement of Old Covered Product that are received after that date. iv. The owner or operator shows proof of purchase and delivery of the Covered Product to the location at issue. (2) Maximum Expenditure. Settling Defendants shall not be required to provide more than 20,000 square yards of turf in order to comply with the provisions of this Section 5.1(1). Settling Defendants will monitor the number of qualifying requests for replacement, and if it appears that this quantity of turf will prove insufficient to achieve full compliance with those terms, Settling Defendants shall, after receiving written approval and direction from Plaintiffs, pro-rate the remaining funds among the remaining claimants. (3) Quality. The quality of the replacement turf that Settling Defendants provide pursuant to this section will be comparable to, or better than, the turf that is being replaced. 5.2 Civil Penalties. On or before June 1, 2010, Settling Defendants shall pay a civil penalty of $ 17,500 pursuant to California Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.7(b) and 25249.12. Pursuant to section 25249.12, 75% of these funds shall be remitted to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), and the remaining 25% apportioned evenly among the Attorney General, the Los Angeles City Attorney, and the Solano County District Attorney. 5.3 Cy Pres. Settling Defendants shall make the following payments in lieu of penalties: (a) Settling Defendants shall pay $ 60,000 to the California Public Health Trust. $40,000 shall be paid within 30 days of the Effective Date and $20,000 shall be paid on or before February 15, 2010. These funds shall be used, as the Trust directs after conferring with Plaintiffs, for some or all of the following: (1) To fund independent testing, which shall be conducted pursuant to CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the protocol attached as Exhibit D (Lead Transfer Testing), of Old Covered Products currently installed and in place at licensed day care centers, schools, and public playing fields in California; and to fund efforts to promote consistent testing of Old Covered Products throughout California. (2) For research into Good Maintenance Practices, including the feasibility of applying stabilizers to Old Covered Products in order minimize lead transfer from those products. (3) To provide funding for an independent consultant, who will provide information to schools, municipalities and other locations in California where Old Covered Products are installed, regarding independent testing and Good Maintenance Practices for such products. (4) For other projects or grants for the purposes of reducing, or educating the public about, lead in consumer products. (5) Any process undertaken by the Public Health Trust to identify and choose the entity(ies) that will receive any grant to be awarded under this Judgment must be open to public scrutiny and subject to public notice and comment. Any use of funds must be approved by the Attorney General. (6) In order to minimize any duplication of effort, the Public Health Trust will coordinate the expenditure of funds received pursuant to this Judgment with any expenditures made pursuant to (i) judgments with other defendants in this case and (ii) judgments in other cases in which the Attorney General has alleged that lead in present in consumer products. (b) On or before October 1, 2009, Settling Defendants shall pay $30,000 to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), to be deposited into OEHHA’ Proposition 65 Fund, to be used, on appropriation of the Legislature, to fund to fund a study or studies relating to potentially hazardous chemicals in Infill Products. OEHHA shall coordinate these studies with studies that it may conduct pursuant to SB 1277 (Maldonado). CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5.4 Other Payments. Settling Defendants shall also make the following payments: (a) Attorney General. On or before June 1, 2010, Defendant shall pay the sum of $17,500 to the Attorney General, to reimburse the fees and costs his office has expended with respect to this matter. Funds paid pursuant to this paragraph shall be placed in an interest-bearing Special Deposit Fund established by the Attorney General. These funds, including any interest, shall be used by the Attorney General, until all funds are exhausted, for the costs and expenses associated with the enforcement and implementation of Proposition 65, including investigations, enforcement actions, other litigation or activities as determined by the Attorney General to be reasonably necessary to carry out his duties and authority under Proposition 65. Such funding may be used for the costs of the Attorney General’s investigation, filing fees and other court costs, payment to expert witnesses and technical consultants, purchase of equipment, travel, purchase of written materials, laboratory testing, sample collection, or any other cost associated with the Attorney General’s duties or authority under Proposition 65. Funding placed in the Special Deposit Fund pursuant to this paragraph, and any interest derived therefrom, shall solely and exclusively augment the budget of the Attorney General’s Office and in no manner shall supplant or cause any reduction of any portion of the Attorney General’s budget. (b) City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney. On or before June 1, 2010, Settling Defendants shall make payments of $ 10,000 to the Los Angeles City Attorney and $ 10,000 to the Solano County District Attorney to defray the attorneys’ fees and costs these offices have expended with respect to this matter. (c) Center for Environmental Health/Other Private Parties. Within thirty days of the Effective Date, and pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(j), Settling Defendants shall pay $25,000 to the Center for Environmental Health and Lexington Law Group. These payments represent full compensation from the Settling Defendants for (i) the assistance that CEH has provided to the Plaintiffs and (ii) the fees and costs that CEH has incurred with respect to this matter. 5.5 Each payment required by this Consent Judgment shall be made through the delivery of separate checks payable to the applicable person, as follows: CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) Attorney General. Payments due to the Attorney General shall be made payable to the “California Department of Justice,” and sent to the attention of Robert Thomas, Legal Analyst, Department of Justice, 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. (b) City Attorney. Payments due to the City Attorney shall be made payable to the “Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney” and sent to: Patty Bilgin, Supervising Attorney, Environmental Justice Unit, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street, 500 City Hall East, Los Angeles, California 90012-4131 (c) Solano County District Attorney. Payments due to the Solano County District Attorney shall be made payable to the “Office of the Solano County District Attorney” and sent to Criselda B. Gonzalez, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Office of the Solano County District Attorney, 675 Texas Street, 4th Floor, Suite 4500, Fairfield CA 94533-6396. (d) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Payments due to the OEHHA shall be made payable to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and sent to: Beverly Sloan, Senior Accounting Officer, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, P.O. Box 4010, Sacramento, CA 95812-0410. (e) Center for Environmental Health/Lexington Law Group. The payment due to the Center for Environmental Health shall be made payable to the Lexington Law Group and sent to: Mark N. Todzo, Lexington Law Group, LLP, 1627 Irving Street, San Francisco, CA 94122 (f) Copies of checks. Settling Defendants will cause copies of each and every check issued pursuant to this Judgment to be sent to: Dennis A. Ragen, Deputy Attorney General, 110 West A. Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, California 92101 (g) Late Payment/Acceleration. If any payment required by Sections 5.2, 5.3 or 5.4 of this Judgment is not received by the due date, then Plaintiffs will provide Settling Defendants ten (10) days’ notice of default. If Settling Defendants fails to cure the default within said ten (10) days, then at the option of the Attorney General, all unpaid balances due pursuant to those sections shall be accelerated, and shall become immediately due and payable, with interest thereon as specified in section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commencing to accrue 10 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on the entire remaining unpaid balance of any sum pursuant those sections, as of the first day immediately after the ten-day delinquency that preceded the notice of default. Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, and the extensions provided for therein, shall not apply to nor extend any deadline referred to in this paragraph or in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of this Judgment. If the Attorney General declines to exercise and waives this optional acceleration as to any one or more default(s) in payment, said waiver or waivers shall not constitute a waiver of this option in the event of any other default. Defendants are permitted at their option to pre-pay any time the remaining unpaid balance of any amount due in this judgment. 6. MODIFICATION OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 6.1 This Consent Judgment may be modified from time to time by express written agreement of the Parties with the approval of the Court; by an order of this Court on noticed motion from Plaintiffs or Defendant in accordance with law, for good cause shown; or by the Court in accordance with its inherent authority to modify its own judgments. 6.2 Before filing an application with the Court for a modification to this Consent Judgment, the party seeking modification shall meet and confer with the other party to determine whether the modification may be achieved by consent. If a proposed modification is agreed upon, then Settling Defendants and the Attorney General will present the modification to the Court by means of a stipulated modification to the Consent Judgment. 7. ENFORCEMENT 7.1 Plaintiffs may, by motion or application for an order to show cause before this Court, enforce the terms and conditions contained in this Consent Judgment. In any such proceeding, Plaintiffs may seek whatever fines, costs, penalties, or remedies are provided by law for failure to comply with the Consent Judgment and where said violations of this Consent Judgment constitute subsequent violations of Proposition 65 or other laws independent of the Consent Judgment and/or those alleged in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs are not limited to enforcement of the Consent Judgment, but may seek in another action whatever fines, costs, penalties, or remedies are provided for by law for failure to comply with Proposition 65 or other laws. In any action brought by Plaintiffs or another enforcer alleging subsequent violations of CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proposition 65 or other laws, Settling Defendants may assert any and all defenses that are available, including the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect of this Consent Judgment. 8. AUTHORITY TO STIPULATE TO CONSENT JUDGMENT 8.1 Each signatory to this Consent Judgment certifies that he or she is fully authorized by the party he or she represents to stipulate to this Consent Judgment and to enter into and execute the Consent Judgment on behalf of the party represented and legally to bind that party. 9. CLAIMS COVERED 9.1 Full and Binding Resolution. This Consent Judgment is a full, final, and binding resolution between the People and Settling Defendants, of any violation of Proposition 65., Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq. or any other statutory or common law claims that have been or could have been asserted in the Complaint against Settling Defendants for failure to provide clear and reasonable warnings of exposure to lead from the use of the Covered Products, or any other claim based on the facts or conduct alleged in the Complaint, whether based on actions committed by Settling Defendants or by any entity to whom Settling Defendants distribute or sells Covered Products, or any entity that sells the Covered Products to consumers. Compliance with the terms of this Consent Judgment resolves any issue now, in the past, and in the future, concerning compliance by any Settling Defendant, its parents, shareholders, divisions, subdivisions, subsidiaries, sister companies, affiliates, franchisees, cooperative members, and licensees; its distributors, wholesalers, and retailers who sell Covered Products; and the predecessors, successors, and assigns of any of them, with the requirements of Proposition 65 or Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. arising from exposures to lead in or from the Covered Products. This Consent Judgment does not resolve any claims that Plaintiffs may assert with respect to (i) products other than the Covered Products, or (ii) chemicals other than lead. 9.2 Covered Entities. Settling Defendants unconditionally guarantee that each other Settling Defendant will fully comply with the applicable provisions of this Consent Judgment, including the provisions of Sections 3 (Injunctive Relief: Lead Reduction) and 4 (Injunctive Relief: Clear and Reasonable Warnings), and the applicable provisions of Section 5 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Additional Actions by Settling Defendants). If any such company fails to so comply with the applicable provisions of this Consent Judgment, then in addition to Plaintiffs’ other remedies, Plaintiffs reserve the right to bring action, seeking penalties, injunctive and other relief, directly against such company to redress that company’s non-compliance. 9.3 Further Reservations: Without limiting the rights reserved to Plaintiffs in the preceding paragraphs, Plaintiffs also reserve the right to bring actions, seeking penalties, injunctive and other relief, against the following persons: (a) Downstream Sellers. Distributors, wholesalers, and/or retailers who, after the Effective Date of this Judgment: (i) sell Covered Products that contain lead levels in excess of the applicable levels set forth in Secton 2.1 of this Judgment (Injunctive Relief: Lead Reduction), or (ii) otherwise fail to comply with, or impede the efforts of others to comply with, the applicable terms of this Consent Judgment; and (b) Undisclosed Affiliates. Any affiliate or subsidiary of Settling Defendants that is not bound by the terms of this Consent Judgment. (c) Not Applicable to Cushioning and Infill Products. This Consent Judgment does not apply to any Cushioning Products or Infill Products. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to bring claims against Settling Defendants or any distributors, wholesalers, or retailers of Cushioning Products or Infill Products, for any violation of Proposition 65, the Unfair Competition Law or any other applicable law or regulation, arising from the sale, use of, or exposure to any Cushioning Products or Infill Products. 10. ONGOING INVESTIGATION 10.1 Plaintiffs are conducting an ongoing investigation of lead and other chemicals in artificial turf and related products sold by companies other than Settling Defendants. In connection with this investigation, Settling Defendants will, upon reasonable notice, provide plaintiff with information, product samples, and other information and materials within their possession, custody or control, or that are readily available to them, relevant to such investigation, except to the extent that such information is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. PROVISION OF NOTICE 11.1 When any party is entitled to receive any notice under this Consent Judgment, the notice shall be sent to the person and address set forth in this Paragraph. Any party may modify the person and address to whom the notice is to be sent by sending each other party notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. Said change shall take effect for any notice mailed at least five days after the date the return receipt is signed by the party receiving the change. 11.2 Notices shall be sent by e-mail and by First Class Mail or overnight delivery to the following when required: For the Attorney General: Dennis A. Ragen, Deputy Attorney General California Department of Justice 110 West A. Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Dennis.Ragen@doj.ca.gov and simultaneously to: Robert Thomas, Legal Analyst, Department of Justice, 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 Robert.Thomas@doj.ca.gov For the Los Angeles City Attorney Patty Bilgin, Supervising Attorney, Environmental Justice Unit Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street, 500 City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012-4131 Patty.Bilgin@lacity.org For the Solano County District Attorney Criselda B. Gonzalez Senior Deputy District Attorney Office of the Solano County District Attorney 675 Texas Street, 4th Floor, Suite 4500 Fairfield CA 94533-6396 CGonzalez@SolanoCounty.com CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For the Center for Environmental Health Mark N. Todzo Lexington Law Group, LLP 1627 Irving Street San Francisco, CA 94122 mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com 11.3 Notices for the Settling Defendants shall be sent to: Joann Brown Williams General Counsel 2680 Lakeland Road Dalton, Georgia 30721 (706) 876-5556 jwilliams@textilemanagement.com 11.4 Written Certification. Within 15 days of any completing any action required by this Consent Judgment, and also on Plaintiffs’ written request, Settling Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with written certification that the required action has been completed. 12. COURT APPROVAL 12.1 This Consent Judgment shall be submitted to the Court for entry by noticed motion or as otherwise may be required or permitted by the Court. If this Consent Judgment is not approved by the Court, it shall be of no force or effect and may not be used by the Plaintiffs or Settling Defendants for any purpose. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 13.1 This Consent Judgment contains the sole and entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof, and any and all prior discussions, negotiations, commitments and understandings related hereto. No representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, other than those contained herein have been made by any Party hereto. No other agreements not specifically referred to herein, oral or otherwise, shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. 14. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 14.1 This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to implement and enforce the Consent Judgment, and to resolve any disputes that may arise as to the implementation of this Judgment. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 15 17 18 28 15, 15.! stij:Jul,atil)!1S to ex(;cuted in cOLmt(;rp:~lrlS by Incan$ be do(;m(:;d to cO.nstitute ono (/O(;Urnerll. fl" IS /\Ugllst.!.~., DAVID \V. District .Atlt:Orlley· 16 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENo.A.NT ASTRQTIJRF -Case No. RG 08407310 1 2 3 . 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS 15.1 The stipulations to this Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and by means of facsimile, which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one document. IT 1S SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED: DATED: _ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IT IS SO ST1PULATED: DATED: August_, 2009 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Attorney General J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Chief Assistant Attorney General KEN ALEX Senior Assistant Attorney General EDWARD G. WElL Supervising Deputy Attorney General DATED: August_, 2009 DATED: August /3,2009 DAVID W. PAULSON, District Attorney of Solano County BY:C~:;.·G~Jf"-=------ Deputy District Attorney By: =D-=E::-:NN::-::::IS,-A:-.-=RA:-:-:G=E=-N:--------- Deputy Attorney General For Plaintiffs People of the State of California CARMEN A. TRUTANICH Los Angeles City Attorney EARL E. THOMAS, Chief of Criminal and Special Litigation ELISE A. RUDEN Deputy City Attorney VAUGHN MINASSIAN Deputy City Attorney By: =PA:-TT=yc:-=B=IL--:G=IN:-:--------- Assistant City Attorney, Environmental Justice Unit CONSENT JUOGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF -Case No. RG 08407310 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: August 1::', 2009 ASTR0=::u. By: zq. Its: +>R-es:tk,t DATED: August 13, 2009 CRYSTAL PRODUCTS CO., INC. d/b/a SYNLAWNBy:q-Q<= Its: ?ft<::Scd(Qt _ DATED: August 13,2009 UGTHEQUlP~C By: . ~0\t\~~ Its: ill ,M ~£I'Z, DATED: August J2, 2009 SYNTHETIC TUR.(RrSOURC.ES, LLC . By: 0dM .Y'"ll ff . Its: p'u,:.j dfvJt . .. DATED: August \.3,2009 By: -b""£-~~~~....."..---,..- Its: CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF -Case No. RG 08407310 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit A Covered Products A 1 – AstroTurf Styles sold into California A 2 - Crystal Styles sold into California A 3 - SYNLawn Styles sold into California CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 18 AstroTurf Styles Sold Into California 5/2004 ‐7/2009 4212 P0001 A0001 P3038 A5513 PB03 AT38 PF01 BCB10 PG32 BL10 RP02 CC2 RP04 DB40 RP07 E120T RTT01 E200 SD01 E360 SPG1 E500 SPG2 E610H SR01 E620H SR21 E640H ST65 E740 TELN E750 TMINV E840H TPN E840T WG1 E955H WG2 ET100 FSF3 G130 G220 G2625 G3225 G4019 GC42 GDXPE GM48 GXD32 LAN43 LL1 LS01 LS05 LS06 LS21 LSX3 LX60 MG1 MG2 MG3 NGC42 NGC52 Exhibit A‐1 19 Crystal Styles Sold Into California 2000 ‐2009 Bermuda I E820 Bermuda II E830 C1000 E840 C2000 E955H C3000 FSF3 C4000 G110 C5000 G120 Concepts G130 Designer Choice G410 Duro Turf G430 Heather Point G450 Legend GM48 Leisure Turf LS01 Marine Carpet LS02 Master Turf LS03 Natural Weave LS21 Palace Gates LS31 Precepts LSX1 ST18 LSX2 ST24 LSX3 ST48 PE40 Turflawn PE50 ST35 PF01 PS100 AT26 PS400 AT38 PS700 E100 RP01 E200 RP02 E300 RP03 E355 RP04 E360 RP06 E400 RP07 E500 SPFT E550 SW38 E610 TL100 E620 TL120 E630 TL80 E640 TP28 E710 TP38 E730 TP40 E740 TP41 E750 TP42 E800 TP50 E810 Exhibit A‐2 20 SYNLawn Styles Sold Into California 11/2006 ‐7/2009 BG28 basix by synlawn 28 BG30 basix by synlawn 30 BL10 basix by synlawn 10 BL100 basix by synlawn 100 BL20 basix by synlawn 20 BL30 basix by synlawn 30 BL40 basix by synlawn 40 BL60 basix by synlawn 60 BL70 basix by synlawn 70 BL80 basix by synlawn 80 SA100 SYNAugustine 100 SA130 SYNAugustine 130 SA140 SYNAugustine 140 SA230 SYNAugustine 230 SA240 SYNAugustine 240 SA330 SYNAugustine 330 SA340 SYNAugustine 340 SB100 SYNBlue 100 SB200 SYNBlue 200 SC100 SYNFringe 100 SC200 SYNFringe 200 SC210 SYNFringe 210 SD200 SYNBermuda 200 SD210 SYNBermuda 210 SD300 SYNBermuda 300 SD310 SYNBermuda 310 SF100 SYNFescue 100 SF110 SYNFescue 110 SF120 SYNFescue 120 SF214 SYNFesuce 214 SF220 SYNFescue 220 SF222 SYNFescue 222 SF310 SYNFescue 310 SF320 SYNFescue 320 SF340 SYNFescue 340 SF355 SYNFescue 355 SG100 SYNGreen 100 SG110 SYNGreen 110 SG134 SYNGreen 134 SG138 SYNGreen 138 SG150 SYNGreen 150 SG200 SYNGreen 200 SG300 SYNGreen 300 SG320 SYNGreen 320 SG322 SYNGreen 322 SG324 SYNGreen 324 SM110 SYNMarathon 110 SM112 SYNMarathon 112 SM114 SYNMarathon 114 SM120 SYNMarathon 120 SM130 SYNMarathon 130 SM210 SYNMarathon 210 SM220 SYNMarathon 220 SM222 SYNMarathon 222 SM230 SYNMarthon 230 SM240 SYNMarathon 240 SM310 SYNMarathon 310 SM312 SYNMarathon 312 SM320 SYNMarathon 320 SM330 SYNMarathon 330 SM355 SYNMarathon 355 SP300 SYNPlay 300 SP320 SYNPlay 320 SR100 SYNRye 100 SR200 SYNRye 200 SS300 SYNSod 300 ST100 SYNTipede 100 ST110 SYNTipede 110 ST120 SYNTipede 120 ST200 SYNTipede 200 ST220 SYNTIpede 220 ST320 SYNTipede 320 Exhibit A‐3 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit B Testing Protocol for Use in Determining Lead Levels 1. Testing Protocol for Use in Determining Available Lead in Wipe Samples. Each wipe will be prepared for analysis by acid digestion in accordance with EPA Method 3050B. The digestate will be analyzed using ICP spectrometry in accordance with EPA Method 6010c or alternatively EPA Method 6020A. 2. Testing of Turf: If turf is tested pursuant to Section 3.1 of this judgment, sample preparation and analysis will be in accordance with EPA Method 3050B. The digestate will be analyzed using ICP spectrometry in accordance with EPA Method 6010c or alternatively EPA Method 6020A. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit C Dear Customer: Our records show that you purchased [AstroTurf, SYNLawn] products during the past __ years. This letter is written to inform you that certain [AstroTurf, SYNLawn] products contain lead. Specifically, the following Astroturf products contained lead at levels in excess of 100 parts per million (ppm): [List Products] WARNING – The artificial turf products listed above contain lead, which is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. Lead was phased out of these products on the following dates: Product Date [Insert Product Name and Dates] The following products have never contained lead in excess of 100 ppm. [Insert Product Names] Good maintenance practices can reduce exposures to lead from these products. These practices include the following: a. Keeping turf fields well-maintained and groomed and reducing surface dust and particles that could be ingested b. Students and players should wash their hands after playing on a field. c. Food, beverages and other ingestible items should not be allowed on the field d. Equipment and clothing used when playing on the turf should be cleaned after use. For other information about this issue, please check the following links: A program for testing exposures from turf products that are installed at day care facilities, schools, public playgrounds, and public playing fields is now being administered by [Text to be provided by Attorney General]. In order to participate in program, please contact: [Text and further detail as to the program to be provided by the Attorney General.] [Settling Defendants will consult with the Attorney General prior to finalizing the inserts to this letter.] CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit D Lead Transfer Testing Lead Transfer Testing shall be conducted as follows: Materials The materials used for sampling shall be lead free 1. Wipes Premoistened GhostWipestm 15x15 cm 2. Delineations of area to be sampled A cleanable template composed of thin plastic or metal, with inner dimensions of the 10x50 cm rectangular area to be wiped. Alternatively, masking tape and measuring tape will be used to delineate the 10x50 rectangular area to be wiped. The distance between the perimeter of the inner and outer rectangles of the template or masking tape should be at least 5 cm. 4. Gloves Disposable; plastic or rubber. 5. Sealable plastic bags, marker pen Sampling Locations Divide the total artificial turf area into 5 contiguous sections of equal areas. This can be done by calculating the total area, dividing by 5 to determine the area of each sampling location and then marking off the area to be sampled. Three sampling locations should be in the center of their respectively marked sections. Two sampling locations should be near the perimeter of the field in their respectively marked sections. Illustrations with various geometries are given in Attachment D-1. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plastic weights, chalk or string can be used to mark sample area boundaries. A measuring wheel, chain, laser tape rule, or conventional tape rule may be helpful, especially with complex geometries that might be found in a landscape application. Sampling For each field set of samples, there will be a total of 7 bags: five bags with one wipe in each bag, plus two bags with one blank wipe each. 1. Locate and delineate the areas to be wiped. 2. Wearing a new pair of gloves, remove a new wipe from its packaging and unfold it to its full dimensions. 3. A total of 5 strokes are made over the 10x50 cm area. Firmly and evenly press across the width of the wipe during sampling. Each stroke will start at one end and proceed to the other end of the 50 cm length. Wipe with 2 linear strokes over the 50 cm length of the delineated area in the same direction. Fold the wipe with the exposed side in, orient the wipe with the 15 cm crease at the leading edge, and wipe with 3 linear strokes over the 50 cm length of the delineated area in the other direction. 4. Refold the wipe with the exposed sides in to form a square, and place it in a new plastic bag. Seal and label the bag. 5. Discard the gloves. Clean the template if one was used. Discard the masking tape, if used. 6. For each field set of samples, the sampling method blanks shall consist of two unused wipes with packaging removed, each in an individual bag. If the amount of Pb in a blank wipe does not reasonably closely match its paired mate, or if both blank wipes are above an expected background level, the sampling for that field set must be redone on areas not previously wiped. Lab Analysis Lab Analysis will conducted according to Exhibit B - 1 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Calculations Assuming the results for the two blank wipes for the field set meet the conditions in Sampling 6, average the two results. The lead per square centimeter per stroke for each section of a field is represented by (ug lead on a wipe - average ug lead on the blank wipes for that field set) / (500cm2 * 5 strokes) = ug lead /cm2 /stroke The average (mean) for the field of artificial turf is the sum of the ug lead /cm2 / stroke result for each of the 5 sections, divided by 5. Consultation The contractor selected to perform Lead Transfer Testing pursuant to this Judgment may provide additional written instructions to the personnel who will be conducting the Lead Transfer Testing. This contractor shall meet and confer with representatives selected by Plaintiffs and Settling Defendant prior to initiating the first round of testing. The resulting lead levels shall be deemed to be the Available Lead Level pursuant to this Judgment. These procedures and methods are meant only for use in this Judgment as a method of determining when removal of an existing field is appropriate. They have not been approved by the Plaintiffs or Settling Defendants as appropriate for making exposure calculations or estimates pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq. or any other law or regulation. CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF – Case No. RG 08407310 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ExhibitD Attachment D-l CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT ASTROTURF -Case No. RG 08407310 -August 11, 2009 27 From:William Noah To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 1:37:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thank you for your response. On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 at 17:19, Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. ------------------Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @cityofpaloalto.organd there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on theCity’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations suchas the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto JuniorMuseum & Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department orCity Council Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other securedetails via email. Contact City Departments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Phone-Directory Contact City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:William Noah To:Council, City Subject:Birthday Party Inquiry Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 1:19:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is William Noah . I am planning a Birthday party for my wife in November and I want it to be held at your venue on the 29th of November with 25 guests invited. Please let me know if you can accommodate a jazz band for the event and how to proceed with the payment for them. I look forward to your response. Best regards, William Noah This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Council, City; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; editor@almanacnews.com Subject:Letter to OIR re: Tasers and OIR response Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 10:30:11 PM Attachments:Outlook-lhrtff1k.png Outlook-msfhx1ly.png Outlook-eczuluwm.png Outlook-ygwixxu3.png Outlook-ypuv03o4.png Nov 12 of CJA letter to OIR.pdf OCLEM response to CJA letters (11-14-25).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. -- Hi Everyone: Attached is our letter to OIR regarding Tases and the OIR response. Sincerely, ---- Richard Konda (he/him/his) Executive Director Phone: (408) 287-9710 Email: rkonda@asianlawalliance.org 991 W. Hedding Street, Ste. 202 San Jose, CA 95126 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is being sent by a legal organization. The contents of this email message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for thesole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. 1 c/o ALA 991 West Hedding Street, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 287-9710 rkonda@asianlawalliance.org abjpd1@gmail.com November 12, 2025 OIR GROUP Michael Gennaco Julie Ruhlin 6510 Spring Street #613 Long Beach, CA 90814 Dear Mr. Gennaco and Ms. Ruhlin: Request for Enhanced Scrutiny by OIR of the Taser Pilot Project 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 Cambridge Study: Carrying Tasers increases Police use of Force OIR on October 14, 2025 reported to the Board of Supervisors that the mere un-holstering of the Taser or the mere display of the Taser may de-escalate situations in the jail thus avoiding the use of additional force. The Cambridge study cited below suggests a contrary conclusion: that carrying a Taser in view of individuals may in fact trigger a more violent reaction by both the suspect and law enforcement. In the Cambridge study, researchers found that, the presence of Tasers appears to provoke a pattern where suspects become more aggressive towards law enforcement, who in turn respond more forcefully. This phenomenon is known as the so-called “weapons effect”. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/carrying-tasers-increases-police-use-of-force-study-finds The OIR should present this information on the “weapons effect” to the Board of Supervisors in a future report on the status of the Taser Pilot Project. 3 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 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 November 14, 2025 Coalition for Justice and Accountability 991 West Hedding St., Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95126 rkonda@asianlawalliance.org abjpd1@gmail.com Dear Mr. Konda and Mr. James, Thank you for your November 7, 2025, letter regarding our review of Taser 10 deployments by members of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. We also received a November 12, 2025 letter that is largely duplicative of the November 7 letter but raises one additional point. This response is intended to address the issues you raised in both letters. We appreciate your acknowledgement that our review of each Taser 10 deployment will help the public understand its use in the County’s jails. To that end, as we have represented to County leadership, we will continue to review and publicly report on Taser deployments by deputies in the County’s jails. We will review the medical records associated with every deployment to date, and future reports will address (to the extent permitted by applicable privacy laws) any concerns raised by those records, including any concerns related to the location of probe wounds or the follow-up care provided by Custody Health personnel. Future reports will also review and report on interviews of individuals who have been tased and those who witnessed the incidents. As we detailed in our October 14, 2025 report, Sheriff’s Office sergeants completed these interviews as required by policy, but did not identify their body-worn camera recordings of the interviews in the Sheriff’s Office evidence collection system (referred to as “tagging” them) to be automatically included in the case files. When we raised this issue with the Sheriff’s County of Santa Clara 140 Asbury Street San Jose, CA 95110 OCLEM@bos.sccgov.org Contract Monitor: OIR Group, LLC Office of Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring Office, leadership proactively addressed our concerns by issuing a written Administrative Directive reminding Custody Bureau supervisors of their responsibilities to conduct objective interviews of those involved in force incidents that fully capture the person’s account of the incident, to record those interviews consistent with body-worn camera policy, and to tag the video files to the associated incident number in the department’s evidence collection system. As we stated in our report, we will continue to monitor compliance with the Administrative Directive. Your letter asks whether the Sheriff reviews each incarcerated person’s medical and psychiatric records on intake to develop a “No Taser list.” The Sheriff’s Office does not maintain such a list. However, Custody Bureau policy details special considerations regarding the use of force, in general, and the use of Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers), specifically, on vulnerable populations. The Sheriff’s policy provisions provide sufficient guidance and guardrails regarding the use of Tasers in the jails and we will continue to monitor compliance with those directives. We have reviewed the UK studies referenced in your letter. The UK Home Office commissioned a series of independent studies on the Taser 10, including the two that you cited: a technical and operational assessment by PA Consulting and an independent medical evaluation conducted by the “Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons.” These rigorous and complex studies made numerous findings and recommendations that, when considered in their entirety, led the UK Home Office to approve the Taser 10 for use by all UK police forces. The approval was conditioned on strict guidelines about the use of the Taser, similar to the restrictions in place in the Sheriff’s Office policies. We also reviewed the 2018 study you cited that was completed by criminologists at the University of Cambridge. That experiment centered on City of London police officers patrolling the business district in the center of London and compared assaults on and use of force by unarmed police officers vs. those armed with Tasers. While informative in its own context, the operational environment and policing conditions in that study differ substantially from those faced by Sheriff’s Office deputies in custodial settings. Because of these fundamental differences, it would be inaccurate to interpret its findings as contradicting our direct observations and conclusions regarding Taser use in the scenarios described in our October 14, 2025 report. We also note that the authors of that study do not suggest the withdrawal of Taser use by the London police, but as one of the co-authors writes: “the use of Tasers continue to be a proportionate and sensible introduction to policing against a backdrop of unsophisticated terror attacks and an increase in violent crime across London.” Our review of specific Taser deployments will continue to evaluat e any specific injuries caused by the Taser probes. To date, we have seen nothing beyond minor puncture wounds in areas of the body considered appropriate for probe placement (legs and lower back). We have seen no evidence of Taser misuse or torture , nor have we seen anything to suggest that Custody Health staff are being pressured to under-report medical concerns, and we are confident that existing accountability and review measures are effective in addressing these concerns. Finally, we are aware that you have engaged with the Office of County Counsel regarding your public records requests for Taser deployment footage and other related records. Public records requests are handled by that office, so we encourage you to submit future requests directly to them. Your letter concludes with an invitation to meet with you. We would be happy to schedule that meeting at your convenience. Sincerely, Julie Ruhlin Michael Gennaco cc: Board of Supervisors President Otto Lee Board of Supervisors Vice President Sylvia Arenas Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Supervisor Betty Duong Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga Sheriff Robert Jonsen Undersheriff Dalia Rodriguez Assistant Sheriff Thomas Duran Assistant Sheriff Michelle Asban Assistant Sheriff Ricardo Urena Assistant Sheriff Adam Oberdorfer James R. Williams, County Executive Greta S. Hansen, Chief Operating Officer Tony LoPresti, County Counsel Dr. Rocio Luna, Custody Health Services Director Community Corrections and Law Enforcement Monitoring Committee (through the Clerk of the Board) From:Hao Sheng To:Cha, Kelly; Council, City Subject:Public Comment – Opposition to Proposed Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 9:37:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing as a long-time South Palo Alto resident to respectfully but firmly oppose the proposed Dark Sky outdoor lighting ordinance in its current form. I fully support reasonable efforts to reduce unnecessary light pollution and protect the night sky. However, as drafted, this ordinance creates serious and avoidable trade-offs for neighborhood safety, legal risk, and practical feasibility in our residential areas. First, from an evidence-based public-safety perspective, the proposal moves in the wrong direction for a city like Palo Alto. According to FBI data, Palo Alto experiences roughly 2,000 property crimes per year—about 3,033 property crimes per 100,000 residents, which is approximately 45–70% higher than both the California and U.S. averages. In practical terms, that is roughly a 1-in-33 annual risk of property crime for a resident. Over the most recent five-year period, Palo Alto recorded more than 8,000 property crimes, with larceny rates approaching double the national average. In other words, Palo Alto is not “immune” to property crime; on the contrary, we face a materially elevated property crime burden compared to the country as a whole. Second, rigorous empirical research consistently shows that better street and exterior lighting tends to reduce crime, often by double-digit percentages. Meta-analyses by Farrington & Welsh and, more recently, by Welsh et al. (2022) find that improved street lighting is associated with roughly a 14–21% reduction in total crime, with particularly strong and statistically significant effects on property and vehicle crime. A randomized controlled trial of added lighting in New York City public housing (Chalfin et al., Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2022) reported approximately a 35% reduction in outdoor night-time index crimes in treated developments, without evidence of displacement. In this context, a mandatory policy that systematically darkens residential environments after a fixed hour runs directly counter to what modern evaluation research tells us about lighting and crime. Third, there are substantial legal and liability concerns. Under California premises liability principles, anchored in Civil Code section 1714 and decades of case law, property owners and occupiers are expected to exercise reasonable care in the management of their property, which maintaining reasonably safe and adequately lit conditions for visitors This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast and invitees. Practitioner literature and California decisions treat sufficient lighting as a basic element of this duty: inadequate or poorly maintained lighting in access routes, stairways, parking areas, and other circulation spaces is a familiar basis for negligence and negligent security claims when injuries or assaults occur. Recent cases involving premises liability and inadequate security further underline this point. In Williams v. Fremont Hotel, for example, the appellate court found that a hotel’s failure to implement sufficient security measures—including proper lighting and surveillance in a parking lot with a known history of criminal activity—constituted a breach of its duty to protect guests from foreseeable criminal acts. Similar cases and commentary emphasize that, when crime risks are foreseeable, property owners are expected to take reasonable lighting and surveillance measures to mitigate those risks. If the City now compels homeowners and businesses to dim or switch off exterior lighting in driveways, walkways, and entry areas after a set time, it places them in a deeply problematic position: they remain exposed to premises liability if a fall, assault, or other injury is attributed in part to inadequate lighting, yet City code would restrict the very lighting they may reasonably view as necessary to keep their premises safe. Fourth, the ordinance appears to adopt a one-size-fits-all standard that does not reflect the diversity of Palo Alto’s built environment. Street width, tree canopy, housing density, and existing public lighting coverage differ substantially between South Palo Alto single-family neighborhoods, denser mixed-use areas, and commercial districts. Uniform curfew times and strict light-trespass thresholds will inevitably have disproportionate and potentially unsafe effects on blocks that are already relatively dark or heavily canopied, especially where public street lighting is sparse or outdated. Fifth, compliance costs for existing homes are non-trivial and fall unevenly on owners of older housing stock. Retrofitting fixtures, adding shielding, replacing lamps to meet new color- temperature requirements, and installing new timers or control systems can easily reach hundreds or thousands of dollars per home, particularly where electrical work is required. Any ordinance that creates this level of private expenditure should be supported by a clear, quantitative demonstration that the net public benefits—including environmental gains, safety impacts, and legal consequences—justify the costs. To date, I have not seen such a balanced analysis made available to residents. Finally, the ordinance raises concerns about legal tension with broader state-law and constitutional principles. California’s premises liability framework is built on a general duty of due care, not narrow, categorical exemptions. At the same time, Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly protects residents’ inalienable rights to protect property and to pursue and obtain safety. A City policy that systematically curtails residents’ ability to maintain what they in good faith regard as adequate safety lighting around their homes pushes in the opposite direction, and at a minimum creates an uncomfortable and unnecessary conflict between municipal code, state tort law, and state-constitutional commitments to safety and property protection. Given these concerns, I respectfully urge the Council to either reject the ordinance in its current form or substantially revise it. At a minimum, I would encourage you to: Treat Dark Sky standards as mandatory only for new construction and substantial remodels, and as flexible guidelines for existing homes. Create an explicit safe harbor allowing homeowners to maintain adequate lighting at entries, walkways, driveways, and within the field of view of security cameras, especially on blocks with documented safety concerns or limited public lighting. Avoid early-evening residential lighting curfews; if any time limits are adopted, set them at a later hour and allow block-level exceptions where local conditions make darker streets clearly inconsistent with residents’ safety. I am grateful for the Council’s work on environmental and habitat protection, and I share the goal of a healthier night sky. But those goals should be pursued in a way that is consistent with modern empirical evidence, supports the safety of residents in a city that already faces elevated property crime, and does not expose homeowners or the City to unnecessary legal risk. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Hao Sheng South Palo Alto resident and taxpayer Palo Alto, CA From:David Richardson To:Council, City Subject:A Resource Hub for People Living in RVs Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 5:04:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I’m wondering if anyone has presented the idea of a support hub for RV owners living on the streets. One of the major complaints reported in the Weekly by nearby residents (business owners in particular) was the disposal of human waste and trash near where RVs are parked. Making the requirement that RV owners be movable makes possible an infrastructure location that has a dump station, trash bins, water access, maybe restrooms, showers, storage lockers and other amenities. It’s difficult and costly to provide these services at dispersed RV sites around the city but at a location where the RVs can come for those services should relieve many of resident complaints against the RV dwellers. The hub should also be a source of key information and training on how to dispose of human waste for example. Another example would be training on how to be good neighbors on the street to avoid complaints against them. This hub in my mind would be an interim solution before more affordable housing could be found for these folks, which as we know is in extremely short supply. RV dwellers are rightly concerned about their future as the council struggles with services and enforcement as they try to respond to resident complaints. This interim solution would require RV owners to comply with the requirements not to be bad neighbors and use the hub as necessary. The hub might have other positive outcomes as well. Churches and other entities might be more willing to let RVs park on their property if they knew RV dwellers would have a place to get services (especially if they didn’t have all of the necessary services available themselves) and would receive instructions on (and requirements for) being good neighbors. Maybe the RV dwellers would have to “pass a test” before being allowed to live on Church land or even on the street. For sure there would be those who were not good neighbors and that is where there should be enforcement. When the RV owners become good neighbors, the requirement that they move every 72 hours might be relaxed in certain street areas. Also the city could consider subsidizing gas for RV owners who have trouble paying for it to get to the service hub and maybe also help with minimal repairs to ensure mobility. I think there is a strong possibility that a hub with some augmented support might be a much more cost effective solution for a larger number of RV dwellers than any other I’ve seen so far. Some of the RV owners might volunteer time to help at the hub. I note in the Weekly article that one RV owner said that his neighbors there were more of a community than when he was living in a housed neighborhood. Such communities might actually help business owners be safer. In any rate having such communities in Palo Alto should be a benefit. Finally if RV dwelling is a possibility maybe Stanford and other businesses in Palo Alto might have more success in fulfilling applicable job openings. Sincerely, David Richardson Palo Alto resident From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Meeting Nov 17, Action Item 9: Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems - Public Comment with addition Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 2:40:44 PM Attachments:TTT pg1.png TTT pg 2.png TTT pg 3.png TTT pg 4.png TTT pg 5.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, For clarity, the below email sent on Nov 12 is a public comment is for the PA City Council meeting on November 17, Action Item 9. And a follow on note to that email: The referenced Industry Tactics page mentions Gradient and it's worth noting that appendix E of the turf study shows that Field Turf is using the firm Gradient to defend itself to the City of Palo Alto and that The Center for Public Integrity describes Gradient as belonging to "a breed of scientific consulting firms that defends the products of its corporate clients beyond credulity, even exhaustively studied substances whose dangers are not in doubt, such as asbestos, lead and arsenic." The scientists who defend these products have been dubbed "rented white coats." https://publicintegrity.org/environment/meet-the-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals/ Sent: 12 November 2025 19:41 To: city.council@PaloAlto.gov <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Action Item 9: Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems - Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Please take a few minutes to read the information in the link below regarding Industry Tactics (Test the Turf Collaborative, 2025). This should help you understand the sheer frustration of community members trying to educate and advocate for natural grass fields. Community members are desperate to get good sports fields for our kids and many have This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report shared a plethora of information as to why natural turf is a holistically safer option than plastic turf. (Safer for the health of kids, the environment and public funds.) Since El Camino is already plastic, is the horse already out of the barn? Yes. But that doesn't mean the decision can't be made to revert fields back to natural turf (which can take substantially less than 18 months!) and stop any further damage. Over the past 5 years of following and researching the topic of artificial turf I have seen industry narrative morph from 1st Dog Defense (no harm) to 2nd Dog Defense (no risk) to 3rd Dog Defense (low risk) within our county, state and nationally. I then came to the unfortunate realization that grass advocates and independent experts have in fact done the plastic turf industry a huge favour because we have shared so much well researched, documented and referenced information with decision makers (like you) that if industry has to play the 4th Dog Defense (you knew) card then no one supporting or approving the installation of plastic turf will be able to say they didn't know the risks. So can we please just stop the madness now BEFORE industry needs to play the 4th Dog Defense card. Don't approve the report in its current form. Take the time to understand and acknowledge the risks of plastic fields as documented by independent experts and have these incorporated into the report. Consult independent Certified Sports Field Managers experienced in well designed, installed and organically managed natural turf sports fields and have this information incorporated into the report. Approve conversion from plastic sports fields back to natural turf. Take the multiple millions that would have gone into plastic fields and instead invest it in properly maintaining natural turf fields. (Invest in our kids health, local jobs, and the environment and not the profit driven multibillion dollar plastic industry.) We can't change the beginning, but we can stop where we are and change the ending. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clara County resident https://www.testtheturf.org/industry-tactics.html NB: In the event that the link doesn't work I've attached screen shots of this web page. (labled TTT pages 1-5) From:Bob Schwarzwalder To:Council, City Subject:RV Residents in Midtown Palo Alto Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 12:24:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I have been a Palo Alto resident for 18 years and a homeowner (Midtown) for 16 years. I am writing to urge you to find a better solution to homelessness than allowing people to live in vans on residential streets. My first experience with this was when my two daughters would play softball at the Cubberley fields. People living in their vehicles would urinate in clear sight of 12 to 14 year old girls. We always made sure that several adults were present to ensure the safety of our children. In recent years the one bus regularly parked by the Midtown YMCA was grown to 2 and sometimes 3 vans/buses/campers. One wonders how long it will be before the area looks like the approach to Costco! Our residential streets were never intended to be mobile home parks. There are issues of safety and sanitation. There are issues of parking availability and privacy. There are locations where you could create mobile home parks that provide sanitary facilities and the support infrastructure for RV residents. This would be a better solution for the homeless. I strongly urge you to outlaw the practice of vanlording, which victimizes residents and homeless alike, and to pass and enforce strong measures to stop RV camping on residential streets. Thank you for considering my position. Very Sincerely, Robert Schwarzwalder Sent from my iPhone From:Ronald Pyszka To:Council, City Subject:Upcoming Meetings on Grade Separation Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 11:56:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The Rail Committee (on November 18) and the full City Council (on December 10 and 20) will be considering which grade separation options to advance to the next level of engineering. Regarding the Charleston/Meadow crossings, please DO NOT eliminate the Hybrid option. It is by far the least expensive option and we need to be realistic about cost. And while no option is perfect, it has the least amount of negative impact on private property. Additionally, in going forward, please look at the cost and other impacts of putting the Hybrid partially on pillars to enhance its esthetics. This something the City Council requested last June but still has not been done. At the September 30 meeting at Mitchell Park the library. we were presented with an alternative design for the Underpass option, namely the Direct Access alternative. As presented, it looked promising and I imagine that there was a considerable amount of public support for it. However, we were not given the full picture. For example, there was no mention of U-turn lanes at Mumford and Ely, something that has subsequently come up. It is not the least bit clear what additional impacts on private property these U-turn lanes would have. There isn’t much room for U-turn lanes at these intersections, especially for large vehicles such a trucks. In final analysis, the Direct Access alternative may be no better than the Roundabout alternative. Please DO NOT make the Underpass Direct Access option the sole option going forward. In summary, in advancing to the next stage of engineering: Please DO NOT eliminate the Hybrid option. Please DO NOT make the Underpass Direct Access option the sole option. If there is to be only one option, let it be the Hybrid option. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your consideration. Ronald Pyszka From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Cc:Kurotori, Alan Subject:Finance Committee: New 2026 Gas COSA Feedback Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 10:09:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. For this new 2026 Gas COSA having a subcommittee work closely with staff and the consultants did result in an improved work product that addressed the majority of top concerns. The prior 2025 gas COSA made discretionary accounting changes that significantly lowered costs for small businesses, raised tier 1 residential costs by ⅓ and financially discouraged electrification. The new 2026 COSA improves upon this by better explaining these changes, distributing the costs more fairly between rate classes and supporting a residential tiered rate structure that encourages electrification as was done in previous years. Staff should also show this fiscal year’s total rate increases, not just the incremental change after this year’s previous 5% increase. The overall rate increase for gas utility payers remains 5% for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Residential median monthly bills will now increase 13% for fiscal year 2025–26, down from the originally considered 22%. Small G2 commercial customers will see their median bills drop by about 53%. The monthly fixed fee per small G2 customer drops from $170 to $29 per month based on updated data & new accounting methodology choices. Unfortunately, this strongly disincentivizes electrification. The City's rate-setting standard is "reasonable cost," and I'd argue that a fee higher than $29 is still reasonable. Since full electrification is one of Palo Alto's top climate goals, this steep reduction directly undermines that objective and could offset much of the progress made by the utility's other electrification programs. During this COSA review process we were not able to get comparisons between the prior and new cost and answers about how much each of the changes increased each class of customers rates. For example, how much G1 rates increased as a result of the updated meter calculations. Staff and the city’s legal team have been adamant about lack of transparency to prevent liability. This should be challenged for future COSAs to try and create a more open and transparent process. Thank you for taking a substantial step in the right direction with this new 2026 gas COSA. From:Fernan Aceved To:Council, City Subject:Re: About Palo Alto Link Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 7:32:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, thank you for your response, I want to add the city of Palo Alto will get less federal funding also if you cut the service because, just the example of the school teachers if the city don’t have enough school teachers, then the city of Palo Alto Wilkoff, less schools or schools working at no full capacity doesn’t mean classroom closed due to a shortage of teachers. This is just an example how the economy of the city can be hurt if you cut or suppress the service of this type of transportation service, besides other services will bring less money, I suggest already a solution, wishing the best for the people living in Palo Alto, they deserve it. On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 8:21 PM Fernan Aceved <efbfg741@gmail.com> wrote: I was in the zoom meeting by zoom a person of the panel, senior, gray hair, said he thinks the service should be for people disabled or high necessity, I ask what about the teachers, if you don’t have teachers how you run the school, it’s hard to get teachers in Palo Alto because the high cost of living, you do this and you will hurt the economy, it’s for example, Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts don’t make to much money, they got grands but they bring a lot of money to San Francisco, every event on Saturdays people spend money in restaurants, cloying, transportation, train service, parking fees, etc. then city makes a lot of money, it’s the same with the service, cut it or eliminate the service you will hurt the economy of Palo Alto, I suggest let go people working for the city, having a small payroll for the city and using Artificial Intelligence city will make more money and will provide better services, simple solution, hear the people, the ones that pay the taxes, thanks Sent from my iPhone This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Patrice Banal To:Council, City; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Direct Access Ramp for Grade Separation Alternative Charleston Road Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 8:23:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council members, planning department, and Rail Committee members, Thank you for working to vet the many options suggested to facilitate grade separation at the Charleston Road intersection. As families living along Charleston Road, we appreciate the years of thoughtful consideration that have gone into finding a solution that moves traffic, not residents. Now that we are close to deciding which of the three alternatives to move forward with for 15% studying, I would like to advocate for the hybrid option, which will not require any full property takes, minimizes partial property impacts, and is more cost-effective. The improved Roundabout option should be eliminated, as it still involves whole-property takes. I am asking the Council and Rail Committee to re-examine the impacts of the third option, the Direct Access Ramp option. The current design includes a U-turn at Mumford and Ely to facilitate two moves for PASSENGER VEHICLES ONLY. 1. To allow Southbound Alma traffic to go West toward Gunn. 2. To allow Northbound traffic from the West (Gunn) side of the tracks to go North towards downtown. Will trucks and buses use an alternative route to make the two moves listed above? Mumford and Ely are residential streets, restricted from commercial traffic. Buses and trucks could NOT safely navigate U-turns on these streets. Currently, the planning department assures us that passenger vehicles can navigate a U-turn without any property impacts or road widening. And the plans presented during the community feedback meeting and online do NOT show any widening of the street or partial property impacts to homes if trucks and buses were to use this route. Before the council makes any decision on which grade separation options to move forward with, can you share the plan for buses and trucks? As property owners on Mumford and Ely, we would be the most impacted stakeholders should This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast the streets need to be widened. At a minimum, six to eight homes would be impacted, and widening our streets by reducing our setbacks would compromise our safety, privacy, and property values while increasing noise and traffic. Please clarify where and how buses and trucks will make these turns, and the impact on property owners who would face partial property takings before voting on which options to move forward. Thank you for all your work. Patrice Fester 650 704 1271 From:Michael Wessel To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Subject:Charleston Road Grade Separation Options Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 8:13:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City council of Palo Alto: As a citizen resident on East Charleston I am following the Grade Separationupdates with great interest as our direct neighborhood will be severelyimpacted by it. For years we life in anxiety. It has come to my attention that a new to-be-considered alternative has beenadded to the Charleston grade separation options menu. In addition to theHybrid and Underpass with Roundabout we now also have the so-called "DirectAccess Ramp (DAR)" option, https://www.caltrain.com/media/35928 pp. 35, which will eliminate the need for the roundabout and hence the need for totalproperty acquisitions that it entails. The DAR option will dwarf the following turn patterns:- from southbound Alma, right turns onto West Charleston- from eastbound West-Charleston, left turns onto northbound Alma In order to enable these turn patterns, a U-turn for personal vehicles isdiscussed which would utilize turns from East Charleston into Mumford (and U-turns within Mumford). However, the preliminary design sketch / renderingdoes not show this U-turn, nor are the property impacts indicated: - does Mumford need to be widened to accommodate the U-turn? By how much? - how many cars will be taking the U-turn on average? It is also clear that buses and trucks will not be able to make a U-turn, asMumford is declared as a residential street, and the space to widen Mumfordto accommodate buses or tracks is simply not there. The impact of such a U-turn can still be quite drastic for residents onMumford, so please consider and discuss all ramifications before you vote fordesign eliminations. Clearly, this solution is preferred over the Roundabout which would requirefull property acquisitions. However, the Hybrid is still the solution that is safest, most practical,most economical viable, and - most importantly - avoids total and partialproperty acquisitions completely. Please vote wisely, well-informed, and in full transparency with the citizensof Palo Alto. Best regards, Michael Wessel 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 Resident on East Charleston Road From:Tom Barton To:Council, City Subject:Superintendent Don Austin Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:31:32 PM Attachments:IMG_1863.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello. I ask that the city council issue a a formal resolution condemning PAUSD superintendent Don Austin for his string of egregious misconduct culminating in two major lawsuits that are going to cost the students dearly. He refused to stop the sexual assaults of a six-year-old. Over 1400 people have signed a change.org petition against him. There is currently a recall effort against him and he is known for running an authoritarian culture of stonewalling, gaslighting, and intimidation. People are saying online under the safety of anonymity that they are afraid of speaking out against him because he might retaliate against their children. The community is begging you to condemn him. He has also violated the Public Records Act and the Brown Act, according to recent allegations. https://padailypost.com/2023/09/01/exchange-between-superintendent-and-school- board-member-reveals-tensions/ https://gunnoracle.com/29005/showcase/district-transparency-recent-events-spark- community-concerns-shed-light-on-critical-pausd-responsibilities/ https://www.change.org/p/decline-pausd-superintendent-don-austin-s-contract-renewal https://www.pa-square.org/general-8 https://www.palyvoice.org/2023/03/13/the-verdict-is-in-pausds-math-placement- policies-dont-add-up/ (via The Campanile) https://padailypost.com/2020/06/02/school-district-settles-suit-over-violating-the- public-records-act/ https://bestofsno.com/75384/news/employee-continues-multimillion-dollar-lawsuit- against-pausd/ This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Regina Elmore To:Council, City Subject:Reopen the 3rd Thursday leadership discussion with full transparency and public input. Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:41:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor, City Manager, and Council Members, I am writing to formally protest the abrupt and opaque termination of Carol Garsten’s leadership of the 3rd Thursdays event series on California Avenue. This decision not only undermines a beloved community tradition, but also raises serious concerns about process, transparency, and fairness. Carol Garsten has been the heart and engine behind 3rd Thursdays — a grassroots initiative that brought music, joy, and vibrancy to Cal Ave for two-plus years. Her leadership was not just effective; it was transformative. The city’s decision to remove her without due process or community input feels less like civic stewardship and more like political maneuvering. The circumstances surrounding her dismissal — a secretive survey, a surprise termination disguised as a routine business meeting, and no formal grievance process — suggest an intentional effort to sideline her. This is deeply troubling. Carol’s track record speaks for itself, and her commitment to community-building far exceeds what any consultant or shoestring city budget could replicate. As Zareen’s Sahlik Khan aptly put it, Carol is a doer. The city’s claim that it will continue to support 3rd Thursdays rings hollow — even laughable. This is the same city that took years (and likely a consultant or two) just to swap out those infamous orange bollards for planters. Now we’re supposed to believe it can seamlessly steward a grassroots cultural production — one built on trust, hustle, and community relationships — with a $40,000 line item and no clear leadership? Who exactly is going to run this event? When it comes to a proven, community-loved event, the city appears more willing to cut loose its most effective organizer than to confront the politics behind her removal. Worse, the influence of a private developer raises questions about whose interests are being prioritized. Carol’s termination sends the wrong message: that proven community leadership can be discarded without accountability. Without her, Cal Ave risks slipping back into its sleepy default, and Palo Altans will look elsewhere for weeknight culture and connection. I urge the parties responsible for this action to: This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Immediately disclose the rationale and process behind Carol Garsten’s termination. Reopen the leadership discussion with full transparency and public input. Recognize Carol Garsten's unique contributions and formally apologize for the way she has been treated. This is not just about one person — it’s about the integrity of our civic process and the kind of community we want to build. Sincerely, Regina Elmore Midtown, Palo Alto From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; Shanetta Anderson; bballpod; David Balakian; Becky Vagim; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; 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; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; MY77FJ@gmail.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:"Nvidia"s Next big move after November 19" Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:13:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025 To all- Watching this 17 min, video may cheer you up after today's tech bloodbath on Wall St. I lost thousands, and I am not amused. Next Wednesday, Nov. 19, Nvidia reports its third fiscal qtr. earnings. Results as of the end of October since their fiscal yr. is off the calendar year by one month. Results for the year will be on January 31. BTW, what happened on Wall St. in 2000 is, today, called,"the Dot.com bubble". It was not just a bubble. IT WAS A SCAM. A GIANT SCAM. Everybody with a heartbeat in SV got with corporate lawyers, filed articles of incorporation, issued themselves thousands of shares of stock, and then pumped their new dot.com company with fantastic predictions using what was called "Chinese arithmetic". Many of these companies did not even have revenues, let alone profits. The suckers poured in. Starting in December, 1999, prices started to fall. That's when the insiders, the scamsters, sold and cashed in. They have been living in the South of France with two German girls ever since. I heard of people working in one of these companies whose stock was worth $200,000 at the top.. After the crash, it was worth $20,00, or zero. These were line workers. The crash, when the bubble burst, is called the "dot.com bubble", but it was a gigantic scam which, when it imploded, is now politely referred to as a "bubble". I guess the talksters on the Wall St. shows are too polite to ever use the word "scam". Or they are paid too much to use it. Now see this to have your faith restored in Nvidia: Nvidia’s Next BIG Move After Nov. 19 — What Analysts Are Saying | NVDA Stock 17:23 Jeff Bezos is onYouTube saying AI is not a scam and that his Co. is spending billions to get ready for it. A lot of believable people are saying it's not a scam. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Andrea Wald To:Council, City Subject:Mtg. 11/17/25 - Agenda item #9: Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 3:21:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council members, There has already been a great deal of material provided to you that talks about the inconsistencies in the Lloyd Study and recommendations not to accept it. There has also been well researched/documented materials provided that highlight the harms of artificial turf and why it should not be installed in any of your city’s parks/athletic fields, residences, etc. I’ve decided to take a different approach in my message today. Are you aware of the 50 years it took concerned individuals to get action regarding cigarettes because they were worried about the exposure to the harmful smoke – warnings on packaging, bans to smoke in restaurants, office buildings, airports and on airplanes? Creating stricter rules for vendors of cigarettes about verifying the age of the individual purchasing cigarettes – since there has never been a law to simply outright ban them. Well, the reason it took so long is because of the influence and associated wealth of the tobacco industry and their paid lobbyists. Those asked to look into regulations were unduly influenced by outsiders and did not take seriously enough all the harms of cigarette smoke – not only on those who choose to smoke but the general public that was exposed to the toxins – and not by their own choice. Something extremely similar is happening with plastics in general – although for the purpose of my urgent plea – I’m talking about synthetic ground coverings: artificial turf and PIP – poured-in-place rubber. The manufacturers and vendors, the companies that are benefiting financially from a product that does not last and must be replaced, that has no regulations in place for monitoring it nor requirements to divulge the chemicals used in the manufacture process, no responsibility or accountability for what happens to it when it comes to its useful end of life are all trying to convince us of the safety of their product – and too many are believing them. What happened to common sense and thinking that if there is any shred of doubt about the safety of a product that it should be avoided? As elected officials it is your responsibility to protect those in your community and even beyond, since the impacts of unnecessary plastics, like artificial turf and PIP, do go beyond your city boundaries. Should all community members be expected to bear the burden of the toxins and microplastics associated with the artificial surfaces I’ve mentioned? And what about our youth? People do continue to smoke but for most of us, that means they are affecting only their own health – although we all bear the cost of expensive treatments for those who do come down with debilitating illnesses related to their smoking. As for artificial turf and PIP – our youth do not have a say in the toxins and microplastics we are exposing them to – with cumulative effects over years and harms/illnesses most times only appearing many years after exposure. The same holds true for This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast those of us who end up being exposed to the toxins and microplastics that are a result of wear on the artificial surfaces. Why should I suffer because of some perceived benefits to the small percentage of community members who claim they cannot live without soccer fields or playgrounds made from artificial materials? I know that most in the soccer world actually do prefer natural grass – especially if its maintained properly. Its time to do the right thing and think about how change is possible and how we can all benefit by a healthier, more sustainable future. We should not burden future generations with possible health issues, cleaning up toxic messes, nor overflowing landfills. Medical and environmental research is still ongoing and continually finding more and more reasons why we need less UNESSENTIAL plastics – including artificial ground covering. Please do not approve the Lloyd study. Please strongly look into how you can provide the best organically managed, natural grass playing fields for all. A pilot program as recommended by both Lloyd’s and your own Parks and Rec commission is a step in the right direction. And why not make it El Camino park – rather than cover it with more toxic, plastic grass? I appreciate your considering all the ramifications of the decisions you make on Monday night and if at all not 100% sure you are doing the right thing, please delve a bit deeper into how to do what's best for your community as a whole and future generations and not just a smaller subset of sports teams. Thank you. Andrea Wald From:Hayden Kantor To:Lo, Ria; Transportation Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lu, George; Planning Commission Subject:Petition for a 4-way stop at California Ave. & Columbia St. Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 3:16:43 PM Attachments:Petition for a 4-way stop at California Ave. & Columbia St. - signatures.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo CC: Palo Alto Office of Transportation, Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission, City Manager Ed Shikada I am writing on behalf of the 112 Palo Alto residents who have signed this petition (see attached for signatories). We request that the City make the intersection at California Ave. & Columbia St. a 4-way stop. Currently, there are stop signs on Columbia St. and a crosswalk for pedestrians, but the traffic along California Ave flows uninterrupted. This intersection is the main gateway to the University Terrace housing development, with more than 300 residents. This is a neighborhood with many cyclists, pedestrians, and young children. Cars and trucks driving on California Ave. approach the intersection rapidly. The sight lines on Columbia St. in both directions are obstructed, which makes it scary to cross the street. Twice before we have filed 311 requests to improve this intersection. The City has completed traffic studies at this location. This resulted in adding signage alerting drivers to the pedestrian crossing and painting the curbs at the intersection red. Unfortunately, the situation remains dangerous. It is still too difficult to see oncoming traffic. We are asking for a 4-way stop, not more traffic studies, which would consume valuable labor hours and equipment. We have been told that unless there is existing accident data or a police report of a documented collision, the City will not take further action. We understand the need for objective criteria in making decisions. Yet so many of us have witnessed multiple close calls at this intersection involving both children and adults. We do not want our children to be the sacrificial lambs. It’s important to note that this traffic pattern was established prior to the construction of University Terrace in 2017; it has not been updated to account for the large number of new residents and new commuting patterns. We support the effort led by the College Terrace Residents Association to increase traffic safety in the area, such as along Stanford Ave and El Camino Real. While that is a big project that will take substantial planning, this intersection represents a pressing need that the Office of Transportation can address immediately. This would be a great candidate for the “quick build” program. Unlike other intersections where a stop sign may lead to traffic congestion, we see no downsides here. It should not feel this stressful and dangerous to simply cross the street. Installing a 4- way stop in this location would be a much-need step in making our neighborhood safer. Thank you, Hayden Kantor President, University Terrace at Stanford HOA On behalf of the undersigned residents of Palo Alto Timestamp Full name Street address Email 10/21/2025 11:06:56 Hayden Kantor 2500 Columbia St Unit 107, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1165 haydenkantor@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:07:20 Esther Yu 2600 Columbia Street, 314 estheryu@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:08:12 Alison Law 2540 Bowdoin St Alisonglaw@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:08:27 Chris Gregg 2500 Columbia St. Unit 202, Palo Alto cgregg@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:09:25 Sara Stojkovic 2600 Columbia Street stoj.sara@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:09:31 Kristine Humphreys 2600 Columbia St #203 Palo Alto 94304 kristynielsen@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:09:44 Rowan Dorin 1620 Bowdoin Place, Palo Alto rowan.dorin@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:09:47 Joonhee Choi 2600 Columbia St, Palo Alto, CA 94304 cguyjh@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:10:44 Natalie Larson 2500 Columbia St. Unit 212 nmlarson@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:10:59 Hakeem Jefferson 2500 Columbia St. Unit 304 Palo Alto 94304 hakeem@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:12:36 Antonio Coppola 2500 Columbia St. Unit 106 acoppola@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:14:22 Rosa Cao 2600 Columbia St Apt 101 luosha@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:14:25 Alexander Heyde 2500 Columbia St. Unit 106 aheyde@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:15:06 Barb Voss 2600 Columbia St Unit 200 Palo Alto 94304 Barbvossis@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:17:24 Kostas Bimpikis Amherst Court kostasb.mit@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:17:37 Felipe Homrich da Jornada 2500 Columbia Street Unit 201, Palo Alto, CA 94304 fjornada@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:18:20 Ludwig Schmidt 2500 Columbia St, #109, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 ludwigschmidt2@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:19:52 Ilge Akkaya 1630 Amherst Way Ilgeakkaya@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:20:58 Emilee Chapman 2149 Bowdoin Street emileebooth@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:25:12 Jing Wang 2500 Columbia Street, Apt 110 Sharon.wangj@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:26:17 Matteo Cargnello 2500 Columbia Street Unit 314 mcargnello@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:28:37 Alexander E Urban 1640 Bowdoin Place a.e.urban5000@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:30:18 Mert Pilanci 1630 Amherst Way, Palo Alto pilanci@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:30:46 Joohee Jung 1595 Drake Way jooheejung0411@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:30:52 Noah Burns 2500 Columbia Street, Unit 300, Palo Alto, CA 94304 nburns@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:31:48 Srdan Keca 2600 Columbia Street Apt 204, Palo Alto 94304 CA skeca@stanford.edu Timestamp Full name Street address Email 10/21/2025 11:32:28 Anand Kalvit 2500 Columbia St, Palo Alto, CA 94304 kalvitanand@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:33:20 Naz Koont 2600 Columbia Street Apt 208 nazkoont@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:34:27 Madalina Vlasceanu 2500 Columbia St unit 105 Palo Alto 94304 mov@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:34:58 Dan Congreve 1515 Drake Way, Palo Alto CA 94304 congreve.dan@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:36:21 Michael Morais 2500 Columbia St Unit 105 Palo Alto CA mjmorais@alumni.princeton.edu 10/21/2025 11:39:08 Liz Price 1600 Bowdoin Place eaprice2012@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:40:17 Neir Eshel 1620 Bowdoin Place, Palo Alto 94304 neshel@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:41:57 Thierry Tambe 2600 Columbia St., Palo Alto, CA 94304 ttambe@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:45:06 Yue Hu 2500 Columbia Street yh2987@columbia.edu 10/21/2025 11:45:07 Michael Bassik 2580 Amherst St mcbsp74@gmail.com 10/21/2025 11:50:25 Khalid Osman 2500 Columbia St. 114 osmank@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 11:51:50 otis chodosh 2540 Bowdoin st otis.chodosh@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:06:44 stephen pokorny 2600 Columbia St, Apt 310, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 stevepokorny@yahoo.com 10/21/2025 12:14:11 Xulei Qin 2600 Columbia St, Unit 214, Palo Alto 94304 qinxulei@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:19:08 Maria Sakovsky 2500 Columbia St maria.sakovsky@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:20:23 Gil-li Vardi 1645 Amherst Way, Palo Alto alice.lookingglass@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:20:28 Arthur Schlothauer 2500 Columbia Street arthur.schlothauer@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:20:57 Ram Rajagopal 1480 Columbia Place Rambrasil@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:22:16 Jennifer Pan 614 San Juan St, Stanford, CA 94305 jenpans@yahoo.com 10/21/2025 12:23:59 Anshul Kundaje 2600 Columbia Street, Unit 315, Palo Alto, CA 94304 akundaje@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 12:33:59 Jason Yeatman 1640 Amherst Ct, Palo Alto jdyeatman@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:40:53 Lisa Goldman 1635 California Ave Palo Alto CA 94304 lgrosas@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 12:41:00 Miriam Muscarella 1440 Columbia Place miriammuscarella@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:42:58 Jiafeng Chen 2600 Columbia St Apt 306, Palo Alto jiafeng.k.chen@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:43:31 Lynette Cegelski 1450 Columbia Ct, Palo Alto CA 94304 lynette.cegelski@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:47:22 Mary Anne Kochenderfer 1555 Drake Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304 ma.kochenderfer@gmail.com Timestamp Full name Street address Email 10/21/2025 12:51:36 Marissa Reitsma 2600 Columbia St. Unit 408 mreitsma@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 12:53:19 Colleen Honigsberg 2410 Amherst Street colleenh@law.stanford.edu 10/21/2025 12:55:54 Chad Jones 2600 Columbia St. #416 chad.jones@gmail.com 10/21/2025 12:57:26 Erica Dhuey 2600 Columbia ST 302 edhuey@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 13:15:36 Caroline Trippel 630 Constanzo Street carolinetrippel@gmail.com 10/21/2025 13:23:17 Juan Manuel Rivas Davila 2500 Columbia st. apt. 110 jmrivas@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 13:24:10 Fernando Alarid-Escudero 2600 Columbia St, Apt 311, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 feralaes@gmail.com 10/21/2025 13:53:35 Leslie Adams 2600 Columbia Street 102 lesliea1@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 14:03:36 Dustin Schroeder 1430 Columbia Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 dschroed@gmail.com 10/21/2025 14:20:16 Ly Nguyen 2500 Columbia Street Lnguyen1016@gmail.Com 10/21/2025 14:33:21 Steven Roberts 2500 Columbia Street, 305 sothello@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 14:33:47 Michael Blank 2500 Columbia St, Unit 216; Palo Alto, CA 94304 blankm@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 14:38:02 Dafna Zur 2600 Columbia Street dafnaz@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 15:07:56 Anne Joseph O'Connell 1675 California Avenue; Palo Alto, CA 94304 amjoc@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 15:14:11 Gheorghe Chistol 2500 Columbia Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304 chistol@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 16:01:10 Liem Chistol 2500 Columbia Street Palo Alto 94304 Liemh10@gmail.com 10/21/2025 16:18:50 Shannon Dahl 1455 Columbia Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94304 shannon.dahl@gmail.com 10/21/2025 16:19:11 Ines Azevedo 2560 Amherst Street, Palo Alto CA 94304 inesliaz@gmail.com 10/21/2025 16:22:11 Ariana Chini 2600 Columbia St, #408, Palo Alto, CA 94304 ariana.chini@gmail.com 10/21/2025 16:22:31 Marissa Reitsma 2600 Columbia Street Apt 408 mreitsma@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 16:23:47 Denise Gill 2500 Columbia Street Unit 311 kanunidenise@gmail.com 10/21/2025 16:40:26 Andrew Mannix 2500 Columbia St Unit 203 ajmannix1@gmail.com 10/21/2025 17:14:21 Hemamala Karunadasa 1575 Drake Way Palo Alto hemamala@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 17:40:57 Jerry Cheung 2500 Columbia St Unit 100 Palo Alto CA 94304 jollyjerry@gmail.com 10/21/2025 19:12:51 Mary Race 1655 California Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94304 mary.race@gmail.com 10/21/2025 19:34:44 Patrick Hayden 1655 California Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94304 phayden@stanford.edu Timestamp Full name Street address Email 10/21/2025 20:22:27 Luciana Herman 1515 California Avenue lherman@stanford.edu 10/21/2025 20:58:08 Richard Chapman 2149 Bowdoin St richardchapman87@gmail.com 10/22/2025 5:46:01 Wendy Salkin 2500 Columbia Street, Unit 401, Palo Alto, CA 94304 wendy.salkin@gmail.com 10/22/2025 6:05:58 Jennifer de Silva 2600 Columbia Street jennifermace15@gmail.com 10/22/2025 8:27:37 Jane Willenbring 72 Peter Coutts Cir, Stanford, CA 94305 jane.willenbring@gmail.com 10/22/2025 10:13:57 Natalia Toro 2600 Columbia St #305 nataliatoro@gmail.com 10/22/2025 11:42:08 Jamie O'Connell 1675 California Ave, Palo Alto jpdoconnell@yahoo.com 10/22/2025 11:51:11 Floriane Leynaud 2500 Columbia St, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 floriane.leynaud@gmail.com 10/22/2025 11:53:19 Ryan Johnson 1470 Columbia Court, Palo Alto, CA 94304 rcjohnson18@gmail.com 10/22/2025 11:55:03 Adam Bouland 2500 Columbia St Unit 111, Palo Alto CA 94304 abouland@gmail.com 10/22/2025 11:55:36 Alison Hoyt 2500 Columbia Street, Unit 111, Palo Alto, CA 94304 ahoyt@stanford.edu 10/22/2025 12:02:31 Laura Piech 2600 Columbia Apt 217 Palo Alto, CA 94304 lmapstone@gmail.com 10/22/2025 12:02:51 Christopher Piech 2600 Columbia Apt 217 Palo Alto, CA 94304 chrispiech@gmail.com 10/22/2025 12:48:40 Roxana Esparza 1495 Columbia Ct Palo Alto, CA 94304 roxesparza@yahoo.com 10/22/2025 15:00:45 Alison McQueen 352 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 amcqueen@stanford.edu 10/22/2025 15:10:56 Clark Barrett 1535 Drake Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304 clarkbarrett@gmail.com 10/22/2025 15:30:05 Wendy Gu 2500 Columbia St., Unit 100, Palo Alto, CA xwgu@stanford.edu 10/22/2025 16:30:37 Michael Tuffley 2600 Columbia St michaeltuffley@gmail.com 10/22/2025 17:01:40 Mark Greif 2600 Columbia Street, #205, Palo Alto, CA 94304 mgreifn1@gmail.com 10/22/2025 20:22:18 Michael Allen 2600 Columbia, Apt 212, Palo Alto, CA michaelodallen@gmail.com 10/22/2025 20:24:15 Janet Xu 2500 Columbia St. Unit 307 j.janet.xu@gmail.com 10/22/2025 21:27:09 Millie Das 2435 Amherst St Mdas@stanford.edu 10/22/2025 21:47:12 Alexandra Konings 2320 Princeton Street agkonings@gmail.com 10/22/2025 23:30:11 Kentaro Hara 2600 Columbia Street Apt 402 Palo Alto 94304 ken.hara9@gmail.com 10/23/2025 7:20:32 Ami S. Bhatt 2500 Columbia Street, #405, Palo Alto CA 94304 asbhatt@gmail.com 10/23/2025 23:31:29 John Delacruz 2430 Amherst St, Palo Alto, CA 94304 jmdelacruz@gmail.com Timestamp Full name Street address Email 10/24/2025 8:11:54 Ana Clara Backes Martins 2500 Columbia Street #201 anaclarabackes@gmail.com 10/24/2025 22:27:03 Mark Zhandry 2500 Columbia St mzhandry@stanford.edu 10/25/2025 5:47:38 Devon Ryan 1430 Columbia Court, Palo Alto, CA 94304 rogueeve@gmail.com 10/25/2025 16:49:16 Dongyun Jiang 2500 Columbia Street jdypkupsu@gmail.com 10/26/2025 9:55:24 Grant Jirka 2500 Columbia Street, Unit 209, Palo Alto, CA 94304 grantjirka2016@gmail.com 10/26/2025 9:55:50 Ada Aka 2500 Columbia Street Unit 209 Palo Alto, CA 94304 adaaka94@gmail.com 10/26/2025 22:07:57 Alia Crum 1470 Columbia Court crum@stanford.edu 11/7/2025 11:58:23 Jason Ross 2600 Columbia Street jasonbross@gmail.com 11/13/2025 13:34:57 Roanne Kantor 2500 Columbia St Unit 107, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1165 roannekantor@gmail.com From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:A question about CSLC Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 2:42:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, A PAUSD parent shared with me the following message that was sent by Sup. Austin to PAUSD parents via Parent Square on October 24,2025, 12:03pm: It’s easy to forget that PAUSD is a large organization with an impact on our community that reaches beyond teaching and learning. As a large employer with many sites, we work closely with the City of Palo Alto on many issues. I want to take a minute this week to share a few things that are on the radar, looking to the future. We recently had some time to take a deeper look at proposals for rail crossings at Meadow, Charleston, and Churchill. These crossings have been the source of a lot of discussions and debate. I am not commenting on the specifics of each proposal. Instead, my observation is that any work is going to be disruptive. The ambitious plans are necessary and may be beneficial in the long run. In the short term, each project will have a major impact on our traffic patterns. While parents should be most concerned with how their students get to school and home, PAUSD must also consider how our buses operate, how maintenance vehicles are deployed, and how construction can impact safety plans. We have a good relationship with the staff at the City and appreciate our opportunities to express our insights on projects and better understand the big picture. Another big topic is the addition of housing. While new housing is important for many reasons, the number and location of housing have an impact on our planning. For example, when large projects are planned in condensed areas, it may eventually shift school boundaries or necessitate additional building. With many of the plans occurring on the fringes of our boundaries, we see scenarios that could significantly change the way we think about our current school locations, functions, and enrollment patterns. As plans emerge and start to take shape, we will provide updates. For now, we are thankful for the partnerships we have with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. We appreciate our communication lines and the way we navigate these issues together. I send this as an update, to let you know that recent presentations by staff re: Grade Seps, Draft BPTP and SARAP information shared at CSTSC seem to have gotten his attention somehow (though he wasn’t present). Has the CSLC met lately? I see that the October CSLC meeting was cancelled, and no agenda has been posted for November. The majority of CSLC meetings have been cancelled over the last year which seems odd, given the scope of work the city is doing that will affect PAUSD…not to mention our valued Safe Routes to School Partnership which could use some daylight. How and where is the city engaging with PAUSD key decision-makers and the public on major projects/programs? This is not obvious to citizens; hence, the question. Formerly monthly CSLC meetings have changed. Only two meeting agendas were posted for all of 2025 so far. The remainder were noted as cancelled or provide no information at all for the public. See https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Council-Committees/CitySchool-Liaison- Committee The CSLC, historically has a been a key point of contact for citizens to reach both PAUSD and CoPA on matters that relate to both agencies. It was very important to Safe Routes to School and many other programs when it was regularly meeting. I look forward to learning more. Thank you. Penny Ellson (speaking as an individual and concerned former Safe Routes to School leader and Palo Alto Council of PTAs Transportation Safety Committee Chair for 17 years) Virus-free.www.avg.com   From:Clerk, City To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:FW: Palo Alto Link termination Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 2:41:48 PM Hello, Please see the below public comment received to our office. Thank you, City Clerk’s Office From: Fernan Aceved <efbfg741@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 8:31 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Palo Alto Link termination CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. I was in the zoom meeting by zoom a person of the panel, senior, gray hair, said he thinks the service should be for people disabled or high necessity, I ask what about the teachers, if you don’t have teachers how you run the school, it’s hard to get teachers in Palo Altobecause ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR I was in the zoom meeting by zoom a person of the panel, senior, gray hair, said he thinks the service should be for people disabled or high necessity, I ask what about the teachers, if you don’t have teachers how you run the school, it’s hard to get teachers in Palo Alto because the high cost of living, you do this and you will hurt the economy, it’s for example, Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts don’t make to much money, they got grands but they bring a lot of money to San Francisco, every event on Saturdays people spend money in restaurants, cloying, transportation, train service, parking fees, etc. then city makes a lot of money, it’s the same with the service, cut it or eliminate the service you will hurt the economy of Palo Alto, I suggest let go people working for the city, having a small payroll for the city and using Artificial Intelligence city will make more money and will provide better services, simple solution, hear the people, the ones that pay the taxes, thanks Sent from my iPhone Powered by Mimecast From:Bissell, Nicole To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment Letter Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:53:34 AM Attachments:2025-11-13 Public Comment.pdf image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image007.png Dear City Councilmembers, Please see the attached public comment letter received via mail. Best, Nicole Bissell Administrative Associate III Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2630 | E: Nicole.Bissell@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov November 2025 View this email in your browser. In this Issue Message from our Co-presidents Advocacy Report LWVPA Updates, Board Meeting Highlights, Involvement Opportunities Voter Resources Events & Activities From:LWV Palo Alto VOTER To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA November VOTER: county assessor run-off in December! Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:37:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. COMING UP: NOVEMBER 25: Board Meeting | 27: Thanksgiving (fyi) DECEMBER 11: Winter Luncheon | 30: Run-off election for County Assessor MESSAGE FROM OUR CO-PRESIDENTS On October 18 our League participated with over 7000 people locally (and over 8 million nationally) in the No Kings Day 2 rally and Democracy Fair at Rinconada Park (see the Advocacy Report). At our League table, our volunteers spoke with more than 100 rally participants about the Nov. 4 special election ballot, urging them to contact Congress to oppose administration policies including the documentary proof of citizenship proposal and the loss of SNAP benefits and health care subsidies. The national League’s message for the next few months: organize and uplift those most impacted in your community. When the government fails to meet the needs of the people, stand with each other—organizing, caring, and building the communities we deserve. Donate to a local food bank, support a local community shelter, or host a local Give/Back Drive. See Mutual Aid Thanks to Ellen Smith, Virginia VanKuren, Micheline Horstmeyer, Julie Cardillo, Laura Bajuk, Kaye Crawford, Cari Anderson, Liz Jensen, Jim Fox, Rachel Kellerman, and Hannah Lu for tabling at the Democracy Fair. It is empowering and energizing to be part of the recent rallies to defend democracy. We hope some of you got to see the musical “Suffs,” the story of the Suffragists who fought for the 19th Amendment, in San Francisco recently. The show’s message: we can’t take our democratic rights for granted. Every generation must keep fighting and marching on. Movements that fight for justice and inclusion take time and setbacks are part of progress. Freedom isn’t free. Help the League prepare for the 2026 elections, one of the most important elections of our time. Voter Services teams are forming now. We need help running zoom candidate forums, writing and sorting questions, presenting pros and cons, and doing voter outreach. Send an email to lwvpaoffice@gmail.com, subject line: 2026. You can also donate to LWV Palo Alto on our website, or join one of our support or interest teams by taking this 30-second Interest Survey. Thank you all. - Lisa Ratner & Hannah Lu, Co-presidents VOTER RESOURCES Results of the November 4 Special Election View Unofficial Election Results Special Runoff Election: December 30 12/30/25 Special Runoff Election Resources from the Registrar of Voters | County of Santa Clara As no candidate for County Assessor has (as yet) received more than half the vote, there will be a runoff election on December 30, 2025. From the County ROV website: RESOURCES California State Elections Code Guide to Translated Languages Vote411.org: an online voter guide that provides voters and candidates with election information and resources Advocacy Report by Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair/Co-president LOCAL: Our Board approved a letter to the city council supporting a housing development at 660 University Ave which contained 20% deed restricted affordable units. The letter pointed out that currently the fastest and probably cheapest way to increase affordable units in Palo Alto was to approve inclusionary units in market rate developments (mixed income developments). Read the letter. Our League participated in No Kings Day 2 on October 18 at Rinconada Park’s Democracy Fair. We helped people contact the Federal Election Assistance Commission to oppose its proposal to require documentary proof of citizenship which would disenfranchise millions of married women and low-income eligible voters who had neither time or money to obtain documents, such as passports, proving their name matched their birth certificate. We also provided voter reg forms and non-partisan information about Prop. 50 and Measure A on the Nov. 4 ballot. We urged people to contact their congressional representatives to oppose the administration’s unlawful usurping of Congress’ power to spend money, cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, and to support restoration of tax credits for health insurance. LWV Palo Alto’s Housing & Transportation committee will meet by zoom at 7 pm on November 17 with the Housing Committee of LWV Los Altos/ Mountain View Area to hear Palo Alto planning staff explain the San Antonio Rd. Area Plan, which would affect both Palo Alto and Mountain View. To attend this informational meeting, email: contact@lwvpaloalto.org, subject: San Antonio Rd. Area Plan meeting zoom invite. NATIONAL: Statements/Messaging League of Women Voters Statement on Weekend Shootings in North Carolina and HBCUs League of Women Voters of New Jersey, ACLU-NJ, and 28 Partner Organizations File Amicus Brief in Support of Community Trust Policies League of Women Voters of Michigan Seeks to Protect Voters in Justice Department Lawsuit to Obtain State Rolls Litigation US v. Board of Elections of the State of New York – LWVNYS filed a motion to intervene on behalf of voters in a lawsuit brought by the US DOJ to obtain voter data without proper basis and purpose. Read the press release. US v. Benson – LWVMI filed a motion to intervene on behalf of voters in a lawsuit brought by the US DOJ to obtain voter data without proper basis and purpose. Read the press release. With this filing, the League has moved to intervene in six of the eight lawsuits filed by the DOJ against states who refused to hand over voters’ data. LWVNJ files amicus brief in support of community trust policies. Read the press release. LWVPA Updates & Events You're warmly invited to join us for this cherished tradition. Join us in the Fireside Room at Lucie Stern Center for a delicious meal, great company, and festive cheer as we gather to honor our community and look ahead to an exciting new year! 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 today - space is limited! 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. LWVPA October 2025 Board Meeting Highlights: Discussed LWV’s Unite and Rise 8.5 initiative: League will reach out to allied organizations to seek potential collaborations in our effort to protect and preserve democracy. Discussed League’s end-of-year fundraising campaign. Planning is underway for the Winter Luncheon in December 2025. The speaker will be Dr. Didi Kuo speaking on the importance of political parties in a strong democracy. Motions Approved: Ratified League’s Oct. 6 letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Approved minutes of August 26 and September 23 board meetings. Approved revised League’s Nonpartisan policy (revision date: August 26, 2025). The Board will next meet on Tuesday, November 25. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. - Hannah Lu for Julie Cardillo, Secretary Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Interested in helping to register people, get out the vote and educate voters on the issues and candidates? We've got a spot for you! LET'S GET READY FOR THE 2026 MID-TERMS! Our Voter Services Team needs a few people who would like to organize 2026 GOTV activities to reach out to community organizations. For the 2026 elections (coming up sooner than you think–or maybe not soon enough)--we will need people who would like to help organize candidate and issue forums. Let us know you are interested in helping by emailing us at contact@lwvpaloalto.org with the subject line: "GOTV" Come join us and our newest members and volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Events & Activities CATCH UP ON PAST EVENTS - video recordings await you! 10.4: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. 8.17: District 16 Congressional Representative, REP. SAM LICCARDO You're invited! 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:Manny Diaz To:Council, City Subject:Turf Study Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:35:51 AM Attachments:11.13.25 - TenCate Letter to Palo Alto City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council Members, Attached is a letter from CEO Joe Fields of TenCate Grass regarding the turf study issue that you will discuss at your November 17, 2025 Palo Alto City Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Manny Diaz Consultant for TenCate Grass Manny Diaz & Associates inc. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report November 13, 2025 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: Draft Study on Synthetic and Natural Turf Athletic Fields Honorable Mayor Ed Lauing, Councilmembers Patrick Burt, George Lu, Julie Lythcott-Haims, Keith Reckdahl, Greer Stone, Vicki Veenker Thank you for your consideration and the thoughtful approach you’re taking in evaluating the best surfaces for Palo Alto's municipal park system. We appreciated the opportunity to speak with Lloyd Sports + Engineering as they prepare their study on synthetic and natural turf athletic fields. In response to the publication of the draft report, we wanted to follow up and reiterate the immense value of artificial turf and the recent technological advances that ensure the health and safety of the athletes and communities that use synthetic turf, which the study included. These are important factors that we hope the Commission will consider as the turf study process continues. TenCate’s Leadership and Commitment to Safety and Sustainability 1. Established Track Record TenCate Grass is the largest manufacturer, distributor, installer, and recycler of artificial turf in the United States—and a global industry leader. We recognize and respect the concerns surrounding artificial turf, and in response, we have devoted significant resources to developing more sustainable turf systems. Numerous independent studies and comprehensive research reviews have repeatedly demonstrated the safety of artificial turf. Our continued work reinforces these findings and ensures that our products meet or exceed health, safety, and environmental standards. 2. Advanced Turf Solutions & Research Our latest innovations exemplify our dedication to safer and more environmentally friendly turf systems. Below are some key updates: • PFAS-Free Since October 2023: We proactively eliminated the use of PFAS in our turf manufacturing processes to address public health concerns. • No Performance Infill Required: Our newest turf, Pivot®, requires no sand or black crumb rubber. By removing traditional infill, primary microplastics pollution is eliminated and the surface can be 30–50 degrees cooler than turf systems using rubber and/or conventional abrasive materials. • Equivalent Injury Rates: Independent studies by the NFL and NCAA demonstrate no difference in injury rates when comparing artificial turf to premier-quality natural grass stadium fields. Indeed, research shows that turf can be significantly safer than regularly used grass fields, such as those used by high schools and community parks. • Recyclability: Turf systems can be recycled. TenCate has a turf recycling center in Louisiana where we have processed a number of fields from California—including a field recently removed from Stanford University. In 2019, TenCate also led the way by establishing recycling capabilities in the Netherlands where now over 95 % of turf fields are recycled. • Water Conservation: Artificial turf uses significantly less water than natural grass fields— an important factor in water-sensitive regions. • Chemicals: Unlike natural grass fields, artificial turf fields do not require the use of any pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides (many of which contain PFAS or are classified as PFAS) – all of which contaminate the soil in and around natural grass fields and can find their way into our water. • Increased Playability & Equity: Artificial turf dramatically increases playing availability compared to natural grass fields, enhancing community access. Conclusion We value the feedback from environmental and community groups and acknowledge the importance of ongoing engagement with all stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to share the facts about artificial turf and for the thoughtful approach the City of Palo Alto has taken thus far. TenCate remains committed to working with you, your staff, and all stakeholders to ensure that residents benefit from the proven advantages of artificial turf while safeguarding public health and the environment. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss these topics further, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to the opportunity for continued collaboration. Thank you for your consideration. Very sincerely, Joe Fields CEO Americas, TenCate Grass From:Magdalena Cabrera To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject:Fwd: Nov 17 decision on Lloyd consulting findings Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:04:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Esteemed council members and Mayor, I write to you once again to urge you to consider very carefully the vote to accept or reject the findings of the Lloyd study on artificial turf. As the saying goes, buyer beware! There is Too much hard science out in the world that tells us that the toxic chemicals in artificial turf are abundant and dangerous to all living things. Nano and micro plastics abound in the environment, in your bodies and in mine. There is NO place on earth without nano plastics in evidence. Think of that! NO place on earth. In my humble opinion, there is no good reason to keep using artificial turf or PIP rubber. If we do a serious cost/benefit analysis, one that is deep and looks long term, I believe with all my heart that we will understand that the cost far exceeds the benefit. Let us be the city of LIght and Good Sense. Let us lead the way and be the shining example of doing the right thing , inspiring other cities to follow our stellar example in protecting our citizens and the environment. Vote no on the less than objective Lloyd study. Think about the warning In Dr Suess' The Lorax or in the Joni MItchell song "Big Yellow Taxi" we listened to when we were young: " Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone. Paved paradise, put up a parking lot." Respectfully, Magdalena Cabrera long time resident of the Ventura Neighborhood PS: Thank you for the grass field at Boulware Park. The first effort at "meadow" was , as you know, not at all appealing or usable. This is a huge win for everyone. PSS: Open the attachment if you are unfamiliar with the prescient lyric by Joni Mitchell. https://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=13 More on nano plastics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772416622000146 From:Sue To:Council, City Subject:Organically-Managed Natural Grass Field Pilot Project Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:03:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Council Members:I am writing to urge you to support a pilot program to design, build, and maintain a high-quality organically managed grass field in Palo Alto. A most useful recommendation fromthe Lloyd study is to implement such a pilot project to demonstrate best practices andcollect reliable data on performance, cost, and usability. A well-designed pilot would allow Palo Alto to directly compare the costs and carryingcapacity of a high-quality organic field, using drought-tolerant grasses and good surfacedrainage. In other regions, well-maintained organic fields have provided up to 2,000 hoursof play per year—meeting community needs while eliminating pesticide use and syntheticturf waste. El Camino Park would be an ideal location for this pilot. Planning could begin this year,with sod installation to shorten the timeline for completion. Its lighting would also allowextended play hours that most local grass fields do not currently offer. Choosing to moveforward with a natural grass pilot—rather than installing more plastic turf—would reinforcePalo Alto’s reputation as an environmental leader and help avoid the documented harmfulenvironmental and human health impacts of synthetic turf before, during, and after its lifecycle. The Lloyd study provides limited detail on pilot design. Based on successful exampleselsewhere, the following elements are recommended: Partner with the county, nearby cities, and the school district to share costs and dataregionally.Develop the plan with guidance from agronomists who have experience designing andmaintaining successful organic grass fields. Beyond Pesticides and similarorganizations will offer expert assistance at very low cost.Avoid a sand-capped field. Instead, amend native soils with organic material and aerateregularly to provide internal drainage; ensure smooth surface grading and a slight crownfor surface runoff.Install high-efficiency irrigation, such as MP rotators, to mimic rainfall and reduce water This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report use, drift, and puddling.Select grass species known for durability and year-round usability, including warm-season grasses suited to California’s climate.Use soil-building organic management practices that add carbon and nutrients whilereducing runoff to storm drains.Increase the maintenance budget and ensure strong accountability through detailedcontracts. Require maintenance logs, photo documentation, and performance-basedpayments.Include consistent gopher control and prompt repair of holes, ruts, and uneven areascaused by wear or animals.Implement a simple online community reporting tool for issues such as gopher holes,irrigation malfunctions, or field condition concerns.Use adaptive management to refine practices as field monitoring data are collected.This pilot would provide valuable insights into long-term cost-efficiency, resilience, andcommunity satisfaction while modeling environmentally responsible land management. Ihope the Council will seize this opportunity to lead regionally in sustainable, safe, andhigh-quality athletic fields. Thank you for considering this important initiative. I would be happy to share moreexamples or connect staff with experts in organic turf management. Sincerely, Sue Chow, City Resident From:Fernan Aceved To:Council, City Subject:About Palo Alto Link Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 8:22:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I was in the zoom meeting by zoom a person of the panel, senior, gray hair, said he thinks the service should be for people disabled or high necessity, I ask what about the teachers, if you don’t have teachers how you run the school, it’s hard to get teachers in Palo Alto because the high cost of living, you do this and you will hurt the economy, it’s for example, Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts don’t make to much money, they got grands but they bring a lot of money to San Francisco, every event on Saturdays people spend money in restaurants, cloying, transportation, train service, parking fees, etc. then city makes a lot of money, it’s the same with the service, cut it or eliminate the service you will hurt the economy of Palo Alto, I suggest let go people working for the city, having a small payroll for the city and using Artificial Intelligence city will make more money and will provide better services, simple solution, hear the people, the ones that pay the taxes, thanks Sent from my iPhone This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Action Item 9: Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems - Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 7:42:33 PM Attachments:TTT pg1.png TTT pg 2.png TTT pg 3.png TTT pg 4.png TTT pg 5.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Please take a few minutes to read the information in the link below regarding Industry Tactics (Test the Turf Collaborative, 2025). This should help you understand the sheer frustration of community members trying to educate and advocate for natural grass fields. Community members are desperate to get good sports fields for our kids and many have shared a plethora of information as to why natural turf is a holistically safer option than plastic turf. (Safer for the health of kids, the environment and public funds.) Since El Camino is already plastic, is the horse already out of the barn? Yes. But that doesn't mean the decision can't be made to revert fields back to natural turf (which can take substantially less than 18 months!) and stop any further damage. Over the past 5 years of following and researching the topic of artificial turf I have seen industry narrative morph from 1st Dog Defense (no harm) to 2nd Dog Defense (no risk) to 3rd Dog Defense (low risk) within our county, state and nationally. I then came to the unfortunate realization that grass advocates and independent experts have in fact done the plastic turf industry a huge favour because we have shared so much well researched, documented and referenced information with decision makers (like you) that if industry has to play the 4th Dog Defense (you knew) card then no one supporting or approving the installation of plastic turf will be able to say they didn't know the risks. So can we please just stop the madness now BEFORE industry needs to play the 4th Dog Defense card. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Don't approve the report in its current form. Take the time to understand and acknowledge the risks of plastic fields as documented by independent experts and have these incorporated into the report. Consult independent Certified Sports Field Managers experienced in well designed, installed and organically managed natural turf sports fields and have this information incorporated into the report. Approve conversion from plastic sports fields back to natural turf. Take the multiple millions that would have gone into plastic fields and instead invest it in properly maintaining natural turf fields. (Invest in our kids health, local jobs, and the environment and not the profit driven multibillion dollar plastic industry.) We can't change the beginning, but we can stop where we are and change the ending. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clara County resident https://www.testtheturf.org/industry-tactics.html NB: In the event that the link doesn't work for public comments I've attached screen shots of this web page. (TTT pages 1-5) From:Claire E To:Council, City Subject:November 17, 2025 Agenda Item #9, Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 7:15:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i November 12, 2025 Dear Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Agenda Item #9, Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems. Unfortunately, the turf study by Lloyd Sports and Engineering, is not an unbiased assessment of the options and vital information is misleading or missing that is needed to select an appropriate turf system for any of Palo Alto’s parks. I have detailed a number of concerns with the study. I believe that the right solution is to move quickly to instead and adopt the Lloyd study and staff recommendation to implement a natural grass pilot project, not at some point at some undisclosed location but as soon as possible, and at El Camino Park. Natural grass is healthier, provides more aesthetic appeal and ecological value, has a lower carbon footprint and can (if well designed and maintained) provide many more hours of use than the Lloyd study concludes. Please consider my points listed below when reviewing the staff report and Lloyd study in preparation for the November 17th meeting. Thank you! Claire Elliott, Palo Alto resident Points to consider for November 17th: 1. The Lloyd study should not be approved in its current biased and This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report incomplete form: A large concern is the poor attention paid to the health impacts of synthetic turf. b) The “Heath Hazards” section lists one chemical health hazard for synthetic grass (PFAS) and several for natural grass, even though the chemicals listed for natural grass are all pesticides that Lloyd must know Palo Alto does not use. c) The report downplays the PFAS concern by saying the city can procure PFAS free turf. d) This is a serious problem because it is not yet possible to confirm any product is PFAS free e) A large number of PFAS compounds that could be incorporated into feed stocks used by the turf manufacturer and many of these compounds have no approved analytical method to identify their concentration in a material. f) In addition, synthetic turf often contains a large number of compounds besides PFAS that are known to be toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. g) Also, during its use, plastic grass blades often break off and then turn into microplastics which are known to have many negative health impacts and are being found in many parts of our bodies. 2. A second concern is uneven focus of environmental concerns for all three turf types evaluated by the study. a) No mention of PFAS as an environmental contaminant is made, the only environmental concern listed for synthetic turf is the release of microplastics. b) For hybrid and natural grass, carbon footprint and water use were described, but not for synthetic turf even though its carbon footprint is high and water is used in washing and cooling the turf. Sometimes antibacterial solutions are also used which can be released into the environment. c) No other chemical releases from synthetic grass is mentioned (like health impacts they should have include the thousands of chemicals that may be included and leached out of synthetic turf, including many that are toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. 3. The cost figures are misleading in the final report. a) The cost per hour calculated for natural grass fields assumes these fields are only used for an average of 500 hours per year when used over 1,000 hours per year. b) The cost per hour for synthetic turf assumes El Camino was used for 2,700 hours per year. This calculation included some “double- dipping” because when the two halves of the field were used at the same time, two instead of one hour was used. The consultant admitted if this method is changed, the usage would be 1,900 instead of 2700 hours per year. It should be changed because the cost for installing and maintaining the fields is based on the full-sized field, not half of a field! c) When you redo the cost estimate per hour of usage, these corrected numbers result in the cost per hour for grass changing from $179 to $89 and synthetic turf changing from $79 to $92. Showing natural grass can cost less per hour of play. d) The cost for synthetic turf would go up further from $92/hour of play if you include the cost for recycling the turf which was left out of the study. e) The cost for synthetic turf would go up even farther if the study included an estimated cost for the environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf during manufacture, use and disposal. f) In the October 28th Parks and Recreation meeting, the Lloyd consultant stated that recycling turf is expensive so the turf might be repurposed for batting cages, as substrate for horse arena soils or shipped south of the border. What is the eventual fate of these “repurposed” turf fields? g) What is the economic impact of synthetic turf chemicals and microplastics in our soil and waterways, the cost to clean up contamination caused by reuse and disposal, or the price of medical bills and shortened life spans for those in plastics manufacturing industries who are known to have significantly higher cases of many diseases? 4. One recommendation of the Lloyd study that makes a lot of sense is to design and implement a pilot project of a well-designed and maintained grass field. a) This would allow Palo Alto to gather data to compare costs and carrying capacity of a high-quality organic grass field with drought resistant grasses and good surface drainage. These types of fields have been shown in other parts of the country and world have provided up to 2,000 hours of use per year. b) This pilot project would be ideally implemented now at El Camino Park. The design could start this year and by installing sod instead of seeding you could shorten the project timeline. c) The lighted field at El Camino would also allow extended play many grass fields in Palo Alto do not offer. d) Saying no to plastic grass and implementing a natural grass pilot project would help Palo Alto maintain a reputation as an environmental leader and avoid the well-known environmental and human health impacts of a synthetic field before, during, and after its useful life. The Lloyd study gives little detail about what a pilot project design should include. Consider these details: a) Partner where possible with the county, other cities in the region, school district, etc, so the costs and results can be shared regionally b) Develop the plan with expert help of agronomists who have already had success designing and maintaining organic grass fields. Beyond pesticides may be able to provide some of this expert help at no or low cost to the city. c) Save money and water and make organic management more successful by NOT using a sand capped field. Provide internal drainage by amending the native soils with organics, and aerating often. Provide surface drainage with careful grading that provides a smooth surface with a slight crown in the middle. d) Include high efficiency irrigation (e.g. MP rotators) to mimic rainfall and reduce drift and puddling of water. e) Selects a grass species that has been shown to allow additional play time (possibly a warm season grass that has been shown to work in California.) f) Use organic management that adds carbon and nutrients that are less likely to runoff into stormdrains. g) Grass field monitoring and maintenance is critical. Increase the budget for these necessities. Ensure contracts for maintenance are detailed, hold back funding to ensure the contractor performs well. h) Control gophers and fill holes and ruts caused by animals, people, vehicles, etc. i) Ensure maintenance protocols are detailed in contracts and funding held aside until contractors prove they are following the documentation of improvements made. j) Develop an easy to access and use crowd sourcing method of evaluating field conditions (online tool for reporting gopher holes, irrigation problems leading to dry or soggy conditions, etc. k) Use adaptive management to alter practices as results from monitoring show improvements are needed. From:Fahad Kelantan To:Gilbert, Aaron; Hunt, Andrew; Mehran Moalem; Council, City Subject:100% Green Hydrogen In Palo Alto. The Best City In The World. Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 6:13:07 PM Attachments:image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hey Andrew, Aaron, and Mayor Ed Lauing, Thanks for taking my call today Andrew. It was great to meet you. Hello Aaron. I just left a voicemail for you. My co-founder Dr. Mehran Moalem, who was a former Berekely professor in nuclear engineering, and I both started a new 100% green energy company. Our goal is to end fossil fuels, and one of the main products to do that is 100% Green Hydrogen. One of our proprietary technologies is Level 2 Carbon Negative Green Hydrogen. That's the working name right now. Please don't tell anyone. What we would do is buy 100% Clean Energy, then sell Hydrogen as a fuel which is obvious. But one of our proprietary methods is to use all of the free Green Oxygen we produce for Water Treatment. That's why Mr. Gilbert is CC'ed here. We want to locate our hydrogen production site exactly where the water treatment plant is next to the Palo Alto Airport. We expect about 3 tons of Hydrogen a day, which is split from 24 tons of O2. We recently applied for a grant in the State of Washington to build our Green Hydrogen production plant. Attached is the majority of our application. Please see attached PDF. Please note, all of this is proprietary. We understand you are a government agency that is under FOIA request laws, but please only share with those on a need to know basis. We don't want our competitors stealing our business plans. In the Merged PDF which is 84 pages, it starts with slides which are a warm up. Then there is the project narrative. For Aaron, you may skip to page 22 "Methods and Assumptions". We don't exactly reveal how we reduce the emissions from the water plant process, but you are a smart guy. If you use 100% pure oxygen, the biological processes change. It's much more efficient. Less air injection. Higher O2 concentration. Lower VOCs. Lower methane. It'll be similar to a high purity oxygen activated sludge (HPOAS) system. But we go beyond HPOAS. We are happy to get into the nitty gritty. Mehran loves chemistry. You guys will have fun. We want zero waste. You won't need to truck for incineration as you currently do. There are better This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report We talked to your counterpart in Vancouver Washington's WasteWater Treatment Plant, Mr. Frank Dick. He kindly provided us with a letter of support, page 41 in the PDF. We talked about some of the processes on the phone. There is plenty of space available next to our waste water plant. Why do we need Palo Alto? Well.... first and foremost I live in PA. Haha. I wish I had looked in my own city before thinking about other options. Talk about being blind sided. The grass is greener on the other side. I love being in PA. I love the people. This is where I feel home. I'd like to walk to work every day. That'd be nice. But in all seriousness: Secondly, we must avoid PG&E a private company that has exploitative costs. Hydrogen can be thought of as an energy storage medium. We are extremely sensitive to prices. If we can get these prices, below, then I think we have a very strong competitive advantage to help serve our community. Currently hydrogen is dominated by a monopoly called TrueZero/FirstElement who charge a whopping $36 per Kg. It's so high even with Toyota's corporate subsidy of $15,000 worth of fuel credits, people won't buy hydrogen cars anymore. AC Transit up in hippie capital are paying $10.5 per Kg for dirty grey liquid hydrogen wholesale, which when accounting for their cryogenic equipment vaporization losses and maintenance, is about $15 per Kg at their pump. If we can get your energy prices, we can probably sell for less than $9 per Kg. Which is way cheaper than anyone else. Alternatively, we can sign a PPA with a renewable energy producer and have you deliver to us. I just got off the phone with Yuba Water Agency. They are legally not allowed to sell to consumers. They have to sell to a utility like you. We are happy to sign a PPA with them, and have you deliver the energy to us where the users will be. https://www.yubawater.org/152/Hydropower-Facilities On page 40 of our PDF, you'll see that I offered the State of WA & OR a legally binding Net Profit Cap of 10% to all state agencies if we win the grant. If it costs us $8 for example, we cannot sell for more than $8.8. We will offer the same deal to the California Energy Commission should we win the grant for GFO 24-610 Heavy Duty Refueling stations. We would sell to SamTrans, VTA, and all the Palo Alto city vehicles the cheapest hydrogen possible... all of our Palo Alto school buses, police cars, city cars, Palo Alto Link etc... we'll give you all super low hydrogen prices. We aren't trying to make a greedy profit. We are trying to grow the market. SamTrans already ordered 108 Hydrogen buses. That corresponds to 50 Kg a day per bus, so they need 5.4 Tons a day. There isn't enough supply for 1 transit agency. We are sitting on a gold mine. Let's help my lovely Palo Alto. Let's help those most in need. Let's completely decarbonize all of the Bay Area. We can end fossil fuels. We can clean up the waterways of the Bay Area. I'd love to go swimming in the Bay. We'll fix the air and the water. There was a lot to cover in this email and our long PDF application. We'd like to set up a time to talk. When are you available for a video meeting? Can we meet on Friday the 14th? Best regards, Fahad -- Best, Fahad Kelantan Founder & CEO Enliven Energy From:Jonathan Chun To:Council, City Subject:Excessive Increases in Solar and EVSE Permitting Fees Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 4:29:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council members, I am writing to express concern regarding the recent and substantial increases in permitting fees for solar energy and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) installations. As a resident and supporter of our city’s climate and sustainability goals, I am alarmed that these new fees run counter to both state law and the city’s own commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy adoption. According to the most recent fee schedule, the cost to obtain a solar installation permit has increased from $376 to $1,868, while the cost for an EVSE installation permit has risen from $224 to $1,327. These steep increases—nearly fivefold in both cases—pose serious equity and environmental concerns. First, these higher fees disproportionately burden homeowners and small businesses who wish to make environmentally responsible choices. For many families, especially those in middle- and lower-income brackets, these additional costs create a real barrier to participating in the clean energy transition. This undermines the city’s stated goals of promoting climate equity and ensuring that all residents can benefit from the shift to renewable energy and electric transportation. Second, the city’s climate action and sustainability plans explicitly encourage residents to reduce fossil fuel use through electrification of homes and vehicles. By dramatically increasing permitting costs for solar and EV charging installations, the city risks discouraging exactly the kinds of investments that help achieve those goals. I understand that the city already sources electricity from renewable sources so the main benefit of solar installation is to reduce resident's overall costs which would appear to align with the city’s stated goal of increasing the affordability of sustainable energy. Finally, these new fees may not comply with California Government Code Section 66015, which limits permitting fees for residential solar energy systems and energy storage systems to no more than $450, unless the city can provide “substantial evidence” that higher fees are reasonably necessary to cover the actual cost of providing the service. Without a transparent cost justification, these fee increases appear to exceed what is allowable under state law. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report I respectfully request that the Council: 1. Review and provide justification for the recent fee increases, including evidence of the reasonable cost basis as required by state law. 2. Suspend or roll back the increased fees until such an analysis is completed and made public. 3. Recommit to policies that make renewable energy and electrification more accessible and affordable for all residents. Thank you for your time Jonathan From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:City Council; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Carol Garsten / Third Thursday / First Friday Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 2:37:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, City Manager and Council Members, Several friends let me know that Carol Garsten and Debra W addressed your 11/10 council meeting so I tuned in and I'm glad I did. I hope you take their remarks seriously AND report back to the community on what you're doing to address their - - and OUR -- concerns. I remain very upset that Mr Shikada and Ms Lythcott-Haims should have so cavalierly treated a dedicated volunteer like Carol without even giving her the courtesy of advanced warning, a fair hearing or even trying to find a compromise. Is that how Palo Alto rewards volunteers and is this type of treatment supposed to encourage other volunteers? What entitles these 2 people to ignore the petitions and ALL the positive feedback Garsten has gotten from the Cal Ave merchants and Palo Alto residents aka taxpayers and voters?? It took the city a pathetically long 10 years to copy what Carol so successfully developed and launched in Los Altos in 2013. It's utterly absurd, shameful and rude that they can fire her with so little notice -- and no gratitude for her hard work and creativity. I wonder if either Mr Shikada or Ms Lythcott-Haims (or the Chamber of Commerce) ever visited First Friday in Los Altos and seen all the joyous crowds of kids and adults sampling music on both Main and State streets. They might learn something about civic involvement without wasting OUR money on retail consultants with little or no local knowledge. The Chamber of Commerce (and the city) might learn something from the WEEKLY mailings from the Los Altos Village Assn about new retail and restaurant openings, special events etc. If they had, they'd see that the restaurants, bars and stores set their own hours -- which was the ONLY substantive complaint lobbed against Garsten in the PAO article. ( Why was Garsten blamed for 3d Thursday hours? Are we really supposed to believe Garsten had the authority to control dining hours? Are we supposed to believe that it's impossible to dine AND listen to music simultaneously?) Let me share how we spent First Friday. After listening one of our Palo Alto friends and his jazz combo finish their set near BK Collections -- a boutique -- on State Street at around 9:45, we all retired for drinks and snacks at Amandine on 1st Street and stayed there listening to ANOTHER musician play until Amandine closed after 11 PM. Earlier we and a crowd of 50 kids and adults listened and danced to a great rock band play, entertaining the diners across the street at State St Market (another concept PA would do well to copy). BK Collections stayed open until our friend's combo packed up their gear -- giving them light to do so. We await a real explanation for Garsten's shallow treatment. And you owe her an apology. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:dedra hauser To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for not scheduling meetings on Yom Kippur Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 2:20:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I was happy to learn that you have decided to not schedule any council meetings on Yom Kippur in 2026. As you probably know it's the holiest of the high holidays for Jews, and your respect and consideration for this holiday is especially important at such a fraught time for Jewish people. Thank you! Dedra Hauser Palo Alto resident This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:David Coale To:Hoyt, George; Shikada, Ed Cc:Rice, Danille; Tran, Joanna; Velasquez, Ingrid; City Mgr; pdsdirector; Hartley, Craig; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Council, City Subject:Re: CMO Call - 311/Leaf Blower Complaint Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 2:56:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi George and Ed Shikada, Here is another gas leaf blower issue that has been going on for years, just like the last one. This system does not work if it takes years and many e-mails to get the city to enforce a law that has been on the books for over 10 years! From the 311 Web site submitted today; Description Gas leaf blower in use. This is the 5th time reporting this which started years ago!!!!! See IDs: 14780830, 16216010, 16742811, and 17467917. This system clearly does not work!! Additional Location Description for Request 754 Josina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, USA The last time I emailed you, I then got many e-mails from the 311 system for IDs years ago (completed?) on many different IDs and many on the same ID. I guess someone was trying to clean up the many un-addressed items I have submitted over the years (too many e-mails to save for your inspection). I have also found this system to be very slow in response to most other items as well or that an item is marked complete and I find that it is not. This goes for abandon bikes, pot holes and the most dangerous one, a gap in a storm drain that is large enough to catch a bike wheel (and it did) causing damage to the bike and luckily no injuries (ID 17445541). This problem is potentially fatal for cyclist! While Palo Alto did put up cones around this area right away, I found several weeks later the cones had moved and the problem was still there. I even explained how to fix this problem in just a few minutes. Because of the possible fatal consequences of this situation and the lack of response from Palo Alto and Caltrans, I have since fixed this myself. I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but what else do you expect when a very dangerous situation is left un-attended? Hopefully you all will now be motivated to fix the problems with 311 and will also take another look at real enforcement for the gas leaf blower ban. Sincerely, David Coale 650 815-8212 On Aug 20, 2025, at 6:52 PM, Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> wrote: David, The City Manager’s Office shared your concern below with me. I have spoken with Code Enforcement Officer Hartley (Craig) who has shared the case history with me. In your most recent report to 311, you indicated that landscapers with gas leaf blower appear on a Wednesday’s at 12 pm. Based on this information, Craig has scheduled an inspection for next Wednesday, August 27th at 12 pm. If you are available at this time, Craig would be happy to discuss the matter in person. A warning letter has been sent out to the property owners with a compliance deadline. If violations are observed after the deadline, a citation will be issued to the property owners. Please reach out to me directly if compliance is not achieved after these efforts. <image002.png>George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.jpg> <image008.png> <image0 03.png> <image009.png><image010.jpg><image011.png><image012.png><image013.png> <image014.png> From: Velasquez, Ingrid <Ingrid.Velasquez@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 4:40 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Rice, Danille <Danille.Rice@PaloAlto.gov>; Tran, Joanna <Joanna.Tran@paloalto.gov> Subject: CMO Call - 311/Leaf Blower Complaint Hi George, We received a complaint from a resident, David Coale; he asked to escalate this matter beyond Code Enforcement. Mr. Coale has been submitting 311 leaf blower reports since 2023, the most recent one is from 8/6/25 (ID 17212477). All other reports have been closed but he is upset about because this neighbor’s landscaper continues to use a gas leaf blower. He has tried speaking with both the tenants and property owner but has had no success. David Coale 650-815-8121 david@evcl.com Thank You, Ingrid Ingrid Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov <image017.png> From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Stump, Molly Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Clerk, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:Re: TIME SENSITIVE: The City"s letter to SFO"s DEIR has not been registered as a "formal comment letter" Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 1:52:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Deara Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, I can see the City comments but I am getting conflicting information about whether it's an "official record;" therefore, regarding my previous email -it will be much appreciated to please know if the City has determined that the City's letter is an official letter, and formal letter per CEQA rules and to have Admin standing. Jennifer On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, City Manager, City Attorney, and Councilmembers Stone, Burt, Reckdahl, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, At last week's Mayor Press Conference, the City Manager mentioned that the City is tracking the SFO DEIR Certification process. Although the City sent a letter to respond to the SFO DEIR, as of November 11, 2025, no formal comment letter from the City of Palo Alto appears in Attachment B of the Final EIR for the San Francisco International Airport Recommended Airport Development Plan (Case No. 2017-007468ENV), meaning the City has no official voice in the CEQA record despite SFO’s expansion directly increasing flight path density, noise, and air pollution over our community. In order to fulfill the City's policy to be attentive to not miss opportunities to litigate the SFO flight path noise problem, please ensure that a formal letter is on record with the commissions.secretary@sfgov.org and if at all possible please provide oral testimony at the November 20 hearing to ensure Palo Alto’s position is on record before the project advances. I understand that the absence of a formal letter has the following implications: (1) CEQA does not require a written response to Palo Alto’s concerns about NextGen routes, SERFR arrivals, or cumulative health impacts; (2) the City cannot claim exhaustion of administrative remedies in any future legal challenge to the EIR certification scheduled for November 20; and (3) decision-makers will see zero institutional weight behind resident complaints, weakening our leverage. With only nine days until certification, Thank you, Jennifer From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Stump, Molly Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Clerk, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:TIME SENSITIVE: The City"s letter to SFO"s DEIR has not been registered as a "formal comment letter" Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 12:40:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, City Manager, City Attorney, and Councilmembers Stone, Burt, Reckdahl, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, At last week's Mayor Press Conference, the City Manager mentioned that the City is tracking the SFO DEIR Certification process. Although the City sent a letter to respond to the SFO DEIR, as of November 11, 2025, no formal comment letter from the City of Palo Alto appears in Attachment B of the Final EIR for the San Francisco International Airport Recommended Airport Development Plan (Case No. 2017-007468ENV), meaning the City has no official voice in the CEQA record despite SFO’s expansion directly increasing flight path density, noise, and air pollution over our community. In order to fulfill the City's policy to be attentive to not miss opportunities to litigate the SFO flight path noise problem, please ensure that a formal letter is on record with the commissions.secretary@sfgov.org and if at all possible please provide oral testimony at the November 20 hearing to ensure Palo Alto’s position is on record before the project advances. I understand that the absence of a formal letter has the following implications: (1) CEQA does not require a written response to Palo Alto’s concerns about NextGen routes, SERFR arrivals, or cumulative health impacts; (2) the City cannot claim exhaustion of administrative remedies in any future legal challenge to the EIR certification scheduled for November 20; and (3) decision-makers will see zero institutional weight behind resident complaints, weakening our leverage. With only nine days until certification, Thank you, Jennifer From:Faith Brigel To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Ave. No changes on Byron St. Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 12:58:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I left the meeting tonight a bit early. But I assume from the comments that the project was voted in. There were several items that were not answered. But as described they seemed to be swept under the carpet. Anyway, I would like to request that you pls not change the configuration of Byron Street if that is your intent. Making it one side parking will only make more need for parking spots worse not better. And making Byron a one way will not improve the situation. You are supposed to represent all of us not just the owners of that construction. And to make it a one way is only doing it for them. Please do not make these two changes. Much appreciated, Faith W. Brigel- 38 year owner of 518 Byron Street Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 6, 2025, at 4:53 PM, Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:Funding QuadGates is urgent Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 8:57:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl and Stone, Funding QuadGates is the alternative supported by transportation officials, experts, impacted residents and the community at large who care about the well being of neighbors suffering Caltrain noise As you are aware, the effects of intermittent, high-amplitude events that trigger strong physiological stress responses, sleep disruption, and cardiovascular strain are not theoretical for our community. Residents who are impacted by Caltrain - unlike in any other City - experience deleterious cumulative impacts due to the compounding of various transportation noise sources including concentrated flight path noise. You have the opportunity to mitigate this problem long overdue for serious solutions as Atherton wisely is doing. Atherton does not have anywhere near the levels of cumulative impacts. Noise health impact studies today are so precise that a night study by Swiss authorities showed data that noise in the 2 hours before death spikes the odds of fatal events by 44%. The stratospheric levels of noise discussed tonight mean that not taking the strongest course of action is a matter of increasing hazard to people including seniors and increasing the amount of people affected. The above mentioned study is Does night-time aircraft noise trigger mortality? I will add that given the gravity of the situation with the type of impacts involved, I have been surprised about what was evident at two rail meeting that I attended earlier this year..that the less-than adequate wayside horns idea with outdated technology, underestimated costs, dubious benefits and actually introducing a new noise problem could still be delaying decisions. For our neighbors and for Palo Alto's leadership on community well being, please vote to remove the roadblocks, and make Quad Gates a reality. Thank you, Jennifer From:Walter Chapman To:Council, City Subject:CAL AVE Third Thursday Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 6:30:42 PM Attachments:CALAVEcarol.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i -- Sincerely, Walter Chapman Please note our new email address: info@wjcda.com Please visit our website: www.chapmandesignassociates.com This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report CAL AVE - Third Thursday Community Event Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you in response to the recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly. Although I am not a Palo Alto resident (I live in Los Altos), I was shocked to learn that the Third Thursday Community Event has been cancelled. I refer to it as a community event, not a music festival. Live music was the catalyst for the event, a way to bring people together. It was successful in that regard. I had not been to CAL AVE in decades. Why would anyone go there? Through this event, I discovered many unique restaurants and learned of the city’s effort to revive a once iconic part of the city’s history. Only to hear that two and a half years of effort are being ruined over a petty control issue. I have been a regular volunteer at this event and have seen firsthand the effort and passion that Ms. Garsten has put into making Cal Ave vibrant again. This has been accomplished with minimal support and funding from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which has been a fickle (supposedly fiscal) sponsor. The egregious way that Garsten has been treated, including unsubstantiated claims from Council Member Haims and the City Manager as the reason for the city defunding this event, should be reviewed by the City Council, and their actions taken under review. There is strong business and community support for Ms. Garsten to continue her work. I implore you, the representatives of Palo Alto residents, to do the right thing and support this grassroots effort, and not to be swayed by a small group of naysayers who have tainted this event and Ms. Garsten’s reputation. Sincerely, Walter Chapman From:Vega To:Council, City Subject:11/10/25 Agenda Item 8: Please adopt a strong outdoor lighting ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 6:30:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear City Council, My name is Vega Subramaniam from Dublin, CA. I am an avid birder/hiker/camper and stargazer with an interest in protecting the natural world as much as we can, and definitely protecting migrating birds and being able to see the stars. As a Bay Area resident, any dark-sky actions happening in any part of my beloved Bay matter to me. I am asking you to please adopt a strong, science-based ordinance to protect birds and other animals whose movements depend on darkness when it should be dark, to protect our night sky for ourselves and future generations, and to protect us humans sleep soundly at night and maintain the best health that we can. Thank you, Vega Vega Subramaniam | 206-890-5022 | vega@vegamala.org This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Sue To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for 11/10/2025 City Council meeting Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 5:12:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hello City Council Members: This morning I was greeted with the news that independent test results of Cornell University's new synthetic turf field showed PFAS contamination. This is alarming for most people who care about toxic materials' impact on public health. This case is may be headed for a lawsuit. I know Palo Alto will most likely vote for artificial turf at the November 17 meeting for mostly practical reasons--playtime, easier maintenance, etc., despite the potential adverse health and environmental effects. But we are hopeful that you will at least do the minimum-- conduct INDEPENDENT tests on the artificial turf that will be installed and not just rely on the vendor's testing. Recent independent testing has revealed that many artificial turf products marketed as "PFAS-free" still contain detectable levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as well as heavy metals. . For example, targeted analyses of synthetic turf have found total fluorine signals in samples, even when manufacturers claim PFAS-free status based on testing only for specific compounds like PFOA and PFOS, which misses wider classes of PFAS and can fail to account for non-extractable or polymeric PFAS types. In field situations and municipal assessments, laboratory tests have identified PFAS substances present in turf products, suggesting that claims of complete elimination often depend heavily on the limitations of the testing method used, and may not reflect the total PFAS content contained within turf material. Sources Furthermore, a growing body of research has highlighted concerns about the presence of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and zinc in artificial turf materials—both in turf fibres and infill. Several studies in 2024 and 2025 documented levels of these metals in artificial turf infill and blades that frequently exceed established safety limits, with bioaccessibility assays confirming that many of these metals are available for absorption or environmental leaching. There is increasing worry that exposure to these toxic metals and persistent PFAS compounds may pose health risks to children and athletes using artificial turf, as well as contribute to broader environmental contamination through runoff and atmospheric deposition Sources Please care about not only the direct contact cumulative effect of toxic substances on humans and wildlife, but also about the contamination of water, soil and air that will poison our environment and, of course, our health. I know many of you do care, but I also understand that not only is the "business as usual" mindset hard to transcend but your other council duties may well take precedence. Therefore, I urge you to try hard to break out of these constraints to the extent that you would at least do independent testing and also consider engaging in a pilot study of organically-managed grass fields. I thank you in advance for taking these unconventional steps towards applying the precautionary principle to safeguard residents' health and the health of our environment. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sue Chow, Palo Alto Resident. This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:jfleming@right-thing.net To:Council, City Cc:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Clerk, City Subject:Over 1,000 train horn blasts per day in Palo Alto Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 4:50:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl and Stone, I am writing to urge you to expedite implementation of Quiet Zones with QuadGates throughout Palo Alto. Right now, the noise level for the many Palo Alto residents who live near the railroad tracks exceeds the maximum permitted by our Municipal Code. More fundamentally, noise at this level is well understood to be a health hazard, linked to increased stress, sleep deprivation, and even cardiac problems. If this were a workplace, OSHA would consider the noise level hazardous. For over ten years, Palo Alto has put off taking action, while other Peninsula cities— Atherton, for example—have implemented Quiet Zones with QuadGates. What are we waiting for? Please pull the trigger on this project. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151 From:Joseph Hentz To:Council, City Subject:Support for Carol Garsten as 3rd Thursday Producer. Thank you. Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 4:46:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear City Council, As a 3rd Thursday volunteer, I FULLY support Carol Garsten. She is a leader and a doer and a creator. What an amazing event she's produced in association with a great group of people she interacts with. Kind regards, Joe palo alto resident This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Nathaniel Albano To:Council, City Subject:Support for Adopting A Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 4:27:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am Nate Albano, On behalf of the Nature-Based Solutions team with SVYCA (Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action), I would like to express my team's and my support for Palo Alto's adoption of a Dark Sky Ordinance. The Bay Area is an important stopover for millions of birds in the world, and has an incredible amount of species and biodiversity considering its population. That is why I believe it is important for Los Altos to adopt a Dark Sky Ordinance. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Na74an1207@gmail.com Branham High School This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report   From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Letter for the City council Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 3:49:27 PM Attachments:CAMTC response Mr Avrahamy A2Z letter to- City of Palo Alto _11-10-2025.pdf image001.png image002.png image004.png Please see attached correspondence. Thank you, Christine Prior Assistant City Clerk Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Beverly May <bmay@camtc.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 1:35 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Johnson, Heather <Heather.Johnson@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Letter for the City council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Beverly May California Massage Therapy Council Director of Governmental Affairs, Human Trafficking and IT One Capitol Mall Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 (650) 281-6290 bmay@camtc.org ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Beverly May California Massage Therapy Council Director of Governmental Affairs, Human Trafficking and IT One Capitol Mall Suite 800 Powered by Mimecast Sacramento, CA 95814 (650) 281-6290 bmay@camtc.org November 10, 2025 VIA FIRST CLASS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Re: Letter from J. Avrahamy regarding alleged state law preemption Dear City Council Members: The California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) is writing this letter to you in response to a letter submitted to you on October 29, 2025, by Lilah Drillings, drafted by Mr. Joseph Avrahamy. By way of background, Ms. Drillings is the school owner and administrator for A2Z Health.net Inc., a southern California massage school that was initially notified of corrective action by CAMTC in January of 2023, sued CAMTC in relation to that action in May of 2023, is currently Under Investigation and in active litigation with CAMTC, and was issued a letter proposing to revoke its school approvals in 2025. During the last year Ms. Drillings and her husband have actively lobbied the California legislature to sunset CAMTC and veto its sunset bill. Mr. Avrahamy is the school’s counsel of record. The letter to your city is just one more link in a long standing chain of attacks against CAMTC. Mr. Avrahmy’s argument that a local ordinance requiring CAMTC certification is unlawful because it conflicts with state law stating that CAMTC certification is voluntary is entirely without merit. He argues that your local ordinance would be preempted by State law, namely the Massage Therapy Act (MTA), because it is in conflict with it. To be clear, there is no state preemption here. Instead, the opposite is true. By making CAMTC certification voluntary, the State has chosen not to fully occupy the field. Mr. Avrahamy cites to Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893 for the proposition that the proposed ordinance requiring CAMTC certification as a condition to practicing massage in the City of Chico is preempted. What Mr. Avrahamy fails to acknowledge is that the Sherwin-Williams Court found that the local ordinance at issue in that case was not preempted by State law. One Capi tol Mall, Suit e 800 l S a cramento, CA 95814 tel 916.669.5336 fax 916.669.5337 www .camtc.org November 4, 2021 To: David Sykes, City Manager City of San Jose From: Ahmos Netanel, CEO California Massage Therapy Council Re: Massage Ordinance Review - Human Trafficking and Prostitution Public protection is at the core of the California Massage Therapy Council’s (CAMTC) mission. Established as a public benefit corporation in 2009, pursuant to the Massage Therapy Act (MTA) CAMTC’s mission is to vet and certify massage professionals who meet the requirements in the MTA and approve massage school programs that meet the legal standards for training and curriculum. Municipalities are integral to CAMTC’s governance and functions. Most of our Board members have a background in local government, including law enforcement or public health. In fact, CAMTC’s Vice Chair, Ronald Bates, Ph.D., was appointed by the League of California Cities to the Board. Dr. Bates is a retired city manager, a current city council member, and a past president of the League. By partnering with local law and code enforcement officers, CAMTC has been leading the fight against human trafficking and illicit conduct in massage businesses since 2014. As COVID-19 restrictions across the State begin to lift, we are also restarting two of our outreach programs. The first one is our No Charge to Your City massage ordinance review program, which can support your city’s efforts in combatting human trafficking by making sure that massage is not being used as a subterfuge for prostitution related activity. It will also help alert you to the best practices implemented in other jurisdictions. We will check for any updates needed to reflect current state law related to massage, and any new protocols you may find beneficial. Our second no-cost program is our new POST approved training program for your law and code enforcement officers, which empowers them to take full advantage of your investigative measures. This training can be accomplished either in person or via Zoom. As a reminder, CAMTC does not have any authority over massage businesses, this falls under the purview of your city. Supporting local government is an important priority for us. If you need assistance, I can be contacted at anetanel@camtc.org and/or my direct line (310) 230-0052. Regardless, the Legislature has made it clear that local jurisdictions are each free to choose the path that works best for their location, whatever that may be. Business and Professions Code section 4612(b) clearly states, Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a city, county, or city and county from licensing, regulating, prohibiting, or permitting an individual who provides massage for compensation without a valid certiﬁ cation. The Legislature has not fully occupied the fi eld of massage therapy so there is no preemption here, and the argument that the MTA allowing individuals to choose to be certifi ed or not somehow makes a city unable to require CAMTC certifi cation is not legally supported. Furthermore, the requirement by a city that those providing massage services for compensation in its city be CAMTC certifi ed does not transform the nature of certifi cation from voluntary to mandatory. Individuals are always free to work in other jurisdictions. A city imposing a requirement that individuals in its city be CAMTC certifi ed also does not transform certifi cation into licensure and is not an improper delegation of govern- ment licensing authority to a private nonprofi t corporation. Mr. Avrahamy has provided no legal support for this position. Imposing specifi c requirements on massage profes- sionals is not new. For example, some local ordinances in the past required individuals to be certifi ed by NCBTMB when that private organization had an entry level massage certifi cation program. Other ordinances required passage of the MBlex, a test created and implemented by a private organization. Sincerely, Beverly May, Director of Government Relations and Human Traffi cking California Massage Therapy Council Beverly May, Director of Government Relations and Human Traffi cking From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 3:17:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Yes, please! From:Jennifer von Clemm To:Council, City Subject:Light Pollution in Palo Alto Hills Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 2:43:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I have loosely been following the Lighting Ordinance Update. Unfortunately I will be out of town and can not come to the meeting on November 10th. I live on Alexis in the Palo Alto Hills. It seems every new construction comes with a “Viva Las Vegas” mentality and the more the merrier with lighting. I am attaching a few photos one neighbors home Super nice family but their lights are bonkers. These outrageous lights are just one example of many They were installed by the contractor who built the house as a spec home a couple of years ago. They go on and off with the light so from dusk to sunrise…they are blaring (which includes at two in the morning). I inquired with the city about Night Sky and Light Pollution regulations and was told there was nothing I could do. I understand that they want some lighting on for safety reasons but why move into a “more” remote area like the Palo Alto Hills if you are going to light things up so much you can’t even see the night sky….and why pollute the sky all night long? What about the wildlife? I am very hopeful this new ordinance will be put into place and I am hopeful that sometime soon we will again be able to see the night sky in the Palo Alto Hills. Thank-you, Jennifer von Clemm 3130 Alexis Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:David Coale To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Keep Carol and 3rd Thursdays at Cal Ave. Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 12:16:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing to express my extreme disappointment of the cancellation of the 3rd Thursday Cal Ave Music, and the way this was handled. The 3rd Thursday Music is well loved by almost everyone if you read the comments from the Palo Alto Weekly article: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/business/2025/10/30/cal-ave- concert-series-halted-amid-producer-spat/ The lack of input from all parties and the public, the lack of transparency, and no effort to working out any differences is astonishing! Not in my town! Hopefully the rest of the Council can correct and fix the damage that was done and continue the music on Cal Ave. I doubt very much they will be able to find anyone more passionate or hard working then Carol Garsten, so please work this out. Sincerely, David Coale Barron Park