Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-24 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: 11/24/2025 Document dates: 11/17/2025 - 11/24/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:carlin otto To:Council, City Subject:Motorized Bikes Are Common on Shoreline Date:Sunday, November 23, 2025 8:33:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council There is no sign at the entry from Terminal Way into Shoreline Trail to explain that motorized bikes (both electric and gas) are prohibited. I walk on this trail almost daily and am now encountering such bikes frequently. Today i counted 14!! Please have a sign installed. Carlin Otto 231 Whitclem Court Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Diana Vastava To:Council, City Subject:Thoughts on Palo Alto"s turf fields Date:Sunday, November 23, 2025 7:01:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am the parent of a Fletcher Middle schooler who plays soccer with the Palo Alto Soccer Club (PASC). It recently came to my attention that you are considering removing all turf fields from the city beginning in 2026. While I understand there are environmental factors to consider, I would urge you to consider the athletic options for our city's youths as you consider how to make these changes. As far as I can tell, during the rainy season/Daylight's savings time, the city's turf fields are the only viable option for playing. This is both because the grass fields need to be closed when wet and because most of the grass fields don't have lights to allow for evening practices. The net result of this already (even prior to closing more turf fields) has been that my daughter's practices are getting pushed later and later into the evening -- initially they were at 4pm, then 5:30pm, and now many are 7-8:15pm. This is resulting in her going to bed later and later. Recently, after a 7pm practice (and therefore not getting into bed until around 9:15, after commuting home and showering), she shared that she nearly fell asleep in English class the following day. I want to make sure that all aspects of the health of the city's children are taken into account when considering these options -- both the larger environmental factors, but also the shorter- term factors of allowing kids exercise and sufficient sleep before their school day. For example, it sounds like there may be an option to pilot a high performance natural grass option first at Cubberley or Greer Park, in order to have other alternatives already available when the turf fields need to be removed. Thank you for reading this information and please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions! Warmly, Diana This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Dr. Gloria Hom To:Council, City Subject:Thank you Date:Sunday, November 23, 2025 1:52:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i November 21, 2025 Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your decision to rename streets in honor of my grandfather, Thomas Foon Chew, as well as to recognize the sites of his cannery and my great-grandfather’s original cannery. Your actions not only honor their contributions, but also ensure that their legacy continues to be remembered by future generations. Our family is deeply proud of the role they played in the history and growth of this region. My grandfather’s accomplishments were significant, and the acknowledgment you have bestowed upon him is meaningful beyond words. I am both proud of his achievements and humbled by your thoughtful recognition. Thank you for extending and preserving their legacy in such a lasting and visible way. Your dedication to honoring the diverse history of Palo Alto is deeply appreciated. With sincere gratitude, Fondly, Gloria This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Rich OConnell & Niamh Maloney OConnell Family To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Removal of El Camino Turf Fields Date:Saturday, November 22, 2025 6:19:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Folks Please preserve our Turf fields for our soccer players. This change would dramatically reduce field availability for our players and would severely impact training, competition, and year round programs for our entire community. There are also WAY more injuries on grass fields. Thanks Richard This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:justineforbes@mac.com To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project Date:Saturday, November 22, 2025 3:40:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please include attached letter for agenda Nov. 10. Thank you, Justine Forbes MD (retired) From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 12/3/25 Meeting Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 5:07:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The agenda packet for the December 3, 2025 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-12-03-211500. Best regards, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Annie Aronson To:Council, City Subject:3rd Thursday disappointment Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 3:22:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am an Evergreen Park, Palo Alto resident. I am highly disappointed that you have fired Carol Garsten. Our city government does not seem to value her enthusiasm and know-how. It is not easy to put together a successful music and community event every single month, and she does so with joy! I am heartbroken for Carol and our neighborhood. Please consider re-hiring her and continuing the event in the future. Annie Aronson This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Debera Brown To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Freedom of information request Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 1:54:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i As a long time resident, I am EXTREMELY unhappy that Carol Garsten has been removed as manager of Third Thursdays! What are you guys thinking? Doing?! If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!!!! Debbie Brown Long time resident and tax payer Begin forwarded message: From: Debera Brown <dxxbrown@me.com> Subject: Freedom of information request Date: November 21, 2025 at 8:53:37 AM PST To: CityMgr@paloalto.gov Cc: "City.Clerk@paloalto.gov" <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>, Bell Greg <gxbell@me.com> Dear City Manager, I understand that Carol Garsten has been removed from managing Third Thursdays based on a petition or survey of city businesses. Carol has been a passionate and creative promoter of Third Thursdays, and I am extremely surprised and unhappy that she has been removed. Changes of this kind can kill a program. As a long time resident (50 years), tax payer, school supporter and attendant of most Third Thursdays, I would like to obtain a copy of the petition or survey that was used to justify the removal of Carol Garsten as producer of 3rd Thursday and that resulted in her dismissal. Obtaining this document is my right under under the Freedom of Information Act, If it is too much for you to copy and send to me, I am happy to come to City Hall and obtain/copy it myself. I look forward to your prompt reply. Best, Debbie Brown This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report 2960 Cowper Street View this email in your browser You're warmly invited to join us for this cherished tradition. Enjoy a delicious meal, great company, and festive cheer as we gather to honor our community and look ahead to an exciting new year! From:LWV Palo Alto Winter Luncheon Committee To:Council, City Subject:Please join us! LWVPA Winter Luncheon - Thursday, December 11 Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 11:05:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. In conversation with Dr. Didi Kuo Explore the importance of political parties in strong democracies, changes that would make democracies more likely to survive, and the importance of building pro-democracy coalitions. Dr. Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, whose research interests include democratization, political parties, state-building, and the political economy of representation. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave - and Why They Don't (Oxford University Press) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the Rise of Programmatic Politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press 2018). She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America, and is an adjunct fellow at the Niskanen Center. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University; as a Marshall Scholar, she studied economic history at Oxford University and politics at the University of Essex. She received a BA in political science from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, her hometown. Tickets are $20/person and include lunch, drinks and dessert. Or, reserve a seat and bring your own brown bag lunch. Members are welcome to bring a guest Space is limited - register before December 8! Register Now LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Mark Shull To:Luetgens, Michael; Eggleston, Brad; Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto Airport AWOS Project Meeting Follow up Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 10:51:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Thank you for the slides and Grant Assurances for the proposed upgrades at PAO. The system appears to have three components: 1) 24 hr weather, 2) relocated and brighter LED PAPIs and 3) brighter LED REILs. In operations terms, 1) automated nighttime weather, 2) brighter and more powerful glide slope lights and 3) brighter runway threshold lights. It seems quite clear that this is better described as an improved night- time landing upgrade, than a weather upgrade, as the AWOS Project name suggests. (Also, the slides compare the new weather component to the existing one at PAO, but not to the exact same 24 hr. automated one two miles away at NASA Ames -- no further away than the distance across a major airfield. ) Is PAO going to make the full plan available? The slides are quite vague. I think the community deserves, and is normally provided, much more detail for Palo Alto projects, if not the actual proposed project plan. Please let me know. Also, I see all of the onerous and odious terms that I mentioned at City Council on Monday are in fact in the FAA Grant Assurances link provided. It is hard to believe that the City of Palo Alto would sign up to enforce President Trump's executive orders banning DEI, equity, gender and identity non-discrimination, climate and environmental justice programs, as well as enforcing so called "speech" protections in how one talks about race, gender and sexual orientation, for what amounts to a better night landing system. (These are the same odious terms that universities are fighting at almost existential cost, yet they don't even seem to be an issue for consideration here.) In my opinion, Palo Alto should have followed Santa Clara County's lead long ago to stop taking FAA AiP funds in order to regain its rights as the owner of the airport to make reasonable operating decisions. (These ownership rights are recognized by Federal Courts, but are pecifically signed away in AIP Grant Assurances -- they are a terrible bargain. Federal pre-emption controls everything in the air, but not property rights -- FAA Grant Assurances specifically sign them away.) And I believe it is doubly inappropriate for the City of Palo Alto to sign up for the worst of President Trump's discriminatory, anti-equity and anti-climate terms, for a system that will clearly encourage more night-time operations, and potentially commercial operations. Mark Shull ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Luetgens, Michael <Michael.Luetgens@paloalto.gov> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:03 PM Subject: Palo Alto Airport AWOS Project Meeting Follow up To: Hello, Thank you for attending the November 13, 2025 public meeting on the Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) Project and sharing your questions and feedback. As requested during the meeting, we are providing the following materials: AWOS Project Presentation Slides (Attached) Environmental Documentation via this link: Accela Citizen Access (The categorical exclusion documents are labeled C1_1925EmbarcaderoRdAPPLY in the Attachments) FAA Grant Assurances via this link: https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/assurances-airport-sponsors-2025 Kind Regards, Michael Michael Luetgens Manager of Airport Operations Palo Alto Airport | Public Works Department 1925 Embarcadero Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 329-2687 | Michael.Luetgens@PaloAlto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.gov From:Darron Bach To:Council, City Subject:Re: Project Estimating Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 9:31:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, Just checking in, I just wanted to follow up-did you get my below email? Please confirm and let me know if you have any questions or send me the plans of your current job for a quote on our service charges before getting started. Thank you! On November 10, 2025 06:22, Darron Bach <darron.estimatingservices@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, We are an estimation company. We provide costing & take-off services to General contractors, Sub-Contractors, Home builders and Owners. We work on both Commercial and Residential. Please send me the plans for a quote on our service charges before getting started. Thank You, Darron Bach Estimation Department This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - November 21, 2025 Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 8:28:26 AM Attachments:RE A Resource Hub for People Living in RVs.msg RE Please help urgently with egregious violation of neighborhood safety peace and wellbeing by Waymo-Google driverless cars on South Court.msg RE Birthday Party Inquiry.msg image001.png image002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through November 21, 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:Gregory Bell To:Council, City Subject:Keep Carol Garsten, 3rd Thursday Founder/Producer Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 9:08:55 PM Attachments:3rd third thursday california avenue keep carol garsten palo alto.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please publish publicly and send me a copy of the petition signed by California Ave merchants to remove Carol Garsten as producer of 3rd thursday. People in this community are questioning the validity, in fact the very existence, of this complaint document. Somehow it has been kept a secret. Make it public! Make it public; what has been the complaint against her? I am seeing these postings of support for Carol in merchant windows on Cal Ave. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report —— Make your home more comfortable & reduce your energy bill. I type less and talk more by phone. Greg M. Bell —— From:Richard and Dorrit To:Council, City Subject:Fake survey?? Fwd: Reminder: The City of Palo Alto Water Division needs your feedback! Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:36:03 PM This looks super suspicious. I opened but did not proceed. If not authorized how are they getting away with this. And IS there a "city of palo alto water division?" Dorrit Billman -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Reminder: The City of Palo Alto Water Division needs your feedback! Date:Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:32:47 -0500 From:GreatBlue Research <research@greatblueresearch.com> Reply-To:GreatBlue Research <noreply@greatblueresearch.com> To:billpeople@mindspring.com Hello, The City of Palo Alto Water Division (CPAU) is always seeking ways to improve services for customers, like you. Part of this process involves conducting surveys to gauge satisfaction and perceptions of the organization, its services, and communications.     Please take a few moments to provide your opinions and comments through the survey link below. The information will be used to enable CPAU to improve its programs, products, and services. Click Here to Start the Survey Your candid responses and opinions are completely confidential and will only be presented as part of the overall report. CPAU has contracted GreatBlue Research, a third-party data collection agency, to analyze your responses. The 1974 U.S. Privacy Act requires that GreatBlue Research maintain the anonymity of respondents to surveys the firm conducts.  No information, by law, will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of a respondent.    If you have any questions about the survey, please feel free to contact GreatBlue Research at research@greatblueresearch.com or by phone at 860.740.4000.   Thank you in advance for participating and helping CPAU improve its customer service! This message was sent by Great Blue Research, 20 Western Blvd., 1st Floor, Glastonbury, CT 06033. To unsubscribe, click below: Unsubscribe From:Tavera, Samuel To:Council, City Subject:Letter from Palo Alto Cub Scouts Pack 57 Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 6:31:52 PM Attachments:Palo Alto Cub Scouts Pack 57.pdf image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image007.png Good evening Councilmembers, Attached, you will find a scanned letter from Emilia of the Palo Alto Cub Scouts Pack 57. Thank you! Samuel Tavera Administrative Associate III Samuel.Tavera@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From:Tavera, Samuel To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment from Susan H Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 6:24:29 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image007.png Public Comment Susan H.pdf Good evening Councilmembers, Please find attached a public comment hand out from Susan H. Thank you! Samuel Tavera Administrative Associate III Samuel.Tavera@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From:jay whaley To:Council, City Subject:Noise from aircraft landing at SFO Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:47:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear each member of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to each of you regarding the San Francisco Airport's final Environmental Impact Report and your opportunity to appeal the report. We have been active for 10 years to reduce the impact of noise from arriving SFO aircraft over our homes, initiated by the 2015 Next Gen F.A.A. Implementation. We are asking you not to miss the opportunity to legally challenge SFO's inadequate E.I.R. Please let the community know when council will deliberate and vote on a decision to defend Palo Alto on this matter. Thank you, Sallie and Jay Whaley 24 Crescent Drive Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Shannon Beres To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Support of Turf Fields for Youth Sports Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:43:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am writing in support of keeping the turf fields at Mayfield, Cubberly, and El Camino fields. I have 2 daughters who play soccer competitively and taking away year round practice with closure of grass fields due to rain would decimate the sport in this area. I fully support environmental friendly city planning and would love to see grass fields at the proposed Greer Park or Cubberly sites, but please do not take away the only option the kids have to practice during the rainy season. My daughter at Palo Alto Hiigh school gets out at 4:10 pm and Nov-February, needs a lighted field to practice on as it is dark when she leaves school adn could not make an earlier practice during daylight. Currently these options are Mayfield and El Camino so switching these to grass which would then be closed due to rain leaves no option for these kids. Please leave the current turf fields and consider natural grass options for other non-lighted sights. Better yet, plan for light on the natural grass sites too! Good drainage and at least twice weekly maintenance will be needed for grass fields as these get destroyed from hundreds of kids playing on them very quickly so need constant maintenance. The Greer park and JLS fields after a winter soccer tournament are hazardous for weeks after as maintenance is not properly fixing the fields after high use times. This needs to be in the planned budget when planning for future grass sites or else the fields will all become dangerous. Sincerely, Shannon Beres From:Donglai Zhong To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Request to Retain Synthetic Turf Fields at Palo Alto Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:18:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and City Council Members, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Donglai, and my son, Isaac, plays on one of Palo Alto Soccer Club’s 2018 teams. He has a deep passion for soccer, and our family has greatly appreciated the opportunities the City provides for youth sports. I understand that there are plans to remove the turf field. I respectfully ask that this decision be reconsidered, as the turf field is essential for our teams for several reasons: 1. During winter training, frequent rain over nearly three months often makes grass fields unusable. The turf field serves as a reliable alternative, ensuring teams have sufficient practice time. 2. Winter league games also depend on turf availability when weather conditions prevent use of grass fields. 3. With many teams in Palo Alto, any construction or closure of the turf field would significantly disrupt practice schedules across multiple age groups. 4. Scheduled tournaments would also be disrupted by construction on the turf field. 5. Even if our local turf field is replaced, our teams will still play some away games on turf fields in other cities. Thank you very much for your consideration. I am happy to provide any additional information if needed. Best regards, Donglai This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:promiserani To:Council, City Subject:Please support reuse in Palo Alto! Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:06:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council, Palo has had past plans to switch to compostable food service packaging, which was enacted in 2019, and was slated to then transition to reusable foodware, a process that was paused due to pandemic hygiene concerns. However, other local cities have moved forward with reusable adoption, and food ordinances across the state no longer require disposable foodware. Reusables are going to be an important part of our future in Palo Alto on several fronts: 1) The zero waste party pack program is very successful (I'm a host as well), and those who use them are immensely grateful for not having to buy disposable (even compostable) dishes and cups; 2) The schools are moving forward with reusable foodware, and as students graduate, they can continue their environmental efforts and education by seeing adults putting into practice what they have learned; and 3) City events are already moving towards zero waste, so businesses are becoming familiar with reducing plastic trinkets and offering compostable options. Switching to reusables is the clear next step. In so many ways, it's a a win-win - businesses can save money in the long run, our city helps meet our sustainability goals, reducing waste and resource use, our community's (physical and mental) health benefits, and we set an example for young people and other communities in our area. Please take action now to commit to reusables in Palo Alto with a clear path for businesses to switch to reusable foodware service in our town. Prerana Jayakumar Midtown This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Chris Horan To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:rodrigo.baptista@pasoccerclub.org; Council, City Subject:Request to Reconsider Removing All Artificial Turf Fields in Palo Alto – A Soccer Parent’s Perspective Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 8:43:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, My name is Chris Horan, and I’m a parent of two kids who play competitive soccer on fields throughout Palo Alto. I’m writing to ask you to consider the following in your discussion on the proposed policy to replace every artificial turf field with natural grass. After digging into the numbers specific to Palo Alto’s climate, water rates, staffing shortages, and winter closures, I believe this plan would hurt our kids far more than it helps—especially when modern, non-toxic turf is now available. Here’s what the data show for a regulation full-size soccer field (roughly 1.76 acres) right here in Palo Alto: 1. Water Use & Cost (2025 Palo Alto rates) • Natural grass (even under drought cuts): 1.4–1.8 million gallons per year • Modern cork/coconut turf with evaporative cooling: 290,000–770,000 gallons per year → Turf saves 75–80 % on water and roughly $15,000–$20,000 per year per field at today’s $6.80/1,000 gal (with drought surcharges). 2. Playable Days – The Real Youth Impact Our grass fields are routinely closed 60–120 days every winter because of mud, poor drainage, and fear of $50k– $100k repair bills. That’s 100+ cancelled practices and games every rainy season. Turf fields are open 365 days a year (instant drainage). For kids, that’s literally 2–3 times more playing time and no more driving to San José or paying private facilities. 3. Safety on the Fields Our Kids Actually Play On Because of budget and staffing cuts, Palo Alto’s grass fields are chronically under-maintained—hard as concrete in summer, divot-filled in winter. A 2024 Stanford study of local public fields showed 45–60 % higher lower-leg injury rates than well-kept grass. New cooled cork turf has injury rates 20–40 % lower than the beat-up grass our kids currently use. 4. Total Cost to the City Over 12 Years (including water, labor, renovations, and lost program revenue) • Natural grass: $1.05–$1.45 million per field • Modern cooled turf: $980,000–$1.28 million per field → Turf saves the City $100,000–$300,000 per field and gives our kids far more playing time. 5. Health & Environment The newest fields use organic cork or coconut infill—no crumb rubber, no heavy metals, no PFAS. With evaporative cooling they stay within 3–5 °F of natural grass temperature and shed only a few hundred pounds of microplastic over their entire life (vs. zero from grass, but at the price of massive water waste and closures). Our family loves real grass when it’s properly cared for, but in Palo Alto’s reality—ongoing drought, understaffed grounds crews, and routine winter closures—returning every field to grass is not the safest, most equitable, or most fiscally responsible choice for our kids. I respectfully ask the Council to keep our best existing turf fields and upgrade them to the newest non-toxic, cooled, organic-infill standard. Our children deserve fields that are safe, playable year-round, and fair to every family regardless of income. In 2025 Palo Alto, modern turf delivers exactly that. Thank you for your time and for everything you do for our community. With respect, Chris Horan Additional Facts: Palo Alto Soccer Field Reality Check – 2025 Numbers (1 full-size field, ~1.76 acres) - Annual water use Natural grass (real-world, drought-restricted): 1.4 – 1.8 million gallons Modern cork/coconut turf + evaporative cooling: 290,000 – 770,000 gallons → Turf uses 75–80 % less water - Annual water bill (2025 Palo Alto rates w/ drought surcharges ≈ $6.80 per 1,000 gallons) Natural grass: $19,000 – $26,000 per year Turf with cooling: $3,000 – $8,000 per year - Playable hours per year Natural grass (closed 60–120 days every winter for mud/damage): 1,200 – 1,600 hours Turf: 3,000 – 3,500+ hours (open 365 days a year) → Kids get 2–3 times more playing time on turf - Winter rainy-season closures Natural grass: 60–120 days closed every year Turf: Zero days closed - Injury risk on the fields we actually have Current under-maintained Palo grass: 45–60 % higher than well-kept grass (2024 Stanford study) New cooled cork turf: 20–40 % safer than our current beat-up grass fields - Summer surface temperature Natural grass (hard, drought-stressed): 82 – 104 °F Turf with evaporative cooling: 86 – 108 °F (within 3–5 °F of stressed grass) - Total cost to the City over 12 years (water + labor + renovations + lost revenue) Natural grass: $1.05 – $1.45 million Modern cooled turf: $980,000 – $1.28 million → Turf saves the City $100,000 – $300,000 per field - Health & chemicals Turf (cork/coconut infill): No crumb rubber, no heavy metals, no PFAS - Microplastics over the life of the field Natural grass: Zero Turf (blades only): ~600–1,000 lbs total (vastly lower than old crumb-rubber fields) Bottom line: In Palo Alto’s real world of drought, staffing shortages, and routine winter closures, modern cooled turf is safer, cheaper long-term, far more playable, and uses a fraction of the water compared to the under-maintained grass fields our kids actually play on today. From:Jeanne Fleming on behalf of lschwarz@right-thing.net To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Defend Palo Alto against SFO expansion Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:07:57 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 you about San Francisco’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on San Francisco Airport’s ambitious planned expansion. This document falsely claims that the expansion would have no negative impact on the health and well-being of Palo Altans. I would like to make sure that the City of Palo Alto does not miss this opportunity to legally challenge San Francisco’s inadequate and misleading EIR, and to remind San Francisco that, because of SFO, Palo Altans already have been suffering for years from the adverse effects of intrusive jet noise. Please let residents know when Council plans to deliberate and vote on taking action to defend Palo Alto’s interests on this matter. Sincerely, Leonard Schwarz Leonard Schwarz LSchwarz@Metricus.net This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Pam Bond To:Council, City Subject:resending letter regarding 11/17 agenda item 9: artificial turf study Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 8:30:16 PM Attachments:2025.11.17 Palo Alto City Council - caution regarding artificial turf local evidence-compressed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Councilmembers, I just learned that links get scrubbed when emails come to you so I wasn't sure if you were able to open my letter which Gmail attached as a drive file due to the size. I compressed the letter so that I could add it as an pdf attachment. If you cannot see the added photos shared through a google album and would like to see them, let me know and I can find a way to share them. I know that the concerns with microplastics were already discussed at the meeting and so perhaps this is not necessary, but if nothing else it further illustrates the point. And makes clear that the new products are no better at not shedding plastics than the older fields and in fact one product is exceedingly worse (the product at John Mise Park.) Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion and questions during the meeting. Sincerely, Pam Bond This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, Subject: Environmental Concerns with Artificial Turf I am writing to raise concerns about artificial turf that were not adequately addressed in the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems. Chemical Risks Artificial turf contains chemicals such as UV stabilizers, antimicrobials, and PFAS. Only one of these was partially addressed in the study, and there are no regulations or testing standards for their immediate or long-term release into the environment. The industry often hides behind proprietary secrecy. It was only after a congressional hearing that they admitted lead was present in the plastic, and only recently—under pressure from California legislation—that they pledged to reduce PFAS. Lead is relatively easy to test for, but thousands of PFAS exist, and only a few can currently be detected. Heat and Microplastics Beyond chemical content, artificial turf poses other environmental risks. Claims of reduced heat and “no microplastics” are false. Plastic surfaces heat up regardless of infill, creating heat islands. I have measured field temperatures between 130°–150° even when air temperatures were in the 70s. Plastic blades also shed readily. At John Mise Park, blades and crumb rubber are visible in storm drains and surrounding areas. Even with maintenance, loose blades accumulate. Similar shedding occurs at Saratoga High School (2024 replacement) and Ramac Park (2022 installation). Blades are transported off fields by equipment, balls, shoes, wind, and rain. I had written to staff during the comment period regarding heat and plastic loss using a field installed with Pivot turf as an example but this was dismissed by staff because Palo Alto is using a different product. However, the overarching point was that Pivot is a relatively new product and yet the lower heat and “no microplastics” claims are categorically false. Waste and Accountability Artificial turf warranties allow up to 50% blade loss, meaning half of the plastic is destined for the environment or landfill rather than recycling. Disposal practices are troubling: some districts dump blades into landscaping, while “recycling” often means trucking rolls hundreds of miles to be “stored”(abandoned), where they continue to shed plastic. The original field owners (I’m talking to you) face no accountability for this pollution. Environmental Impact Photos from local fields (see images below and in link) show blades breaking down into smaller fragments, eventually to become microplastics. Artificial turf blades have even been found in local bird nests and identified in ocean plastic audits. This demonstrates that turf is a significant source of plastic pollution throughout its life cycle—from manufacture to disposal. Artificial turf pollutes soil, waterways, and wildlife. Please consider the full environmental cost before committing to its use. The evidence shows that artificial turf is not a sustainable solution and contributes substantially to plastic pollution. Sincerely, Pamela Bond, Santa Clara County resident From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #1 - Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 5:31:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Committee Members and City Council, I'm thrilled to see this committee providing feedback on the transportation and mode-shift- related items in the work plan outlined in the staff report. As we all know, the vast majority of our GHG emissions result from vehicle trips; thus, it is appropriate for active transportation to take a serious role in a GHG-emissions-reduction strategy. It is encouraging to see the items in Table 3 moving forward. They are all necessary and have the power to unlock more active-transportation trips and associated GHG emissions reductions. In terms of additional items in Table 4, I would advocate for for faster infrastructure implementation. After so much Bike/Ped Plan "planning", accelerating design and delivery of planned improvements would pay safety and GHG-reduction dividends for anyone who walks or rolls (or wants to walk or roll) in our community. I would advocate against acceleration of a shared micro-mobility program or movement towards implementation until after the study in Table 3 is complete and has been thoroughly reviewed. Even waiting until after the Land Use and Transportation Study -- which will project scenarios for housing growth and mobility impacts -- would be strategic. Further, Stanford is just beginning it's GUP outreach for future campus growth and we don't yet know where that growth will be located or how much to anticipate. Why wait? Success of shared micro-mobility depends on harnessing a large number of users. Such a program should not be implemented until we understand where growth will occur and if/where shared micro-mobility could actually reduce vehicle trips (especially commute trips). A special THANK YOU to the City's Transportation staff and to Council for successfully and clearly linking active transportation to the City's VMT and GHG reduction goals. All of these items not only reduce our GHG emissions, but also move Palo Alto a more healthy, happy, and fun place to live. Thank you, Amie Ashton From:Magical Bridge Foundation To:Council, City Subject:You’re Invited! Magical Series Santa Dance Party with the SF Autism Society Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 4:42:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. SATURDAY. DEC 13th 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM Lucie Stern Ballroom 1305 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto Tickets $15 Per Person BUY YOUR TICKETS KINDLY NOTE: Each person needs a ticket, including caregivers. Caregivers are required to stay onsite with participants. Join us for community programs brought Please contact jill.escher@gmail.com with any questions. Join us for a magical evening of music, games, and holiday cheer designed especially for families with autism and special needs. Dance to the festive beats with DJ Duo Lori and RJ, enjoy a visit from Santa, sip on hot cocoa, and snack on pizza and cookies. WHAT TO WEAR Don your best or worst (ugly) holiday sweater for a chance to win prizes, and look forward to delightful surprises for all ages and abilities. BUY YOUR TICKETS to you by Magical Bridge and the City of Palo Alto Unsubscribe From:Aram James To:Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Council, City; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke Subject:Public Records Request Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 3:27:32 PM Attachments:Outlook-mr1f4npi.png Outlook-4syx43fq.png Outlook-fiqbdsek.png Outlook-xdj1rbj5.png Outlook-kflr33qi.png 11-19-25 public records request.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. FYI: Dear Ms. Kiniyalocts and Ms. Larnerd: Please see attached our Public Records Request. 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 the sole 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 messageand its attachments, if any. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. c/o ALA 991 West Hedding Street, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 287-9710 rkonda@asianlawalliance.org abjpd1@gmail.com November 19, 2025 Sterling Larnerd Melissa Kiniyalocts Office of the County Counsel 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 California Public Records Act request – (Waiver) If an agency has intentionally disclosed the information sought, it may have waived the right to claim an exemption. (Gov’t Code 7921.505(b)). During the course of the October 21, 2025 Board of Supervisors’ meeting – item #9, reports on the Taser Pilot Project, President Otto Lee revealed that he had a private showing of the nine Taser deployments presented to him by the Sheriff’s Department. The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) had requested the same access to the Taser deployment digital footage without success through multiple Public Records Requests starting in May of 2025 up through September of 2025. Because the Sheriff’s Department released the digital footage of the nine Taser deployments, it is our position that the Sheriff’s Department has waived the right to withhold the digital footage from the public and the press. Request We are hereby requesting that the Sheriff’s Department arrange to immediately release the digital footage of the Taser deployments previously released to President Otto Lee. Richard Konda Aram James CJA From:Walter Enos To:Council, City Subject:re Airplane Noise and SF"s latest Impact Report Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 3:26:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I live in Barron Park and for too many years I've been negatively affected by noise from airplanes approaching SFO, especially at night. I am reaching out today because of San Francisco's Final EIR (Environmental Impact Report) which denies that SFO incoming flight paths have a negative impact on the health and welfare of Palo Alto residents. But indeed they do have a significant negative impact! I am asking Council to take this opportunity to legally challenge SF’s EIR on this issue of airplane noise and its impact locally. I request that Council vote to take legal action to appeal SF’s EIR. I know many of my neighbors feel the same. Can you please let us know when Council will deliberate on this? I trust you will vote to defend the interests of Palo Alto and all its residents from SFO's noise. Sincerely, Walter Enos 3736 La Calle Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:DMB To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Playing fields - turf Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 2:03:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council Members, I’m writing to urge the City to retain synthetic turf fields at El Camino Park & other turf files like Mayfied until workable alternatives are actually available. The current discussion about removing turf, starting as early as next year, would have an immediate and significant impact on youth sports access across Palo Alto. Synthetic turf isn’t a convenience—it’s what makes year-round play possible for hundreds of kids. Grass fields simply can’t absorb the volume of community use, especially through the winter when closures are routine due to rain and poor field conditions. With the limited number of lighted fields in the city, removing turf at El Camino would sharply reduce training and game capacity with no realistic replacement in place. I fully support the City’s interest in exploring high-performance natural grass options. Piloting those solutions at sites like Cubberley or Greer makes sense. But until those alternatives are proven and can support the needed demand, transitioning away from turf would leave the community with fewer places for kids to play—right when they need those spaces most. We have already felt the pain of unavailable fields while Mayfield is being repaired. We rely on these fields heavily. Please delay any removal of synthetic turf until viable, year-round field options are ready to meet current usage levels. Thank you for your consideration. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Eva Dobrov To:Council, City Subject:El Dorado Bike Tunnel Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:54:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, In reading the news today, it appears that council is closing in on the decision of a new bike tunnel on Alma, and settling on El Dorado. Is there any way to measure how many people would use this tunnel before we invest the tens of millions of dollars it would cost to install? El Dorado located 0.5 miles south of the Cal Ave underpass (3 minutes by bike on Bryant according to Google). I’m curious where the pedestrian/bike traffic would be headed since there really aren’t many businesses or recreational areas in that section of Ventura. It is located outside of any south Palo Alto school catchment zones. The only school traffic that crosses Alma are the high schools, but Gunn kids use Meadow or Charleston. The Alma Crossing survey was presented to the Ventura Neighborhood Association as a foregone conclusion that would be put in. As a necessity that we would need when the Meadow and Charleston rail crossings were under construction–that there would be no way for bike/pedestrians to cross Alma during the construction. My comment was why not do the construction serially instead of in tandem so either Meadow or Charleston or would always be available. I’m sure there are some vocal advocates who want a new tunnel, but first maybe we look at measuring the ECR bike lane traffic to look for an actual usage case study vs. what was estimated when it was proposed, before we invest in another bike infrastructure project that is underutilized. I do appreciate Bryna Chang’s comment though: “If we add lights, we’re essentially taking the one arterial that we have that actually kind of works … and then we’re causing impediments, I think a light is almost a non-starter.” Thank you for your consideration. Your neighbor, Eva Dobrov 3920 Ventura Ct This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Hartmut Sadrozinski To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:26:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We are grateful to the City of Palo Alto for submitting comments to the SFO DEIR. A key next step for the Council is to vote on taking legal action to appeal SF’s EIR. We hope that the City does not miss this opportunity to legally challenge SF’s inadequate EIR. Please let the community know when Council will deliberate and vote on a decision to defend Palo Alto on this matter. Thank you Hartmut Sadrozinski 62 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto From:Steve Joh To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:grass v turf reality Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:48:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i hi mayor lauring read the article about your position on the turf in palo alto (el camino park). while i totally understand the impetus to push for real grass and am sympathetic to it - you have to realize the *real world* impact getting rid or reducing turf fields actually has both on the community and many - l literally thousands of kids and adults - palo alto residents and voters - as well as the actual impact this really has on the environment. - reducing turf is *devestating* for the many kids and adults who use these fields to get exercise, build community and enjoy life. this is no hyperbole. my kids play in palo alto and i play in the PAASL league which uses theses fields. if you switch to grass this will GREATLY reduce the number of hours they can be used - AND - the grass fields will be SUPER UNSAFE and lead to lots of injuries - ON TOP of being awful for the well being and mental health of a lot of kids and adults. - the grass fields will be really awful and unsafe. they will NOT be like Levi's Stadium or Stanford, because they are already overused. look at mitchell park and cubberly grass. they are known as some of the WORST and MOST UNSAFE fields in the peninsula. itst honestly embarrassing. people from other cities talk about how terrible they are and how incompetent Palo Alto is - but its just because there isn't enough fields! PLUS its SUPER EXPENSIVE to keep the grass safe.. - i've torn my ACL playing on a bad grass field. a bad grass field is FAR more dangerous than a turf field. - the new turf fields are way safer and have less plastic - the infill is now cork / coconut and so you don't injest it. Again, I understand the desire for less plastic, etc. but this is the wrong way to go. there are other ways. you can increase EV chargers. You can do so much better. If you keep voting this way, believe me there will be THOUSANDS of really upset families. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Even having mayfield off line while they returf it has been a disaster this fall. if this becomes permanent, there are A LOT of people who will wake up and be very angry. please please please reconsider your position. look at the facts and think about the ACTUAL impact this will have. its bad. -steve From:Steve Joh To:Burt, Patrick Cc:Council, City Subject:reality of grass v turf Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:47:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i hi pat burt read the article about your position on the turf in palo alto (el camino park). while i totally understand the impetus to push for real grass and am sympathetic to it - you have to realize the *real world* impact getting rid or reducing turf fields actually has both on the community and many - l literally thousands of kids and adults - palo alto residents and voters - as well as the actual impact this really has on the environment. - reducing turf is *devestating* for the many kids and adults who use these fields to get exercise, build community and enjoy life. this is no hyperbole. my kids play in palo alto and i play in the PAASL league which uses theses fields. if you switch to grass this will GREATLY reduce the number of hours they can be used - AND - the grass fields will be SUPER UNSAFE and lead to lots of injuries - ON TOP of being awful for the well being and mental health of a lot of kids and adults. - the grass fields will be really awful and unsafe. they will NOT be like Levi's Stadium or Stanford, because they are already overused. look at mitchell park and cubberly grass. they are known as some of the WORST and MOST UNSAFE fields in the peninsula. itst honestly embarrassing. people from other cities talk about how terrible they are and how incompetent Palo Alto is - but its just because there isn't enough fields! PLUS its SUPER EXPENSIVE to keep the grass safe.. - i've torn my ACL playing on a bad grass field. a bad grass field is FAR more dangerous than a turf field. - the new turf fields are way safer and have less plastic - the infill is now cork / coconut and so you don't injest it. Again, I understand the desire for less plastic, etc. but this is the wrong way to go. there are other ways. you can increase EV chargers. You can do so much better. If you keep voting this way, believe me there will be THOUSANDS of really upset families. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Even having mayfield off line while they returf it has been a disaster this fall. if this becomes permanent, there are A LOT of people who will wake up and be very angry. please please please reconsider your position. look at the facts and think about the ACTUAL impact this will have. its bad. -steve From:Steve Joh To:Veenker, Vicki Cc:Council, City Subject:turf / grass reality Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:46:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i hi councilwoman veenker read the article about on the turf in palo alto (el camino park). while i totally understand the impetus to push for real grass and am sympathetic to it - you have to realize the *real world* impact getting rid or reducing turf fields actually has both on the community and many - l literally thousands of kids and adults - palo alto residents and voters - as well as the actual impact this really has on the environment. - reducing turf is *devestating* for the many kids and adults who use these fields to get exercise, build community and enjoy life. this is no hyperbole. my kids play in palo alto and i play in the PAASL league which uses theses fields. if you switch to grass this will GREATLY reduce the number of hours they can be used - AND - the grass fields will be SUPER UNSAFE and lead to lots of injuries - ON TOP of being awful for the well being and mental health of a lot of kids and adults. - the grass fields will be really awful and unsafe. they will NOT be like Levi's Stadium or Stanford, because they are already overused. look at mitchell park and cubberly grass. they are known as some of the WORST and MOST UNSAFE fields in the peninsula. itst honestly embarrassing. people from other cities talk about how terrible they are and how incompetent Palo Alto is - but its just because there isn't enough fields! PLUS its SUPER EXPENSIVE to keep the grass safe.. - i've torn my ACL playing on a bad grass field. a bad grass field is FAR more dangerous than a turf field. - the new turf fields are way safer and have less plastic - the infill is now cork / coconut and so you don't injest it. Again, I understand the desire for less plastic, etc. but this is the wrong way to go. there are other ways. you can increase EV chargers. You can do so much better. If you keep voting this way, believe me there will be THOUSANDS of really upset families. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Even having mayfield off line while they returf it has been a disaster this fall. if this becomes permanent, there are A LOT of people who will wake up and be very angry. please please please reconsider your position. look at the facts and think about the ACTUAL impact this will have. its bad. -steve From:Steve Joh To:Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:please hear this perspective Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:44:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i hi greer read the article about your position on the turf in palo alto (el camino park). while i totally understand the impetus to push for real grass and am sympathetic to it - you have to realize the *real world* impact getting rid or reducing turf fields actually has both on the community and many - l literally thousands of kids and adults - palo alto residents and voters - as well as the actual impact this really has on the environment. - reducing turf is *devestating* for the many kids and adults who use these fields to get exercise, build community and enjoy life. this is no hyperbole. my kids play in palo alto and i play in the PAASL league which uses theses fields. if you switch to grass this will GREATLY reduce the number of hours they can be used - AND - the grass fields will be SUPER UNSAFE and lead to lots of injuries - ON TOP of being awful for the well being and mental health of a lot of kids and adults. - the grass fields will be really awful and unsafe. they will NOT be like Levi's Stadium or Stanford, because they are already overused. look at mitchell park and cubberly grass. they are known as some of the WORST and MOST UNSAFE fields in the peninsula. itst honestly embarrassing. people from other cities talk about how terrible they are and how incompetent Palo Alto is - but its just because there isn't enough fields! PLUS its SUPER EXPENSIVE to keep the grass safe.. - i've torn my ACL playing on a bad grass field. a bad grass field is FAR more dangerous than a turf field. - the new turf fields are way safer and have less plastic - the infill is now cork / coconut and so you don't injest it. Again, I understand the desire for less plastic, etc. but this is the wrong way to go. there are other ways. you can increase EV chargers. You can do so much better. If you keep voting this way, believe me there will be THOUSANDS of really upset families. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Even having mayfield off line while they returf it has been a disaster this fall. if this becomes permanent, there are A LOT of people who will wake up and be very angry. please please please reconsider your position. look at the facts and think about the ACTUAL impact this will have. its bad. thanks for your consideration. I know you're a thoughtful person so please give this some thought on what will actually happen. -steve From:Steve Joseph To:Council, City; Harish Belur Cc:Project Manager Subject:Re: Request for reduction in solar permitting fees Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 9:21:52 AM Attachments:image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Adding the homeowner, Harish Belur, who was extremely surprised about the permitting and inspection costs we were faced with in executing his battery installation project. Thanks, Steve Joseph CEO, Potrero Energy 415-323-5218 Book time on my calendar On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:18 AM Steve Joseph <steve@potreroenergy.com> wrote: Hi Palo Alto, I'm a small business that has recently paid over $3,000 for a permit to install a battery system. We had planned to install solar + storage and paid ~$1,000 for the permit, but ultimately we decided to drop the solar and do battery only, for which we were charged ~$2,300. Due to these fees we have recently made the decision to stop selling solar and storage systems in Palo Alto. Please see screenshots of receipts for these payments below. A few related points I'd like to raise as you consider my request: CA Government Code 66015 limits fees for PV and Storage combined to $450, unless the city "provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit" The City Council has "Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment Protection" as one of its 2025 Council Priorities. Reducing fees to match the limits of GOV 66015 would help align with these priorities, and the city's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2030. Rooftop solar and distributed battery energy storage also does not require new land development and minimizes environmental disruptions, and also supports the goal of "natural environment protection" Separate fire and electrical inspections - are you planning to drop the need for a This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast separate fire inspection in light of the upcoming 2026 code cycle? Scheduling and attending two inspections doubles our costs and increases our cashflow challenges while we wait to get on the calendar for both. It would be extremely helpful if the fire inspection was dropped / consolidated with electrical, or virtual inspections were allowed. Thanks, Steve Joseph CEO, Potrero Energy 415-323-5218 Book time on my calendar From:Steve Joseph To:Council, City Cc:Project Manager Subject:Request for reduction in solar permitting fees Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 9:19:41 AM Attachments:image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hi Palo Alto, I'm a small business that has recently paid over $3,000 for a permit to install a battery system. We had planned to install solar + storage and paid ~$1,000 for the permit, but ultimately we decided to drop the solar and do battery only, for which we were charged ~$2,300. Due to these fees we have recently made the decision to stop selling solar and storage systems in Palo Alto. Please see screenshots of receipts for these payments below. A few related points I'd like to raise as you consider my request: CA Government Code 66015 limits fees for PV and Storage combined to $450, unless the city "provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit" The City Council has "Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment Protection" as one of its 2025 Council Priorities. Reducing fees to match the limits of GOV 66015 would help align with these priorities, and the city's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2030. Rooftop solar and distributed battery energy storage also does not require new land development and minimizes environmental disruptions, and also supports the goal of "natural environment protection" Separate fire and electrical inspections - are you planning to drop the need for a separate fire inspection in light of the upcoming 2026 code cycle? Scheduling and attending two inspections doubles our costs and increases our cashflow challenges while we wait to get on the calendar for both. It would be extremely helpful if the fire inspection was dropped / consolidated with electrical, or virtual inspections were allowed. Thanks, Steve Joseph CEO, Potrero Energy 415-323-5218 Book time on my calendar 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:Mike Hagerty To:Council, City Subject:Grant Management Accountability and Unresolved Audit Findings Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 8:23:50 AM Attachments:Summary of One on One October 9, 2025 (2).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of public accountability. Approximately one year ago, a grant management audit was completed, yet its findings have not been fully implemented. Significant issues persist, and they are issues that predate my tenure with the City of Palo Alto. I was hired as a grant analyst one year ago and was recently released from my position by the Administrative Services Department, as I approach my 63rd birthday in December and the holiday season without employment. I write because I am concerned about how I was treated in terms of basic fairness and decency. (I am still waiting for final payment from the City with major bills pending.) I am a positive and forgiving person, however, given the long standing patterns that I have observed from my former supervisors, I believe that responsibility for unresolved grant audit findings may be unfairly shifted to me, despite long standing departmental non-compliance. I contributed to the City in a positive and professional manner at all times. During my tenure, I: Compiled and shared a comprehensive list of active and pending grants with the City Attorney’s Office. Increased attendance at monthly grant coordination meetings. Organized grant training and drafted an updated grant policy. Self-trained on the SAP financial system due to insufficient departmental support. Successfully managed the City’s single audit, which resulted in no findings. Encouraged and supported numerous new grant applications, some of which were awarded. Received praise from the City Manager’s Office and Water Utility Department for my This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Unfortunately, these contributions were overlooked by my former supervisors. To provide context, I’ve attached a summary of a recent interaction with the Administrative Services Department that highlights ongoing grant management challenges. One persistent concern is the handling of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Oversight appears to be almost entirely outsourced to a consulting firm, Michael Baker International, including subrecipient monitoring. When auditors requested executed CDBG agreements, none could be located at City Hall. We had to rely on HUD’s website for documentation. Meanwhile, a significant portion of CDBG funds remains unspent, despite urgent community needs, especially among unhoused residents. The City’s grant application for the Encampment Resolution Program received a low score and was not funded two years ago. No follow-up or reapplication occurred, even though other opportunities have since emerged. Additionally, departments have accepted grant agreements without notifying Administrative Services, in direct violation of the City’s grant policy, which was a core issue flagged in the original grant audit. It appears that neither the City Manager’s Office nor the Administrative Services Department has prioritized grant compliance or reform. This is troubling, especially given the City’s budget deficit. Proactive grant management could help address unfunded priorities in the Capital Improvement Plan and support critical services. I did my best to serve the people of Palo Alto with integrity and enthusiasm. I developed training materials, including SAP guidance, which staff found promising, but I was let go before I could share them. I believe the City would benefit from listening more closely to its dedicated staff, many of whom voiced concerns in last year’s employee survey that remain unaddressed. Creating false narratives about my role will not solve long-term issues. I write in the hope that my experience can help illuminate systemic gaps and inspire meaningful change. Thank you for hearing my perspective. Sincerely, Michael Hagerty Former Grant Analyst, MPA 1 Summary and Reflections on October 9, 2025 One-on-One Meeting with Assistant ASD Director Christine Paras Date: Thursday, October 9, 2025 Time: 3:30 P.M. PDT Location: City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department Executive Summary This memo documents a one-on-one meeting with Assistant Director Christine Paras, reflecting on the tone, content, and broader implications of our interaction. It highlights ongoing challenges in grant administration, including the need for specialized training, and procedural gaps that have impacted audit readiness. The meeting’s tone was unexpectedly critical, and the feedback presented did not account for structural barriers or prior requests for guidance. This summary is intended to support transparency, professional reflection, and future improvements in departmental collaboration and grant oversight. Background I joined the City of Palo Alto in November 2024 as a Management Analyst, assigned to grants administration. Since I began working in Palo Alto, I’ve had weekly one-on-one meetings with Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department (ASD). These meetings have typically involved reporting on grant developments and sharing draft work products by plugging into her computer screen for review. Over time, these sessions have shifted toward detailed critiques, with limited recognition of progress or accomplishments and with no coaching or encouragement. Christine often delivers detailed disapproval without offering informed guidance. Her calendar includes a recurring “Do Not Schedule” block for staff report preparation. On several occasions, when I’ve sought clarification, I’ve been asked to wait, which has made timely guidance difficult to obtain. Training in accounting has been minimal, leaving me unprepared for certain responsibilities. The one-on-one meetings have been shortened and are often rescheduled, sometimes without explanation, suggesting that grants are not a priority. Meeting Summary This meeting was rescheduled from 11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., continuing a long-standing pattern. After I updated Christine on my current projects and plans for grant training, she responded with negative feedback, saying, “We’ve talked about this before.” She then unexpectedly instructed me to close the office door, something she had previously discouraged, even during personnel discussions. Her tone was low but firm: “Get the door.” 2 Christine began by stating, “You missed a deadline, and I take missing deadlines seriously. People had to work on the weekend.” However, the specific deadline was never clearly explained during the meeting, and the deadline was impossible for anyone to meet given that the information was not available due to staffing shortages, employee absences, and a lack of financial support and oversight. Apparently, the books had to be reopened because one of the City’s departments that had federal expenditures in 2025 was unaware of the applicable accounting rules. I said to Christine that I had asked for help from the finance department during the single audit deadline period because information was not forthcoming. I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood accounting expectations due to lack of experience in this area. The single audit process in Palo Alto has historically been managed by trained accounting staff. In my role, I have not received formal accounting training, and departmental staff have not been adequately briefed on single audit procedures. This lack of foundational support contributed to delays and confusion during the audit period. Due to printer issues, Christine shared her screen to present this two-page memo, which seemed to call into question my honesty, saying my communication was misleading. I believe this is a misunderstanding, and I that I was not trying to evade responsibility. To provide some context, once during a monthly grant coordination meeting, where departments gather to discuss current grants and future opportunities, Christine addressed everyone and said, “Mike tells me he’s been meeting with the departments. Is that true?” No one responded. The question, posed publicly and without prior discussion, felt like a challenge to my integrity. I joined the City hoping to bring enthusiasm and excitement to grants. Some sections of Christine’s memo were highlighted in yellow, which she indicated were points she wanted to emphasize. I felt this whole interaction was unnecessarily critical and I was not given an opportunity to present relevant information. My suggestions are often dismissed by Christine. I reminded her that I had previously asked, at a meeting on February 4, 2025, in the office of Chief Financial Officer Lauren Lai, for a simple directive to be sent to departments affirming the importance of grants and encouraging responsiveness. Instead, I was told to develop work plans, which I did diligently. These plans were later disregarded. The lack of leadership endorsement contributed directly to diminished departmental participation during the single audit, undermining audit readiness and collaboration. I also raised concerns about recent procedural lapses, including a grant agreement signed by the City Manager for the Airport without notifying ASD. This appears to be inconsistent with the City’s grant policy. Christine had no explanation. I asked why Safe Parking funds for unhoused families were not spent and remain without clarity, and why the City Manager’s Office lacked copies of signed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grant agreements that were requested during the single audit. Again, no answers. Despite these gaps, I was able to work directly with the Planning and Development Services Department and auditors to provide proof 3 that the CDBG grant agreements were in place with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. When Christine once asked how she could keep me engaged, I said I hoped to be involved and to be invited to meetings. Besides these one-on-one meetings, Christine has not invited me to meetings where my grant skills and knowledge would contribute to project readiness and could possibly alleviate budgetary pressures. I was once told by an ASD employee that CFO Lauren Lai asked why I wasn’t present at a meeting. When I brought this up, Christine asked, “What meeting?” I couldn’t recall the exact one at the time, but later realized I had never been informed about it in the first place. Another time, I asked a long-time employee who is involved with grants how he learned SAP, the City’s financial system. He said Christine taught him. Yet when I asked for guidance on SAP, Christine said she could not do it. I was able to obtain basic SAP instructions from the accounting staff and colleagues on how to find federal and state grants, but I believe more structured training would benefit everyone. This is not just for me. I believe the City should do more to help its employees with SAP training, as requested in last year’s employee survey. My training was not sufficient, despite several requests for support. Considering the size of Palo Alto’s grant portfolio ($98 million plus), this training would result in a positive return on investment. With no prior experience conducting a single audit, I would have benefited from structured mentoring and support. That guidance was never provided. Closing Reflection While the tone of the October 9 meeting felt more punitive than constructive, I remain committed to professional growth and to strengthening the City’s grant administration and audit readiness. I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring our programs meet compliance standards and deliver public value. I am still working with the auditors to answer questions about the single audit. Elevating the role of grants within the City is essential. When grants are well-managed and understood, the City is better positioned to fulfill its mission without compromising vital services. I welcome the chance to contribute to this effort and to help build a more resilient, audit-ready future for Palo Alto. A small investment now could pay big dividends in the future. I believe the challenges outlined in Christine’s memo highlight a broader opportunity: to implement structured, citywide training in single audit procedures and accounting principles. Led by the City Auditor or qualified accounting personnel, this much needed training could foster consistency, confidence, and collaboration across departments. I remain committed to public service, professional integrity, and collaborative problem-solving. I hope this summary contributes to a more transparent and supportive work environment. From:Angela Dellaporta To:Council, City Subject:Re: The Fry’s Site Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 8:22:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I recommend that you skim this article about a housing development in Arizona. It’s what the Fry’s site could have (could still??) become, instead of prioritizing empty office space. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/climate/car-free-arizona.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share I know that ship may have already sailed, but it’s worth keeping in mind that it is possible to build small, thriving, communities that prioritize pedestrians. It just requires the will of the city council. Angela Dellaporta Former member of the NVCAP Working Group. From:Klaus Bachmann To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Turf field removal without viable alternative Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 12:15:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, We are parents of children living in Palo Alto, and we are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed removal of the first turf fields without providing a viable and tested alternative. These fields are an essential part of providing our children with a healthy and active upbringing. During the approximately 5 months of rainy season—when grass fields are closed—the turf fields are often the only reliable places where outdoor sports can continue. If you visit Cubberley or any of the other turf fields, you will see hundreds of children practicing every day. The fields are used at full capacity and into the dark hours. We understand that environmental considerations are an important part of your decision-making. However, removing turf fields without alternative will have immediate and significant negative consequences for thousands of Palo Alto families. Without adequate places to play, children will inevitably spend more time indoors and in front of screens. We respectfully urge the Council to implement any changes gradually and only after suitable alternatives have been piloted and proven effective. Please do not pull the plug on us and our children. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Klaus Bachmann This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Rachel Mayberry To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Turf fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:49:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am writing to respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the plans to remove our city’s turf fields. While I understand and appreciate the environmental concerns that may be driving this decision, the impact on our soccer practices will be dramatic and long lasting. There are not enough usable fields in the winter to manage the high volume of kids that play soccer in the Bay Area. A large number of teams will have to go without practice and these children depend on their practices for socialization with their friends, exercise and all the benefits of sports. Turf fields are a necessity during the winter months. My son's soccer team practices at Cubberly and during the winter, the grass fields are closed and he practices on the turf. There is no reasonable plan for field availability during the winter months without turf. I don't like the idea of turf fields myself. I have read the research on the dangers of them. I am constantly referring to the EWG website to make sure that I only bring the safest household cleaners, lotions, sunscreens etc into my household and for use on my children. Believe me, I want an alternative to turf that has the same durability. But we don't have a good one right now. I urge the Council to pause the removal of turf fields until a balanced plan is in place—one that considers environmental goals while ensuring our children have adequate space and opportunity to practice, play, and stay active year-round. Thank you for your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to the concerns of families in our community. I hope you will reconsider this decision and work with residents to find a solution that supports both environmental responsibility and the well-being of our children. Rachel Mayberry (mother of 11 year old Tread, an amazing goalie who loves playing with his team and needs the exercise of soccer practice in the winter so he can be healthy and not drive his mom crazy!) This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Amy Kacher To:Council, City Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; City Mgr Subject:FCC Rule follow up: Request of City Council Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:04:30 PM Attachments:B3583453-7638-4AA9-A68B-2FD6D0C3F692.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello I am writing to follow up on my request below. Since writing I’ve learned there are now two, not just one, FCC rules pending. Build America: Eliminating barriers to wireless deployments with two notice of inquiries (NOI), docket 25–276 and docket 25–253. These address local control of fees, rights of way and permitting of cell towers. It looks like the comments 25 - 253 closed on 11/17 but maybe comments are open longer than that for 25–276. Here is the letter the Mayor of Encinitas wrote against the first rule 25-276. I am sending you this copy in case seeing an example of how another city formats their statement is helpful. I hope Palo Alto will fight against these threats to our local control. Thank you, Amy Kacher On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM amy kacher <amykacher1@gmail.com> wrote: City Council, I am writing to request you to restore ARB review/public hearings for cell tower applications, prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and require review of applicants’ assertions with respect to technical feasibility by a non-industry-aligned expert. I feel strongly about this issue. My sister and parents live in San Mateo where there was a disagreement with their city regarding towers. Their process uncovered a lot of corruption and mismanagement about the cell towers. Some were placed immediately outside of people’s homes. It is critical that we have transparent processes and proceed with extremely clear parameters for distance from homes and schools with clear open transparency for step of approval is disclosed. I ask that we move slowly and reimplement ARB public review/hearings. Thank you Amy hey, we are all just people From:Shannon Rose To:Council, City Subject:SFO Air Traffic Noise Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:25:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members, Thank you so much for all you do for our wonderful city. I write today to ask you to take advantage of the unique opportunity to address airplane noise. San Francisco's Final EIR denies SFO's negative impact on the health and well being of thousands of Palo Altans. Please don't miss this opportunity to legally challenge SF's inadequate EIR. Please let the community know when Council will deliberate and vote on a decision to defend Palo Alto on this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto From:jfleming@right-thing.net To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Defend Palo Alto against SFO expansion Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 6:35:43 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 you about San Francisco’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on San Francisco Airport’s ambitious planned expansion. This document falsely claims that the expansion would have no negative impact on the health and well-being of Palo Altans. I would like to make sure that the City of Palo Alto does not miss this opportunity to legally challenge San Francisco’s inadequate and misleading EIR, and to remind San Francisco that, because of SFO, Palo Altans already have been suffering for years from the adverse effects of intrusive jet noise, a problem that has yet to be redressed. Please let residents and the press know when Council plans to deliberate and vote on taking action to defend Palo Alto’s interests on this matter. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net From:Art Liberman To:Council, City Subject:Start a Court challenge of SFO"s EIR Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 6:22:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council I am writing to you about airport noise and SFO's EIR. Early almost every morning, flights directed to SFO circle over Palo Alto, and then they fly north to SFO. This happens frequently throughout the day. The early morning flights in particular fly low over the Barron Park neighborhood creating a lot of noise. The EIR from SFO ignores my health and that of many other Palo Alto residents. San Francisco’s Final EIR does not admit that there is a negative impact on the health and well-being of thousands of Palo Alto residents. I urge the Palo Alto City Council to legally challenge SFO's EIR. This is our only opportunity to stop this inadequate EIR and require SFO to acknowledge the health impact of the noise of airplanes flying into SFO. Art Liberman Chimalus Drive This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Alexandra Knauer To:Council, City Subject:El Camino Fields turf Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 6:02:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 2021, a lifetime soccer player, and a weekly user of the El Camino Fields since moving to Palo Alto. I play in the Palo Alto adult soccer league (PAASL) and feel very strongly about keeping the El Camino fields as turf. I support the movement to advance artificial turf at El Camino Park while setting aside Cubberley’s synthetic turf field as a pilot site for natural grass when it needs replacing in the next few years. Adult soccer leagues are difficult to find and this league is my core community within Palo Alto. I am highly concerned that our playing time would be significantly impacted by converting the field to grass. I have played on many grass fields throughout the Bay Area and they often are poor quality or have very long seasonal closures. We only play one to two hours per week and that means a great deal for social connection within our community. Please let me know if there is any additional information you need from me, I am happy to come to a meeting to speak about my viewpoint. Thank you for your consideration. Allie Knauer This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Igor Krasnykh To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Please Retain Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:46:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I'm writing as a Palo Alto parent whose child participates in youth soccer programs that depend on our city's athletic facilities. I understand the City Council is considering removing synthetic turf fields, starting with El Camino Park. While I appreciate the environmental considerations driving this discussion, I'm concerned about the immediate impact on our community's children. The practical reality is that our current grass fields cannot sustain year-round, high- volume use. They close during winter months and require extended recovery periods, leaving hundreds of local kids without reliable practice and game space. El Camino Park is one of our few lighted facilities. Losing it would create a significant gap in field availability. I support a thoughtful, phased approach: pilot high-performance natural grass at sites like Cubberley or Greer Park first. Let's prove the concept works for our climate and usage levels before eliminating synthetic fields that our community depends on today. Our children need consistent access to safe playing fields. Please don't remove synthetic turf at El Camino Park until we have viable alternatives proven and in place. Thank you for your service and for considering the needs of Palo Alto's youth sports families. Cheers! ----------------------------------------------------- Igor Krasnykh - schedule a call (Zoom) phone: 512.270.5097 LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram Turning B2B complexity into predictable growth This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Mike Fischer To:Council, City Subject:SFO expansion / noise Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:45:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I am reaching out about San Francisco’s Final EIR which denies SFO’s negative impact on the health and well being of thousands of Palo Altans. I would like to make sure that the City does not miss this opportunity to legally challenge SF’s inadequate EIR. Please let the community know when Council will deliberate and vote on a decision to defend Palo Alto on this matter. Thank you, Michael Fischer -- 763 E. Charleston Rd.Palo Alto CA 94303650 855 9816 From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:Opportunity to address SFO operations impacting Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:42:10 PM Attachments:HANDOUT - SFO Expansion Plan.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl and Stone, City Manager Ed Shikada, City Attorney Molly Stump, We are grateful to the City for submitting comments to the SFO DEIR. A key next step for Council is to vote on taking legal action to appeal SF’s Final EIR. The history of aviation noise has shown that legal challenges from cities are a recognized incentive for industry to make investments in noise abatement and to obtain necessary working agreements to support noise mitigation programs; achieving milestones like no other processes can. It is also why the City has a “fast-track” policy for Council to not miss opportunities to make legal appeals. Please find below an Outreach & Information Handout that we have put together on SFO's Expansion EIR with a request for Councilmembers to deliberate and not miss what is a unique opportunity to achieve important and necessary milestones to address SFO Arrivals noise severely impacting Palo Alto neighborhoods. The handout includes the following, I. San Francisco’s Response to Comments (RTC) on SFO’s plans II. Palo Alto’s Fast-Track Airplane Noise Policy III. Reasonable asks of SFO (within SFO’s purview) The Sky Posse Handout also includes the Settlement Agreement by the City of Alameda with the Port of Oakland on Oakland airport's expansion plans. We welcome questions about our analysis, history of the problem for Palo Alto, and why addressing this is important to also protect future generations. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto HANDOUT SFO EXPANSION - Sky Posse Palo Alto This handout is to inform Palo Alto residents about the City’s opportunity to appeal San Francisco’s Final Environmental Impact Report on San Francisco International Airport’s expansion plan. We ask that all who are interested to write or call and personally reach out to Councilmembers with the following message: “I am reaching out about San Francisco’s Final EIR which denies SFO’s negative impact on the health and well being of thousands of Palo Altans. I would like to make sure that the City does not miss this opportunity to legally challenge SF’s inadequate EIR. Please let the community know when Council will deliberate and vote on a decision to defend Palo Alto on this matter. Thank you” See below: Palo Alto’s Fast-Track Airplane Noise Policy, and Council contact info. BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION I. San Francisco’s Response Comments (RTC): The City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto residents and Sky Posse Palo Alto submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; on Nov 4 SF provided responses to comments (RTC). The EIR is now final and can only be appealed legally. Below is Sky Posse Palo Alto’s review of the Final EIR. The RTC has two organizing tables: Table 2-1 Who commented (5 agencies, 18 individuals, and 5 organizations) and Table 3-1 The Preparers labels to classify responses. “General Comments -Non-CEQA” label in Table 3-1 refers to what the preparer considers CEQA or non-CEQA. We consider that the EIR is inaccurate, incomplete and inadequate to exclude flight path airspace procedures impacts and for using the 65 DNL. Only a judicial review can now determine what the EIR should include and these are some of the points to consider: SF EIR INACCURATELY SUGGESTS THAT ONLY RUNWAYS ADD THROUGHPUT In Response NO-2; GC-Non-CEQA, 8 & 11, the EIR relies on a Memorandum by Ricondo in Appendix C in the DEIR which states that the airport development plan “does not contemplate nor would result in any change to existing runway configurations or flight paths, expand Airport property, or increase runway capacity.” However, SFOs history of increase in landings per hour (a capacity metric)- not with new runways but with flight path navigation procedures - is glossed over. Ricondo mentions Nextgen in passing without underscoring how the procedures “being implemented” by the FAA have design elements (altitudes, concentration, movements per hour) that carry serious noise impacts. SFO owned GBAS procedures that escalate throughput (which the airport needs to support their plan) are a serious concern. The EIR then asks that we are NOT to make a connection to an increase in negative impacts even though United Airlines touts that airport construction and gate expansion is “paving the way” for SFO growth which directly puts pressure on airspace organization, airspace procedures and the result is noise. Ricondo cites a US Court of Appeals decision favorable to the FAA/airport on this topic but this was before the Supreme Court repealed Chevron deference which now could test the airport’s logic. A new judicial review is needed for SFO’s specific case, where it’s demonstrable that capacity skypossepaloalto.org HANDOUT SFO EXPANSION - Sky Posse Palo Alto and flight path impacts come not only from the runways (the focus of the Ricondo report) but from flight path airspace procedures. EIR IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT EXPLAINING SFO’s ROLE IN FLIGHT PATH PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT The EIR underscores federal sovereignty over airspace use, but leaves out the many hands in flight path procedures development, or SFO’s prominent role as a signatory to a category of requests in the IFP Gateway (where airspace procedures are processed). Extensive public records can show SFO’s intricate involvement in flight path development - from the airport’s SFO Roundtable activities which tweak airspace procedures on an ongoing basis; airline designs where the airport advises on noise; SFO’s role in the dozens of airspace procedure requests by SFO’s landlord San Mateo County during the Select Committee - to very recently numerous SFO’s GBAS procedures. Arguably, no airline or even the FAA proposes airspace changes without SFO’s backing or involvement and it’s impossible to distinguish between what SFO does and what the airlines do. With Nextgen procedures, the Nextgen Advisory Committee (airlines and industry stakeholders) practically directs the FAA. EIR’s 65 DNL NOISE THRESHOLD IS INADEQUATE FOR CEQA: The EIR states that “..the Draft EIR only relies on a 65 dBA threshold to analyze operational traffic noise impacts as this noise threshold is used by the local jurisdiction for noise and land use compatibility purposes.” Airports and the FAA inappropriately interpret the federal and state environmental laws when applying a land use noise threshold that was crafted to qualify for insulation - for buildings in airport vicinities. CEQA’s purpose is very different from land use law; CEQA is meant to protect people irrespective of political or geographic jurisdiction. To consider the variety of concerns that have been identified for communities like Palo Alto, including health impacts from night time operations the EIR requires more metrics and thresholds to meet CEQA’s purpose. We outlined some of the differences between the land use law vs the federal NEPA law here. II. Palo Alto’s Fast-Track Airplane Noise Policy The City adopted a "Fast Track Airplane Noise" policy in 2018 which lays out the steps to challenge airspace procedures because opportunities were missed in the past to challenge FAA procedures. The policy resulted from high public interest; Council and Policy & Services deliberation, and thorough consideration of what is within the City’s purview to legally challenge. In principle, the expectation is that the City and Council can act without the policy or do more than what is in the steps but the Fast Track steps are a useful REMINDER for the City and the community of what is involved to act on time and transparently. A recent model of action to address airplane noise concerns is the expeditious settlement reached by Alameda with the Port of Oakland, on Oakland Airport’s expansion plan. skypossepaloalto.org HANDOUT SFO EXPANSION - Sky Posse Palo Alto III. Reasonable asks of SFO (within SFO’s purview) By various measures, the changes and adverse effects that have come about from SFO arrivals airspace procedures merit a serious approach. Judicial review can make the call about what share of responsibility the airport has. The question that follows is what mitigations can SFO’s multimillion development plan include that are within SFO’s purview to offer. What we know is that serious noise mitigation programs need to be enduring and measurable. We preliminarily propose three initiatives. Send us suggestions to add or modify these points, any questions, or more info: skypossepost@gmail.com. SFO ARRIVALS AGREEMENTS: ● IFP- Gateway Tracking Program: 1) Monthly reports on airspace procedure change requests in the IFP Gateway organized by proponent. 2) Annual Summary; with key flight path statistics - altitudes, usage, volume of operations. 3) All time notable Arrivals noise reduction procedures processed by the FAA for SFO, updated as needed. ● Dedicated Program to address Nighttime noise for Palo Alto and Arrivals cities excluded from SFO Roundtable; noise concentration reduction initiatives per Select Committee principles; Monthly report on milestones; review SFO’s GBAS noise reduction plan, lacks details and possibly formal documentation. During the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, the FAA proposed 1) to build nighttime noise abatement procedures for MidPen, or what the FAA calls new infrastructure that the FAA routinely does for airports and airlines, and 2) for the FAA to support voluntary agreements with airlines and airports to address nighttime flights. Together, these options could eliminate night time noise over MidPen. ● Permanent Arrivals Noise Monitoring & Other Noise Reporting appropriate for Palo Alto and Arrivals communities: In consultation with community experts. THIS CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Mayor Ed Lauing Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov, Vice-Mayor Vicki Veenker vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov, Councilmember Pat Burt pat.burt@paloalto.gov, Councilmember George Lu George.Lu@paloalto.gov, Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org, Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov, Councilmember Greer Stone Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov, Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov, vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov, pat.burt@paloalto.gov, George.Lu@paloalto.gov, Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org, Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov, Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov, skypossepaloalto.org From:Albena Bishop To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Please Retain Synthetic Turf Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:26:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council Members, I’m writing to express my strong support for retaining synthetic turf fields at El Camino Park and across Palo Alto. Removing these fields, especially without a proven high-performance natural grass alternative in place, would have an immediate and significant negative impact on local families and youth sports. My 13-year-old son plays soccer with PASC/SVSA, and eliminating synthetic turf would directly affect his ability to train, participate in games, and stay active in a safe, consistent environment. Losing this reliable field space would be a major disruption for him and for hundreds of local kids who depend on these fields year-round. Our community relies on synthetic turf for consistent, year-round field access. Grass fields cannot sustain the high volume of use required, and they remain closed for extended periods during the winter due to weather. This would leave hundreds of children without reliable space to train, play, and be active. I fully support the City exploring natural grass pilots at sites such as Cubberley or Greer Park, but eliminating synthetic turf at El Camino Park now would severely limit access for thousands of local kids. Please keep synthetic turf in place until a viable, tested, year-round alternative is available. Thank you for your consideration and for supporting youth recreation in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Albena Bishop This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Rebecca Trissell To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:synthetic turf fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:24:40 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 concerned Palo Alto resident to strongly oppose the proposal to remove all synthetic turf fields, beginning with El Camino Park next year. This change would be devastating to our community’s children and athletic programs. Why We Need Synthetic Turf: • Year-Round Activity: Synthetic fields are critical because they are the only reliable way for our children to remain active outdoors year-round. Grass fields cannot handle the high-volume demand and must close during winter, severely limiting access to play when kids need it most. • Current Capacity is Insufficient: The City is currently unable to provide grass fields that can sustain our programs’ required usage. Removing a major, lighted site like El Camino Park will immediately leave hundreds of local kids without a place to play. Please understand that eliminating synthetic turf at El Camino Park now is a drastic step with immediate, negative consequences for thousands of Palo Alto families. I urge the City Council to reconsider this motion and maintain the existing synthetic fields while carefully exploring alternatives elsewhere. We need to ensure continuous, year-round access to safe, reliable athletic facilities for our youth. Sincerely, Rebecca This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Parvathi Belur To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for keeping and expanding synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:12:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Esteemed City Council members, I am a Palo Alto resident and am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed removal of all synthetic turf fields in City of Palo Alto beginning with El Camino Park As a Palo Alto resident with daughters (ages 10 and 14) who actively use and enjoy our city's turf field, I have experienced first hand the benefits of these fields. Synthetic turf fields provide a reliable, year-round playing surface that can withstand heavy use and requires minimal maintenance. This extended usability is crucial in a region with limited field space and a growing demand for athletic facilities. It would be a travesty to eliminate the turf fields in Palo Alto and the surrounding areas and we actually need to be building more as they are so heavily utilized. Thank you, Parvathi This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Fred Balin To:Council, City Cc:Transportation; College Terrace Residents Association Board Subject:Cal Ave / Columbia Street Intersection and Related Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:14:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i My comments at last night’s council meeting: Fred Balin here. Good evening. On Thursday you received, as a cc, an email from Hayden Kantor of University Terrace, replete with misstatements and hyperbole, calling for a 4-way stop at the intersection of California Avenue and Columbia Street. Sight lines are not obstructed thanks to the red-painted curbs. Yellow and green pedestrian crossing signs pair each side of the California Avenue intersection. There is striping along the 4 crossings and a large pavement-printed STOP and sign at each of the Columbia Street sides. A 4-way stop is not needed and will generate problems. Equally upsetting is the failure to consult with College Terrace neighbors. My wife Ann, who wrote you yesterday, and I have lived on that corner for over 30 years. Since the 2004 initial project plans, neighbors have studied traffic reports and in later years generated our own data and analyses. We pushed, unsuccessfully, to maintain a “backdoor” roadway out of the site and for a legally-required street width for fire vehicles. But in the wake of the discovery of toxics on the site, we did succeed with a council with Cory Wolbach and Pat Burt to require that Stanford implement state-of-the-art, sub-slab depressurization under the houses most impacted. I trust that was implemented. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Speeding down from the top of California Ave is problem. Lowering the speed limit or adding a speed table on that stretch could help. Thank you. From:Eric Kwan To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Please Preserve Lighted Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:51:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, My name is Eric Kwan, and I am a long time Palo Alto resident and parent of two boys who play for Palo Alto Soccer Club (PASC). I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposal to remove synthetic turf fields from our city facilities, beginning with El Camino Park. Both of my sons, Wesley and Jax, train and compete regularly with PASC, and the lighted synthetic turf at El Camino Park is essential to their development. Because of our school and work schedules, evening practices on a reliable, lighted surface are often the only way they can consistently train. Losing this field would significantly reduce their opportunities to practice, play games, and pursue their soccer ambitions. Natural grass fields in Palo Alto already struggle to support the high volume of use from youth sports. They are frequently closed during the winter and after rain, which further limits access. Without a lighted synthetic turf field like El Camino, many families, including ours, will have far fewer options for safe, consistent, year-round play. I fully support the City’s efforts to explore high-performance natural grass solutions at other sites such as Cubberley or Greer Park. However, I respectfully urge you not to eliminate synthetic turf at El Camino Park until there is a proven alternative that can provide the same level of durability, availability, and lighting for our community’s children. Soccer has given my sons confidence, friendships, and a healthy outlet that they care deeply about. I hope you will consider the impact this decision will have on kids like them and on hundreds of families who rely on these fields. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Eric (Father of two PASC soccer players) This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Celebrate Our Impact: Annual Report Inside Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:45:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Read the Friends' 2025 Annual Report November 18, 2025  Dear Friends,  With gratitude, I’m excited to share our Annual Report, available here. Thanks to the generosity of our donors, this year the Friends continued its support of the JMZ and its mission, as well as expanded vital community engagement programs including: JMZ Science Outreach Program in underserved schools: Funded 469 hands-on science lessons, serving nine schools in East Palo Alto, eastern Menlo Park, and Redwood City. Science with a Twist: Expanded to five Boys & Girls Clubs of the Peninsula locations, delivering 118 after-school lessons. JMZ Summer Camp Scholarships: Provided 45 scholarships for children who qualify for reduced admission, enabling them to enjoy enriching summer activities at the JMZ and the Baylands Nature Preserve. Super Family Sunday: Celebrated its 15th year as a free, welcoming event held once a month for children with disabilities, led by our dedicated team of ambassadors. Affinity Events: Building on Super Family Sunday’s model of inclusion, the Friends collaborated with five mission-aligned nonprofits to host after-hours events for their families. Please mark your calendar for GivingTuesday, December 2, and consider a gift to the Friends of the JMZ Annual Fund at friendsjmz.org/donate. The Annual Fund provides general operating support that allows us to allocate dollars where they are most needed at the JMZ, and to fund programs that expand access to science education in underserved schools. Finally, the Friends is hiring a Development & Programs Associate to help support our work in the community—please share with anyone who might be interested! With heartfelt thanks, Lauren Angelo President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo DOWNLOAD THE ANNUAL REPORT A child discovering the JMZ treehouse.A young girl feeding flamingos. DONATE NOW   Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:Qi Wang To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Urgent Request: Addressing Field Scarcity and Immediate Safety Risks at Cubberley Fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:40:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing as a concerned parent and community member regarding the ongoing debate about the synthetic turf replacement at El Camino Park, and its direct impact on the safety and quality of life for families using our athletic facilities. While I appreciate the Council's careful consideration of long-term environmental and health risks associated with microplastics and PFAS, I urge you to recognize the significant, immediate public safety challenges caused by field scarcity. Currently, my children and many others are consolidating practice onto the few remaining high-capacity fields, particularly at Cubberley Community Center, since the end of daylight saving time. This concentration has created serious and visible safety risks: 1. Parking Lot Congestion and Pedestrian Safety: In the dark, the combination of high volumes of car traffic, hurried parents, and dozens of children crossing to and from the fields creates a hazardous environment in the parking lot and surrounding areas. This raises serious liability concerns and is a situation that needs immediate attention. 2. Field Overcrowding: The sheer number of teams and children practicing on limited space increases the risk of injuries and diminishes the quality of youth sports experiences. The decision to pause the turf replacement, while environmentally motivated, has unfortunately exacerbated these immediate safety concerns caused by lack of usable space. I strongly request that the City adopt a dual-track approach: 1. Continue the diligent study of low-PFAS, non-plastic infill alternatives and hybrid turf systems to secure the safest long-term solution. 2. Simultaneously and immediately implement temporary measures to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety at high-use sites like Cubberley during peak practice hours (especially This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 5:00 PM – 8:30 PM). This must include verifying that the existing Seasonal Lighting Program provides adequate illumination for parking lots and crossing zones, and deploying temporary traffic control/attendants to manage congestion and guide children safely. Furthermore, I urge you to prioritize and expedite the evaluation of field alternatives that maximize available playing hours without compromising health. Specifically, the study should confirm that hybrid turf systems and high-performance, well-managed natural grass fields can provide the 1,500-2,000+ annual hours of play needed to alleviate the current capacity crisis and reduce field concentration. Addressing the public safety risks stemming from overcrowding demands that viable, safe alternatives be implemented as quickly as possible. Thank you for your service and for considering this urgent appeal for the safety of our children. Sincerely, Qi Wang, Maria Yang Palo Verde Resident, parents of two kids From:Mark Stemm To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Please keep artificial turf for El Camino, and other fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:35:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, my daughter plays soccer as a part of the Palo Alto Soccer Club, and practices at fields owned by the city of Palo Alto. I heard about the recent discussion about whether to replace the artificial turf fields with grass fields. Our experience is that the artificial turf fields are consistently of higher quality than the grass fields. I would imagine that this is because the grass fields require more maintenance to replant/maintain grass, and with a limited budget for maintenance this work can get missed. Also, after any rain the grass fields are closed, and this obviously happens quite often during the Winter. Our daughter practices year round, and without having access to artificial turf fields her ability to practice and play games would be significantly affected. Also, unless the budget for maintenance were significantly increased, all fields will suffer. Please keep these considerations in mind when you make a final decision. --Mark This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Katie Sazdanoff To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Synthetic sport fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:32:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello! Both of my children play soccer in Palo Alto, and we support maintaining synthetic turf for athletic fields. There is already a critical shortage of athletic fields. No longer maintaining synthetic turf fields would mean more grass fields would need to be built which is not feasible. As studies show, team sports are incredibly important for children. Kids need fields to play sports! Not maintaining synthetic turfs would hurt children by making it more difficult to play team sports. I ask that you support maintaining synthetic turf fields. Thank you, Katie Sazdanoff This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Mauro Mondino To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Please keep synthetic turf fields in Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:19:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, This is Mauro Mondino, I am a Palo Alto resident. My family and I use the turf fields for recreational purposes on a weekly basis (Palo Alto Adult Soccer League, Palo Alto Soccer Club). I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the existing synthetic fields. These fields provide essential, all-year-round-durable space for our community's sports leagues and recreational activities, and their continuation is vital for the well-being and active lifestyles of our residents. Thank you for considering my input. Thank you, Mauro ________________ Mauro Mondino mauro.mondino@gmail.com (510) 332-7777 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Chun Jen Hsueh To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City; Chun Jen Hsueh Subject:Please Protect Our Youth Sports: Keep Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:54:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to you as a Palo Alto resident and parent regarding the discussion on the future of the athletic fields at El Camino Park. I understand that during the November 17th meeting, the Council decided to delay the final decision on the field replacement. As you continue to evaluate the options, I strongly urge you to proceed with replacing the current field with modern synthetic turf rather than converting it to natural grass. My sons and I are frequent users of the El Camino Park fields. After reviewing the recent discussions and the City’s own turf study, I believe retaining synthetic turf is the only viable option to meet our community's needs for the following reasons: 1. Capacity and Playability (The 3:1 Ratio) The City’s own analysis indicates that one synthetic turf field provides the playing capacity of three to four natural grass fields. Our community already faces a shortage of field space. Converting El Camino Park to grass would effectively slash our available playing hours by nearly 75%. Grass fields require significant "rest" periods to prevent degradation, whereas synthetic turf allows for continuous use by youth leagues, adult sports, and casual users like my family, regardless of the weather. 2. Safety and Consistency While I understand the concerns raised regarding heat and materials, natural grass presents its own immediate safety risks when overused. In our climate, heavily used grass fields quickly develop ruts, holes, and mud patches that lead to twisted ankles and knee injuries. Synthetic turf provides a consistent, level playing surface year-round. 3. Water Conservation Palo Alto has long been a leader in sustainability. Reverting to natural grass would require an estimated 1.2 million additional gallons of water annually to maintain a single field. In a region prone to drought, increasing our water consumption for athletic fields feels like a step 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 backward. 4. A Reasonable Compromise: Safer Technology I appreciate the Council’s due diligence regarding environmental concerns and PFAS. However, the solution should not be the removal of the amenity, but the adoption of better technology. I support the installation of next-generation synthetic turf that uses non-toxic, plant-based infill (such as cork or olive pits) and is certified PFAS-free. This approach addresses the health and environmental concerns raised by the community while preserving the vital recreational utility of the park. Please do not take away this essential resource. The removal of synthetic turf would significantly hurt youth sports programs and families who rely on these durable, all-weather facilities. Thank you for your time and service to our city. Sincerely, Chun Jen Hsueh From:Viktoria Stashok To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Request to Reconsider Removal of Turf Fields Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:33:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the plans to remove our city’s turf fields. While I understand and appreciate the environmental concerns that may be driving this decision, the impact on our youth athletic programs—particularly during the rainy season— will be significant and deeply felt. Turf fields currently provide a critical resource for local sports teams and families. During the winter months, when grass fields become unusable due to rain, turf is often the only reliable option for practices and games. Even this year, starting in November, many teams have already had to shorten practice times because of limited field availability. Further reducing playable space will dramatically restrict kids’ ability to train, develop skills, and participate in healthy physical activity. The condition of the alternative grass fields underscores the urgency of this issue. For example, the Cubberly grass fields are in poor shape: large areas lack grass entirely, the surface is uneven, and the field becomes difficult—if not unsafe—to use during and after rain. These conditions make it unrealistic to treat grass as a full replacement for turf, particularly for our youngest athletes. I strongly believe that environmental stewardship and youth sports development should not be mutually exclusive. Modern, environmentally conscious turf solutions do exist, and many communities have successfully adopted more sustainable materials and drainage systems. With thoughtful consideration, Palo Alto can pursue improvements that both reduce environmental impact and maintain reliable access to quality playing fields. I urge the Council to pause the removal of turf fields until a balanced plan is in place—one that considers environmental goals while ensuring our children have adequate space and opportunity to practice, play, and stay active year-round. Thank you for your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to the concerns of families in our community. I hope you will reconsider this decision and work with residents to find a solution that supports both environmental responsibility and the well-being of our 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 children. Sincerely, Viktoriia Stashok 6502728777 From:Raullen Chai To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Retaining Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:30:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the proposed removal of synthetic turf fields, beginning with El Camino Park. As a parent whose two children have played soccer in Palo Alto with PASC/SVSA for years, I have first-hand experience with the critical need for reliable, all-weather fields. The synthetic turf at El Camino Park is essential for our community's youth athletic programs. Its removal would: - Dramatically reduce field availability for hundreds of local kids, as grass fields cannot sustain the necessary high volume of community use. - Severely impact year-round training and competition, especially during the winter months when grass fields are often closed due to weather. - Eliminate one of the few major lighted field sites we rely on for evening programs. While I appreciate the City's focus on environmental best practices, eliminating the turf at this time would have immediate and deeply negative consequences for thousands of Palo Alto families. Reliable field space is not a luxury; it is necessary for the health and development of our children. I urge you to vote in favor of retaining the synthetic turf at El Camino Park while the City continues to explore and pilot high-performance natural grass at other sites like Cubberley or Greer Park. Thank you for considering the well-being of our community's young athletes. Sincerely, Raullen, Parent of PASC/SVSA players From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:I’m Voting To Release the Epstein Files Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 8:29:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, While many Americans feel relieved that the government has reopened, many remain frustrated that Congress failed to strike a deal to keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans, including 24,000 right here in our district who rely on ACA premium tax credits. As I learned long ago as mayor: never waste a crisis. Congress just wasted one, forcing 43 days of painful disruption on the American people without taking any action to lower health care costs. HEALTH CARE Should the House have voted on the continuing resolution without a health care deal? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. The continuing resolution that passed simply punts the fight to January 31st, when we will face yet another shutdown deadline. Last Monday, I offered a real solution. After several weeks of negotiations across the aisle, I introduced the bipartisan Fix It Act with two Republican and two Democratic colleagues to extend ACA premium tax credits for two years, reducing skyrocketing premiums for tens of millions of Americans. We pay for it — and actually reduce the deficit — by adopting a Republican-backed Senate proposal to fix wasteful Medicare Advantage payment formulas that insurers have exploited to overbill taxpayers for healthy clients. Rep. Kevin Kiley and I joined CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss our bill, and we’ll continue building the bipartisan support needed to get this done. It’s time to stop the Congressional dysfunction and fix the problem. Video More Affordable Housing for Our Community Where a Chuck-E-Cheese once stood, 191 new affordable homes will soon rise. Last week, José Lujano led the groundbreaking of a much-needed affordable housing development on Kooser Road in San José. This was a full-circle moment: a decade ago, José was fresh out of college, working on housing policy for me at our San José Mayor’s office. The shovels could only hit the dirt on Kooser Avenue because of a very complex combination of financing supports from non- profit, private, and public (local, state, and federal) sources. With the House back in session, I’m ready to dig back into the work of expanding affordable housing, and we need to start by untangling the complexities of housing financing and development. I have introduced five bipartisan bills —every one of them with a Republican cosponsor—to accelerate housing construction and facilitate affordable financing. As a “Road to Housing” package of housing bills reaches the floor on the Senate side—incorporating two of my bills — we’ll push to get an even more robust legislative package through on the House side in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned. Looking Ahead: the Epstein Files This week, the House will take up several bills — but none has drawn more attention than the vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I joined all my Democratic colleagues in signing the discharge petition to force a vote on the House Floor. As a former criminal prosecutor of child predators, I have no patience for anyone who harms children. The number of mentions of Donald Trump or any U.S. president in the criminal investigatory file of a convicted pedophile should be zero. Yet even within the small subset of files that have been obtained by the House Oversight Committee so far, I’m told, you’ll find Trump’s name on 1,600 pages. Don’t take my word for it; you can read those documents for yourself using this tool from Courier Newsroom. The survivors of these horrible crimes—and the American public—deserve complete transparency. Regardless of what happens on the House Floor, the Department of Justice is legally obligated to comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena to release the files– and I’ll push with my colleagues until we can secure the public release of all of the files. I’ll keep you updated as developments unfold. Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Public comment - meeting Nov 17 Action Item 9 - Turf Assessment and Report Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 8:29:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, Please find a slide attached detailing field temperature in Santa Clara county for your information. Kind regards Leanne McAuliffe Sent from Outlook for iOS From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:I’m Voting To Release the Epstein Files Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 8:28:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, While many Americans feel relieved that the government has reopened, many remain frustrated that Congress failed to strike a deal to keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans, including 24,000 right here in our district who rely on ACA premium tax credits. As I learned long ago as mayor: never waste a crisis. Congress just wasted one, forcing 43 days of painful disruption on the American people without taking any action to lower health care costs. HEALTH CARE Should the House have voted on the continuing resolution without a health care deal? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. The continuing resolution that passed simply punts the fight to January 31st, when we will face yet another shutdown deadline. Last Monday, I offered a real solution. After several weeks of negotiations across the aisle, I introduced the bipartisan Fix It Act with two Republican and two Democratic colleagues to extend ACA premium tax credits for two years, reducing skyrocketing premiums for tens of millions of Americans. We pay for it — and actually reduce the deficit — by adopting a Republican-backed Senate proposal to fix wasteful Medicare Advantage payment formulas that insurers have exploited to overbill taxpayers for healthy clients. Rep. Kevin Kiley and I joined CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss our bill, and we’ll continue building the bipartisan support needed to get this done. It’s time to stop the Congressional dysfunction and fix the problem. Video More Affordable Housing for Our Community Where a Chuck-E-Cheese once stood, 191 new affordable homes will soon rise. Last week, José Lujano led the groundbreaking of a much-needed affordable housing development on Kooser Road in San José. This was a full-circle moment: a decade ago, José was fresh out of college, working on housing policy for me at our San José Mayor’s office. The shovels could only hit the dirt on Kooser Avenue because of a very complex combination of financing supports from non- profit, private, and public (local, state, and federal) sources. With the House back in session, I’m ready to dig back into the work of expanding affordable housing, and we need to start by untangling the complexities of housing financing and development. I have introduced five bipartisan bills —every one of them with a Republican cosponsor—to accelerate housing construction and facilitate affordable financing. As a “Road to Housing” package of housing bills reaches the floor on the Senate side—incorporating two of my bills — we’ll push to get an even more robust legislative package through on the House side in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned. Looking Ahead: the Epstein Files This week, the House will take up several bills — but none has drawn more attention than the vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I joined all my Democratic colleagues in signing the discharge petition to force a vote on the House Floor. As a former criminal prosecutor of child predators, I have no patience for anyone who harms children. The number of mentions of Donald Trump or any U.S. president in the criminal investigatory file of a convicted pedophile should be zero. Yet even within the small subset of files that have been obtained by the House Oversight Committee so far, I’m told, you’ll find Trump’s name on 1,600 pages. Don’t take my word for it; you can read those documents for yourself using this tool from Courier Newsroom. The survivors of these horrible crimes—and the American public—deserve complete transparency. Regardless of what happens on the House Floor, the Department of Justice is legally obligated to comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena to release the files– and I’ll push with my colleagues until we can secure the public release of all of the files. I’ll keep you updated as developments unfold. Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Tom Baudin To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: All the laws Don Austin has violated (with links) Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 7:22:42 PM Attachments:Image.png Image.png Image.png Image.png Image.png Image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tom Baudin <thomasbaudin650@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 7:10 PM Subject: All the laws Don Austin has violated (with links) To: David Toston Sr <dtoston@sccoe.org> https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/PAUSD-COMPLAINT.pdf? utm_source=chatgpt.com https://padailypost.com/2020/06/02/school-district-settles-suit-over-violating-the-public- records-act/ https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/PAUSD-COMPLAINT.pdf? utm_source=chatgpt.com https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/PAUSD-COMPLAINT.pdf? utm_source=chatgpt.com Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code §§ 54950 et seq.) — Alleged violation of open-meeting law by the District Board and Superintendent in connection with public agendas and decision-making. California Public Records Act (also known as CPRA) — Alleged failure to timely produce records, as required of public agencies. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Assembly Bill 101 (“AB 101”, California’s Ethnic Studies law) — Alleged failure to comply with the procedural requirements for course approval under AB 101 for ethnic studies (for example: presentation to board, public comment) by the District. Education-Code requirements (various sections) relating to course adoption, curriculum, public notice, and school board duties. (E.g., the complaint mentions Education Code § 51225.3(a)(1)(G)(ii)(IV).) Additionally, he has violated the Bane Act by threatening me via email because I sent emails to board members politely requesting that they reverse their own employee's mistake. I can show you that as well. Is this enough Dr Toston? Not just egregious misconduct, but actual, literal crimes. Best, Tom On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 4:11 PM David Toston Sr <dtoston@sccoe.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Baudin, Based on the information you’ve provided, it appears that the issues raised fall outside the investigative authority of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE). Dr. David M. Toston, Sr. Superintendent Santa Clara County Office of Education Sent from a mobile device From: Tom Baudin <thomasbaudin650@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 9:37:09 PM To: David Toston Sr <dtoston@sccoe.org> Subject: Re: Acknowledgment of Request for PAUSD Investigation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links, open attachments or reply unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Contact the Help Desk at 4357 if you need assistance. Dr Toston, why isn't the board acting on this? I've presented a string of aggregious misconduct...I feel like I'm in The Truman Show, honestly. None of this makes sense at all and you all seem to be protecting him... -Tom On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 3:26 PM Tom Baudin <thomasbaudin650@gmail.com> wrote: Dr Toston, An investigation isn’t even necessary actually. I have laid bear all my sources so I think you could just proceed and issue a formal demand for the PAUSD to do what thousands have been wailing for, and terminate the bully of Silicon Valley once and for all. Best, Tom Baudin On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 1:18 PM Tom Baudin <thomasbaudin650@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Dr Toston, I have filed numerous government complaints with the board about all of this, including my own case against Don Austin, and they have simply ignored me every time. Just as they ignore my emails and just as they ingore just about everybody. Don Austin allowed the HR director Herb Espiritu to destroy my dream of becoming a teacher because he was too proud to rehire me after he realized he made a mistake when he fired me, thus staining my educator record. And I cannot spend the enormous amount of time and money to get a teaching credential even if there’s only a 30% chance that I will be denied a license over this. I've emailed you about this before and I have all the evidence to prove it and, like the parents of the six-year-old who was sexually assaulted, I will now have to sue the PAUSD. I can imagine the district, and therefore the students, are about to lose a lot of money over both of these lawsuits. When I asked Espiritu "Don't you care if you're making a mistake?" He walked away and said "Thank you!" And that was after grinning at my attempts to reason with him, and giving me one-word responses(or none). I thought simply reporting him to his superiors would resolve this immediately, but I didn’t realize this was an infamously corrupt organization. Espiritu is a schoolyard bully who knows that he is under the protection of an even bigger bully, and a complicit school board that does not even pretend to care when you contact them. You couldn't make a movie about this. And I've suffered documented medical issues over of this naked, sadistic, abuse of authority. My life now faces an uncertain future. It's the Mean Girls Unified School District, and Don Austin is the Donald Trump of Palo Alto. How many lives have to be destroyed and how much money do these careless sociopaths have to bleed from their own students before you decide this is worth your time sir? The community is suffering and in fear. They complain online that they are afraid of speaking out because they are afraid of retaliation against their children. It's been half a year that I have been joining the community in crying out from the sunken place, trying to find someone who will do something. Anything! And if people knew they had the option of complaining to your board, believe me doctor, you would hear about it every day. So on behalf of myself and the community, I urge you to reconsider. Sincerely, Tom Baudin. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 12:19 PM David Toston Sr <dtoston@sccoe.org> wrote: Dear Mr. Baudin, Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns. Based on the information you’ve provided, it appears that the issues raised fall outside the investigative authority of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE). As such, we are unable to proceed with a formal investigation related to these personnel matters. We encourage you to reach out to the PAUSD Board who have oversight in this area. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or if additional information becomes available. Best, David M. Toston, Sr. Image Dr. David M. Toston, Sr. County Superintendent of Schools Santa Clara County Office of Education 1290 Ridder Park Drive MC 201 San Jose, CA 95131-2304 (408) 453-6511 dtoston@sccoe.org Relator | Analytical | Futuristic| Strategic | Arranger Pronouns: he/him/ Sent from a mobile device. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:I’m Voting To Release the Epstein Files Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 7:00:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, While many Americans feel relieved that the government has reopened, many remain frustrated that Congress failed to strike a deal to keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans, including 24,000 right here in our district who rely on ACA premium tax credits. As I learned long ago as mayor: never waste a crisis. Congress just wasted one, forcing 43 days of painful disruption on the American people without taking any action to lower health care costs. HEALTH CARE Should the House have voted on the continuing resolution without a health care deal? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. The continuing resolution that passed simply punts the fight to January 31st, when we will face yet another shutdown deadline. Last Monday, I offered a real solution. After several weeks of negotiations across the aisle, I introduced the bipartisan Fix It Act with two Republican and two Democratic colleagues to extend ACA premium tax credits for two years, reducing skyrocketing premiums for tens of millions of Americans. We pay for it — and actually reduce the deficit — by adopting a Republican-backed Senate proposal to fix wasteful Medicare Advantage payment formulas that insurers have exploited to overbill taxpayers for healthy clients. Rep. Kevin Kiley and I joined CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss our bill, and we’ll continue building the bipartisan support needed to get this done. It’s time to stop the Congressional dysfunction and fix the problem. Video More Affordable Housing for Our Community Where a Chuck-E-Cheese once stood, 191 new affordable homes will soon rise. Last week, José Lujano led the groundbreaking of a much-needed affordable housing development on Kooser Road in San José. This was a full-circle moment: a decade ago, José was fresh out of college, working on housing policy for me at our San José Mayor’s office. The shovels could only hit the dirt on Kooser Avenue because of a very complex combination of financing supports from non- profit, private, and public (local, state, and federal) sources. With the House back in session, I’m ready to dig back into the work of expanding affordable housing, and we need to start by untangling the complexities of housing financing and development. I have introduced five bipartisan bills —every one of them with a Republican cosponsor—to accelerate housing construction and facilitate affordable financing. As a “Road to Housing” package of housing bills reaches the floor on the Senate side—incorporating two of my bills — we’ll push to get an even more robust legislative package through on the House side in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned. Looking Ahead: the Epstein Files This week, the House will take up several bills — but none has drawn more attention than the vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I joined all my Democratic colleagues in signing the discharge petition to force a vote on the House Floor. As a former criminal prosecutor of child predators, I have no patience for anyone who harms children. The number of mentions of Donald Trump or any U.S. president in the criminal investigatory file of a convicted pedophile should be zero. Yet even within the small subset of files that have been obtained by the House Oversight Committee so far, I’m told, you’ll find Trump’s name on 1,600 pages. Don’t take my word for it; you can read those documents for yourself using this tool from Courier Newsroom. The survivors of these horrible crimes—and the American public—deserve complete transparency. Regardless of what happens on the House Floor, the Department of Justice is legally obligated to comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena to release the files– and I’ll push with my colleagues until we can secure the public release of all of the files. I’ll keep you updated as developments unfold. Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:I’m Voting To Release the Epstein Files Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 7:00:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, While many Americans feel relieved that the government has reopened, many remain frustrated that Congress failed to strike a deal to keep health care affordable for 22 million Americans, including 24,000 right here in our district who rely on ACA premium tax credits. As I learned long ago as mayor: never waste a crisis. Congress just wasted one, forcing 43 days of painful disruption on the American people without taking any action to lower health care costs. HEALTH CARE Should the House have voted on the continuing resolution without a health care deal? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. The continuing resolution that passed simply punts the fight to January 31st, when we will face yet another shutdown deadline. Last Monday, I offered a real solution. After several weeks of negotiations across the aisle, I introduced the bipartisan Fix It Act with two Republican and two Democratic colleagues to extend ACA premium tax credits for two years, reducing skyrocketing premiums for tens of millions of Americans. We pay for it — and actually reduce the deficit — by adopting a Republican-backed Senate proposal to fix wasteful Medicare Advantage payment formulas that insurers have exploited to overbill taxpayers for healthy clients. Rep. Kevin Kiley and I joined CNN’s Jake Tapper to discuss our bill, and we’ll continue building the bipartisan support needed to get this done. It’s time to stop the Congressional dysfunction and fix the problem. Video More Affordable Housing for Our Community Where a Chuck-E-Cheese once stood, 191 new affordable homes will soon rise. Last week, José Lujano led the groundbreaking of a much-needed affordable housing development on Kooser Road in San José. This was a full-circle moment: a decade ago, José was fresh out of college, working on housing policy for me at our San José Mayor’s office. The shovels could only hit the dirt on Kooser Avenue because of a very complex combination of financing supports from non- profit, private, and public (local, state, and federal) sources. With the House back in session, I’m ready to dig back into the work of expanding affordable housing, and we need to start by untangling the complexities of housing financing and development. I have introduced five bipartisan bills —every one of them with a Republican cosponsor—to accelerate housing construction and facilitate affordable financing. As a “Road to Housing” package of housing bills reaches the floor on the Senate side—incorporating two of my bills — we’ll push to get an even more robust legislative package through on the House side in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned. Looking Ahead: the Epstein Files This week, the House will take up several bills — but none has drawn more attention than the vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I joined all my Democratic colleagues in signing the discharge petition to force a vote on the House Floor. As a former criminal prosecutor of child predators, I have no patience for anyone who harms children. The number of mentions of Donald Trump or any U.S. president in the criminal investigatory file of a convicted pedophile should be zero. Yet even within the small subset of files that have been obtained by the House Oversight Committee so far, I’m told, you’ll find Trump’s name on 1,600 pages. Don’t take my word for it; you can read those documents for yourself using this tool from Courier Newsroom. The survivors of these horrible crimes—and the American public—deserve complete transparency. Regardless of what happens on the House Floor, the Department of Justice is legally obligated to comply with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena to release the files– and I’ll push with my colleagues until we can secure the public release of all of the files. I’ll keep you updated as developments unfold. Sam Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Carrie Levin To:Council, City Subject:Re: Item 9 - Implement Pilot Study for Natural Grass Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 5:31:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I also want to urge the City Council to vote no on Staff recommendations to NOT install harmful artificial turf, and instead install newly developed natural bermudagrass cultivars designed to outperform the current outdated natural grass. These cultivars are designed to reduce watering & maintenance and are far better for the planet and for the kids. Do the right thing. On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 5:02 PM Carrie Levin <carriejlevin@gmail.com> wrote: Greetings City Council of Palo Alto- My name is Carrie Levin and I have been a Santa Clara County resident for the past 40+ years. I have taken my children to several Palo Alto city parks where they have played various team sports such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, and LARP (live action role play). They played on natural grass as it's a far safer surface to play on when it comes to cooler surfaces and far less toxic environmental exposures as compared to artificial turf (AT). While the Staff Report states, on page 6, that “staff and the Commission recommend … implementing a pilot program to enhance ... the City’s natural grass fields,” this recommendation is not present under the Report’s page 1 RECOMMENDATION. I am writing to urge you to add the words "implement a pilot program to sustainably enhance and actively manage ... the City’s natural grass fields,” to any action it takes. My arguments are for the following reasons: 1- Given the fact that artificial turf is a fossil fuel based product, it contains additional 100s of harmful chemicals that have no place on children's play surfaces. Why would anyone want to put children in harm's way when the surface they play on contains carcinogens, PFAS, VOCs, phthalates, heavy metals, carcinogens, flame retardants, and other hormone disrupting substances? 2- Artificial turf is a source of the growing microplastic problem. The infill, plastic blades., and the backing are all byproducts of microplastics. All it takes is for weathering, UV light, maintenance, installations and the rough and tumble to loosen any of the plastic This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast components to work their way into storm drains and into our precious waterways. No cost efficient filtering can fully capture the micro & nano plastics from escaping and working their way through the storm drains. 3. Beware of the latest greenwashing claims such as newer "organic" infills & PFAS free AT. Neither exist. All components of AT are toxic and harmful. Sources note that the silica, acrylic polymers and other harmful checmicalss are used to coat these "organic" infills. Silica, when broken down into dust particles, is dangerous when inhaled, while the chemicals pose health and environmental risks. PFAS free AT is a myth. Here's why: Independent testing confirms the presence of fluorine, a substance that cannot be broken down. Manufacturers' claim using the targeted testing methods that detect ppm levels thus evading the total fluorine presence testing methods that show a more comprehensive and complete analysis of fluorine presence. Besides, a 2023 letter from the Synthetic Turf Council's CEO admitted (see page 14) to a California state senator that it would take until 2026 to make AT PFAS free. 4. Artificial turf, from manufacturing to end use, is a source of global warming. Since plastic absorbs heat, these gigantic plastic fields are massive urban heat island generators. Artificial turf can get as hot as 70 deg F hotter than natural grass, thus contributing to global warming. In addition, AT poses serious health hazards for youth and adult players including burns, and heat related issues. 5. Artificial Turf does not save water "Plastic production is high in water usage at an average of 22 gallons per pound of plastic (Water, 2022), using this conversion, for the area of Centennial Field, it was found that Centennial Field used an estimated ~1.3-2 million gallons of water during the production of the artificial turf. If water is used to cool the artificial turf field, it would be an additional 250,000 gallons of water a year. With water for cooling and production added together and divided by the average lifespan of artificial turf, there would be an annual water usage of 390,000-450,000 gallons of water a year." The only way water is saved is if you do not take into consideration the health and safety of our children. Implement the pilot study for natural grass. Thank you for your consideration. Carrie Levin Santa Clara County resident From:Carrie Levin To:Council, City Subject:Item 9 - Implement Pilot Study for Natural Grass Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 5:04:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Greetings City Council of Palo Alto- My name is Carrie Levin and I have been a Santa Clara County resident for the past 40+ years. I have taken my children to several Palo Alto city parks where they have played various team sports such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, and LARP (live action role play). They played on natural grass as it's a far safer surface to play on when it comes to cooler surfaces and far less toxic environmental exposures as compared to artificial turf (AT). While the Staff Report states, on page 6, that “staff and the Commission recommend … implementing a pilot program to enhance ... the City’s natural grass fields,” this recommendation is not present under the Report’s page 1 RECOMMENDATION. I am writing to urge you to add the words "implement a pilot program to sustainably enhance and actively manage ... the City’s natural grass fields,” to any action it takes. My arguments are for the following reasons: 1- Given the fact that artificial turf is a fossil fuel based product, it contains additional 100s of harmful chemicals that have no place on children's play surfaces. Why would anyone want to put children in harm's way when the surface they play on contains carcinogens, PFAS, VOCs, phthalates, heavy metals, carcinogens, flame retardants, and other hormone disrupting substances? 2- Artificial turf is a source of the growing microplastic problem. The infill, plastic blades., and the backing are all byproducts of microplastics. All it takes is for weathering, UV light, maintenance, installations and the rough and tumble to loosen any of the plastic components to work their way into storm drains and into our precious waterways. No cost efficient filtering can fully capture the micro & nano plastics from escaping and working their way through the storm drains. 3. Beware of the latest greenwashing claims such as newer "organic" infills & PFAS free AT. Neither exist. All components of AT are toxic and harmful. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Sources note that the silica, acrylic polymers and other harmful checmicalss are used to coat these "organic" infills. Silica, when broken down into dust particles, is dangerous when inhaled, while the chemicals pose health and environmental risks. PFAS free AT is a myth. Here's why: Independent testing confirms the presence of fluorine, a substance that cannot be broken down. Manufacturers' claim using the targeted testing methods that detect ppm levels thus evading the total fluorine presence testing methods that show a more comprehensive and complete analysis of fluorine presence. Besides, a 2023 letter from the Synthetic Turf Council's CEO admitted (see page 14) to a California state senator that it would take until 2026 to make AT PFAS free. 4. Artificial turf, from manufacturing to end use, is a source of global warming. Since plastic absorbs heat, these gigantic plastic fields are massive urban heat island generators. Artificial turf can get as hot as 70 deg F hotter than natural grass, thus contributing to global warming. In addition, AT poses serious health hazards for youth and adult players including burns, and heat related issues. 5. Artificial Turf does not save water "Plastic production is high in water usage at an average of 22 gallons per pound of plastic (Water, 2022), using this conversion, for the area of Centennial Field, it was found that Centennial Field used an estimated ~1.3-2 million gallons of water during the production of the artificial turf. If water is used to cool the artificial turf field, it would be an additional 250,000 gallons of water a year. With water for cooling and production added together and divided by the average lifespan of artificial turf, there would be an annual water usage of 390,000-450,000 gallons of water a year." The only way water is saved is if you do not take into consideration the health and safety of our children. Implement the pilot study for natural grass. Thank you for your consideration. Carrie Levin Santa Clara County resident From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Gas COSA (Item #1 on Tomorrow"s Agenda) Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 5:00:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Finance Committee: Thank you very much for your past efforts to untangle the 2025 Gas COSA and how it disproportionally raised rates on residents. We now have a new 2026 Gas COSA to evaluate. Compared to prior rates, it increases the base rate for households by only 13% (down from the 22% proposed in the 2025 Gas COSA) but still a lot more than the 8% increase in fixed costs that the city is incurring. That difference is considerable. So it appears that residents are still being asked to subsidize business customers, who on average are receiving less than a 8% increase in their base rate. Both the 2025 and 2026 Gas COSAs explain that a major reason for the change is meter costs. As your staff report notes, “The 2026 Report ensures that the fixed portion of rates more accurately reflects customer related costs, such as metering, by including the cost of each customer’s meter and accounting for it in a comprehensive calculation of weighted average meter cost.” Table 2 in the staff report shows that the cost for a new residential meter has skyrocketed, going from about $73 a few years ago to $414, perhaps because labor costs are now included. But the quote above doesn’t appear to be correct. The new COSAs do not “more accurately” reflect the cost of most customer’s meters because those meters were installed many years ago. Residents who are installing new meters should of course be billed for those at cost, but why should most residents, who continue to use their existing meters, be impacted by higher rates for new meters at all? It appears the new COSAs are using the cost of new meter installation as a proxy for upping other charges on residents, such as the long-ago paid-for costs of their meters. That is, the COSA process is using one small portion of the utility system’s present costs as leverage to swing other costs onto the backs of residents. This This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast seems completely unfair. It is not justified nor even explained in any detail in the documents so far released. When this and similar problems of the 2025 Gas COSA were being discussed, others and I called for transparency so we could understand the disproportionate rate increases. We sought to better understand and check the calculations. We have not been given any of the information we requested. Worse, what we were shown was a new and ugly fact, namely that if you start with the same COSA consulting company and the same financial data but give different guidance, you get a different COSA back. How can that be? This is not how our government should operate! We hear that the details of COSAs can’t be released to the public because that might reveal something that someone might use as grounds for a lawsuit against the City. But wouldn’t that justify hiding just about everything a government does? Over half a century ago, our state passed a law requiring disclosure of government information to combat such thinking. Yet our City seems to think the principle behind that law irrelevant and that it can ignore our requests for transparency, go in the back room, twist the secret knobs once again, and satisfy us by not charging us quite as much this time. So are we satisfied now? Well, I’m not! We politely asked for transparency on the 2025 Gas COSA. We didn’t get it. So I’ve gone ahead and filed a California Public Record Act for all documents, memos, spreadsheets, and emails related to both Gas COSAs. Heck, these are for gas rates, not nuclear weapons, so I trust such information will finally be released to us (the owners of the utility system) and I can share them with others following this controversy. I agree that these documents probably won't rank up there with the Pentagon papers, the Nixon tapes, or the Epstein files, but who knows what we'll find buried deep in the Gas COSAs! With regards, Jeff Levinsky From:Lisa Karpinski To:Council, City Subject:Support for Third Thursday Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:55:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto city council members: I’m writing in support of third Thursdays. One of Carol Garsten’s biggest contributions is her relationship with local bands stemming from her work helping to organize first Fridays in Los Altos. Best wishes, -- Lisa Sent from my iPhone (with all the typos that implies) (408) 726-7868 lisakarpinski@gmail.com www.lisakarpinski.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Artificial Turf Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:13:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. While walking my dog on Stanford campus, I struck up a conversation with neurobiology PhD candidate and athlete, who happily shared with me the encyclopaediac knowledge he had acquired in the process of researching artificial turf. His conclusion was that when it comes to dedicated athletic fields, like El Camino Park, AT is the only option. HOWEVER, out of the dozens of AT options, only two or three should be considered and using the correct substrate is imperative. No, I don’t remember the details. From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment - CC Meeting Nov 17, Action Item 9, Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems. Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:00:27 PM Attachments:n1953_fieldturf_cj_signed brown lead 50ppm.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Attached for your reference is the lead agreement for artificial turf specific to FieldTurf. If you end up choosing to replace fields with more plastic turf, please ensure you receive verified lab reports to ensure they are meeting the lead limits set in this agreement (not more than 50ppm) and ensure that this verification comes in the form of a laboratory report from an independent testing laboratory. Please do not simply accept a letter of verification from any supplier. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clare County resident. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ, Chief Assistant Attorney General KEN ALEX, Senior Assistant Attorney General DENNIS A. RAGEN, Deputy Attorney General 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 PATTY BILGIN, Assistant City Attorney, Environmental Justice Unit ELISE RUDEN, Deputy City Attorney, Bar No. 124970 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 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General, ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, Los Angeles City Attorney, and DAVID W. PAULSON, Solano County District Attorney, Plaintiffs, v. BEAULIEU GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) )) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) )) Case No. RG 08-407310 Assigned For All Purposes To TheHonorable Robert B. Freedman CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. - 1 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. - SETTLEMENT DRAFT 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On September 2, 2008, the People of the State of California (“People”), 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. (“UCL”). 1.2 Fieldturf USA, Inc. (“FieldTurf”) is among the Defendants named in the complaint. 1.3 FieldTurf is a corporation that employs more than 10 persons and employed ten or more persons at all times relevant to the allegations of the complaint, and that manufactures, distributes, and/or sells Products in the State of California or has done so in the past. 1.4 For purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the People and the FieldTurf stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of violations contained in the People’s Complaint and personal jurisdiction over FieldTurf as to the acts alleged in the People’s Complaint, that venue is proper in Alameda County, and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment as a full and final resolution of all claims that were or could have been raised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein. 1.5 The People and FieldTurf 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 - 2 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER the failure to warn regarding the presence of lead in Covered Products. By execution of this Consent Judgment and agreeing to provide the relief and remedies specified herein, FieldTurf does not admit any violations of Proposition 65 or the UCL 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 FieldTurf 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 “Effective Date” means the date on which this Consent Judgment is entered by the Court. 2.2 “Covered Product” means an artificial turf system installed in California that is manufactured or distributed by FieldTurf, and the components of such system, including but not limited to fiber, backing, and cushioning. “Covered Product” does not include granular cushioning products (for example, crumb, tire crumb sand or synthetic sand.) 2.3 “Old Covered Product” means a Covered Product that was installed in California prior to November 2003. Field Turf represents that its turf fibers sold in the State of California in and after November 2003 have uniformly had a lead content of less than 100 ppm. 3. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 3.1 Lead Content. On and after the Effective Date, FieldTurf shall not (i) install in California, or (ii) distribute, donate, offer for sale or sell for installation in California, any Covered Products which contain lead in excess of 50 parts per million (ppm). Compliance with this Section 3.1 shall be determined by EPA Methods 3050B and 6010c or 6020A, or equivalent methods of analysis. / / / / / / - 3 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 3.2 Customer Communications: FieldTurf shall send a letter in substantially the same form as Exhibit A.1 to those Customers (“Customer” means the owner or operator of a Covered Product) who have Old Covered Products in place on their premises in California as of the Effective Date. Field Turf shall provide its authorized distributors and retailers (“Distributors”) with copies of this Consent Judgment, to the extent that it can locate these Distributors after employing reasonable efforts. In order to qualify for the protections set forth in Section 8.1 of this Judgment (Full and Binding Resolution), each Distributor must send a letter in substantially the same form as Exhibit A.2 to those of its Customers who have Old Covered Products in place on their premises in California as of the Effective Date. 3.3 Discounted Replacement of Certain Old Covered Products. 3.3.1 Subject to its option to perform maintenance under Section 3.3.4, FieldTurf shall offer a new artificial turf system at a Discount Replacement Cost, as specified in Section 3.3.2, for any Old Covered Product if: (a) Lead Transfer Testing conducted pursuant to Exhibit B shows Available Lead Levels on the Old Covered Product in excess of 0.1 micrograms per square centimeter per wipe; and (b) The Customer purchased the turf product from Field Turf (rather than from an authorized distributor) and the Customer requests in writing that the Old Covered Product be replaced at the Discounted Replacement Cost prior to the expiration of the warranty for the Old Covered Product, and the Old Covered Product has not been previously replaced or removed. 3.3.2 The Discounted Replacement Cost shall be determined by multiplying the Customer’s cost of replacing the Old Covered Product with an equivalent new Covered Product by the ratio of the number of months between the date that installation of the Old Covered Product was substantially completed and the date of the request by the Customer for a discounted replacement, divided by the number of months in the warranty period. FieldTurf represents that the warranty periods for its Old Covered Products were never less than eight (8) years. - 4 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 3.3.3 FieldTurf’s liability for Discounted Replacement Cost shall not exceed the cost of installing 100,000 square yards of replacement Covered Product. 3.3.4 At its option, upon receiving a written request to replace an Old Covered Product, FieldTurf may perform recommended maintenance procedures on the Old Covered Product and re-test the Old Covered Product pursuant to the Lead Transfer Testing protocol included in Exhibit B. If the re-test does not exceed 0.1 micrograms per square centimeter per wipe, FieldTurf shall not be required to replace the Old Covered Product, but shall perform recommended maintenance for the Old Covered Product at its recommended intervals until the expiration of the warranty period for the Old Covered Product. If the re-test does exceed 0.1 micrograms per square centimeter per wipe, FieldTurf shall replace the Old Covered Product pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth above. 4. PAYMENTS 4.1 Civil Penalties. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, FieldTurf shall pay a civil penalty of $ 22,500 pursuant to California Health & Safety Code sections 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. 4.2 Cy Pres. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall make cy pres payments in the aggregate amount of $ 75,000 to be distributed as follows: 4.2.1 FieldTurf shall pay $50,000 to the California Public Health Trust. These funds shall be used, as the Trust directs after conferring with the People, for some or all of the following: (a) To fund independent testing, which shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol attached as Exhibit B (Lead Transfer Testing), of Old Covered Products currently installed in California. - 5 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER (b) For research into Good Maintenance Practices, including the feasibility of applying stabilizers to Old Covered Products in order minimize lead transfer from those products. (c) 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. (d) For other projects or grants for the purposes of reducing, or educating the public about, lead in consumer products. (e) 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. (f) 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. 4.2.2 Within 30 days of the Effective Date, FieldTurf shall pay $ 25,000 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 Artificial Turf products, including potentially hazardous chemicals in Infill Products. OEHHA shall coordinate these studies with studies that it may conduct pursuant to SB 1277 (Maldonado). 4.3 Other Payments. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, FieldTurf shall also make the following payments: 4.3.1 Attorney General. Defendant shall pay $25,000 to the Attorney General, to reimburse the fees and costs his office has expended with respect to this matter. Funds - 6 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 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. 4.3.2 City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney. FieldTurf pay $25,000 to the Los Angeles City Attorney and $20,000 to the Solano County District Attorney to defray the attorneys’ fees and costs these offices have expended with respect to this matter. 4.3.3 Center for Environmental Health/Other Private Parties. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25249.7(j), FieldTurf shall pay $45,000 to the Center for Environmental Health. These payments represent full compensation for the assistance that CEH has provided to the People and the fees and costs that it has incurred with respect to this matter. 4.4 Each payment required by this Consent Judgment shall be made through the delivery of separate checks payable to the applicable person, as follows: 4.4.1 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 - 7 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER Thomas, Legal Analyst, Department of Justice, 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. 4.4.2 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. 4.4.3 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. 4.4.4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Payments due to 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. 4.4.5 Center for Environmental Health. 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. 4.4.6 Copies of checks. FieldTurf 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 5. MODIFICATION OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 5.1 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 the People or Defendant in accordance with law; or by the Court in accordance with its inherent authority to modify its own judgments. - 8 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 5.2 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 FieldTurf and the Attorney General will present the modification to the Court by means of a stipulated modification to the Consent Judgment. 6. ENFORCEMENT 6.1 The People 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, the People 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 People 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 the People or another enforcer alleging subsequent violations of Proposition 65 or other laws, FieldTurf may assert any and all defenses that are available, including the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect of this Consent Judgment. 7. AUTHORITY TO STIPULATE TO CONSENT JUDGMENT 7.1 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. 8. CLAIMS COVERED 8.1 Full and Binding Resolution. This Consent Judgment is a full, final, and binding resolution between the People and FieldTurf and its parents, shareholders, divisions, subdivisions, subsidiaries, partners, sister companies, and affiliates, and their successors and assigns (“Defendant Releasees”), and all entities to whom they distribute or sell Covered Products, including but not limited to distributors, wholesalers, customers, installers and any entity that maintains or operates a facility at which the Covered Products are installed (“Downstream - 9 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER Defendant Releasees”), of any violation of Proposition 65, the UCL, or any other statutory or common law claims that have been or could have been asserted in the Complaint against FieldTurf, Defendant Releasees, and Downstream Defendant Releasees, for failure to provide clear and reasonable warnings of exposure to lead from the use of the Covered Products Compliance with the terms of this Consent Judgment resolves any issue now, in the past, and in the future, concerning compliance by FieldTurf, Defendant Releasees, and Downstream Defendant Releasees with the requirements of Proposition 65 or the UCL arising from exposures to lead in or from the Covered Products. 8.2 This Consent Judgment does not resolve any claims that the People may assert with respect to: (a) Products other than the Covered Products; (b) Chemicals other than lead. 8.3 Further Reservations: Without limiting the rights reserved to Plaintiffs in the preceding paragraphs, Plaintiffs also reserve the right to assert claims against any Defendant Releasee or Downstream Defendant Releasee who after the Effective Date of this Judgment: (i) sells Covered Products that contain lead levels in excess of the applicable levels set forth in Secton 3.1 of this Judgment (Lead Content), (ii) fails to provide its customers with the letter required by Section 3.2 (Customer Communications) within 60 days of receiving a copy of this Consent Judgment; or (iii) otherwise fails to comply with, or impedes the efforts of others to comply with, the applicable terms of this Consent Judgment. 9. ONGOING INVESTIGATION 9.1 The People are conducting an ongoing investigation of lead and other chemicals in artificial turf and related products sold by companies other than FieldTurf. In connection with this investigation, FieldTurf will, upon reasonable notice, provide the People with information, product samples, and other information and materials within their possession, custody or control, or that are readily available to it, relevant to such investigation, except to the extent that such information is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. - 10 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. D OCUMENT P REPARED - 11 - ON R ECYCLED P APER CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 10. PROVISION OF NOTICE 10.1 When any Party is entitled to receive any notice under this Consent Judgment, the notice shall be sent by overnight courier service 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. 10.2 Notices shall be sent by First Class Mail or overnight delivery to the following when required: For the Attorney General: Dennis A. Ragen, Deputy Attorney GeneralCalifornia Department of Justice 110 West A. Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101Dennis,Ragen@doj.ca.govTelephone: (619) 645-2016Facsimile: (619) 645-2012 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 EastLos Angeles, California 90012-4131Patty.Bilgin@lacity.org For the Solano County District Attorney Criselda B. Gonzalez Senior Deputy District AttorneyOffice of the Solano County District Attorney675 Texas Street, 4th Floor, Suite 4500 Fairfield CA 94533-6396 CGonzalez@SolanoCounty.com 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER For the Center for Environmental Health Mark N. Todzo Lexington Law Group, LLP 1627 Irving Street San Francisco, CA 94122 mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com 10.3 Notices for the FieldTurf shall be sent to: Fieldturf USA, Inc. Marie-France Nantel Director of Legal Services Tarkett Sports 8089 Montview Road Montreal Quebec H4P 2L7 Canada Tel: (514) 340-9311 ext. 108/Fax (514) 904-9311 Marie-France.Nantel@tarkettsports.com With a copy to: Jeffrey B. Margulies FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 892-9286/Fax: (213) 892-9494 jmargulies@ fulbright.com 11. COURT APPROVAL 11.1 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 People or FieldTurf for any purpose. 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 12.1 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. - 12 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 13. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 13.1 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. 14. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS 14.1 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 IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED: DATED: ______ _ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 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 nOCl'\ll,~'n ['BFPA.IUD ON RECYCLED [',\PER IT IS SO STIPULATED: DATEt:l~ '22, ZP/() _~ ______ __ EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Attorney General J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Chief Assistant Attorney General KEN ALEX Senior Assistant Attorney General By:?~A~ DENNIS A. RAGEN Deputy Attorney General For Plaintiffs People of the State of California CARMEN A. TRUTANICH Los Angeles City Attorney ELISE A. RUDEN DATED:&/~2j/tJ -'!~;f/4A~ By: i#P1 r:= PAY BILGIlSa' Supervising Attorney, Environmental Justice and Protection Section -13 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC 1 DATED: ~ ZZ-;, ?olD 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 DOCUMENT PREPARED ON ReCYCLED PAPER ______________ __ DAVID W. PAULSON, District Attorney of Solano County BY:C~ p,~ CRISELDA B. GONZ L Deputy District Attorney DATED: FIELDTURF USA, INC By: Its: _ _________________________ _ _________________________ _ -14 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA. INC. 1 DATED: ____________ __ 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: ______________ __ DAVID W. PAULSON, District Attorney of Solano County By: ~C~~=S=E~L~D~A~B~.~G~O~N=Z~A~L=EZ Deputy District Attorney =------------ FIELDTIJRF USA, INC By:b~~"--- Its: __________________________ _ DoCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER -14- CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTIJRF USA, INC, 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER EXHIBIT A-1 LETTER TO CUSTOMERS OF OLD COVERED PRODUCTS WHO PURCHASED DIRECTLY FROM FIELD TURF Dear Customer: Our records show that your FieldTurf system was installed prior to November 2003. This letter is written to inform you that certain FieldTurf systems installed prior to November 2003 contain lead in the turf fibers. WARNING - Lead is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. FieldTurf has, at its core, a commitment to the health and safety of athletes and the environment. FieldTurf was created solely to provide athletes of all ages a safe playing surface. While some of our turf systems installed prior to November 2003 do contain lead levels exceeding the levels that the California Attorney General claims require a warning under Prop 65, experts confirm that there would be minimal absorption of lead through the skin, and the inhalation of lead dust from the field is also expected to be minimal, as any dust is likely to adhere to the turf fiber or rubber crumb padding rather than becoming airborne. Therefore, any lead exposure is likely to be caused by “hand-to-mouth” contact, and good maintenance practices can reduce this type of exposure 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, and should avoid eating food while seated on the turf surface. c. Equipment and clothing used when playing on the turf should be cleaned after use. d. Children should not swallow the crumb rubber pellets that are used as cushioning materials under the fields. For other information about this issue, please check the following links: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08348.html http://www.epa.gov/nerl/features/tire_crumbs.html A program for testing exposures from FieldTurf products is now being administered by reputable testing laboratory Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA). If you desire to have your field tested, please contact Dale Marino at 585-723-3140 and dmarino@CRAworld.com. Depending on the results of such testing, your field may be eligible for free maintenance services, or a credit toward replacement costs, from FieldTurf until it has reached a service life of 8 years. - 1 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. - SETTLEMENT DRAFT 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER FieldTurf has also retained a leading toxicologist and lead expert to answer any questions that you might have about the safety of our product. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS Gradient Corporation Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone – 617-395-5000 Email - bbeck@gradientcorp.com http://www.gradientcorp.com Please contact Darren Gill at 800-724-2969 x-140 or dgill@fieldturf.com if you should have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Eric Daliere President - 2 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER EXHIBIT A-2 LETTER TO CUSTOMERS OF OLD COVERED PRODUCTS WHO PURCHASED FROM DISTRIBUTORS Dear Customer, Our records show that you purchased turf material from us that was supplied by FieldTurf. This letter is written to inform you that certain FieldTurf turf product purchased prior to November 2003 contain lead in the turf fibers. WARNING - Lead is a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm. FieldTurf has, at its core, a commitment to the health and safety of athletes and the environment. FieldTurf was created solely to provide athletes of all ages a safe playing surface. While some of FieldTurf’s products sold prior to November 2003 do contain lead levels exceeding the levels that the California Attorney General claims require a warning under Prop 65, experts confirm that there would be minimal absorption of lead through the skin, and the inhalation of lead dust from the field is also expected to be minimal, as any dust is likely to adhere to the turf fiber or rubber crumb padding rather than becoming airborne. Therefore, any lead exposure is likely to be caused by “hand-to-mouth” contact, and good maintenance practices can reduce this type of exposure to lead from these products. These practices include the following: a. Keeping turf fields well-maintained, reducing surface dust and particles that could be ingested b. People should wash their hands after playing on the surface, and should avoid eating food while seated on the turf surface. c. Clothing used when playing on the turf should be cleaned after use. For other information about this issue, please check the following links: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08348.html http://www.epa.gov/nerl/features/tire_crumbs.html FieldTurf has also retained a leading toxicologist and lead expert to answer any questions that you might have about the safety of our product. Please contact Darren Gill of FieldTurf at 800-724-2969 x-140 or dgill@fieldturf.com if you should have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, - 3 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER Exhibit B Lead Transfer Testing Materials • Sampling device. Device consists of a frame made of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE), and a 1.1-kg sampling weight (8 cm diameter) with an attached threaded rod, slide and nut. The frame will allow the 1.1 kg weight to be fully transmitted to the wipe surface, and none of that weight will be borne by the rails. • The wiped area is 400 cm2 (8 cm wide by 50 cm long), but because the weight is round the contact area is 386.27 cm2. TM • Ghost Wipes • 1-quart polyethylene or polypropylene “Ziploc” storage or freezer bags • marker pen • 11-inch or longer releasable plastic cable ties • deionized or distilled water • clean cotton cloths • disposable nitrile or latex gloves • plastic drop cloth or clean trash bags • clippers or pliers 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. The artificial turf color to be sampled for each wipe should be the main field color, usually green. The wiped area should not include any field markings such as stripes or logos. Illustrations with various geometries are given in Figure 1. 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 Procedure 1. Locate and delineate the areas to be wiped. 2. Prior to collecting a new wipe sample, put on a new pair of disposable nitrile or latex gloves. 3. Thoroughly clean sampling device frame, slide, 1.1-kg sampling weight, and nut with deionized or distilled water and dry with clean cloth. Cleaned items can be placed on a clean trash bag or plastic drop cloth if needed prior to use. Figure 2 shows these components. - 4 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER 4. Set the sampling device frame in position for collecting a wipe sample. TM 5. Place the 1.1 kg sampling weight in a clean plastic "Ziploc" bag, open an individual Ghost Wipe and stretch the wipe over the bottom of the sampling weight on top of the polyethylene bag. Ensure the wipe is smoothly stretched over the bottom of the sampling weight, and secure it using a cable tie, as presented on Figure 3. 6. Guide the threaded rod attached to the 1.1 kg sampling weight into the hole of the sampling device slide, as presented on Figure 4. 7. Place the slide on the rails of the sampling device frame making sure the wipe is suspended above the field, and does not engage the surface to be sampled until ready to begin sample collection. This can be done by holding the threaded rod to suspend the sampling weight above the surface until ready to begin sample collection. The slide should be oriented lengthwise so that the handle- knobs are oriented parallel to the rails. Please see Figure 5. 8. Position the slide at one end of the sampling device. Lower the weight until it engages the surface. Place feet (toes or heels) on shoe rests (side wings) of the sampling device to hold the device in place. Take hold of handle-knobs on the slide and move the slide to the other end of the device thereby dragging the 1.1-kg weight to the other end of the sample track, over a period of one second. This movement constitutes one sampling stroke. 9. Move the slide back and forth for a total of 5 strokes. 10. While holding the threaded rod, lift the slide off the rails, and remove the GhostWipeTM from the bottom of the sampling weight by releasing the cable tie. Place the GhostWipeTM into a new plastic "Ziploc" bag. Seal and label the bag with the sample ID. Discard the gloves and cable tie. 11. 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 lead 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. 12. Collect 3 background wipe samples from areas adjacent to the field, using the collection method above. In order to asses lead levels in the ambient dust fall, the surfaces wiped should be hard non-metallic surfaces that are composed of materials with a low lead content (<100 ppm). These surfaces should not be subject to foot traffic or other significant sources of potential dust transfer from the field. Lab Analysis Acid digestion of the Ghost Wipes™ prior to analysis for lead shall be conducted according to USEPA Method 3050B. Wipe samples shall be analyzed for lead by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) (USEPA Method 6010B or 6010C). Lead results should be reported as total micrograms (µg) per wipe. - 5 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 D OCUMENT P REPARED ON R ECYCLED P APER Calculations Assuming the results for the two blank wipes for the field set meet the conditions in sampling Step 11 above, average the two blank results. Average the results from the three background samples. Wipe results from the field should be compared to those obtained from the background wipe samples, to determine whether a background source of lead could be contributing to lead dust on the field. Lead levels in the field wipe samples that are comparable to the levels in the background wipe samples indicate that lead in the field wipe samples is likely due to the aerial deposition of ambient dust. If lead is detected in the background samples, the average background result should be compared with the amount of lead on each of the wipe samples to determine if the field values are elevated above background. Calculate the lead per square centimeter per stroke, for each section of field: Total µg lead/ cm2/stroke = (total µg lead on wipe - average µg lead on the blank wipes for that field set)/(386.27 cm2 * 5 strokes) The average (mean) for the field of artificial turf is the sum of the results 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. - 6 - CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 Figures Figure 1: Potential field sampling segments. Figure 2: Sampling device frame, slide, weight and nut D OCUMENT P REPARED - 7 - ON R ECYCLED P APER CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 Figure 3: Weight with 1-quart polyethylene storage bag, a wipe (this is a paper towel for demonstration purposes only), and a cable tie Figure 4: Device frame and weight with wipe with rod threaded through hole in slide. D OCUMENT P REPARED - 8 - ON R ECYCLED P APER CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. 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 Figure 5: Slide placed on device frame rails. D OCUMENT P REPARED - 9 - ON R ECYCLED P APER CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT FIELDTURF USA, INC. From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment - Meeting Nov 17, Action Item 9, Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 3:45:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Councillors, In the Glossary (on page 176) the following is stated: "PFAS Free: Means the product contains no intentionally added PFAS." This is an artificial turf industry definition of PFAS Free which has been used even if and when PFAS are intentionally added to the manufacturing process of blades. This is also just one of the ways artificial turf products are claimed to be "PFAS free". Listing only this definition is a disservice to anybody referring to this document as a means to make an informed decision. If this glossary definition is to be more accurate, transparent and informative the following should also be added as just some of the ways that an artificial turf product might be claimed to be "PFAS Free": Testing for a much lesser number of PFAS than testing is available for Testing at concentrations that won’t detect PFAS (parts per million or billion rather than parts per trillion) Allowing under 100 parts per million PFAS content (which equates to allowing under 100,000,000 parts per trillion) Not testing for Total Organic Fluorine (a test which indicates if any of the around 15,000 PFAS are present without being able to identify which specific PFAS they are). Not doing the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (a technique which assesses what compounds will release from a solid compound over time as the product degrades with exposure to the elements, UV light, aging, abrasion etc.) Using CA Proposition 65 compliance (this presently only accounts for 3 PFAS) Stating PVDF HFP, the PFAS used in some manufacturing, is not a PFAS according to the EPA (it is according to the California EPA) Not testing for PVDF HFP (some suppliers simply do not test for substances they claim are not “intentionally” added) Not testing for any PFAS at all (again, some suppliers do not test for substances they claim are not “intentionally” added) Also, if the artificial turf industry's definition is clearly defined in the glossary then would it not also be valid (expected) to include consumers understanding/definition of "PFAS Free". After all, it is the consumers (which includes our kids) that this draft report is ultimately supposed to be protecting and not artificial turf products. Accordingly, would it not be reasonable to state that a consumer, when buying a product that is stated to be "free" of something would expect that to mean there is ZERO of that something? ie. PFAS Free: means Zero PFAS. Or, for simplicity, since artificial turf products are not regulated, it would be much more accurate for the glossary to simply state that: "PFAS Free: does not necessarily mean Zero PFAS are in the artificial turf product". This is more accurate, transparent and informative. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Concerned consumer/parent of neighbouring Los Gatos (This issue is important to me because our Town is watching the report so it needs to be as accurate, transparent and informative as possible for the public and decision makers.) &nbsp; From:Clerk, City To:Sven Thesen; Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; 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 1:29:29 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Hi Mr. Thesen, The City Council has regular meetings on December 1, December 8, and December 15 as noted on the City’s calendar. Thank you, Christine From: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:00 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; 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: Re: 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. Understand, no worries. I will hold this presentation until the city council meeting on Monday Dec 8th though I can't find anything to reference this meeting. Did they expand the winter break? The City Council annually approves summer and winter breaks. Within those dates, Co ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Understand, no worries. I will hold this presentation until the city council meeting on Monday Dec 8th though I can't find anything to reference this meeting. Did they expand the winter break? The City Council annually approves summer and winter breaks. Within those dates, Council does not hold regular Council or Standing Committee meetings. At the October 28, 2024 City Council Meeting, City Council approved the Powered by Mimecast summer break from June 20, 2025 - August 3, 2025 and the winter break from December 19, 2025 - January 4, 2026. On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 10:19 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: 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 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 -- 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 Cc:Council, City; 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 1:00:22 PM Attachments:image001.png image004.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Understand, no worries. I will hold this presentation until the city council meeting on Monday Dec 8th though I can't find anything to reference this meeting. Did they expand the winter break? The City Council annually approves summer and winter breaks. Within those dates, Council does not hold regular Council or Standing Committee meetings. At the October 28, 2024 City Council Meeting, City Council approved the summer break from June 20, 2025 - August 3, 2025 and the winter break from December 19, 2025 - January 4, 2026. On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 10:19 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: 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 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 -- 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:City Mgr To:City Mgr; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Eggleston, Brad Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - November 17, 2025 Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 12:27:01 PM Attachments:RE TIME SENSITIVE The City"s letter to SFO"s DEIR has not been registered as a formal comment letter.msg image001.png image002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find the attached staff response that was inadvertently omitted from the November 17 bundle. Ms. Landesmann expressed concern that the City’s formal comments may not be part of the record; however, staff has confirmed that there is no issue. 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:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment - Action Item 9, Approval of the Study & Assessment of Turf Systems, CC Meeting Nov 17. Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 12:02:52 PM Attachments:Palo Alto Cost of AT (3).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, As you ponder the "costs" of artificial turf please consider the summarized costs listed in the attached one-pager. As you'll see, the "costs" extend far beyond installation and replacement. And if you have time, consider watching this short video The Story of Stuff. Artificial turf doesn't just expose our community to the costs of artificial turf. The "costs" reach much farther and often into unknowing communities that have no representation or means to meet these costs. Kind regards, Leanne McAuliffe Santa Clara County resident .https://www.storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/ One pager transcribed below in case links don't work in PDF. FINANCIAL COSTS Installation - Artificial turf (AT) sports fields cost millions at first installation. Maintenance - If maintained correctly, the maintenance cost of AT would be similar to natural turf with a lawn mower simply being traded for multiple maintenance and grooming machines (FieldTurf maintenance manual). AT not maintained correctly opens up injury liabilities and voids warranty. Replacements - Carpet and infill replacement costs after 8 to10 years are often higher than initial installation and can leave buyers surprised and without enough funds to replace worn out, unsafe fields. Replacements with shockpad at around the 20 year mark are even more expensive. Converting back - If it all goes wrong (PFAS deception), converting AT back to natural grass is said to be costly if soil replacement is required. This can make buyers feel locked into AT. Mitigation* and Litigation - AT environmental pollution and human health effects (heat related injuries, concussions, CTE, death, PFAS exposure, cancers etc.) may lead to mitigation and litigation costs. HUMAN HEALTH COSTS (especially to our kids who are uniquely vulnerable) PFAS, Toxins, Microplastics - AT potentially exposes our children to toxins (PFAS, microplastics, phthalates, heavy metals, methane, ethylene, etc.) through dermal contact, inhalation and ingestion, jeopardizing their short and long term health and safety. Chemical exposures have been listed as a potential cause of the 62% decline in sperm count and 50% increase in cancer rates in children. Heat - AT can have a “heat island” effect leading to heat exhaustion, heatstroke (potentially fatal) and thermal burns. Many argue that excessive rain is an issue with natural turf. Excessive heat is the same for AT which can easily reach 40-70° hotter than local air temp with cork infill. In our town, heat is far more of an issue than rain, and properly managed natural turf fields can and do easily handle rain. Injuries - AT is associated with a higher rate of injuries, concussions, friction burns etc. Unregulated - AT is unregulated meaning there are no governing laws. Industry is self- regulating. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS Pollution - AT pollutes the soil, water and air with PFAS, other chemicals, gasses and microplastics at site of manufacture, use and disposal. As AT disintegrates due to age, use, maintenance, UV and heat exposure, the level of pollution potentially increases. End of Life Disposal - AT is NOT recycled at scale. (“Chemical recycling” is incineration.) A small amount is repurposed but the vast majority ends up in landfills and some is even illegally disposed of. Biodiversity/Soil/Trees - AT destroys soil health and biodiversity and can lead to the demise of surrounding shallow, wide rooting trees like redwoods. Pesticides - AT requires pesticides and herbicides as well as fungicides, biocides, anti- statics, cleaning agents. Some AT component products even include antibacterials as ingredients. Every AT “feature” equals more chemicals. And AT itself is chemicals. Compare this to organically managed grass. Water - AT advocates argue it uses less water which is crucial in times of drought. However, to provide a cool, safe, playable surface, irrigation amounts for AT are greater than for natural warm-season turf. Water is also required to clean AT and for maintenance purposes to meet warranty conditions. New drought tolerant grasses use dramatically less water and continue to improve with research and development. If realistic water and maintenance costs between properly maintained artificial turf and natural turf sports fields are similar, why would we give up ALL the benefits of natural turf for ALL the negative and potential costs of artificial turf? *You can only mitigate PFAS pollution, you can not 100% remediate it. There is presently NO 100% solution to all PFAS pollution. PFAS are called “forever chemicals” for a reason. They are mostly Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs). This means they are essentially impossible to completely remove from all soil, water, air and human bodies. Combine this with emerging data on the negative health and environment effects of PFAS, and the fact that thousands of PFAS have yet to even be studied, and it becomes clear that it’s IMPERATIVE to STOP using PFAS wherever possible to prevent further and new contamination. FINANCIAL COSTS ● Installation - Artificial turf (AT) sports fields cost millions at first installation. ● Maintenance - If maintained correctly, the maintenance cost of AT would be similar to natural turf with a lawn mower simply being traded for multiple maintenance and grooming machines (FieldTurf maintenance manual). AT not maintained correctly opens up injury liabilities and voids warranty. ● Replacements - Carpet and infill replacement costs after 8 to10 years are often higher than initial installation and can leave buyers surprised and without enough funds to replace worn out, unsafe fields. Replacements with shockpad at around the 20 year mark are even more expensive. ● Converting back - If it all goes wrong (PFAS deception), converting AT back to natural grass is said to be costly if soil replacement is required. This can make buyers feel locked into AT. ● Mitigation* and Litigation - AT environmental pollution and human health effects (heat related injuries, concussions, CTE, death, PFAS exposure, cancers etc.) may lead to mitigation and litigation costs. HUMAN HEALTH COSTS (especially to our kids who are uniquely vulnerable) ● PFAS, Toxins, Microplastics - AT potentially exposes our children to toxins (PFAS, microplastics, phthalates, heavy metals, methane, ethylene, etc.) through dermal contact, inhalation and ingestion, jeopardizing their short and long term health and safety. Chemical exposures have been listed as a potential cause of the 62% decline in sperm count and 50% increase in cancer rates in children. ● Heat - AT can have a “heat island” effect leading to heat exhaustion, heatstroke (potentially fatal) and thermal burns. Many argue that excessive rain is an issue with natural turf. Excessive heat is the same for AT which can easily reach 40-70° hotter than local air temp with cork infill. In our town, heat is far more of an issue than rain, and properly managed natural turf fields can and do easily handle rain. ● Injuries - AT is associated with a higher rate of injuries, concussions, friction burns etc. ● Unregulated - AT is unregulated meaning there are no governing laws. Industry is self-regulating. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS ● Pollution - AT pollutes the soil, water and air with PFAS, other chemicals, gasses and microplastics at site of manufacture, use and disposal. As AT disintegrates due to age, use, maintenance, UV and heat exposure, the level of pollution potentially increases. ● End of Life Disposal - AT is NOT recycled at scale. (“Chemical recycling” is incineration.) A small amount is repurposed but the vast majority ends up in landfills and some is even illegally disposed of. ● Biodiversity/Soil/Trees - AT destroys soil health and biodiversity and can lead to the demise of surrounding shallow, wide rooting trees like redwoods. ● Pesticides - AT requires pesticides and herbicides as well as fungicides, biocides, anti-statics, cleaning agents. Some AT component products even include antibacterials as ingredients. Every AT “feature” equals more chemicals. And AT itself is chemicals. Compare this to organically managed grass. ● Water - AT advocates argue it uses less water which is crucial in times of drought. However, to provide a cool, safe, playable surface, irrigation amounts for AT are greater than for natural warm-season turf. Water is also required to clean AT and for maintenance purposes to meet warranty conditions. New drought tolerant grasses use dramatically less water and continue to improve with research and development. If realistic water and maintenance costs between properly maintained artificial turf and natural turf sports fields are similar, why would we give up ALL the benefits of natural turf for ALL the negative and potential costs of artificial turf? *You can only mitigate PFAS pollution, you can not 100% remediate it. There is presently NO 100% solution to all PFAS pollution. PFAS are called “forever chemicals” for a reason. They are mostly Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs). This means they are essentially impossible to completely remove from all soil, water, air and human bodies. Combine this with emerging data on the negative health and environment effects of PFAS, and the fact that thousands of PFAS have yet to even be studied, and it becomes clear that it’s IMPERATIVE to STOP using PFAS wherever possible to prevent further and new contamination.