Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-20 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 1/20/2026 Document dates: 1/12/2026 - 1/20/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Helene Grossman To:Lo, Ria; Safe Routes; City Attorney; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Follow-up question Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 10:12:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chief Lo (and cc to Safe Routes, City Manager Shikada, City Attorney, and City Councilmembers), Thank you for your response and for taking the time to provide additional background about Greer & Thomas. I appreciate the clarification. I did not respond immediately because I sincerely wanted to move on from this issue. However, it continues to trouble me that we are making decisions that risk people’s safety – particularly student cyclists on a designated Safe Route to School. I can accept the decision to grandfather in the stop signs on Greer at Thomas, despite not meeting current CA-MUTCD standards. However, I cannot accept the logical inconsistency that follows: once the City has departed from CA-MUTCD standards at this intersection, selectively invoking CA-MUTCD warrants to governsubsequent decisions produces illogical – and dangerous – outcomes. The existing stop configuration already departs from multiple CA‑MUTCD principles, including: The general rule that minor streets stop for major streets; and CA‑MUTCD guidance that stop signs should not be used for speed or volume control. Despite these departures, staff has relied on a narrow application of multi‑way stop warrant guidance (i.e., that there is not enough traffic to justify a 4-way stop) to deny corrective action. That guidance is premised on a fundamentally different baseline condition: it assumes that the minor street already stops for the major street, and the engineering question is whether conditions justify also requiring the major street to stop. Its purpose is to avoid unnecessarily impeding major‑street traffic. That premise does not apply here. At Greer & Thomas, the City has already intentionally overridden that concern by requiring the major road to stop for a minor cul‑de‑sac under the former Guard‑and‑Go policy. Applying multi‑way stop volume thresholds in this context fails to address the relevant safety question – whether free-flowing cul-de-sac traffic should be permitted to cross a major through-street and designated Safe Route to School without stopping. Using guidance designed to protect major‑street mobility to deny stop control on a minor cul‑de‑sac reverses the intent of the MUTCD and leads to an illogical and unsafe result. The solution is easy – just install stop signs on Thomas – and there are several reasonable ways to justify this: Sight‑distance criteria. Per Caltrans design guidance, the stopped approach at a two‑way stop must have sufficient corner sight distance to yield safely to non‑stopping traffic (1.47 × speed limit × time to cross). At this location, available sight distancefalls short of required values by a wide margin. This alone would support additional stop control if the City were willing to formally measure and document it. Engineering judgment. Even under the CA‑MUTCD, warrants are not mandatory prerequisites. Stop signs may be installed when an engineering study determines thatdoing so would improve safety. The City is not prohibited from adding stop signs here; it is choosing not to. Common sense and safety priorities. Setting aside technicalities, it is evident to any driver or cyclist that: Giving right of way to cul‑de‑sac traffic over a major through‑street is unexpected and dangerous; The available visibility is inadequate for safe yielding; and Student cyclists on a designated Safe Route to School should be prioritized. Common sense strongly supports adding stop signs on Thomas, even if the City chooses to continue grandfathering the existing stops on Greer. To the City Attorney: I am also concerned about the City’s potential liability in these circumstances. Under California law, design immunity may be lost when changed conditions or current standards demonstrate that a previously approved configuration has become unsafe, particularly where the City has notice and the ability to act. Continuing to operate a known non‑compliant and counterintuitive traffic control on aSafe Route to School puts the City at risk. This issue extends beyond a single intersection. It goes to whether the Transportation Department and City leadership are demonstrating – through their actions – that student and cyclist safety truly comes first. If we cannot correct an obviously unsafeconfiguration on a Safe Route to School, how can we credibly pursue Vision Zero? How can the community trust the City to implement bold safety initiatives when basic, low‑cost fixes remain unresolved for years? I would urge the Safe Routes to School program to engage more actively here. This is a designated Safe Route that is plainly not safe. It is difficult to understand how the program can tolerate an intersection where cul‑de‑sac traffic enters a major bike route without stopping. I sincerely hope the City can move faster on issues like this to rebuild community trust. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Helene Grossman On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 4:07 PM Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Helene Thank you for your email and your engagement in support of transportation safety. The current 2-way stop at Greer and Thomas is an existing condition. The stop configuration was installed based on what was known as “Guard and Go”, which was Policy T-38 in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council. The Guard and Go policy was not includedin the more recent 2030 Comprehensive Plan, so is no longer implemented when roadwaysare reconstructed. In the absence of a policy like Guard and Go or some other context-sensitive local guidancefor engineering judgment, staff undertake warrant analyses based on standards like theCalifornia Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). The CA-MUTCD isa statewide document regulating a range of road and highway conditions according toconventional traffic engineering principles. In 2025, staff undertook a warrant analysis fornew stop signs on Thomas using CA-MUTCD, which found that a new stop sign would notbe warranted at this location. (We are able to leave the existing stop on Greer because it isan existing condition based on a prior Council-approved standard.) Staff is aware of the need for protocols and standards that define more context-sensitive elements that help reduce speeds and cut through traffic on neighborhood streets includingschool routes and designated bike corridors. For this reason, we are currently working onsafety improvements for Bryant Street between Embarcadero and Homer, with the intentionof using this work as a test case for revisiting the City’s Traffic Calming Policy. We hope tocomplete the updated Traffic Calming Policy in calendar year 2026. If you would like to participate in this work, we plan to post updates and opportunities forengagement via the Transportation Connect newsletter. Pending Council approval of such apolicy, staff may revisit petitions submitted in the past couple of years to reassess conditionsbased on the new local criteria. Cheers Ria Hutabarat Lo | Chief Transportation Official Office of Transportation | City of Palo Alto T: 650.329.2136 |E: Ria.Lo@PaloAlto.gov From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 11:58 PM To: Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Follow-up question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chief Lo, City Manager Shikada, Council members, and Transportation Department, Thank you for your time this evening -- I appreciate your consideration and the thoughtfulquestions and discussion. I’m writing to follow up with one clarifying question so that, hopefully, we can put theGreer & Thomas matter to rest. Could you please share the rationale for orienting the 2‑way stop at Greer & Thomas so thatthe main road and Safe Route to School (Greer) stops, while the cul‑de‑sac traffic on Thomas has the right of way? What is the engineering basis for this decision? Chief Lo -- when we met, you mentioned there was a City policy that required this orientation. Could you please share a copy or link to that policy? If there is, in fact, a policy that requires us to prioritize cul‑de‑sac traffic over student cyclists on a Safe Route to School, I think it is important that we revisit that policy beforewe embark on future infrastructure projects. Similarly, I believe it would be wise to revisit the rolling‑curb policy before building additional rolling curbs. Thank you again for your time and consideration, and I look forward to your reply. All the best,Helene From:Kathleen To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: City of Palo Alto Invites Your Feedback Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:58:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, Please forward to Ed Shikada, who signed the letter below but did not include his email address. I was invited to participate in the survey below which I did. It was a very poorly designed survey imho. Mymain objection is that it gave me no opportunity to explain my opposition to the tax presented - which was mainlybecause the tax was not well explained. The survey described the tax as 11cents per square foot of improvements. I could not tell exactly what kind of tax itwas nor whether this would be tax deductible on my income tax. I think this was meant to be some kind of parceltax but only applying to the buildings not the land. But I couldn't tell for sure so I couldn't figure out how thiswould directly affect me. So I said I would vote no. In fact, I would be willing to pay some increased tax to rebuild the Cubberley center but only if I really understoodhow the tax was calculated and how much I would have to pay. Once again, the City of Palo Alto has wasted money on a consultant who did a poor job. Kathleen GoldfeinPalo Alto Property OwnerResident since 1989 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Palo Alto <info@surveysinsight.com>Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:00 PM Subject: City of Palo Alto Invites Your FeedbackTo: <vz222222@gmail.com> This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Dear Resident: The City of Palo Alto has hired an independent public opinion research company to conduct a survey of residents to obtain feedback on key issues impacting the community. You have been randomly selected to participate. Your participation and responses to this survey will be confidential. Please click this link: https://opinion- insight.com/index.php/survey/index/sid/537347/newtest/Y/lang/en/token/CA4916578 to take the survey. This link is unique to you, so please do not forward it. Thank you for participating in this important engagement effort. Ed Shikada City Manager City of Palo Alto Unsubscribe From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:A New Year of Curiosity and Connection Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 8:10:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. A New Year of Curiosity and Connection January 20, 2026  Dear Friends, Happy New Year! As we begin 2026, I want to start by saying thank you. Your generosity makes it possible for children and families to experience hands-on science, curiosity, and connection at the JMZ. I’m excited to share what yoursupport is already making possible and what’s ahead in the year to come. We are off to a strong start with several highlights already: Construction is underway on the JMZ's new Rainbow Tunnel exhibit, which will debut next month. We launched our JMZ Summer Camp scholarship applications with expandedoutreach to families in East Palo Alto, eastern Menlo Park, and Redwood City. JMZ Summer Camp scholarships are Friends-funded, 100% camp-fee discounts to income-eligible families, providing enriching summer learning experiences to curious young learners. Please share the application with anyone you know who may be interested. We welcomed our new Development & Programs Manager, Chelsea Sansano. With her background as an educator, we look forward to deepeningour work with our neighboring communities. Nelson. With an extensive background in working with animals and teaching science, Jenny is passionate about sharing her knowledge and experiences with children through the JMZ Science Outreach program in underserved schools, funded by the Friends. Planning is well underway for our third annual Spring Breakfast, which will take place on Friday, March 27 from 9:30-11 a.m. at Allied Arts Guild. Funds raised at this event directly support programs that expand access to science education. If you are interested in learning more about this event, please reach out to Chloe Green, Development & Operations Associate, by emailing chloe@friendsjmz.org. If youwould like to become an early supporter, please consider making a donation online. Warmly, Lauren Angelo President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Spotlight on Jenny Nelson - JMZ Educator What first inspired you to become a JMZ educator, and what has kept youpassionate about this work for so long? Before joining the JMZ, I spent about 20 years working with animals in zoos, aquariums, and natural field settings. During this time, I noticed that, along with working directly with the animals, I loved sharing my knowledge of science with the public, especially children. This led me to become interested in science educationand, then, in 1998, my former coworker, who was the JMZ Zoo Director at that time, introduced me to the JMZ and I have been here ever since!  Personally, I have immense pride in the fact that I have been able to share my passion for science with thousands of local school children over my 27 years here atthe JMZ. I have even had previous students reach out to me after high school or college, sharing with me the profound impact my science lessons had on their lives and eventually careers. It makes me very proud! How would you describe the unique value the JMZ Science Outreach Program brings to students in underserved schools? Jenny helps a student measure water temperature. Over the past several years there has been a big push inunderserved communities to bring up test scores in the basic skills of math, reading, and writingwhile subjects that are considered “extras”,like science, have often been incorporated less into the school curriculum, if not overlookedcompletely. Additionally, these schools face extraordinary challenges inaccessibility to basic classroom supplies let alone scientific learning tools. However, educators in these schools now see how we have incorporated thesebasic skills into our JMZ science lessons through hands-on labs, experimentation, measurement and data taking. They also view our lessons as supporting English language development. Since kids are naturally inquisitive and often fascinated by scientific topics, interest is there to begin with. I use a lot of visuals, such as enlarged photos, drawings, and scientific models to demonstrate my message and I am very animated, using hand gestures and body movements to describe things. I share a lot of personal, science related stories with my students, since I haveworked with various animals at large zoos and aquariums and have travelled to places relevant to the topics I teach about.  For example, during a lesson on earthquakes, tectonic plates, and continental drift, I share my personal experience of visiting Iceland and snorkeling between two largetectonic plates, in 34-degree water, and being able to reach out and touch both plates at the same time. Kids are fascinated with stories and can relate more when they learn something through a story related to someone’s personal experiences. For classroom teachers, a lot more has been added to their plates. Most teachers state that our lessons are such a valuable, hands-on addition to the science curriculum they are provided with within their district. They also love that we takecare of supplying, preparing, and cleaning all of the materials, resulting in experiential learning for their students while freeing up some of their own time for other teacher tasks. How has your approach to teaching evolved as the communities and classrooms you serve have changed? Jenny uses a giant thermometer to teach measurement. As computers and other electronic devices have become such a large partof many students’ everyday lives, fine motorskills are on the decline. We have been more intentional to incorporate a lot of fine motor skill tasks into our lessons,which can be challenging at first, but are great skills to integrate. We also need to reinforce the process of payingattention to details and following instructions through the Scientific Process, which involves thinking, trying, failing, re-thinking and re-doing; constantly reminding the students that they don’t always have to get things perfect and that trial and error is completely normal.  We also have grown in the sophistication of our lessons. In 1998, we were offering just a handful of lessons that were taught out of a kit. Today, we offer a selection of over 75 grade-specific and Next Generation Science Standards aligned sciencelessons, all developed by our experienced JMZ educators. Why is hands-on learning so important in science education? Students use a scale during a measurement lesson. Science has shown that people learn in a multitude of ways. Reading books orwatching videos is certainly one way to learn about something. The scientific experiment and see the results first-hand,use quality science tools and equipment, see and touch an animal biofact, or meet a live animal up- close and personal is extrameaningful. One of my favorite lessons to teach is my 4th grade Circuits lesson. It is such a hands-on lesson thatmakes a complicated topic so understandable because they see the concepts happening right in front of them.Some kids come into the lesson with some word knowledge of how a circuit works, but when I hand them some wires, a light bulb, and a battery and tell them to make the bulb light up, they are stumped. By the end of the lesson, they are making both parallel and series circuits, adding multiple loads (components), and operating them by a variety of switches, all by experimentation and trial and error. They have amuch more visual and understandable way of comprehending how everything electrical in their daily lives works. They work both individually and in teams so there is a real sense of accomplishment and team building. Watching their eyes open wide and listening to their excited, gleeful “oohs and aahs” when things begin to work, gives me great joy and a real sense of satisfaction that I have provided asuccessful, as well as fun, science lesson. Children are scientists from the time they are born, constantly questioning, exploring, and learning new things. They should be encouraged to continue to be inquisitive and confident in their ability to learn and discover new things and understand that access to science should not be based on age, where you live,economic status, or ability. DONATE TODAY   Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:geetha srikantan To:Council, City; Amy French Cc:geetha srikantan Subject:407 Lytton Ave - Notice by Dept of ABC Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 7:58:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Member, Amy French, My home at 385 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 is adjacent to 407 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. I received a notice from Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control that the new restaurant has applied for a permit to serve alcohol at 407 Lytton Ave. Please register my strong objection to serving of alcohol at the 407 Lytton Ave location, as it is immediately next door to my home and kitchen / dining area. And there are residences close to me on all sides. We already have a problem with several individuals in not-very-sober state near the 7-11, which is open all night, across from 407 Lytton Ave. It is quite noisy even late in the night, many times a week. Creating additional situations for lack of sobriety, noise and inconvenience in this area, is most undesirable. Kindly reject the Application from the operator at 407 Lytton Ave for any and all Alcohol use on their premises. Thank you, Dr. Geetha Srikantan 385 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Andrea Wald To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Council, City Subject:1/24/26 Annual council retreat - agenda item B - Discuss and Select priorities Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 7:04:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council members, While the vote at your Jan. 12th meeting to replace El Camino field with more artificial turf is extremely disappointing, I am hopeful that discussions regarding doing a pilot of a naturalgrass field in Palo Alto is more than just a "discussion" and that you move forward quickly with getting the ball rolling. I understand that at your upcoming Jan. 24th meeting council members will be discussing yourcity's priorities for the coming year. I STRONGLY urge that you make the pilot project for an organically managed natural grass field a TOP PRIORITY. The sooner this can work canstart, the better off everyone will be. There will definitely be results that will help with future decisions regarding other sports fields and even your parks. And I'm positive if the pilot isdone properly: the right irrigation, the right grass for our climate and the intended use of the field, and best practices for managing the field - it will produce the results we are all lookingfor: an organically managed natural grass field that provides ample use time with little down time, a safe surface for all to enjoy and a model that can be repeated not only in Palo Alto butthroughout the bay area and beyond. It will be a win-win for everyone: environmentalists, scientists, community members, field users. There are many from those of us who have been trying to get Palo Alto to go with naturalgrass and not artificial turf that would love to be involved in this project - from helping to guide you to the best resources and most knowledgeable professionals to researching andanswering any questions that will arise as you move forward. With deepest appreciation for your wanting to do the best for your community and beyond. Sincerely, Andrea Wald Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaceswaldmba@gmail.com C: 408-431-3774 From:Alice Smith To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:: artificial turf Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 10:52:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The City of Palo Alto should as a matter of public safety reconsider its vote to use artificial turf. Here is yet more information showing artificial turf to be dangerous, chemicallycontaminated and adding to the loss of vegetation thus impairing the environment. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago we didn’t regulate semiconductor waste and who knows which clusters of Parkinson’s, breast-cancer and other diseases might have been avoided here in Palo Alto and the valley: just read this. : https://www.kneedeeptimes.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-artificial-turf/ I submitted the following letter to the Palo Alto Daily Post On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 9:01 PM Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> wrote: Incredible that Palo Alto has joined the ranks of anti-science and against the recommendations of 4000 doctors in order to adopt a "time-friendly'" option for artificial turf. Ignoring science: To quote AI: "Dangers of artificial turf include exposure to toxic chemicals (PFAS, VOCs, heavy metals) from crumb rubber infill, leading to potential cancer, immune, and developmental issues; increased heat stress causing burns and heatstroke; higher risk and severity of certain injuries (abrasions, concussions, ankle/knee problems); and environmental contaminationfrom disposal. Children are particularly vulnerable due to their behaviors and developing bodies, with risks from inhaling particles, skin contact, and accidental ingestion." I found this in 1 second of searching. For shame, City of Palo Alto. Please reconsider your decision and stop all artificial turf in our city. Alice Schaffer Smith 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 (c) 650 283 2822 From:Penny Brennan To:Yang, Albert Cc:Council, City Subject:Legal Grounds for Opposing 3606 El Camino Building Project Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 5:33:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Attorney Yang, I am writing to ask whether the City of Palo Alto can legally oppose, or seek alteration of, a proposed Builder's Remedy project on grounds of the serious safety hazards it poses to Palo Alto residents. The proposed 7-story, 321 unit building at 3606 El Camino Real, which was passed on to City Council for approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARC) on December 4, 2025, poses serious safety hazards to Palo Alto residents who live nearby in the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods. The site of the proposed project spans the length of El Camino between Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue. Both of these are narrow, 2-lane roads. The proposed project sits diagonally on the busy, 4-lane intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-Margarita Avenues. The new dedicated bike lanes along El Camino Real prevent placement of the building's main entry/exit on El Camino Real. The building's designers have sited its main entry/exit on Matadero Avenue, close to the intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-Margarita Avenues. The renderings shown by the designers during the December 4 ARC meeting suggest that Matadero Avenue is a boulevard of the same size and dimensions of El Camino Real. It is not. It is a narrow, 2-lane road, with no sidewalks, and little parking, along its length stretching from El Camino Real to Bol Park. At the December 4 ARC meeting there was no discussion among ARC members of safety hazards posed by the placement of the main entry/exit of this 7-story, 321 unit building on Matadero Avenue, proximal to the busy intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero- Margarita Avenues. Every one of the building residents' 300 + cars, and those of their visitors, as well as delivery trucks, service providers, Ubers/Lyfts, building maintenance, and other vehicles will have to enter and exit the building through this Matadero main entry/exit. ARC did not discuss how pedestrians can safely negotiate through/past this busy, vehicle-heavy entry/exit. Note that the new Creekside Inn housing development will be sited across the street from 3606 El Camino's Matadero main entry/exit. The Creekside Inn development cannot site its main entry on El Camino Real due to the new El Camino Real dedicated bike lanes. Is it the plan to also site the Creekside Inn project's main entry/exit on Matadero Avenue, so that it will be directly across the street from 3606 El Camino's main entry/exit? The intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-Margarita Avenues is going to become an extremely hazardous traffic nightmare. There will be a back up of the many vehicles that need to access the 3606 El Camino building's Matadero Avenue building entrance via the southbound lane of El Camino Real, and many of their drivers will disregard the rule that prohibits occupation of/right turns on red over the dedicated bike lane there. This will pose ongoing danger to bicyclists traveling southbound along El Camino Real. It is not clear how these vehicles, or northbound vehicles making lefts off El Camino on to Matadero, can make their next left, into the Matadero main entry/exit, without blocking the considerable traffic headed up Matadero toward El Camino Real to exit the Barron Park neighborhood. Note that, if you miss your left turn into the Matadero main exit/entry, there are no good U- turn opportunities later down Matadero to correct your course. The Barron Park region of Palo Alto is semi-rural in road structure, featuring narrow, often winding, roads without sidewalks. Drivers will seek U-turn opportunities by driving further down the narrow Matadero road toward Bol Park, or into the narrow Barron Park neighborhood streets, to use residents' driveways to make their U-turns back toward the 3606 El Camino building. Speeding cars on Barron Park streets are already hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Incursion of more vehicles, whose drivers seek U-turns back to 3606 El Camino, will only increase this danger. My biggest concern is for the safety of bicyclists, most of them children, who must cross the El Camino Real - Matadero/Margarita intersection to travel down narrow Matadero, then other narrow, winding Barron Park streets, to reach their destinations of Barron Park Elementary, Fletcher Middle, and Gunn High schools. This intersection is already harrowing, and biking through Barron Park roads is already dangerous for the children who commute to the Barron Park Elementary, Fletcher Middle, and Gunn High schools, as well as for adults bicycling to Stanford and adjacent Industrial Park companies. The increased volume of vehicles on these roads, and traffic problems caused by the siting of the 3606 El Camino building main entry/exit on Matadero Avenue, are going to significantly increase this danger. I have one other concern regarding safety of the proposed 7-story, 321 unit building at 3606 El Camino. I am very concerned about earthquake and fire safety related to construction of such a tall, high density building at this location. To what extent might neighboring and nearby residents in 1-2 story homes be put at risk of physical harm by catastrophic earthquake and fire events in the proposed 7-story, 321 unit building? How might fire fighting, evacuation, rescue, and other emergency service efforts be hampered by the height, density, poor egress, and narrow streets surrounding the proposed building? In the event of earthquake and fire emergencies, does Palo Alto have sufficient emergency services resources to respond adequately to emergency needs of the 600-1300 residents in this building, plus the needs of the several hundred residents of the adjacent Creekside Inn building(s), in addition to the needs of the existing residents, living in 1-2 story homes, in the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods? I am concerned that the very tall, high density 3606 El Camino project endangers the lives and safety of its neighbors by placing excessive burden on existing emergency service resources available in this region of the city of Palo Alto. I have been told that because 3606 El Camino is a Builder's Remedy project it is a fast- tracked, "done deal" that can be expected to be rubber-stamped for approval by Palo Alto City Council this February or March 2026. I hope this is not true. I would like to know whether there are legal grounds upon which the City of Palo Alto can protect its citizens by preventing the implementation of, or seeking alteration of, a Builder's Remedy project that endangers the lives and safety of Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood From:Penny Brennan To:Burt, Patrick Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Composition OSV Ad Hoc committee Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 3:41:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmember Burt, Thank you for your prompt response. I am disappointed to learn that there are no Palo Alto residents or business people represented on, or provided a means of input into activities of, the Palo Alto City Council OSV Ad Hoc Committee, especially those residents and business people who have been adversely affected by the presence of OSVs their Palo Alto neighborhoods. It is my impression, gained from attending City Council meetings focused on the OSV issue, that City Council and their staff have incomplete information about the characteristics of the owners/occupants/users of the OSVs being parked in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Staff seem to have had difficulty accurately determining the quantity of OSVs parked on Palo Alto streets and to have obtained little or no qualitative information concerning the reasons for presence of OSVs in Palo Alto. The prevailing assumption seems to be that the people who have parked their OSVs in Palo Alto are a homogeneous group of people forced, through lack of economic means, to live in OSVs as an alternative to obtaining traditional housing in Palo Alto or other local cities. Yet, anecdotal accounts, and public comments made at the OSV- focused City Council meetings, suggest that the owners/occupants/users of OSVs in Palo Alto are not a homogeneous group: some of them are tech company employees who may have adequate income to find traditional housing in Palo Alto or nearby cities but prefer to locate closer to their workplaces through use of OSV parking. Some are Stanford Campus and Medical Center staff and patients whose housing needs might be better addressed through housing stipends provided by Stanford than by OSV occupancy on Palo Alto streets. We know that the OSV owners/occupants/users population has been comprised of "van lords", OSV owners who park, then rent out, their vehicles on Palo Alto streets. On my street, and streets nearby, OSV owners have parked their vehicles for months and years on end, not for purposes of overnight shelter, but as a place to store their OSVs where there is sufficient street space to accommodate their vehicles, for storage of personal property, and for use as personal space/a meeting place for daytime activities alone and with others. I am concerned that local faith-based and Stanford homeless advocates, whose work is laudable and well-intentioned, tend to hold the "homogenous population" view described above, and have influenced City Council members, staff, and the OSV Ad Hoc Committee to adopt it too. I worry that these advocates have been, and continue to be, the predominate influence on City Council, staff, and OSV Ad Hoc Committee efforts to formulate policy regarding OSVs in Palo Alto. Historically, Palo Alto residents and business people have lacked a voice in these policy-making efforts. Respectfully, I request that Palo Alto residents and business people, especially those who have been adversely affected by OSV presence in their neighborhoods, be provided the opportunity to be represented on the City Council OSV Ad Hoc Committee, or to review and provide input into the ongoing deliberations and activities of the OSV Ad Hoc committee before the OSV Ad Hoc Committee's policy ideas and recommendations are published in the next staff report on the issue of OSVs in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:41 AM Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov> wrote: Penny, The OSV Committee was appointed by then Mayor Lauing in November. It includes himself, and Councilmembers Lythcott Haims and Reckdahl. Pat Get Outlook for iOS From: Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 5:00:56 PM To: Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Composition OSV Ad Hoc committee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmember Burt: At the October 10, 2025 meeting, City Council approved the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to direct staff to form an ad hoc committee focused on furthering Council goals with respect to OSVs in Palo Alto. The packet for the December 08, 2025 City Council meeting notes: "Additionally, OSV Ad Hoc committee members have reached out to a variety of community members including faith-based organizations, property owners, and philanthropists to explore options for expanding safe parking." (p.12, Meetings2473Packet_...). This statement implies that the ad hoc committee recommended by City Council on October 10 has already been formed and is currently at work. May I ask, when was the OSV Ad Hoc Committee formed and who are its members? Does this committee include Palo Alto residents and businesspeople? Does it include individuals who have been directly affected by OSVs parked in/in front of their Palo Alto neighborhoods, homes, and businesses? Best wishes, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood From:Sven Thesen To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Avroh Shah; Prisha Goel; Anya Rasmussen; Ziwen Pei; Kanami Taniguchi; Sarah Seeger; Zara Harwell; Valen Varanasi; Alice Snyder Subject:Slide for Tuesday"s City Council Meeting Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 2:55:40 PM Attachments:Thesen City Council 20Jan26 CPAU Mission Statement.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good people at city hall, Attached is a slide I would like to present at Tuesday's City Council meeting. Thank you! -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, ProjectGreenHome.org andBeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Mission Statement: To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable and cost effective services https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/About-CPAU/Utilities-Strategic-Plan From:Roger Pierno To:Council, City Subject:Residential Electric Water Heaters Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 12:30:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Council Members, I commend the City for its leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the 80x30 initiative. I share the City’s goal ofaccelerating the transition to all-electric homes. However, I am concerned that the current focus on incentivizing only heat pump water heaters unintentionally limits participation andslows overall electrification. Heat pump water heaters require a substantial volume of surrounding indoor air to operate efficiently because they extract heat from the air. Manufacturers typically specify a minimumof 500 cubic feet, with 1,000 cubic feet or more recommended—roughly the size of a standard bedroom. In Palo Alto, many homes have water heaters located in small closets or confinedspaces that fall well below these requirements. For these households, installing a heat pump water heater is impractical or impossible without costly and disruptive remodeling. As a result, a significant number of residents are effectively excluded from the City’selectrification rebate program, even though they are willing to replace gas appliances with electric alternatives. Expanding the rebate program to include standard electric (non–heatpump) water heaters would remove this barrier and enable far broader participation. Including non–heat pump electric water heaters would also be a highly cost-effective use of City funds. These units are substantially less expensive to purchase and install than heat pumpmodels, allowing limited rebate dollars to support more conversions from gas to electric. While heat pump water heaters offer higher efficiency, standard electric water heaters stilleliminate on-site fossil fuel combustion and achieve the City’s core objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing sustainability. If Palo Alto seeks to maximize emissions reductions, equity, and adoption rates, the rebateprogram should reflect the realities of existing housing stock and offer viable electric options for all residents—not just those with ideal installation conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration, and for your continued commitment to Palo Alto’sclimate leadership. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Respectfully,Roger Pierno 1200 College Avenue From:Lee Christel To:Council, City Subject:No more cable expenditures Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 10:34:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, After reading many comments on both sides of the optic fiber debate, I have to agree that a city owned cable service has little chance of financial viability. Please don't throw good money after bad. Please use our resources more wisely - maybe reduce our utility bills which are skyrocketing. Sincerely, Lee ChristelMidtown From:Mircea To:Lait, JonathanCc:CHaggerty@valleywater.org; Raybould, Claire; Sauls, Garrett; Liberman, Art; John King; Kristan Green; Dror Katzav; Yu Wang; Tamara Harrison; Sauls, Garrett; City Attorney; Council, CitySubject:3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Development - Formal Request for Project Status Investigation and Clarifications – SB 330 Application Status and Valley Water Easement Requirements Date:Sunday, January 18, 2026 7:49:14 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage008.pngimage011.pngimage007.pngimage013.pngValleyWater_LandParcel AND Easements_3400ECR.pdf3400ECR_SubmittedForReview_April2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i Jonathan, I am formally requesting an investigation into the processing and management of the development application at 3400 El Camino Real, due to repeated factual errors,misstatements, and a lack of competence from City of Palo Alto Planning Staff, coordinated guidance provided to the applicant and affected community members. Please let me know who will be handling this investigation. The issues outlined below are not matters of interpretation — they are matters of verifiable fact, statutory compliance, and procedural failure. 1. Valley Water Easements – Factual Misstatements by City of Palo Alto Planning Staff in charge of project review Planning staff have asserted positions regarding Valley Water easements that are directly contradicted by written email confirmation from Valley Water. Valley Water owns easements and parcels that are not limited to internal subdivisions of the 3400 El Camino Real property, contrary to what has been stated byPlanning staff in writing.Palo Alto Planning staff claim that Valley Water only owns parcels and no easements inside 3400 El Camino Real property. Attached is direct correspondence from Valley Water confirming the actual easement conditions, which contradicts the assumptions being communicated by ClaireRaybould. I am CC’ing Valley Water planning staff (Colleen Haggerty) that provided such comments on this correspondence because the City’s current position reflects amisunderstanding of site facts. I am trying to be clear that applicant Cannot come back with some nonsense statements as they did for the last 4 years thatEasements do not exist on their property nor that they did not know what are the Creek Bank Buffer Requirements that Must be met (impacting anyunderground parking proposals) which are Mandatory regardless of a Builder Remedy enforcement by applicant or SB330 If the Planning Department does not have an accurate understanding of existing easements and agency-controlled land, it cannot reasonably manage a project of this scaleor provide the applicant with clear, lawful direction. At this stage of design, easements must be explicitly identified, mapped, and addressed, not dismissed ormisunderstood. 2. Easement and Valley Water Parcel Area Must Be Properly Subtracted from each designated Lot Any surface area subject to Valley Water ownership or easements must be excluded from the applicant’s developable land area, consistent with standard land-use andzoning practice. The applicant’s proposal is organized into separate lots (Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, etc.), each with distinct building programs. Easement and Valley Water–controlled areas must be subtracted on a per-lot basis, not arbitrarily netted from the total site area. The applicant’s proposal is explicitly divided into separate lots (Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, etc.), each with independent buildings and development metrics. Any Valley Water–owned parcels or easements affecting surface area must be excluded from the developable area of the specific lot they burden, as thisdirectly affects FAR, lot coverage Failing to do so materially distorts FAR, lot coverage, massing, and compliance analysis. The attached diagram below clearly illustrates each Lot from which Valley Water Parcel and easements must be subtracted from again Regardless of Builder'sRemedy claim and SB330 enforcement by the applicant. 3. SB 330 Status – Ongoing Review and FOIA Request We are independently assessing whether SB 330 protections remain valid for this project after nearly four years since the initial application was submitted. SB 330 is not a mechanism to indefinitely “lock in” zoning or site standards while a project materially evolves. I have submitted a Public Records Act (FOIA) request to the City of Palo Alto seeking all documents related to: The original SB 330 application, Determinations of completeness, Subsequent revisions and resubmittals, Any internal analysis regarding continued SB 330 applicability. Until this review is complete, it is inappropriate for Planning staff to assert SB 330 status as settled fact. This message needs your attentionThis is a personal email address.This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 4. Failure to Keep Represented Community Informed I have repeatedly requested to be kept informed of application submittals, City comments, and response reports, as I represent a group of Barron Park residents directlyaffected by this project. This is now at least the fourth request. I have not been kept informed. This is not acceptable, and it undermines transparency and public trust. Requested Actions I am requesting the following: 1. A formal internal review of Planning’s handling of this application to date. 2. A written clarification addressing: The correct Valley Water easement and ownership facts, Proper lot-by-lot land area calculations, The project’s current and legally supported SB 330 status. 3. Immediate correction of any misstatements provided to the applicant. 4. Confirmation of a single, accountable point of contact going forward and the process that I will be informed of any applications and City of PA Comments/Reports to the applicant 5. Written confirmation that I will be copied on all future application materials, comments, and city response documents to the applicant. This request is made in the interest of ensuring factual accuracy, statutory compliance, and competent project management. I expect a written comprehensive response within 30 days. Thanks Mircea Barron Park Resident/Property Owner ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Mircea <mircea27v@gmail.com>Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 2:10 PMSubject: Re: 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Valley Water--Matadero Creek Concerns NOT ADDRESSED--PLEASE RESPOND ASAPTo: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov>Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>, Liberman, Art <art_liberman@yahoo.com>, John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>, Kristan Green<kristangreen@mac.com>, Dror Katzav <dror.katzav@gmail.com>, Yu Wang <theyuwang@gmail.com>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>, Tamara Harrison<Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com> Claire, Valley Water has substantial disagreements with the statements reflected in the applicant’s materials, as outlined in their correspondence referencedbelow. Valley Water holds existing easements at 3400 El Camino Real, and those easements impose non-discretionary constraints on sitedevelopment. I personally spoke with Valley Water, and they confirmed the following, which is not reflected in the applicant’s current plans: 1. Valley Water Easements, Creek Constraints, and FAR Calculations The creek area must be excluded from the lot area prior to performing any FAR calculations. The plans submitted do not demonstrate that the creek area has been subtracted from Lot 1 before FAR was calculated. Valley Water’s required bank and buffer clearances have not been satisfied, as detailed in their email. There is no bypass or override of Valley Water easements or requirements, including under a Builder’s Remedy or SB 330 framework. Any underground parking, grading, or subsurface construction within the creek influence area is subject to Valley Water review and approval. Most of the creek land lies within Lot 1, yet the submitted diagrams do not clearly delineate this condition. Because the lots are not merged and are subjectto different zoning requirements, it is essential that FAR and compliance be calculated separately and correctly for each lot. Based on the applicant’s own attachment, it appears evident that the proposed structure on Lot 1 encroaches into required creek bank buffer areas, rendering the project noncompliant as currently designed. If these baseline constraints are not properly understood and addressed at the planning level, it is unclear how a compliant project could advance through theentitlement process. 2. April 2025 Submittal — Request for City Comments and Inclusion on Distribution Regarding my prior comment about the April 2025 review, please see the attached email from Tamarra dated April 2025, confirming the applicant’s submission at that time. To date, I have requested three times the following information and have not received it: The City’s written comments on the April 2025 applicant submission Confirmation of how the City evaluated that submittal I am requesting again that I be formally added to the distribution list for: All applicant submissions All City comments or feedback Any future notices, determinations, or public hearings As I have made clear since 2022, I am representing a group of Barron Park neighbors, and I must be kept informed of all developmentsrelated to this project. No exceptions. 3. SB 330 Applicability and Loss of Vesting With respect to the applicant’s reliance on SB 330, it is important to clarify the legal framework. SB 330 is not intended to warehouse entitlements or allow a project to be held open indefinitely while undergoing fundamental redesign. The applicanthas been modifying project parameters for nearly four (4) years, which raises serious questions regarding continued SB 330 applicability. a. Scope of SB 330 Protections SB 330 allows a housing project to freeze zoning, density, and applicable standards only as of the date a complete application is submitted, and onlyfor that specific project. Protections are limited to: Unit count Building envelope (height and massing) Use (e.g., housing vs. mixed-use) Site configuration Parking ratios Objective standards in effect at the time of submittal b. Material Changes Result in Loss of SB 330 Vesting If an applicant materially or substantially changes the project after submittal, the City is legally justified in treating the proposal as a new application,at which point: SB 330 protections no longer apply New zoning and Housing Element standards may be enforced New objective standards may be imposed Courts, HCD guidance, and city attorneys generally agree that the following constitute material changes: Significant increases or decreases in unit count (this already happened since 2022 first application) Changes in building height, stories, or massing Change in construction type (e.g., podium vs. wrap) Major parking reconfigurations Lot consolidation or re-subdivision Switching between rental and condominium tenure Adding or removing non-residential uses Multi-year redesigns that no longer resemble the original proposal If the proposal no longer resembles the original project, SB 330 does not apply. c. Limits on Duration SB 330 does not grant perpetual rights. Cities may impose reasonable time limits, and long delays combined with major redesigns are strong evidencethat an application has been abandoned or is no longer entitled to vesting. HCD has repeatedly stated SB 330 is not meant to warehouse entitlements. We will challenge the validity of SB330 this into the new application by the developer. 4. Housing Element Certification Timing If: The application was submitted before Housing Element certification, and The project was materially changed after certification, then the City may lawfully require compliance with the newly certified Housing Element standards, particularly where the applicant seeks: Increased density Increased height Reduced parking Given the above, I respectfully request that the City address these issues directly, provide the outstanding April 2025 review comments, and ensure that Valley Water requirements are satisfied. 5. Daylight Plane Requirements: With respect to the proposed transition to R-1 zoning, I want to be clear and place this formally on the record.Whatever project applicant proposes it must comply with the City’s adopted daylight plane standard of 10 feet at 45 degrees. The applicant’s proposal to applya 10-foot at 60-degree daylight plane is not compliant, is not supported by the code, and is not acceptable. If the applicant elects to continue pursuing a design that does not meet the 10 ft / 45-degree daylight plane requirement, I will formally challenge the project, including through legal means if necessary. If a project has been resubmitted, redesigned, for ~4 years without moving forward, Palo Alto has multiple lawful bases to determine that SB330 protections no longer apply. Period. Regards, Mircea Voskerician 650-996-1114 On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 12:38 PM Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Mircea, Thank you for your e-mail. The City agrees that, to date, the comments provided by Valley Water have not been responded to or substantively addressed by the applicant.The applicant, like many builder’s remedy applicants, so far has only addressed comments only as they relate to incompleteness items and did not address comments fromValley Water or numerous other comments from the City in their last submissions. Many comments still need to be addressed prior to a decision on the application.However, it is not correct that the project cannot utilize the builder’s remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. While the City initially took the position thatthe Builder’s remedy did not apply, amendments to state law since that time have made it clear that the project does qualify for the builder’s remedy because it submitted avalid SB 330 application prior to HCD’s approval of the Housing Element. I’m not sure what you are referencing with respect to an April 2025 hearing. We have not taken this project to any hearings at this time given that the applicant still has notpaid to begin the CEQA analysis and because the applicant has expressed an interest in significantly modifying the design, possibly exploring an El Camino real focus areacompliant project. Council held a hearing for a prescreening of a different, but similar, project at this property back in October 2022, which is maybe what you werereferencing? This was prior to the filing of the current builder’s remedy application. As I’ve explained previously, the creek is not located within an easement, rather it’s located within a parcel wholly owned by the water district. The VW easements havenot been deducted from the lot area because it’s already not part of the total parcel area (see visual below). However, there are still requirements that need to be met tocomply with work adjacent to and within the top of bank as detailed in city and VW comments and in accordance with state and federal requirements (e.g. USFWS, CDFW,RWQCB, etc). As noted, the applicant has indicated that they are preparing revised plans and I cannot predict what may be included with respect to their planned daylight planes. As abuilder’s remedy project, the applicant is provided with allowances under state law to not meet certain standards, including daylight plane. However, the City stillencourages the applicant to comply with the local regulations and the applicant has indicated that they may be modifying their design to align with the current focus areacompliant standards. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Mircea <mircea27v@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2026 11:08 AMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>Cc: Liberman, Art <art_liberman@yahoo.com>; John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>; Kristan Green <kristangreen@mac.com>; Dror Katzav<dror.katzav@gmail.com>; Yu Wang <theyuwang@gmail.com>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Tamara Harrison <Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com>;Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov>Subject: 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Valley Water--Matadero Creek Concerns NOT ADDRESSED--PLEASE RESPOND ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Garrett, Valley Water provided formal planning comments regarding Matadero Creek in September 2024. To date, those comments have not been responded to orsubstantively addressed by the applicant, including during their March–April 2025 review period and most recently in their April 2025 submission. Tamarastated that all City Comments will be provided after the April 2025 meeting. I have not seen none...See Attached email. Also there is zero clarity on Builder'sremedy status of this application which was denied to the applicant in 2023/2024. As reflected in the Valley Water Planning correspondence previously sent to you (see referenced email below), there are fundamental deficiencies in theapplicant’s design relative to Valley Water requirements. Despite this, the applicant continues to proceed as if these issues have been resolved, which theyhave not. Until these matters are fully addressed and confirmed compliant, the project must not be allowed to proceed further. It has now been over 15 months since Valley Water’s Planning comments were first provided to the City and the applicant while Applicant had a City ReviewApril 2025.... Why were they even scheduled in April 2025 for a public hearing when those issues are not even addressed?? waste of staff time. Applicanthad 6 months to address Valley water concerns...and they did not. I am requesting the following: 1. Written confirmation within the next 10 days explaining how each Valley Water Planning comment has been addressed, with specific references torevised plans or analyses.2. A response from City of Palo Alto Planning addressing my related questions on Valley Water compliance and how the City has verified resolution ofthose issues (Subtracting Creek Defined area from current parcels not from the entire parcel but from the each one/individually that Applicant definedtheir Individual Parcel numbers in the latest plans)3. Clarification regarding Builder’s Remedy assertions, specifically whether Valley Water requirements remain unmet, including: Subtraction of creek area from specific lot calculationsA recalculation of FAR and density, clearly showing the new allowable development envelopeUpdated plans reflecting any resulting changes to building size and location To date, no plans I have reviewed include these required recalculations. Separately, regarding daylight plane requirements, I will pursue legal challenge if the City’s/Applicant position is not to maintain the 10-foot setback and45-degree daylight plane standard. Please provide written confirmation that the applicant will not revise daylight plane assumptions in a mannerconsistent with current City requirements. If these issues are not handled properly and a substantive response is not provided within the requested time frame, my next correspondence will includeCity Council and the City Attorney. I have also submitted a FOIA request seeking all City emails related to the Valley Water issues and other issuesdescribed above. ================================================= Item No. 1: I reached out to the Valley Water planner about a week ago because I would like a full explanation of how the creek area is being subtractedfrom Lot 1 (RM-20) for purposes of density calculation for Lot 1 number of Units and total FAR for Lot 1 that is how I want to see the calculation how wasdone. Specifically, I cannot find any reference showing that the density on Lot 1 has been calculated net of the creek area, which would directly reduce the number of units that can be built on Lot 1. I also want to clearly confirm that there will be no building or basement parking located within the 50-foot creek buffer measured from the top of the creek bank on both sides. What were the Valley Water Planning comments to the city on the plans I would like to understand who has those comments and review them. From the plans I’ve seen, most of the creek appears to be inside Proposed Lot 1, so I’m not sure what is meant by the suggestion that it is not. This is not a builder’s remedy project at this time; Was builder's remedy application accepted by the city of PA and when was that decided? they do not currently qualify for that path, so the project must fully comply with applicable standards. Item No. 2: In addition, my understanding is that the transition from CS(Lot 3) to RM residential (Lot 1)requires a 135-foottransition/buffer under PAMC 18.16. 060 Ordinance 5548. Where is this height transition reflected in the current/latest design, and has Planning provided any feedback or direction on how that standard is being met? Regarding Item No. 3, I see that on Lot 1 the daylight plane is shown as starting at 10 feet with a 60-degree angle. My understanding is that this should be a 45-degree angle, not 60 degrees. Has City Planning issued an application comments report on the current proposed design addressing this and other issues? I would like to review any such comment letter or staff report. Thank you, Mircea ========================================================================== Colleen Haggerty <CHaggerty@valleywater.org> Sun, Sep8, 2024, 10:21 PMto Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org, Shree Dharasker Hi Garrett, Thanks for the additional time for review. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the project proposal for a new mixed-useproject at 3400, El Camino Real in Palo Alto, received on July 18, 2024. Redevelopment of the site proposes to demolish various buildings and constructionof residential towers, townhomes, a hotel, and underground parking structures. Matadero Creek runs through the site and Valley Water has fee title property over the creek. Additionally, Valley Water has an easement at the northwestcorner of the site adjacent to Matadero By-Pass Channel. As per Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, work proposed on Valley Water’sfee title property or easement requires an encroachment permit, which is a discretionary act under CEQA. Valley Water has reviewed the plans and has the following comments: 1. It’s unclear why the City has determined the development is ‘Not A Project’ under CEQA. The government code that established the Builder’sRemedy is explicit that these projects must still undergo CEQA review. Any permit necessary from Valley Water (or any state agency) will requireCEQA review to approve. 2. There is no estimation on potential water use by the development. For the proposed project to meet its fair share of water conservation assumptions inthe Urban Water Management Plans for Valley Water and Palo Alto all available water conservation measures should be incorporated into the projectincluding submeters for all residential units to encourage efficient water use. Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use 15 to30 percent.3. The project elements located outside of Valley Water’s property and easement should be in compliance with Guidelines and Standards for Land UseNear Streams (Guidelines and Standards) which was adopted by the City. Redevelopment of sites provides the opportunity to provide increasedriparian corridor setbacks to better protect/enhance the riparian corridor; ensure structures have appropriate slope stability setbacks; and providespace for natural movement of creeks. 4. The site is located on FEMA FIRM Panel 06085C0017H, effective date May 18, 2009. The majority of the site is located a Zone X, areas of0.2% chance flood hazard, though a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone A with no base flood elevations over and adjacent to MataderoCreek. The plans need to clearly show the limits of the SFHA and work, including grading, within the Zone A need to be done in compliance withthe City’s flood plain ordinance and may require a floodplain analysis to document impacts to the floodplain and identify mitigation for impacts. 5. Sheet A3 shows a “20’ creek bank” line, but it is not clear what this line represents as it doesn’t appear to be the top of bank or an existingsetback line, as this sheet is showing existing conditions. The plans need to clearly show on all plan sheets the top of creek bank. 6. The legend on Sheet A3 includes “easement” but the plan doesn’t show Valley Water’s existing easement at the northwesterly corner of thesite. Please revise the plans to show Valley Water’s easement. 7. Sheet A3 shows the “riparian zone” however that does not appear to be the delineation of the riparian corridor. The plans, on all plans sheets,need to clearly show and label the limits of the riparian corridor as determined by a qualified biologist. The plans also need to clearly show andlabel an appropriate riparian corridor setback in conformance with the Guidelines and Standards. 8. Sheet C3.0 has a callout “10” which designates a vehicular bridge over Matadero Creek between “Residential C Building” and the Townhomes.There is currently no bridge at this location and the plans do not show a proposed bridge, so this callout needs to be removed. 9. The plans need to clearly show the creek top of bank on all plan sheets. 10. Sheet C6.0 shows two proposed storm drain outfalls into Matadero Creek. Drainage from the site needs to be directed to the existing City stormdrain system. 11. Sheet L1.1 shows removal of trees from Valley Water property and Sheet L2.1 shows planting, including habitat enhancement plantings, proposed onValley Water property. Planting and removal of trees from Valley Water property needs to be removed from the project. Valley Water has significantriparian mitigation needs along the creeks; and therefore, Valley Water property is not available for planting for non-Valley Water projects.12. Landscaping at the site should conform to the Guidelines and Standards. For landscaping areas where the goals are geared toward humanaesthetics, conformance with Design Guide 3 will help ensure landscaping will be maintained in a manner consistent with the goals of protecting thelocal natives and replacement plants consistent with this guide are commercially available. This guide provides options for use of either non-invasive,drought-tolerant, non-native ornamental plants that will not have the potential to cross pollinate with native riparian species or else choosing non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-local California natives (ornamental natives) with no potential to cross-pollinate with the local native species. Plantingsnot in conformance with this design guide will have a negative effect on the existing riparian corridor vegetation and habitat found along MataderoCreek. 13. Sheet L2.3 shows new fencing near the creek and new railings on both the existing pedestrian and vehicular bridges. The plans need to include details for the fencing and railings. Railings proposed on the bridges must not impair Valley Water’s operation and maintenance activities.14. Irrigation needs to be designed and operated such that overspray onto the creek bank and overbank runoff to the creek does not occur. 15. Proposed structures proposed at the site the site should be located to maximize the setback to the riparian corridor per the Guidelines andStandards. Additionally, structures, including the pool, should be located to include a slope stability setback as per Design Guide 7 of theGuidelines and Standards. The riparian corridor and slope stability setbacks need to be shown on the plan sheets. 16. Lighting at the site needs to be directed away from the riparian corridor and in compliance with the Guidelines and Standards. 17. The project is in an area of relatively shallow groundwater, with a generalized depth to first groundwater of 10 to 20 ft. It should be noted the depth togroundwater varies seasonally and annually and currently due to recent wet winters levels in the shallow aquifer elevation has been relatively high.Groundwater elevation data can be viewed on Valley Water’s Historical Groundwater Elevation data webtool (https://gis.valleywater.org/Wells.html). Given the shallow groundwater in the project area, dewatering may be required during construction. We recommend developing a dewatering planthat follows all local guidelines, regulations, and permitting, particularly with an effort to minimize the volume and duration of dewatering to the extentpossible. The project should also include waterproof foundation designs to avoid the need for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. 18. The project is located within an where seawater intrusion of shallow groundwater has occurred historically and is actively tracked and managedto avoid further impact (see related seawater intrusion outcome measure area, as defined in Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Planin Chapter 5 and Appendix H, available here: https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes/groundwater/sustainable). Werecommend that any future dewatering permit applications evaluate and mitigate if the dewatering activities, particularly any long-term orpermanent dewatering, will negatively affect the spatial pattern of seawater intrusion in the shallow aquifer. 19. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, it is always possible that a well exists that is not in Valley Water records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the project site during redevelopment, they must be properly destroyed under permit from the Valley Water orregistered with the Valley Water and protected from damage. Please contact Valley Water’s Well Permitting and Inspections Hotline: 408-630-2660(https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/wells-well-owners) for more information regarding permitting of any wells. sdharasker@valleywater.org chaggerty@valleywater.org | www.valleywater.org etc. Winfield Warehouse-5905 Winfield Blvd. San Jose, CA 95123-2428 From: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 10:35 AMTo: Shree Dharasker <sdharasker@valleywater.org>Subject: RE: New Project at 3400 El Camino Real *** This email originated from outside of Valley Water. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. *** Hi Shree, August 30 is fine, we have until September 15 the provide our analysis comments to the applicant. I will be providing them a notice of incomplete on 8/16. Please keep me up to date if there is any additional need for delay to providing SCVWD’s comment on the application. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Shree Dharasker <sdharasker@valleywater.org>Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 10:59 AMTo: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: RE: New Project at 3400 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, The development plans are currently being reviewed by Valley Water staff. Due to the heavy workload in August 2024, I will need an extension forconsolidation and review of comments. Please let me know if Friday August 30 is acceptable for comments. Thanks, Shree Dharasker Associate Engineer Civil Community Projects Review Unit (408)630-3037 From: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org>Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:20 PMTo: CPRU-Dropbox <CPRU@valleywater.org>Cc: Shree Dharasker <sdharasker@valleywater.org>Subject: New Project at 3400 El Camino Real *** This email originated from outside of Valley Water. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. *** Hello, We received a project for a new mixed use project with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new three-story townhome, one new seven-story hotel, and two new underground parking garages at 3400 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, CA. This property has Matadero Creek running through themiddle of it. We would like for you to review the project and provide comments. The plans can be found on the project webpagehere: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3400-El-Camino-Real-SB-330. If you would Garrett Sauls Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department From:Annette Isaacson To:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Council, City Subject:Minnesota Date:Friday, January 16, 2026 5:03:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, All Americans must take a stand against ICE. Many of us have spoken out against ICE and participated in protest marches. Robert Reich is now calling on non profits, civic organizations, businesses, unions, fraternal organizations, etc to publicly take a stand against ICE, Trump's modern day Gestapo. I hope the PA city council can send a message of solidarity to Minnesota that we are standing with her against ICE. Right now Minnesota is fighting the battle for us, just as L.A. did earlier. Who knows which city will be next. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown From:Eddie Gornish To:Council, City Cc:Eddie Gornish Subject:Too many planned and unplanned power outages Date:Friday, January 16, 2026 1:25:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i - We just received a notice that we will have a planned electrical shutdown on 1/29/26. - We recently had a planned shutdown on 10/8/25. - Yesterday (1/16/26), we had an unplanned shutdown at 8AM. The same contractor, that was leaving shutdown notices today, was working around the corner when we had our unplannedshutdown yesterday. They said they had nothing to do with our unplanned shutdown, but I find that hard to believe - way too coincidental. The unplanned outage impacted all ofFairmeadow and part of Palo Verde, according to the city's outage map. Can you please explain why we are having two planned outages in less than 4 months? Can you please explain what caused our unplanned outage on 1/16/26? If it was thiscontractor, who will be doing the work on 1/29/26, does the city monitor their work? How are they held accountable? If it was not the contractor, then why did we have an outage? For those of us who work at home, electrical outages are extremely inconvenient. ThanksEddie Gornish, Fairmeadow This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Iftar Organizing CommitteeTo:Council, CitySubject:City Council, RSVP to Palo Alto"s Annual Ramadan Iftar Dinner Date:Thursday, January 15, 2026 12:21:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. evite Palo Alto's Annual Ramadan Iftar Dinner City Council, you're invited! RSVP by January 26 at 6:00 PM View & RSVP This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org because you have been invited to an event by Iftar Organizing Committee . Even if you have opted-out of receiving Evite marketing communications, you may still receive emails with relevant information based on your upcoming Invitation events or recent activity. Evite® and Life's Better Together® are the registered trademarks of Evite, Inc. © 2026, Evite, Inc. All rights reserved. Evite invitations and services may include other trademarks of their respective owners. Privacy Policy | Event Notification Settings | Block this Host | Do Not Sell My Info Evite 310 E. Colorado St. Glendale, CA 91205 From:Alice Smith To:letters@padailypost.com Subject:Council Opts to keep turf field 1/14/2026 Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 9:01:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Incredible that Palo Alto has joined the ranks of anti-science and against the recommendations of 4000 doctors in order to adopt a "time-friendly'" option for artificial turf. Ignoring science: To quote AI: "Dangers of artificial turf include exposure to toxic chemicals (PFAS, VOCs, heavy metals) from crumb rubber infill, leading to potential cancer, immune, and developmental issues; increased heat stress causing burns and heatstroke; higher risk and severity of certain injuries (abrasions, concussions, ankle/knee problems); and environmental contamination from disposal.Children are particularly vulnerable due to their behaviors and developing bodies, with risks from inhaling particles, skin contact, and accidental ingestion." I found this in 1 second of searching. For shame, City of Palo Alto. Please reconsider your decision and stop all artificial turf in our city. Alice Schaffer Smith 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 (c) 650 283 2822 From:Justine Burt To:Council, City Cc:Lo, Ria; Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:2025 Palo Alto TMA Commute Survey Report Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 2:00:16 PM Attachments:2025 PATMA Commute Survey Report.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am pleased to send you a copy of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association's2025 Commute Survey Report. Note that this report is written to facilitate skimming: you will be able to glean highlights in just a few minutes. Since the 2024 commute survey, the drive alone rate fell yet there are still many Palo Altoworkers driving who are open to taking a train, bus, carpool, bike, or e-scooter to work. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks again for your support of PATMA's work to reduce traffic congestion, demand for parking, and greenhouse gas emissions while helpingsmall businesses and addressing equity. Kind regards, Justine Burt Executive Director, Palo Alto TMA justine@paloaltotma.org This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 2025 COMMUTE SURVEY REPORT for and PATMA Board Members Cedric de la Beaujardiere, resident (Chair) Rob George, Philz Coffee (Treasurer) Shannon McEntee, resident (Secretary) Ria Lo, City of Palo Alto Sebastian Mafla, Sheraton Alejandra Mier, Coupa Cafe Steven Lee, resident December 2025 Prepared by: Justine Burt Lucey Gorrill ALTRANS TMA Inc 302 Toyon Ave, F-410 San Jose, CA 95127 www.altrans.net Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Survey Population ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Survey Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 6 Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Key Insights .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 18 1 2025 Commute Survey Report Executive Summary In September and October 2025, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) team surveyed workers in commercial areas of Palo Alto to learn about their commute habits and preferences. The team conducted on-line and in-person surveys in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Vietnamese beginning with emailing and texting then following up with door-to-door canvassing. This document provides highlights from the survey findings. The three main objectives of the commute survey were to 1) learn how workers commute, 2) determine which workers are open to shifting their commute from single-occupancy vehicles to mass transit or active mobility options, and 3) raise awareness of PATMA’s programs. Based on the 920 completed surveys, Figure 1 shows the percentage of respondents from the four main sectors into which PATMA classifies workers: technology, service, light office, and government. Figure 1: Survey Respondents by Sector Technology 27% Service 44% Light Office 5% Government 24% Technology Service Light Office Government 2 2025 Commute Survey Report Figure 2 below provides the primary mode workers use to commute each week. The survey found that overall, 54.8% of workers surveyed used a single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) as their primary commute mode in 2025, down from 62% in 2024. Figure 2: Primary Commute Mode of Survey Respondents By separating out commute mode by work sector, Figure 3 illustrates sectors with higher and lower drive alone rates. Figure 3: Commute Mode by Work Sector 54.8% 33.8% 5.2%4.0%1.6%0.5% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Drive alone Transit Carpool Bike Telecommute Walk Nu m b e r o f P a r t i c i p a n t s 50 . 7 % 36 . 3 % 5. 8 % 4. 2 % 2. 3 % 0. 5 % 0. 2 % 40 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 6. 7 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 52 . 5 % 38 . 8 % 3. 7 % 2. 9 % 1. 2 % 0. 4 % 0. 4 % 66 . 7 % 20 . 1 % 6. 8 % 5. 0 % 0. 9 % 0. 5 % 0. 0 % 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Drive alone Transit Carpool Bike Walk Telecommute Other Service Light Office Technology Government 3 2025 Commute Survey Report With respect to PATMA’s mission, data collected in the 2025 commute survey illuminates opportunities to reach more workers in order to help reduce traffic congestion, reduce demand for parking, support small businesses, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and address social equity issues. Introduction In 2025, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) conducted its tenth annual employee commute survey as required by the funding agreement between PATMA and the City of Palo Alto (COPA). PATMA contracted with ALTRANS TMA Inc. to conduct the survey and performed outreach in September and October 2025. The survey was designed to identify how Palo Alto employees working in the commercial areas of Palo Alto - University Avenue (Downtown), California Avenue (Cal Ave), El Camino Real, the Stanford Mall, the Charleston Middlefield shopping center, and along San Antonio Road - commute to work, identify individuals currently driving alone who are open to shifting to a sustainable commute mode, and raise awareness of PATMA’s program offerings. Survey Population According to the most recent U.S. Census data, the total worker population in Palo Alto was 109,011 in 2022. The darker shaded areas of Figure 4 show where work centers are clustered around Downtown, along El Camino Real, and near San Antonio close to Highway 101. Figure 4: Density of Workers in Palo Alto Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap, 2022 4 2025 Commute Survey Report The U.S. Census organizes sectors using the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) categories. Figure 5 shows the number of workers by NAICS codes. Figure 5: Palo Alto Workers by Sector NAICS Sector Number of Employees Percentage Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 5 0.0% Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction 1 0.0% Utilities 282 0.3% Construction 881 0.8% Manufacturing 5,152 4.7% Wholesale Trade 971 0.9% Retail Trade 3,991 3.7% Transportation and Warehousing 2,217 2.0% Information 18,860 17.3% Finance and Insurance 4,283 3.9% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,389 1.3% Professional, Scientific, and Information 23,575 21.6% Management of Companies and Enterprises 3,049 2.8% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 1,915 1.8% Educational Services 3,420 3.1% Healthcare and Social Assistance 30,187 27.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 831 0.8% Accommodation and Food Services 4,931 4.5% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,315 2.1% Public Administration 756 0.7% Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap, 2022 PATMA organizes NAICS sectors into four employer categories – service, light office, technology, and government – and offers programs to workers in all but the technology sector. Figure 6 shows which NAICS code sectors PATMA includes in the service, light office, technology, and government categories. Figure 6: NAICS Codes and PATMA Classification NAICS Code NAICS Sector Name PATMA Classification 11 21 22 23 31-33 42 44-45 48-49 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Service Service Government Service Service Service Service Service 5 2025 Commute Survey Report NAICS Code NAICS Sector Name PATMA Classification 51 52 53 54 55 56 61 62 71 72 81 92 Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (except Public Administration) Public Administration Technology Light Office Light Office Technology Light Office Light Office Light Office Service Light Office Service Service Government Source: NAICS Association After sorting Census data for the number of workers in the four categories for statistical purposes, Figure 7 shows the number of workers in each category and the total worker population in Palo Alto. Figure 7: Number of Workers in Four Sectors PATMA Organization Category Number of Employees % Share Service 50,651 46% Light Office 14,887 14% Technology 42,435 39% Government 1,038 1% Total 109,011 Subtracting the 29,000 worker population at the Stanford Research Park, which has its own transportation demand management programs, leaves us with a worker population of 80,011. After cleaning the survey data of duplicate responses and incomplete surveys, there were a total of 920 complete surveys of which: • 404 respondents were service sector workers (44%) • 50 were light office workers (5%) • 247 were tech workers (27%) • 219 were government staff (24%) This year’s response rate was higher than the four previous years the survey was conducted. The number of respondents for each of the ten survey years is shown in Figure 8. 6 2025 Commute Survey Report Figure 8: Number of PATMA Commute Survey Responses by Year Year Number of Respondents 2025 920 2024 885 2023 738 2022 511 2021 551 2019 1,471 2018 496 2017 892 2016 829 2015 1,173 Compared to 2024, stronger working relationships with managers in the service and technology sectors in 2025 helped boost response numbers. Survey Methodology In September and October 2025, the PATMA team reached out to businesses and organizations to administer the survey. Survey questions asked about the primary travel mode workers use to commute, their home city, employer, income level, and openness to sustainable commute options. The survey was administered through the Fillout.com platform which respondents accessed via personal smartphones through a QR code, PATMA’s electronic tablets, or their computers. Fillout’s survey platform offers skip logic and survey branching to optimize question relevance to different respondents. Paper copies of the surveys in English and Spanish were distributed to managers at downtown hotels who collected responses from their staff. Electronic surveys in Mandarin and Vietnamese were administered at selected businesses. Block-by-block, door- to-door canvassing resulted in a dataset representing businesses and organizations in several commercial areas. Door-to-door outreach was bolstered by mass texting and email follow-up to business contacts. As noted above, the PATMA team secured 920 responses from a citywide worker population of 80,011. With a 95% confidence level and a sample size representing 1.1% of the population, the margin of error for this data is ±3%. Results Data collected in this survey shed light on several topics: • how people commute to work, • where they are coming from, 7 2025 Commute Survey Report • considerations that most influence their decision about how to commute, and • which workers could commute using one main transit or active mobility option. The following figures show results for each question. Q1. In which city and zip code do you live? Among survey respondents this year, the top 10 home cities are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9: Top 10 Cities of Survey Respondents Home City Number Survey Respondents 1 San Jose 180 2 Palo Alto 90 3 Redwood City 74 4 Sunnyvale 65 5 Mountain View 64 6 San Francisco 48 7 Santa Clara 41 8 San Mateo 36 9 Fremont 35 10 East Palo Alto 31 Note that 72% of respondents live in cities served by a train or bus that runs to Palo Alto. Figure 10 maps the home zip codes of survey respondents in San Francisco Bay Area1 counties. 1 The Bay Area refers to the nine counties touching the San Francisco Bay. 8 2025 Commute Survey Report Figure 10: Number of Respondents by Zip Code Some survey respondents live beyond the nine county Bay Area near Sacramento, in the North Bay, and in the Central Valley. Figure 11 shows the average distance of commutes by sector. Figure 11: Average Commute Distance by Sector (miles) 26.1 23.2 19.9 16.9 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Government Technology Light Office Service Number of Miles 9 2025 Commute Survey Report Service sector workers live closer to work in contrast to government workers that on average commute from farther away. Q2. What is the name of your employer? (This information will help us analyze commuting patterns for the four main types of employers [service, technology, light office, and government] in Palo Alto.) Employer names of survey respondents were organized into four main sectors of employers in Palo Alto, as seen in Figure 12. Figure 12: Survey Respondents by Sector Note that the number of respondents from technology companies located in Downtown, Amazon and Salesforce, is 74% higher this year than last. With Return to Office encouragement from management and corporate concern about greenhouse gas emission reductions, both tech employers urged their employees to fill out PATMA’s 2025 survey. Technology 27% Service 44% Light Office 5% Government 24% Technology Service Light Office Government 10 2025 Commute Survey Report Q3. How do you usually travel to work? If you use more than one type of transportation, choose the one used for the longest distance of your trip. Many commuters use more than one type of transportation for commuting. To be able to compare this year’s data with previous years’, we asked people about the main commute mode they used for the longest segment of their trip. Figure 13 provides information about the primary commute mode. Figure 13: Primary Commute Mode Figure 14 divides this data by sector for 2025 to allow comparisons between service, light office, tech, and government sectors. Figure 14: Commute Mode by Sector, 2025 54.8% 33.8% 5.2%4.0%1.6%0.5% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Drive alone Transit Carpool Bike Telecommute Walk Nu m b e r o f P a r t i c i p a n t s 50 . 7 % 36 . 3 % 5. 8 % 4. 2 % 2. 3 % 0. 5 % 0. 2 % 40 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 6. 7 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 52 . 5 % 38 . 8 % 3. 7 % 2. 9 % 1. 2 % 0. 4 % 0. 4 % 66 . 7 % 20 . 1 % 6. 8 % 5. 0 % 0. 9 % 0. 5 % 0. 0 % 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Drive alone Transit Carpool Bike Walk Telecommute Other Service Light Office Technology Government 11 2025 Commute Survey Report A comparison of commute modes over the past ten years is shown in Figure 15. Figure 15: Changes in Commute Mode, 2015-2025 Q4 If you drive alone to work, which of the following sustainable commute modes are you open to taking? Note that respondents could choose more than one option, and only respondents who said their main commute mode was by single-occupancy vehicle were given this question. Figure 16: Sustainable Commute Options Drivers Considering 57 % 56 % 53 % 49 % 52 % 60 % 55 % 56 % 62 % 55 % 18 % 18 %20 % 27 % 25 % 9% 26 % 24 % 24 % 34 % 5%6%8%9% 5% 2% 5%7% 6% 5% 15 % 15 % 12 % 9%9% 7% 12 % 10 % 6% 5%5%5%7% 6%8% 23 % 2% 1%1%2% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Drive Alone Transit Carpool Bike/Walk Telecommute 42.3% 11.8% 4.3% 9.6% 0.6% 0.6% 27.0% 3.9% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Train or bus Carpool Vanpool Bicycle Walk Telecommute None, I prefer to drive Not Applicable Number of Participants 12 2025 Commute Survey Report Note that of 920 survey respondents, 492 drive alone to work and among those, 42% were open to transit, 12% carpool, 4% vanpool, 10% bicycle, <1% walk, <1% telecommute, and 27% prefer to drive. Sorting zip codes of respondents who answered they were open to a sustainable commute and mapping the top 15 yields the graph below. Figure 17: Top 15 Zip Codes with Respondents Driving Alone and Open to a Sustainable Commute Many of these single-occupancy vehicle commuters may be able to commute by Caltrain, Caltrain and VTA, Caltrain and SamTrans, Dumbarton Express Bus, bicycle, e-bicycle, or e- scooter. 13 2025 Commute Survey Report Q5. If you drive alone to work, is your home located less than one mile from a Caltrain station, VTA 22/522 bus stop, SamTrans ECR bus stop, or Dumbarton Express bus stop? Figure 18: Live <1 Mile from Sustainable Transit Option Nearly 15% of respondents who drive alone to work report living close to a transit option that runs directly to Palo Alto. Q6. If you live less than 5 miles from work, are you open to switching to an active mobility mode (bicycle, electric bicycle, scooter, electric scooter, or other personal mobility device) for commuting? Figure 19: Live <5 Miles from Work and Open to Active Commute 258 175 55 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 No Yes Not Sure Not Applicable Number of Participants 14.7% 13.5% 0.4% 2.5% 9.1% 53.5% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Yes No I already do I already do sometimes I'm thinking about it Not Applicable Number of Participants 14 2025 Commute Survey Report Q7. What is most important to you when choosing how to commute to work? (select up to 3) Figure 20: Most Important Considerations When Choosing How to Commute “Travel time and schedule” predominates the list of factors workers consider when deciding how to commute. Note that survey participants were able to choose up to three answers. Q8. Does your workplace need additional bike racks outside? Figure 21: Need Additional Bike Racks 14.8% 35.5% 69.0% 19.7% 43.9% 14.1% 33.2% 14.3% 9.1% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Accessibility Cost Travel time or schedule Stress reduction Comfort and safety Ability to make stops to and from Flexibility Environmental impact Amount of things I need to carry Number of Participants 23.5% 69.9% 1.6% 0.2% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Yes No Not Sure Not Applicable Number of Participants 15 2025 Commute Survey Report Given that 217 out of 920 workers who answered this survey question said they would like additional bike racks, there is an opportunity for follow-up with managers in Palo Alto. Q9. What is your annual salary? Figure 22: Is Your Annual Salary Less Than $100,000 or More? Figure 22 shows that 61% of respondents earn less than $100,000/year which makes them eligible for PATMA’s free transit passes, refurbished bicycles, and after hour Lyft credits. Note that government workers were asked a different question about income and are not included in this graph. Q10. Are there any issues or concerns you would like to share about your commute? The answers to this open-ended question provide PATMA with insights to improve our programs, accomplish more mode shift, or share questions and concerns in the aggregate with our contacts at tech companies and City government. Concerns raised multiple times by respondents are grouped by topic in Figure 23. Under $100,000 61% Over $100,000 39% Under $100,000 Over $100,000 16 2025 Commute Survey Report Figure 23: Respondent Concerns About Their Commute Topic # Comments on Topic Sample Comment Difficulties while driving: traffic, parking, cost of gas and tolls, road surface quality 36 "I am stuck in over an hour of traffic on the way home to San Francisco." Timeliness of transit: late, infrequent service, not reliable 28 "Need more bus frequency between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto downtown." Limited or no transit near home 15 "There is no direct route from San Ramon to my workplace near the Caltrain station." Difficult to get to bus or station 17 "The Caltrain and VTA stops are not within walkable distance from Milpitas." Safety, cleanliness, and comfort of transit and stations 18 "There should be more security and lighting at the Palo Alto train station." Housing affordability near work 2 "I live in San Jose with family since renting alone is a bit much for my budget. Otherwise, I’d rather live closer to work if I could afford it." Bike safety concerns 16 "No bike lanes near my house makes biking from East Palo Alto to Palo Alto a bit dangerous." Parking issues: cost or availability 29 "Parking is the biggest problem. Constantly moving cars across Palo Alto parking lots is time consuming." Pedestrian safety concerns 3 "Drivers looking to avoid traffic along major streets like University Ave will drive at illegally high speeds through the neighborhoods that run parallel to University (like Hawthorne Ave), making it less safe for pedestrians and families that live in these areas." Transporting children 3 "I commute over a bridge with my one year old daughter who attends day care in Palo Alto." Compliments gathered from the survey comments section include: • “I am a business owner and my staff loves the train passes and I love knowing they can get here safely and not take up customer parking spaces or have to move their cars around during the day. Thanks!!!!” • “Thanks for putting VTA back to work!!! When they were on strike, I had to walk one hour from the Caltrain station to home!” • “I am enjoying the Caltrain pass. And meeting new people on the train going and coming from work.” • “This program helps me in many ways. I am able to come to work stress free, I get some steps in for my health and it is helping me financially. I love this program. Getting up to take the train helps me mentally too because it gets me out in the beautiful weather.” • “I'm very grateful for the Caltrain benefit! Thank you!” 17 2025 Commute Survey Report • “I am very happy with the program.” • “I’ve been using the Palo Alto TMA service so I am really enjoying my bus ride to Union City.” • “I bike to Caltrain from my house to 4th & Townsend, and catch Caltrain. Huge fan of the new electric trains. They are much faster, more comfortable, quieter, brighter and definitely more reliable. As someone in the retail sector, the GoPass program has been a huge boom to me.” • “Thanks to this program I am driving less and becoming better with time management.” • “Commuting to Palo Alto Downtown is made very easy. I have multiple options (Caltrain or SamTrans ECR) and I come and go as I please. It's really fantastic thank you team!” • “Commuting by bike to Salesforce is great - they have lots of bike racks.” • “Please continue with Palo Alto Link.” • “Agradezco al programa por facilitarme la movilidad hacia mi trabajo. (I am grateful to the program for facilitating my commute to work.)” • “Me siento muy agradecido con esta ayuda que nos estan brindando. (I feel very thankful for this help you are providing us.)” In 2025, the City of Palo Alto began the BayPass program for salaried City staff with benefits. Feedback includes: • "I really appreciate having the Caltrain commuter pass. Thank you!" • "I love the BayPass!" • "No concerns, I really enjoy free access to BART and Caltrain for work and pleasure." • "I am very happy in the last year that the City has implemented the Clipper BayPass! I love the unlimited free travel on public transport. It works seamlessly and I am very grateful!" • "I love-love-love the Clipper BayPass! So wonderful." • "Thanks for BayPass" • "I bike from Midtown Palo Alto. It's great!" • "Sometimes the Caltrain is delayed which is challenging when I have early morning meetings but otherwise living close to work and taking the train every day is very convenient." Key Insights The following insights gleaned from data and comments lead PATMA to believe that additional mode shift opportunities exist among workers in Palo Alto. • Overall, the drive alone rate fell from 62% last year to 54.8% this year • Highest drive alone rates are among government employees even though their drive alone rate of 66.7% in 2025 fell from 72% in 2024. • 72% of respondents live in cities served by a train or bus that runs to Palo Alto 18 2025 Commute Survey Report • Service sector workers tend to live closer to work and government workers tend to live farthest away • 136 respondents (14.7%) live less than five miles from work and are open to an active commute • Travel time or schedule is the overarching consideration when deciding how to commute • 217 respondents (23.5%) said they needed more bike parking at work • Barriers to a sustainable commute include perceptions about the timeliness of trains and buses, safety of stations and stops, safety of biking and scootering on roads with cars, and demands outside of work on their time. These data point to the potential for mode shift among workers who live less than five miles from work or who can take one train or bus to work in Palo Alto. Conclusion Given the openness of respondents to sustainable commute modes and the proximity of their home or workplace to transit options, survey results illuminate opportunities to mode shift more workers who commute to Palo Alto by providing information, equipment, and incentives. Some people would benefit from more availability of refurbished bikes, electric bikes, and electric scooters to connect to transit or for commutes of less than five miles. Others would benefit from information about real time train and bus arrivals, Guaranteed Ride Home availability, rapid bus schedules and routes, and safer bicycle routes between home and work. From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:The HRC Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:27:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. It is my fond hope that council will appoint either Mare Lucas or Allyson Rosen to the partial term that needs filling on the HRC. I was astounded to see that neither of them received any votes last round of appointments. It is the vanity of CEOs and boards of directors and, apparently, civic bodies, to only hire or appoint people who are like them. Council has a track record of appointing people who have the right skill/temperament for the council. This is appropriate for the PTC, but not the HRC. Mare and Allyson are two of the most stellar, intelligent, heart centered, dedicated community members I know of. In my perfect world, both of them would be on the HRC. Thanks for considering. Deb G. From:Prisha Goel To:Clerk, City Cc:Sven Thesen; Council, City; Avroh Shah; Prisha Goel; Anya Rasmussen; Ziwen Pei; Kanami Taniguchi; Sarah Seeger; Zara Harwell; O Kim (catsuu); valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim; Melissa Kim; Brady Anne Seals Subject:Re: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 8:32:44 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage010.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Yes, I would like to attend. On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 8:27 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Prisha, Thank you for reaching out. Due to the holiday on Mon 1/19 (Martin Luther King Jr. Day), there is no regular City Council meeting on 1/19. We will have a City Council meeting on Tuesday 1/20 at 5:30 pm instead. If you wish to attend the Tues 1/20 meeting and provide your public comment then, please let me know and I will add you to the queue. Best, Nicole Bissell Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2267 | E: Nicole.Bissell@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Prisha Goel <pg51012@pausd.us> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:22 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; Prisha Goel <goelprisha.07@gmail.com>; Anya Rasmussen <ar55302@pausd.us>; Ziwen Pei <zp47774@pausd.us>; Kanami Taniguchi <taniguchikanami123@gmail.com>; Sarah Seeger <saseeger11@gmail.com>; Zara Harwell <zarariptide@gmail.com>; O Kim (catsuu) <owenkim23@gmail.com>; valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim <elidora.kim@gmail.com>; Melissa Kim <mstewart.kim@gmail.com>; Brady Anne Seals <baseals@stanford.edu> Subject: Re: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Clerk, I hope this email finds you well. I hope to showcase the image attached below on a recentgas hookup ban for the session on 1/19. Thank you for your time. Please see theimage attached. Sincerely, Prisha Goel Junior at Palo Alto Middle College, Class of 2027 On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Sven, I’m confirming receipt of your request and the slides. The City Clerk will display the slides when it’s your turn to provide public comment. Best, 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: Sunday, January 11, 2026 6:35 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; Prisha Goel <pg51012@pausd.us>; Prisha Goel <goelprisha.07@gmail.com>; Anya Rasmussen <ar55302@pausd.us>; Ziwen Pei <zp47774@pausd.us>; Kanami Taniguchi <taniguchikanami123@gmail.com>; Sarah Seeger <saseeger11@gmail.com>; Zara Harwell <zarariptide@gmail.com>; O Kim (catsuu) <owenkim23@gmail.com>; valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim <elidora.kim@gmail.com>; Melissa Kim <mstewart.kim@gmail.com>; Brady Anne Seals <baseals@stanford.edu> Subject: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Co-Founder, EVPlugBox.com, ProjectGreenHome.org andBeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers From:Clerk, City To:Prisha Goel; Clerk, City Cc:Sven Thesen; Council, City; Avroh Shah; Prisha Goel; Anya Rasmussen; Ziwen Pei; Kanami Taniguchi; Sarah Seeger; Zara Harwell; O Kim (catsuu); valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim; Melissa Kim; Brady Anne Seals Subject:RE: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. Date:Wednesday, January 14, 2026 8:27:13 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage010.png Good morning Prisha, Thank you for reaching out. Due to the holiday on Mon 1/19 (Martin Luther King Jr. Day), there is no regular City Council meeting on 1/19. We will have a City Council meeting on Tuesday 1/20 at 5:30 pm instead. If you wish to attend the Tues 1/20 meeting and provide your public comment then, please let me know and I will add you to the queue. Best, Nicole Bissell Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2267 | E: Nicole.Bissell@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Prisha Goel <pg51012@pausd.us> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:22 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; Prisha Goel <goelprisha.07@gmail.com>; Anya Rasmussen <ar55302@pausd.us>; Ziwen Pei <zp47774@pausd.us>; Kanami Taniguchi <taniguchikanami123@gmail.com>; Sarah Seeger <saseeger11@gmail.com>; Zara Harwell <zarariptide@gmail.com>; O Kim (catsuu) <owenkim23@gmail.com>; valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim <elidora.kim@gmail.com>; Melissa Kim <mstewart.kim@gmail.com>; Brady Anne Seals <baseals@stanford.edu> Subject: Re: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Clerk, I hope this email finds you well. I hope to showcase the image attached below on a recent gas hookup ban for the session on 1/19. Thank you for your time. Please see the image attached. Sincerely, Prisha Goel Junior at Palo Alto Middle College, Class of 2027 On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Sven, I’m confirming receipt of your request and the slides. The City Clerk will display the slides when it’s your turn to provide public comment. Best, 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: Sunday, January 11, 2026 6:35 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; Prisha Goel <pg51012@pausd.us>; Prisha Goel <goelprisha.07@gmail.com>; Anya Rasmussen <ar55302@pausd.us>; Ziwen Pei <zp47774@pausd.us>; Kanami Taniguchi <taniguchikanami123@gmail.com>; Sarah Seeger <saseeger11@gmail.com>; Zara Harwell <zarariptide@gmail.com>; O Kim (catsuu) <owenkim23@gmail.com>; valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim <elidora.kim@gmail.com>; Melissa Kim <mstewart.kim@gmail.com>; Brady Anne Seals <baseals@stanford.edu> Subject: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. -- 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:Dashiell Leeds To:Council, City Cc:James Eggers; Gita Dev; Sue Chow; suewalt@comcast.net Subject:Phasing out the use of plastic turf Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:04:20 PM Attachments:SCLP letter to Palo Alto Jan 13, 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, When cities partner with government agencies to agree that plastic grass is inappropriate for landscaping around private homes and public buildings, it must also be considered inappropriate for play surfaces, whether on sports fields, playgrounds, or dog parks. It is truly encouraging to see Palo Alto partnering with the Valley Water Districtto replace water-intensive lawns with drought-tolerant plants and permeable hardscaping. This kind of collaboration sets an important example of responsible water stewardship. Plastic turf neither aligns with the City’s environmental or sustainability goals nor does it protect health. The responsible path forward is clear: Palo Alto should lead by example and phase out the use of plastic turf in all public and private spaces. Please read the attached letter for more details. Sincerely, Susan Hinton Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention Gita Dev Chair, Conservation Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Email sent from account of Dashiell LeedsConservation CoordinatorSierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES January 13, 2026 Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, When cities partner with government agencies to agree that plastic grass is inappropriate for landscaping around private homes and public buildings, it must also be considered inappropriate for play surfaces, whether on sports fields, playgrounds, or dog parks. It is truly encouraging to see Palo Alto partnering with the Valley Water District to replace water-intensive lawns with drought-tolerant plants and permeable hardscaping. This kind of collaboration sets an important example of responsible water stewardship. When California cities, agencies and government districts work together to solve serious environmental and public health concerns we are all better served. As a bonus, our domesticated pets, wild birds, mammals, pollinators, fish, and so on are also better off when we conserve our watersheds and drinking water. It’s also encouraging to see that the Water District recognizes plastic for the scourge it is by prohibiting, among other items, both plastic grass and plastic sheeting, also called weed cloth or, sometimes, geotextile. https://valleywater.dropletportal.com/landscape-conversion-requirements Prohibited Materials when replacing Lawn ○ The following materials are not permitted in the landscape conversion area and will be subtracted from the final rebate amount if installed: ■ Artificial turf ■ Non-qualifying plant material, including invasive species, high-water-use plants, and seeded or sod grass. For invasive species and recommended alternatives, visit Cal-IPC and PlantRight. ■ Plastic or non-biodegradable weed barriers, such as weed cloth or plastic sheeting. ■ Impervious hardscapes, including: ■ Concrete, asphalt, or other materials that prevent water infiltration sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 ■ Pavers or flagstone installed with grout, mortar, polymeric sand, or sealants (on the surface or in the joints) ■ Concrete pads or slabs larger than 24" x 24” ■ Project areas with pavers or flagstone that use grout, mortar, or polymeric sand in the joints, or have been sealed with surface or joint sealants, are not considered permeable. These areas will be disqualified from the rebate program if installed. ■ Structures and features such as hot tubs, pools, ponds, water features, building extensions, sheds, outdoor kitchens, or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that prevent rainwater from percolating into the soil below. Valley Water's Artificial Turf Fact Sheet outlines clear reasons for excluding these products from rebate programs. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.if-us-west-2/f2-live/s3fs-public/Artificial%20 Turf%20Fact%20Sheet_042922%20SL.pdf Even beyond those reasons, all plastic materials shed microplastics as they degrade, through fading, cracking, and breaking apart. These microplastics contaminate our soil, air, and waterways, ultimately reaching our creeks, streams, and the San Francisco Bay. https://lab.data.ca.gov/dataset/microplastic-and-microparticle-data-from-surface-water-san-franci sco-bay-and-adjacent-sanctuari/fabe3fa4-e0f6-4db9-875a-b1776a48cde7 Plastic turf neither aligns with the City’s environmental or sustainability goals nor does it protect health. The responsible path forward is clear: Palo Alto should lead by example and phase out the use of plastic turf in all public and private spaces. Sincerely, Susan Hinton Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention Gita Dev Chair, Conservation Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Prisha Goel To:Clerk, City Cc:Sven Thesen; Council, City; Avroh Shah; Prisha Goel; Anya Rasmussen; Ziwen Pei; Kanami Taniguchi; Sarah Seeger; Zara Harwell; O Kim (catsuu); valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim; Melissa Kim; Brady Anne Seals Subject:Re: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:22:42 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage004.pngimage.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Clerk, I hope this email finds you well. I hope to showcase the image attached below on a recent gashookup ban for the session on 1/19. Thank you for your time. Please see the image attached. Sincerely,Prisha GoelJunior at Palo Alto Middle College,Class of 2027 On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 7:47 AM Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Sven, I’m confirming receipt of your request and the slides. The City Clerk will display the slides when it’s your turn to provide public comment. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Best, 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: Sunday, January 11, 2026 6:35 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com>; Prisha Goel <pg51012@pausd.us>; Prisha Goel <goelprisha.07@gmail.com>; Anya Rasmussen <ar55302@pausd.us>; Ziwen Pei <zp47774@pausd.us>; Kanami Taniguchi <taniguchikanami123@gmail.com>; Sarah Seeger <saseeger11@gmail.com>; Zara Harwell <zarariptide@gmail.com>; O Kim (catsuu) <owenkim23@gmail.com>; valen.varanasi@gmail.com; Elidora Kim <elidora.kim@gmail.com>; Melissa Kim <mstewart.kim@gmail.com>; Brady Anne Seals <baseals@stanford.edu> Subject: For Monday council meeting, open agenda. Presentation by Thesen. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers From:Jake Huang To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Sybil J. Chen Subject:VIP Invitation & Proclamation Request: TACCNC Annual Charity Gala (Feb 28) Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:11:55 PM Attachments:Palo Alto DRAFT_ City Certificate of Recognition _ Proclamation.pdfInvitation Palo Alto.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Attn: Scheduler / City Clerk Dear Office of Major Veenker, My name is Jake Huang, and I am the Consulting President of the Taiwanese AmericanChamber of Commerce Northern California (TACCNC). On behalf of our President, Sybil Chen, and our Board of Directors, I am writing to formallyinvite Mayor Veenker to attend our Annual Charity Fundraiser Gala on Saturday,February 28, 2026, at the Crowne Plaza Palo Alto. As a vital part of the Silicon Valley business community since 1988, we would be honored to have the mayor join our members and local leaders for an evening of philanthropy. In additionto her attendance, we would like to formally request that the mayor consider presenting aProclamation or Certificate of Recognition to our President, Ms. Sybil Chen, in honor of theChamber's 38 years of service and her leadership. Please find the formal invitation and a draft of the proclamation language attached foryour review. We understand mayor Veenker has a very busy schedule, and we appreciate your time inconsidering this request. We look forward to the possibility of welcoming her to our gala. Best regards, -- TACCNC 北加州台灣工商會Jake Huang 黃俊肇 This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report DRAFT: City Certificate of Recognition / Proclamation ISSUED BY: The Mayor and City Council of the City of Palo Alto ISSUED TO: Ms. Sybil Chen, President of the Taiwanese American Chamber of Commerce Northern California (TACCNC) OCCASION: 2026 TACCNC Annual Charity Fundraiser Gala DATE: February 28, 2026 WHEREAS, since its founding in 1988, the Taiwanese American Chamber of Commerce Northern California (TACCNC) has been an indispensable partner in the economic development of our region, fostering a vibrant business environment and promoting international trade; and WHEREAS, TACCNC serves as a vital bridge for Taiwanese American entrepreneurs within the City of Palo Alto, providing essential resources, networking opportunities, and a powerful voice for local small businesses; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sybil Chen, through her exemplary leadership as President, has significantly strengthened the connection between our city’s diverse business community and the civic institutions that support it; and WHEREAS, the Chamber, under President Sybil Chen’s guidance, continues its profound commitment to social responsibility by hosting the 2026 Annual Charity Fundraiser Gala to benefit local non-profit organizations that serve our residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto values the entrepreneurial spirit, cultural heritage, and philanthropic dedication of the TACCNC members who contribute to the prosperity and well-being of our local community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Palo Alto do hereby honor and commend President Sybil Chen for her outstanding service, leadership, and dedication to the Taiwanese American business community. We extend our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the 2026 Annual Charity Gala and wish the Chamber continued success. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Palo Alto to be affixed this 28th day of February, 2026. Mayor Vicki Veenker City of Palo Alto January 12, 2026 Subject: VIP Invitation & Proclamation Request: TACCNC Annual Charity Gala (Feb 28) Dear Mayor Veenker, On behalf of the Taiwanese American Chamber of Commerce Northern California (TACCNC), I am honored to invite you to join us as a VIP guest at our upcoming Annual Charity Fundraiser Gala on Saturday, February 28, 2026, at the Crowne Plaza Palo Alto. As our Gala will be held at the Crowne Plaza in Palo Alto, we would be especially honored by your welcome. Our members have long enjoyed the vibrant business environment of Palo Alto, and we look forward to celebrating this night in your beautiful city. Since 1988, TACCNC has served as a vital cornerstone of our region’s economy. With many of our members residing and operating successful businesses in Palo Alto, we view your city as a key partner in our mission to foster entrepreneurship and community service. As part of the global World Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce network, we are deeply committed to the economic prosperity and civic well-being of the Bay Area. We have long admired your leadership and dedication to the residents of Palo Alto. Your presence at our Gala would not only honor our organization but also send a powerful message of support to the Taiwanese American business community. The evening provides an excellent platform for you to engage directly with local business leaders and share your vision for our region’s future. In celebration of our Chamber’s 38 years of service and the leadership of our President, Ms. Sybil Chen, we would be deeply honored if you would consider presenting a Formal Proclamation or Certificate of Recognition to Ms. Chen during the program. Such a gesture would be a meaningful recognition of the strong partnership between the City of Palo Alto and the Taiwanese American community. Event Details: ● Date: Saturday, February 28, 2026 ● Venue: Crowne Plaza Palo Alto (4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto) ● Schedule: Check-in at 5:30 PM | Program Begins at 7:00 PM This evening is dedicated to philanthropy, as we gather to raise funds for impactful local charities. We would be delighted to share this night of celebration and community impact with you. Thank you for your tireless service to our community. We look forward to the possibility of welcoming you on February 28th. Warm regards, Chung Chao (Jake) Huang Consulting President Taiwanese American Chamber of Commerce Northern California (TACCNC) jake@taccnc.org | www.taccnc.org From:Mary June Wagner, DDS To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Council, City Subject:El Camino Fields Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:07:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at ElCamino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staffand the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for allresidents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and familiesdepend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. Thank you! -- MaryJune A. Wagner, D.D.S.1795 El Camino Real, Suite100 Palo Alto, CA 94306Cell 805-252-8913 Work 650-328-1223 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:Deborah GoldeenTo:City MgrCc:Council, CitySubject:Speakers List?Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 9:43:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Seeing as there is an official city seal on bottom of this flyer and that it is being held at a city facility, it is safe to assume this is city sponsored event. If that is the case, then there must be a list of speakers and performers. I checked the “event agenda” that is supposedly accessible through the QR code. There is detailed information about events in East Palo Alto, but no information about what is scheduled for Mitchell Park. Would it be possible to find out who is scheduled to speak and perform in advance? Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., Palo Alto PS - Are there plans to change the color scheme of poster pdf to something that cannot be interpreted as a dog whistle? > > > From:Lajja Shah To:Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George Cc:Council, City; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Subject:Support for Synthetic Turf Replacement at El Camino Park Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 8:29:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and theCity Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad HocCommittee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend onyear-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach thisconsensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely, PASC / SVSA Club Family Member This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Debbie Parsons To:Council, City Subject:Objection to artificial turf Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 7:40:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council, I am urging you to choose natural grass for El Camino field. Artificial turf is from fossil fuels and contains microplastics and toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases. These include PFAS (forever chemicals) which the EPA has moved to stringently regulate in drinking water. Multiple recent studies have shown that plastic grass: poses increased health and injury risks to athletes, damages the environment and climate, costs more over its total life cycle than natural alternatives, and limits play time because its temperature can get so hot it’s not safe to play on Please help preserve our natural environment by choosing natural grass over what is essentially plastic. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Debbie Parsons This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Joy Zhang To:Council, City Subject:Please keep the turf field Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 7:31:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I’m a residence of Palo Alto. I’m writing to urge the city to keep the turf fields. Both my boysplay soccer and having the turf fields are of tremendous value to children like mine who play soccer. Turf fields are more reliable with consistent condition that allow teams play duringrain and other wet conditions. Besides, turf saves water and are more environmental friendly compared to traditional grass fields which requires a lot of water and resources to maintain. On behalf of my children and many families who have kids playing spirts, I sincerely urge thecity to keep the turf fields. Thank you very much. Joy Zhang This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Molly Schmitt To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:In support of the synthetic turf at El Camino Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 6:17:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and theCity Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a Palo Alto resident and a parent of a soccer player, I appreciate thethorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is asignificant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high- quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, andupgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for working collaborativelyto reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Molly Schmitt 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:de Bes Man To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Maintaining El Camino Park as a Turf Field Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 6:16:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for keeping El Camino Park as a turf field. As both a community member and a parent, I have seen firsthand the positive impact this facility has had on our youth, adults and on my own children’s development. The turf field at El Camino Park has provided consistent, safe and reliable access for practices and games throughout the year. Its durability and all- weather usability significantly reduce cancellations and allow teams to train and compete on a predictable schedule. This reliability is especially important for youth programs, where limited field availability can otherwise restrict participation and development opportunities. From a safety and quality perspective, the turf surface offers a level and well-maintained playing environment, reducing hazards commonly associated with worn or uneven grass fields. The consistent surface has helped my children focus on skill development, teamwork, and confidence rather than adapting to poor field conditions. Over the years, the field has supported not only their athletic growth, but also important life skills such as discipline, resilience, and collaboration. Beyond individual families, the turf field benefits the broader community by supporting high usage with lower long-term maintenance demands, conserving water, and enabling multiple programs to share the space efficiently. It has become a valuable community asset that serves a wide range of youth sports and activities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to continue supporting El Camino Park as a turf field. It has proven to be a meaningful investment in our children, our families and our community. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Robert From:Jiangbo Yuan To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Strong support to improve the synthetic turf field at EI Camino Park Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 6:00:55 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 am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff andthe City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conductedthroughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant andpositive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading toa new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue andfor working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely, Jay Yuan This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Meilani Hendrawidjaja To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject:Support for Turf at El Camino Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 5:58:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong support for retaining synthetic turf soccer fields at El Camino Park. Turf fields have proven to be a vital resource for our community, especially my son and his soccer teams who have been playing in Palo Alto for the past 10 years, and their benefits far outweigh the alternatives. Field shortage: Palo Alto already faces a severe shortage of athletic fields. Closing or reducing turf fields would only exacerbate this issue and limit opportunities for youth and families to stay active.Safety concerns with grass: Current grass fields in Palo Alto often suffer from holes, dry patches, broken sprinklers, and uneven surfaces. These conditions increase the risk of injuries compared to the consistent surface of turf. Synthetic turf provides a reliable, safe, and accessible environment for soccer and other sports. It ensures that our children, families, and community members can enjoy consistent opportunities to play without the interruptions and hazards that plague natural grass fields. I urge the Council to continue supporting synthetic turf at El Camino Park and recognize its importance inmeeting the recreational needs of Palo Alto residents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Meilani Hendrawidjaja Palo Alto Resident / Parent of PASC soccer player / Wife of adult soccer player 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:Patricia Smith To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Council, City Subject:PLEASE Keep Artificial Turf in Palo Alto Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 5:40:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mr.Lauing and members of Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for retaining synthetic turf in Palo Alto, and to urge the Palo Alto City Council to keep the artificial turf fields already in place at El Camino Park. Removing existing turf fields is concerning on multiple levels, particularly for youth sports. I have been a longtime volunteer with Palo Alto AYSO, Palo Alto Soccer Club, Silicon Valley Soccer Academy and PAUSD, including many years as a field permit coordinator, and know the playing fields situation in this city extremely well. The arguments on either side of this issue are plentiful and can go on and on, but the bottom line is that removing artificial turf will not solve any problems, however it would create many new ones. We do not need more problems in Palo Alto right now. As a parent of three children who grew up playing soccer on Palo Alto fields, and went on to play collegiate soccer, I have seen how important it is for youth to have year-round access to quality playing surfaces. If artificial turf fields were eliminated, where would the thousands of children from the PA soccer clubs/programs practice and play? Where will the adult recreation soccer groups (7 days per week) play? Where will the lacrosse clubs play? These fields are essential to maintaining a strong competitive and recreational sports culture in Palo Alto, which is so important to the health and connectedness of the community. Please prioritize sports and recreation to keep up health and community in Palo Alto. Sincerely, -Patricia Smith 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:Kathleen Canrinus To:Council, City Subject:No Artificial Turf Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 5:35:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I am a resident/taxpayer/ voter in Palo Alto and a former teacher and PTA president inPAUSD. I do not support placing artificial turf in city parks and on playing fields. I won’t be able to attend the meeting tonight but want you to know my position on this topic. Thank you for serving on the council, Kathleen Canrinus This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Claire Kirner To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:El Camino Park Turf Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 5:00:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to ask that you vote to keep synthetic turf at El Camino Park. Our three children (youngest is a high school senior) have grown up in Palo Alto, and (thanks to synthetic turf), we have definitely benefited from the availability of quality, year round playing fields. As you all know, we are currently struggling with a mental health crisis among our youth. For many, healthy outlets such as access to year round sports is critical to their well being. Having year round synthetic turf fields helps support the physical, mental and social well being of our community. I understand that there are some environmental concerns with synthetic turf, but not every field in Palo Alto is turfed, nor should it be. Having a few well maintained synthetic turf fields allows us to meet the usage level that is needed for our community. I can also assure you that many grass fields are not maintained in a way that makes them physically safe for athletes when they are constantly being used. I have seen serious injuries that occured from playing on overly used grass fields. To me, this is about balance. Find the best turf materials out there, and keep the fields that currently have synthetic turf that way. Thank you, Claire Kirner 3934 Nelson Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Mike Greenfield To:Council, City Subject:soccer fields Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 4:22:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I'm writing to express my strong support to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf atEl Camino Park with improved turf that can continue to be used year round. I appreciate the tradeoffs involved, including concern about environmental factors and water runoff. I also am glad to see staff and council understand the massive positive impacts ofhaving year-round available soccer fields for local kids. It has been a godsend for my kids and my family and so many others. I hope that you will vote for an approach in which we continueto have those fields available year round. Thank you Mike Greenfield Palo Alto resident and Palo Alto Soccer Club dad This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Maria Medina Jackson To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Turf Fields Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 2:59:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Deal Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at ElCamino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staffand the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for allresidents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and familiesdepend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without furtherdelay. Sincerely, Maria Medina Jackson This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Leanne McAuliffe To:Council, City; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; vick.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Subject:Meeting Jan 12, 2025, Agenda Item 13- Public Comment - Study and Assessment of Palo Alto Turf Systems Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 2:28:25 PM Attachments:Public Comment Agenda Item 13 - CC meeting Jan 12 2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members As you consider another plastic playing field for our developing youth please consider the mounting evidence against microplastics that increases almost on a daily basis (see recent article below) and consider that plastic playing fields release chemicals and micro and nano plastics throughout their existence. You've been advised of plastic turf pollution preventing measures but there's one crucial, albeit accidental, filter that gets overlooked. The kids that play and exert themselves on these petrochemical plastic fields. Our kids are essentially filters. So, the decision is simple. Are you going to listen to independent experts whose TOP priority is the health of children and the environment (both in the short and long term) and who advise against plastic fields? Plastic turf is a heat reflecting, petrochemical microplastic releasing product. Our kids should not be filters for these microplastics, other toxins or excessive heat especially when they have no choice where they play. BUT, at this moment, you, and only you, have that choice. YOU have the choice of what sports surface they play on, what they're exposed to and the resulting effects of that surface. Please make those effects good. Please choose organically managed drought and wear tolerant living grass sports fields. Concerned soccer mom, Santa Clara County (January 8, 2025 "Scientists say they may have found what's causing so many unexplained cancers.") https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14263135/Scientists-say-whats-causing- unexplained-cancers.html Sent from Outlook for iOS Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members Meeting Jan 12, 2025, Agenda Item 13- Public Comment - Study and Assessment of Palo Alto Turf Systems As you consider another plastic playing field for our developing youth please consider the mounting evidence against microplastics that increases almost on a daily basis (see recent article below) and consider that plastic playing fields release chemicals and micro and nano plastics throughout their existence. You've been advised of plastic turf pollution preventing measures but there's one crucial, albeit accidental, filter that gets overlooked. The kids that play and exert themselves on these petrochemical plastic fields. Our kids are essentially filters. So, the decision is simple. Are you going to listen to independent experts whose TOP priority is the health of children and the environment (both in the short and long term) and who advise against plastic fields? Plastic turf is a heat reflecting, petrochemical microplastic releasing product. Our kids should not be filters for these microplastics, other toxins or excessive heat especially when they have no choice where they play. BUT, at this moment, you, and only you, have that choice. YOU have the choice of what sports surface they play on, what they're exposed to and the resulting effects of that surface. Please make those effects good. Please choose organically managed drought and wear tolerant living grass sports fields. Concerned soccer mom, Santa Clara County (January 8, 2025 "Scientists say they may have found what's causing so many unexplained cancers.") https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14263135/Scientists-say-whats-causing-une xplained-cancers.html From:Travis Kelly To:Council, City Subject:Letter in Support of Synthetic Fields - For Jan 12th Mtg Agenda Item #13 Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 1:35:59 PM Attachments:Letter to PA RE Synthetic Fields.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, Please see the attached letter in support of the continuation of turf field use from Palo Alto Adult Soccer League. Sincerely, Travis Kelly, Esq., MBAPresident Palo Alto Adult Soccer League This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report 12th January, 2026 TO: Mayor Veenker & City Councilmembers RE: Synthetic Playing Fields (Agenda Item #13) Dear Mayor & Councilmembers, Palo Alto Adult Soccer League (“PAASL”) has been a staple of the vibrant local soccer scene for nearly fifty years. PAASL, a volunteer-run and non-profit corporation, organizes weekly soccer for members of our community (men and women, ages 25 through 80+) and has consistently been one of the largest single renters of City field space (weeknights and Sunday mornings), enabling Palo Alto residents and neighbors the ability to play soccer, stay fit, and connect with friends year-round. The health and safety concerns underlying the discussion at hand are likely valid, and PAASL - on behalf of its hundreds of Palo Alto resident players - appreciates the high level of scrutiny applied; however, on careful review of the merits, the Board of Directors believes that continuity in the use of synthetic fields is the only viable option to protect the tangible societal benefits of soccer: exercise, camaraderie, and critical outdoor time. In a given single week, PAASL typically hosts twenty (20) games in Palo Alto, with approximately five hundred (500) or more players, and provides sixty (60) paid referee opportunities, often to retirees or those earning secondary income. Positive impact on our participants’ lives is of paramount importance to PAASL, which has no paid employees and operates solely to make the sport accessible at a fair cost, without profit. The unfortunate reality is that with natural grass fields, it is virtually impossible that activity could be sustained at anywhere close to the same level, leaving behind tens of thousands of hours of soccer time important for the physical and mental health of local players. The durability, weather resistance, low maintenance costs, and ability to withstand a high volume of use of synthetic fields is compellingly valuable to our community. Sincerely, Travis Kelly, Esq., MBA President of the Board of Directors, Palo Alto Adult Soccer League From:Mohan Gurunathan To:Council, City Subject:Please no artificial grass in our parks Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 1:33:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I will keep this short and sweet... I implore you to not allow any artificial turf in Palo Alto cityparks. Our environment is already so littered with microplastics and other toxins, and adding acres of fake artificial turf is not the direction we should be going! Please do not allow this tohappen. Thank you, Mohan Gurunathan 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:jing jing Lin To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:Support of synthetic turf on El Camino Park Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 1:32:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and theCity Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conductedthroughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive steptoward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improvedsynthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for workingcollaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely, Jingjing Lin, Palo Alto Resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:karenr@phc.net To:Council, City Subject:Item #13, Jan 11 meeting Date:Monday, January 12, 2026 1:06:45 PM Attachments:image001.png Dear Council, I am urging you to choose natural grass for El Camino field. Artificial turf is from fossil fuels and contains microplastics and toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases. These include PFAS (forever chemicals) which the EPA has moved to stringently regulate in drinking water. Multiple recent studies have shown that plastic grass: poses increased health and injury risks to athletes, damages the environment and climate, costs more over its total life cycle than natural alternatives, and limits play time because its temperature can get so hot it’s not safe to play on Please help preserve our natural environment by choosing natural grass over what is essentially plastic. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Karen Rubio Organizer 408-605-2748 Eating plant-based is the single most impactful thing we can do to save our Earth.