Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-01-26 City Council Emails
DOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 1/26/2026 Document dates: 1/20/2026 - 1/26/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Penny Brennan To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Re: Composition OSV Ad Hoc committee Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 10:19:32 AM Attachments:image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Ed, for sharing this information and your perspective on the "homogeneity" issue. I do not envy your membership on the OSV Ad Hoc committee, nor on City Council, for that matter, during the City's grappling with the problem of OSVs in Palo Alto. I appreciate the thorough deliberation and hard work that the Ad Hoc committee, staff, and City Council are devoting to this issue. Best wishes, Penny On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:09 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Penny, I can provide a few responses on your email to councilmember Burt. A council ad hoc committee is always, by legal definition, composed of only city council members. I can assure you that council knows that the population of RV dwellers is NOT homogeneous. As you noted we have heard a lot of public comment on all phases of this issue and have received even more emails than public comments. In short, we have had massive input so there is no communication barrier caused by not being able to have citizens and business owners on the ad hoc committee. I believe the ad hoc committee is fully up to speed on all aspects of this complex issue. The committee is meeting on this weekly, and staff is working intensely outside of these meetings in sync with the council’s formal actions recently and with a view forward to what else may be prudent actions to take. Thank you for your input. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 3:41 PM To: Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: 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, 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. Becautious of 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:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - January 26, 2026 Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 8:31:37 AM Attachments:Re January 12 meeting item 14.msg RE Mayfield Turf field.msg FW Speakers List.msg image001.png image002.png RE Public Safety Concern Seasonal Morning Driving Conditions on Amaranta and Orme Streets.msg Re Too many planned and unplanned power outages.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached the staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through January 26, 2026. Respectfully, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Chris Cummings To:Evan Reade Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Robustelli, Sarah; Reifschneider, James; ParkRec Commission Subject:Re: Eleanor Pardee Park restroom project Date:Saturday, January 24, 2026 6:48:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear All, I echo Mr. Reade's opposition to this project, both on budget grounds as well as over the need, as I have stated in multiple council and parks commissions meetings. A simple, sensible suggestion that was made by many of us approximately 1 year ago and never followed up on is to produce an legitimate survey. Right now, proponents point to survey results from a 100% flawed survey -- no restriction on who could take it, no requirement to be a palo alto resident, and no restriction on how many times it could be taken and submitted. I believe if any of you stepped back 2 feet, you would see this is absolutely absurd. Time to level up and make a sensible economic decision for Palo Alto. Best, Chris Cummings 870 Sharon Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94301 On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 1:52 PM Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> wrote: Dear Madam Mayor, Dear City Council Members: Following up on my letters to you and the Parks and Rec Commission dated March 31, 2025, May 15, 2025, September 3, 2025, my appearances before both the Council and the Commission, and separate discussions I have had with several of you: HEADLINE: "Palo Alto faces lean budget years. Staff predict total deficit of $80M+ over 10 years." (Palo Alto Weekly, January 23, 2026, Page 5.) This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report QUESTION: Given the need to make cuts, why have you approved (or are in the process of approving) the expenditure of an estimated $1 million on the construction of a restroom that is not needed and that will require continued regular expenditures indefinitely to maintain? I am resending below a summary of why I continue to oppose this unnecessary and wasteful so-called "capital improvement project." BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - Why I continue to oppose constructing restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park: History - 100+ years without one. Why now? Impact on Park - Restrooms will change this neighborhood park into a regional park. Impact on Neighborhood - Increased traffic, parking, noise, trash. Cost - $1M to design and install?! And how much to maintain on a daily basis? Public Safety - I used to be a police officer in this city. Unsupervised public restrooms result in vandalism, attract the unhoused, and worse. Process - The park's neighbors have not been adequately consulted. The so- called "survey" was flawed. Current History - Current park restrooms are often a mess to the point of being unusable. Go take a look sometime. Recent Past History - I'd like to know what became of the JDDecaux restrooms downtown. Why are they gone? Could it be due to the cost and public safety issues mentioned above? Not needed - Rinconada Park, only four short blocks away, has TWO restrooms, plus the following public city-owned restrooms within yards: Junior Museum, Children's Library, Children's Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Center, Rinconada Pool, Art Center, Main Library. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct. Palo Alto cc: City Manager Ed Shikada Community Services, Sarah Robustelli Acting Chief of Police James Reifschneider Parks and Rec Commission From:Evan Reade To:Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Robustelli, Sarah; Reifschneider, James; ParkRec Commission Subject:Eleanor Pardee Park restroom project Date:Saturday, January 24, 2026 1:52:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Madam Mayor, Dear City Council Members: Following up on my letters to you and the Parks and Rec Commission dated March 31, 2025, May 15, 2025, September 3, 2025, my appearances before both the Council and the Commission, and separate discussions I have had with several of you: HEADLINE: "Palo Alto faces lean budget years. Staff predict total deficit of $80M+ over 10 years." (Palo Alto Weekly, January 23, 2026, Page 5.) QUESTION: Given the need to make cuts, why have you approved (or are in the process of approving) the expenditure of an estimated $1 million on the construction of a restroom that is not needed and that will require continued regular expenditures indefinitely to maintain? I am resending below a summary of why I continue to oppose this unnecessary and wasteful so-called "capital improvement project." BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - Why I continue to oppose constructing restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park: History - 100+ years without one. Why now? Impact on Park - Restrooms will change this neighborhood park into a regional park. Impact on Neighborhood - Increased traffic, parking, noise, trash. Cost - $1M to design and install?! And how much to maintain on a daily basis? Public Safety - I used to be a police officer in this city. Unsupervised public restrooms result in vandalism, attract the unhoused, and worse. Process - The park's neighbors have not been adequately consulted. The so- called "survey" was flawed. Current History - Current park restrooms are often a mess to the point of being unusable. Go take a look sometime. Recent Past History - I'd like to know what became of the JDDecaux restrooms downtown. Why are they gone? Could it be due to the cost and public safety issues mentioned above? Not needed - Rinconada Park, only four short blocks away, has TWO restrooms, plus the following public city-owned restrooms within yards: Junior Museum, Children's Library, Children's Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Center, Rinconada Pool, Art Center, Main Library. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct. Palo Alto cc: City Manager Ed Shikada Community Services, Sarah Robustelli Acting Chief of Police James Reifschneider Parks and Rec Commission From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Priorities Date:Saturday, January 24, 2026 9:54:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Priorities Key among these should be expediting thoughtful planning and funding for areas that have been upzoned for housing, especially where Priority-Prepare south Palo Alto for unplanned growth due to upzoning in response to State housing mandates Cubberley—Successful purchase of land from PAUSD & facility renovation to make it functional. Drive it. SARAP—A comprehensive plan to make this loud, unsafe, commercial truck route area a livable, sustainable, well-connected, community space. Citizens have been working with the city for decades to address Cubberley. It is well passed the time to turn it into a functional community space that to support our changing community and its greater needs. Now the need is urgent. This year’s Winter Enjoy! catalogue offered 230 classes/activities in north Palo Alto city facilities and only 56 in south Palo Alto. That will need to change as the city grows this part of town. Virus-free.www.avg.com From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Transportation; City Mgr Subject:Subject: Make Quiet Zones a Priority — Use Measure K Funds Date:Saturday, January 24, 2026 9:46:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members, Thank you for your thoughtful and dedicated service to our City. I am a Palo Alto resident affectedby frequent and loud train horn noise in my neighborhood. This noise disrupts sleep, affects health,and reduces quality of life for residents nearest the level rail and street crossings. Measure K was approved to fund public safety and transportation improvements. EstablishingRailroad Quiet Zones is a clear and appropriate use of these funds. Quiet Zones maintain safetythrough upgraded crossings while eliminating unnecessary horn noise. I respectfully ask the City Council to:• Make Quiet Zones a priority Measure K project this budget year by allocating funding for planningand implementation now.• Provide a clear, public timeline for progress and plans for funding for the entire project. Quiet Zones can happen—but only if City Council chooses to prioritize them. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,John MelnychukFairmeadow Quiet Zones Palo AltoEmail: quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com\ Cc: City Manager, Shikada Chief of Transportation, Hutabarat-Lo City Attorney This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Kevin Tolkin To:Council, City Cc:patrick.burt@paloalto.gov; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; julie.lythcott.haims@paloalto.gov; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:332 Forest Avenue Project Date:Saturday, January 24, 2026 8:43:12 AM Attachments:Palo Alto letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Please find a letter regarding our concerns over the proposed project at 332 Forest Avenue. Thank you. Best, Laurie and Kevin Tolkin Laurie and Kevin Tolkin 315 Homer Avenue, Unit 208 Palo Alto, CA 94301 January 23, 2026 To City Council: As downtown Palo Alto residents, we respect and agree with your decision to approve the 332 Forest Ave building. That site is well suited for additional housing and will benefit the local community. Given that, we are deeply concerned and disappointed by the current plan, especially the positioning of the building and its drastic effect on the surrounding residents. The currently proposed miniscule setback of only 10 feet between an 8 -story massive high-rise and the Weatherly, a low-profile small building defies the beauty and spirit of the area. Drastically so, will the 332 Forest Ave project tower over the Weatherly, blocking all of its light, air, sun, and wind. Residents’ sunshine and blue skies will be morphed as this proposed ginormous concrete structure overpowers their air space, replacing it with massive, infringing concrete walls that can nearly be touched with stretched arms. There is a valid and smart reason why huge proposed buildings of this size typically require a graduated and more reasonable setback from local neighbors. Using the legal technicality of including a minority amount of lower income apartments to negate those fair and reasonable setbacks is just plain wrong. Including lower income apartments in the plan is admirable and desirable, but using that as a legal footnote to destroy the air rights of existing residents, defies the thought process behind that incentive. Don’t current residents have any rights? Do we want our valued community that hopefully respects one other and balances rights, to lose its morality so that those with power squash the rights of those without? We are simply asking that before stamping approval on a building that will permanently change downtown and permanently drastically harm neighboring residents, you make every effort to value those long-time neighboring residents by either pushing back the setback to a more reasonable distance, graduating the setback height as typically required by buildings this size, changing the positioning on the property, or scaling back its size. A city that, thankfully, typically goes to great length to protect trees, recognizing that Palo Alto’s beauty is very dependent upon those trees, should please honor that here too. Demolishing the few healthy, mature trees separating and beautifying the space between the Weatherly and 332 Forest Ave, is irreparably destructive. Those trees, rooted at the fence line of 332, take nothing from the buildable lot, and yet are priceless in providing beauty and privacy to both the Weatherly and 332 Forest Ave. Not to mention, the multitude of birds that live in those trees, singing daily. As a resident of the Weatherly, I have received no official information about the project and am requesting a methodology of communication as it proceeds. While this letter is being signed by just two of us, we have spoken to many of our building neighbors who share our position and are deeply concerned by the lack of reasonableness, respect and consideration this project is showing to its neighbors. Exercising legal muster and overpowering long-term Palo Alto residents is not the view of Palo Alto that we share. We implore you to seriously tweak the current proposal to preserve the integrity of our community and to protect those without the financial resources to protect themselves. Those people matter too. Thank you, Kevin Tolkin 206-229-8295 ktolkin@ comcast.net Laurie Tolkin 206-229-8296 jumpony@hotmail.com From:Claire E To:Council, City; Magdalena Cabrera Subject:Proposed City Council Objectives for Palo Alto for January 24th City Council Retreat Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 4:13:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. January 23rd,, 2026 Comments re: Proposed City Council Objectives for Palo Alto for January 24th City Council Retreat Dear City Council Members, You have heard our comments in previous meetings concerning the environmental and public health impacts of plastic grass. We are asking you to consider adding two new objectives to your Climate Action and Adaptation and Natural Environment Protection priority for 2026 that would also help meet the Public Safety Wellness and Belonging priority. These two objectives are: 1. Develop and implement a natural grass pilot project with the goal of showing that well designed, installed and maintained grass fields can substantially extend the play time, making further plastic grass fields unnecessary. This should be a Group 1, first quarter priority so planning and implementation can happen as soon as possible. 2. Reduce microplastic pollution and the exposure of the public and environment to forever chemicals through public education, development of thresholds for PFAS and a moratorium on landscape use of plastic grass. This objective could include: a. Reject the turf study officially so that it is not quoted by other cities, b. Ensure El Camino Park’s synthetic field will be the last one installed in Palo Alto. c. Develop and adopt an ordinance placing a moratorium on installation of plastic grass in landscaping including in residential, commercial, and city parks. d. Develop an educational program for the public about the hazards of plastic grass. e. Determine a threshold for acceptable levels of PFAS as “PFAS free” is not currently possible to demonstrate. f. Ensure the El Camino turf is analyzed for total fluorine and not individual PFAS compounds. g. Ask for a chain of custody from the waste haulers to learn and share with the public the fate of the waste turf from El Camino Park. Thank you again for your time and the hard work you do for our community, Magdalena Cabrera and Claire Elliott Ventura Neighborhood of Palo Alto From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:SFO priority has UNIQUE opportunity this year Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 2:15:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers Lauing, Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl, City Manager Ed Shikada, City Attorney As you discuss the Council's "must dos" in 2026, there is likely nothing as unique to put care and attention to this year, as the SFO issues. In the decade of advocacy to help Palo Alto, nothing is as substantive as the City's engagement with the SFO FEIR; to protect the City and to achieve real progress on adequate noise abatement programs. In particular to eliminate night time noise. A priority for residents is to have transparency, and for the City to please do adequate outreach and more frequent updates on the City's appeal. There is a hearing on February per this notice, SFO FEB 3 HEARING NOTICE Can the City please share more information about what this hearing is about. We look forward to supporting you and engaging to do everything we can to achieve success. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto From:Gary Holl To:Marguerite Poyatos Cc:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com; davstellman@gmail.com; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; manu@k9ventures.com; patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com; ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com; maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com; staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com; mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org; etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon Subject:Re: Oversized Vehicle Count (Bob"s PTT) and Photos (1/21/26) Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 7:54:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please remove my email From this list! Regards, Gary H. On Jan 21, 2026, at 3:16 PM, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: For the record, this is the daycare. Thank you for documenting this, Robert. On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 3:15 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: To add to this, the daycare located in our neighborhood has moved. From everything I have heard, parents didn't feel comfortable leaving their kids there with the deplorable conditions on the street directly outside. This neglect is very disappointing. On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 3:05 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I thought it was time to provide you with an 'unofficial' update of the number of OSVs on Palo Alto Streets (attached spreadsheet). According to my count on 1/14/26 there were 181 vehicles on 24 Palo Alto streets. The good news is that this number has come down from 220 on 10/22/25, but the bad news is that this is 181 too many. Based on my inquiries to the community I think I have all the OSVs covered, but there still may be a few out there that I am unaware of. I am particularly concerned about the OSVs/vans starting to park in Mitchell Park. This needs to be addressed immediately. I also want to commend you on initiating the upcoming Community Open House on this issue on January 27th. Weekly City Manager Updates: January 20, 2026 medium.com I have also attached a handful of photographs of the conditions of our/your streets that I monitor several times a week on my bicycle. This is a situation that is beyond the pale! It is not out of sight, out of mind! This is very real, every day for those who have to live with this in their face every day, every day! The situation has got on for far too long and the tax-paying residents of this city deserve better. And, please no lame arguments about these squatters growing up in Palo Alto! Come on, I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto and can no longer afford to live here. Or, they are tax payers - what taxes would that be - federal employment taxes? Yeah, yeah, it would be nice to provide those that really need services these services, however the fact is that many of these street squatters to not need these services and can go elsewhere. We cannot provide services to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to squat on our streets because they are not resourceful enough to find alternative living accommodations. Let’s be real! When many of us were young we lived with a household of roommates to be able to afford a brick and mortar residence with utilities and flush toilets. And, our children are still doing that when they are first starting out. Thanks for listening and we residents very much look forward to cleaner and brighter Palo Alto in the future! And, one more thing, I would love to live in Pacific Heights with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but I can’t. Regards, Bob Marinaro Fuel spills in the street Imagine this parked in front of your business What could that be that he is dumping into the sewer? Could he have just finished an oil change which I have seen several times, but reluctant to photograph I wonder where they get all their bicycles? Garbage! Wash day! More garbage More garbage The scene in front of of the Daycare Center on Commercial Street Commercial Street near the daycare center. This guy has been here forever! Detached Detached Park Blvd Fabian Way near San Antonio Mr. Raider has five vehicles, I understand, taking up needed parking spaces to the businesses on Transport Street One of my biggest pet peeves - - blocking the bike lanes! Palo Alto prides itself on being such a bicycle friendly community with its network of bicycle lanes. The recent update to the bicycle plan calls for increasing the number of bicycle lanes, but the City will not take action of OSVs blocking existing bicycle lanes. This situation forces bicycles to ’take the lane’ on a busy Fabian Way putting cyclist at risk. We can do better! We need ENFORCEMENT! What can up the weakest in the recent Community Survey - ENFORCEMENT!!! Can you imaging going to work every day and having this parked in front of your business! Nice Hummer! Another nice vehicle! How can we help you with services, sir! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com <IMG_3252.jpeg> From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com; midtowngary@me.com; davstellman@gmail.com; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; marguerite@paloaltoglass.com; manu@k9ventures.com; patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com; ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com; maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com; staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com; mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org; etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com; woodgood@pacbell.net; Marguerite Palo Alto Glass; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon Subject:Oversized Vehicle Count (Bob"s PTT) and Photos (1/21/26) Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:45:04 PM Attachments:1sUNGw34MNXARywkd2sob8w.png RV Inventory_14Jan26.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I thought it was time to provide you with an 'unofficial' update of the number of OSVs on Palo Alto Streets (attached spreadsheet). According to my count on 1/14/26 there were 181 vehicles on 24 Palo Alto streets. The good news is that this number has come down from 220 on 10/22/25, but the bad news is that this is 181 too many. Based on my inquiries to the community I think I have all the OSVs covered, but there still may be a few out there that I am unaware of. I am particularly concerned about the OSVs/vans starting to park in Mitchell Park. This needs to be addressed immediately. I also want to commend you on initiating the upcoming Community Open House on this issue on January 27th. Weekly City Manager Updates: January 20, 2026 medium.com I have also attached a handful of photographs of the conditions of our/your streets that I monitor several times a week on my bicycle. This is a situation that is beyond the pale! It is not out of sight, out of mind! This is very real, every day for those who have to live with this in their face every day, every day! The situation has got on for far too long and the tax-paying residents of this city deserve better. And, please no lame arguments about these squatters growing up in Palo Alto! Come on, I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto and can no longer afford to live here. Or, they are tax payers - what taxes would that be - federal employment taxes? Yeah, yeah, it would be nice to provide those that really need services these services, however the fact is that many of these street squatters to not need these services and can go elsewhere. We cannot provide services to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to squat on our streets because they are not resourceful enough to find alternative living accommodations. Let’s be real! When many of us were young we lived with a household of roommates to be able to afford a brick and mortar residence with utilities and flush toilets. And, our children are still doing that when they are first starting out. Thanks for listening and we residents very much look forward to cleaner and brighter Palo Alto in the future! And, one more thing, I would love to live in Pacific Heights with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but I can’t. Regards, Bob Marinaro Fuel spills in the street Palo Alto On Street RV Count Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs 10/21/25 &11/2 &11/10 &11/19 &12/3 12/20 &####### 10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 11/20 12/20 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8 7 8 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53 52 51 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1 1 4 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11 11 12 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15 13 10 8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15 15 17 9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13 12 2 11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6 2 4 12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8 10 5 14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11 7 8 15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25 20 19 16 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 200 193 188 197 195 180 170 17 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 18 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 20 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4 2 1 21 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2 3 3 22 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 23 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1 1 0 24 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.0 1 1 1 1 1 20 18 19 19 19 18 11 Total:220 211 207 216 214 198 181 Delta:-9 -4 9 -2 -16 -17 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 (PA/MV Border)7 Yellow RVs on New Street Ventura Area RV Inventory_14Jan26 1/26/2026 12:49 PM Imagine this parked in front of your business What could that be that he is dumping into the sewer? Could he have just finished an oil change which I have seen several times, but reluctant to photograph I wonder where they get all their bicycles? Garbage! Wash day! More garbage More garbage The scene in front of of the Daycare Center on Commercial Street Commercial Street near the daycare center. This guy has been here forever! Detached Detached Park Blvd Fabian Way near San Antonio Mr. Raider has five vehicles, I understand, taking up needed parking spaces to the businesses on Transport Street One of my biggest pet peeves - - blocking the bike lanes! Palo Alto prides itself on being such a bicycle friendly community with its network of bicycle lanes. The recent update to the bicycle plan calls for increasing the number of bicycle lanes, but the City will not take action of OSVs blocking existing bicycle lanes. This situation forces bicycles to ’take the lane’ on a busy Fabian Way putting cyclist at risk. We can do better! We need ENFORCEMENT! What can up the weakest in the recent Community Survey - ENFORCEMENT!!! Can you imaging going to work every day and having this parked in front of your business! Nice Hummer! Another nice vehicle! How can we help you with services, sir! From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com; midtowngary@me.com; davstellman@gmail.com; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; manu@k9ventures.com; patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com; ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com; maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com; staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com; mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org; etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon Subject:Re: Oversized Vehicle Count (Bob"s PTT) and Photos (1/21/26) Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:17:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. For the record, this is the daycare. Thank you for documenting this, Robert. On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 3:15 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: To add to this, the daycare located in our neighborhood has moved. From everything I have heard, parents didn't feel comfortable leaving their kids there with the deplorable conditions on the street directly outside. This neglect is very disappointing. On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 3:05 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I thought it was time to provide you with an 'unofficial' update of the number of OSVs on Palo Alto Streets (attached spreadsheet). According to my count on 1/14/26 there were 181 vehicles on 24 Palo Alto streets. The good news is that this number has come down from 220 on 10/22/25, but the bad news is that this is 181 too many. Based on my inquiries to the community I think I have all the OSVs covered, but there still may be a few out there that I am unaware of. I am particularly concerned about the OSVs/vans starting to park in Mitchell Park. This needs to be addressed immediately. I also want to commend you on initiating the upcoming Community Open House on this issue on January 27th. Weekly City Manager Updates: January 20, 2026 medium.com I have also attached a handful of photographs of the conditions of our/your streets that I monitor several times a week on my bicycle. This is a situation that is beyond the pale! It is not out of sight, out of mind! This is very real, every day for those who have to live with this in their face every day, every day! better. And, please no lame arguments about these squatters growing up in Palo Alto! Come on, I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto and can no longer afford to live here. Or, they are tax payers - what taxes would that be - federal employment taxes? Yeah, yeah, it would be nice to provide those that really need services these services, however the fact is that many of these street squatters to not need these services and can go elsewhere. We cannot provide services to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to squat on our streets because they are not resourceful enough to find alternative living accommodations. Let’s be real! When many of us were young we lived with a household of roommates to be able to afford a brick and mortar residence with utilities and flush toilets. And, our children are still doing that when they are first starting out. Thanks for listening and we residents very much look forward to cleaner and brighter Palo Alto in the future! And, one more thing, I would love to live in Pacific Heights with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but I can’t. Regards, Bob Marinaro Fuel spills in the street Imagine this parked in front of your business What could that be that he is dumping into the sewer? Could he have just finished an oil change which I have seen several times, but reluctant to photograph I wonder where they get all their bicycles? Garbage! Wash day! More garbage More garbage The scene in front of of the Daycare Center on Commercial Street Commercial Street near the daycare center. This guy has been here forever! Detached Detached Park Blvd Fabian Way near San Antonio Mr. Raider has five vehicles, I understand, taking up needed parking spaces to the businesses on Transport Street One of my biggest pet peeves - - blocking the bike lanes! Palo Alto prides itself on being such a bicycle friendly community with its network of bicycle lanes. The recent update to the bicycle plan calls for increasing the number of bicycle lanes, but the City will not take action of OSVs blocking existing bicycle lanes. This situation forces bicycles to ’take the lane’ on a busy Fabian Way putting cyclist at risk. We can do better! We need ENFORCEMENT! What can up the weakest in the recent Community Survey - ENFORCEMENT!!! Can you imaging going to work every day and having this parked in front of your business! Nice Hummer! Another nice vehicle! How can we help you with services, sir! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; tbullman@pacamgroup.com; midtowngary@me.com; davstellman@gmail.com; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; manu@k9ventures.com; patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com; osbaldo@or-builders.com; xenia@qmsshields.com; bill@paloaltoglass.com; ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com; lwong@wongelectric.com; cathi@lerchconstruction.com; maor@greenberg.construction; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; danmck@scientific-equipment.com; john@lerchconstruction.com; staceytomson@gmsshields.com; cmei@wongelectric.com; dma@wongelectric.com; jin.wong@gmail.com; mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org; clahlouh@gatorbio.com; knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org; etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org; nellickson@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; vic52@victor-aviation.com; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon Subject:Re: Oversized Vehicle Count (Bob"s PTT) and Photos (1/21/26) Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:16:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To add to this, the daycare located in our neighborhood has moved. From everything I have heard, parents didn't feel comfortable leaving their kids there with the deplorable conditions on the street directly outside. This neglect is very disappointing. On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 3:05 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I thought it was time to provide you with an 'unofficial' update of the number of OSVs on Palo Alto Streets (attached spreadsheet). According to my count on 1/14/26 there were 181 vehicles on 24 Palo Alto streets. The good news is that this number has come down from 220 on 10/22/25, but the bad news is that this is 181 too many. Based on my inquiries to the community I think I have all the OSVs covered, but there still may be a few out there that I am unaware of. I am particularly concerned about the OSVs/vans starting to park in Mitchell Park. This needs to be addressed immediately. I also want to commend you on initiating the upcoming Community Open House on this issue on January 27th. Weekly City Manager Updates: January 20, 2026 medium.com I have also attached a handful of photographs of the conditions of our/your streets that I monitor several times a week on my bicycle. This is a situation that is beyond the pale! It is not out of sight, out of mind! This is very real, every day for those who have to live with this in their face every day, every day! The situation has got on for far too long and the tax-paying residents of this city deserve better. And, please no lame arguments about these squatters growing up in Palo Alto! Come on, I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto and can no longer afford to live here. Or, they are tax payers - what taxes would that be - federal employment taxes? Yeah, yeah, it would be nice to provide those that really need services these services, however the fact is that many of these street squatters to not need these services and can go elsewhere. We cannot provide services to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to squat on our streets because they are not resourceful enough to find alternative living accommodations. Let’s be real! When many of us were young we lived with a household of roommates to be able to afford a brick and mortar residence with utilities and flush toilets. And, our children are still doing that when they are first starting out. Thanks for listening and we residents very much look forward to cleaner and brighter Palo Alto in the future! And, one more thing, I would love to live in Pacific Heights with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but I can’t. Regards, Bob Marinaro Fuel spills in the street Imagine this parked in front of your business What could that be that he is dumping into the sewer? Could he have just finished an oil change which I have seen several times, but reluctant to photograph I wonder where they get all their bicycles? Garbage! Wash day! More garbage More garbage The scene in front of of the Daycare Center on Commercial Street Commercial Street near the daycare center. This guy has been here forever! Detached Detached Park Blvd Fabian Way near San Antonio Mr. Raider has five vehicles, I understand, taking up needed parking spaces to the businesses on Transport Street One of my biggest pet peeves - - blocking the bike lanes! Palo Alto prides itself on being such a bicycle friendly community with its network of bicycle lanes. The recent update to the bicycle plan calls for increasing the number of bicycle lanes, but the City will not take action of OSVs blocking existing bicycle lanes. This situation forces bicycles to ’take the lane’ on a busy Fabian Way putting cyclist at risk. We can do better! We need ENFORCEMENT! What can up the weakest in the recent Community Survey - ENFORCEMENT!!! Can you imaging going to work every day and having this parked in front of your business! Nice Hummer! Another nice vehicle! How can we help you with services, sir! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Subject:Reminder: RSVP Requested by 1/29/26: 2026 State of the Valley Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 2:40:27 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png image010.png Hello Council Members, Friendly reminder to please send your RSVP’s for the State of the Valley conference by next Thursday, January 29th So far, we have confirmations from Council Members Reckdahl, Lu, and Burt. Thank you! Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Tran, Joanna <Joanna.Tran@paloalto.gov> Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 4:06:17 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Executive Leadership Team <ExecutiveLeadershipTeam@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: RSVP Requested by 1/29/26: 2026 State of the Valley Hello Council Members, Happy New Year! This year’s State of the Valley conference will take place Friday, February 27th at San José State University. The City has ten tickets to attend the event. If you are interested, please let me know by Thursday, January 29th. After that date, we will extend the remaining tickets to our Executive Leadership Team. What is the State of the Valley Conference? State of the Valley is an old-fashioned “town hall” meeting, a tradition at least as old as our nation’s founding, when concerned citizens met on the village green to mobilize for the challenges ahead. In that same spirit, Joint Venture’s town meeting convenes the entire region—concerned citizens and stakeholders, thought leaders and opinion makers, journalists, students and academics, our elected representatives and their professional staff, business leaders, labor and workforce leaders, venture capitalists and others—for dialogue and discussion about the Valley’s challenges and opportunities. To inform the discussion our principal tool is the Silicon Valley Index, a nationally- recognized publication that has been telling the Silicon Valley story since 1995. The indicators measure the strength of our economy and the health of our community, highlighting challenges and providing a data-rich foundation for decision making. Where? San Jose State University Diaz Compean Student Union 2nd Floor Ballroom 211 South 9th Street San Jose, California When? Friday, February 27th from 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Penny Brennan To:wcmoss Cc:Council, City; Rebecca Sanders Subject:Re: 3606 el camino Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:48:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Bill! On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:28 PM wcmoss <wcmoss@pacbell.net> wrote: Dear Council members, I am a ventura resident and I am writing to protest a seven story building at 3606 El Camino. I oppose making a canyon out of El Camino Real. Also 300 plus units equals many more vehicles. I would push for a lower building height, maybe 3 stories, which would cut down traffic. I realize progress cannot be stopped. But common sense should prevail. Thank you for your time. William Moss. Ventura resident. View this email in your browser. January 2026 Updates & Events Coming up! JANUARY 2026 1/22: Who Owns Voter Data? (Zoom) From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA Events, Memorial for Mary Alice, LWC Statement on ICE and more! Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 7:54:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 1/23 & 24: informal coffees on LWV’s Voter Services Work and How to Help 1/24: Memorial Service for Mary Alice Thornton 1/28: Board Meeting (note new date) 1/30: LWV-SJSC EVENT: Election Year Kickoff Rally FEBRUARY 2026 2/6: Program Planning meeting, 10am-noon MARCH 2026 3/9-13: LWVUS Civic Engagement Learning Week LWVC: State News LWVC's statement after the killing of Renee Good by ICE in Minneapolis: (summary) Condemned the use of force by ICE against peaceful protests around the country, stating that federal law enforcement must not be weaponized to silence dissent or suppress civic engagement. Encouraged all members to contact their Congressional representatives and demand: A full and transparent congressional investigation into ICE’s conduct. Accountability for any violations of civil rights or misuse of federal authority; and Immediate steps to ensure federal agencies respect constitutional protections and democratic norms. Encouraged all members to know your rights and community resources and to revisit our previously published resources on Know Your Rights information and California-based rapid response networks, which continue to be highly relevant as ICE activity escalates. Expressed gratitude to the many LWVC members and partners who showed up last weekend—peacefully, courageously, and in solidarity—as part of the “ICE Out for Good” protests honoring the life of Renee Good, demand accountability, and expose the real and devastating human cost of intimidation, detention, and terror inflicted on immigrant communities. Read the full statement here: https://lwvc.org/condemns-force-protestors-accountability/ Want to preserve democracy,but not sure what YOU can do? You're not alone - we're here for you. JOIN US ON JANUARY 23 or 24 FOR ONE OF TWO 2026 Elections Prep Coffee & Voter ServicesInformation Sessions Kick off 2026 with learning about the League's Voter Services Work and how to help. Your League is starting to prepare for the 2026 June primaries and November midterm elections, and we need A LOT of volunteers. Join us for one of two informal coffees where you can learn about Voter Services plans, and big and small ways you can pitch in to help! There are many roles, such as coordinating with the candidates, managing Zoom, being a timer, and working on the pros/cons of ballot measures. Something for everyone! TWO DATE OPTIONS: Friday, 1/23 at 4 pm - or - Saturday, 1/24 at 10 am WHERE: 305 Emerson Street, Palo Alto RSVP Here Share Your Voice, and Help Create the Future! Join us for our Program Planning Meeting: Friday, 2/6/26 - 10am-noon Help select which major issues our Palo Alto league should focus on for the next year and what the national league should focus on for 2026-2028. WHEN: Friday, February 6, 10am-12 noon WHERE: Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto 94303 RSVP: Register here The 2026 LWV Palo Alto Program Planning Meeting is your opportunity to decide what to focus on - and where you want to invest your energy. Meeting objectives include: 1) Review the purpose of annual program planning, our past year’s work (program highlights & voter services). 2) Review priority issues for 2026-2028, in addition to Making Democracy Work, for adoption at the LWVUS convention in June 2026. 3) Review our current local priority issues and choose local issues for 2026-2027. 4) Meet, brainstorm with, and get to know our committees (Housing & Transportation, Climate/Natural Resources, Gun Violence Prevention, Local Campaign Finance Reform, Voter Services). We look forward to seeing you there! In Memoriam Mary Alice Thornton A dedicated member and leader of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, Mary Alice Thornton passed away on January 3rd, after just over a week in hospice care. Please keep her husband, Dave, and their whole family in your hearts as they grieve together. Join us to remember Mary Alice on Saturday, January 24 - 10:00 am First Presbyterian Church Palo Alto, 1140 Cowper Street Light reception to follow. RSVP Here For those unable to attend in person, please join us on Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83757316221? pwd=8QKLXY9VKtNqeZqFuscsxIbKHm6csR.1 Meeting ID: 837 5731 6221 - Passcode: 089705 READ HER OBITUARY HERE: Palo Alto Online - Mary Alice Thornton's memorial For those considering a memorial gift in honor of Mary Alice, her family believes that supporting the League is a wonderful way to honor her legacy. There are two ways to support the League of Women Voters–a gift to support the League’s General Fund (non-tax deductible) or a gift to support the League’s California Education Fund (which allows for a tax deduction). To make a gift to the League’s general fund, you can send a check made out to the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto - or - to make a tax-deductible gift, you can make your check out to the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund (LWVCEF) and send it to our Palo Alto office at 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303. You can also visit our website www.lwvpaloalto.org and donate via PayPal or credit card. However you choose to make a gift, please note that it is a memorial gift in honor of Mary Alice Thornton. Please contact Mary Nemerov (mabunem@gmail.com) if you have any questions, and thank you again. Invitations from Other Leagues LWV LA EVENT: Zoom with us to hear our speaker Grayce Zelphin, ACLU Attorney for the case US v Weber REGISTER BY CLICKING ON THE IMAGE: LWV-SJSC EVENT: Election Year Kickoff Rally:"2026: Your Voice, Your Values, Your Vote" Friday, January 30, 2026 - 11:30 am - 1:00pm Sobrato Center for Nonprofits, 1400 Parkmoor Ave., San Jose Featured Speaker: Matt Moreles, Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Join us for a fun, lively and informative rally to kick off Election Year 2026! Learn about the League's Voter Service activities planned for 2026 including voter registration, voter engagement, Candidates Forums, Pros & Cons presentations, and VOTE411 online resource. How can you get involved to support the Primary Election in June and the General Election in November? Santa Clara County's new Registrar of Voters Matt Moreles will speak on "2026 -- Your Voice, Your Values, Your Vote." He will describe what you as a voter need to know to make your vote count in 2026 elections, as well as how election officials are working to safeguard the integrity of the election process. "Now more than ever, it is important to understand the extraordinary steps that election officials take to ensure the security and accuracy of election results, as well as the services available to ensure every eligible voter has access to a fair, inclusive, and equitable voting experience," commented Matt. Lunch or No Lunch You may order a boxed lunch from Aqui Restaurant (five options available) for $18 each or register without a lunch at no cost. You are welcome to bring your own lunch and everyone should bring their own beverage. There is spacious parking at the Sobrato Center and a light rail station close by. Register HERE with or without lunch. Interested in youth voter outreach? Volunteer for the LWVUS Civic Engagement Learning Week, March 9-13, with activities outlined here: https://www.lwv.org/league-management/voter- services/civic-learning-week-2026-engagement-guide Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Sign up for 2026 Legislative Interviews Seeking volunteer leaders who want to save democracy and make it work! You bring the interest, we provide the training! Participate in one of our annual interviews with local state legislators. These occur during the months of January and February and offer a unique volunteer opportunity. You and a small group of fellow Leaguers will meet directly with your State Senator or Assembly Member, either in-person or via Zoom. The meetings will pose prepared questions on issues that priorities and about major issues the legislature will be dealing with in 2026. This is a great opportunity to learn what they are thinking, the headwinds they may be facing, and to let them know what is important to us. It’s also critical to let elected representatives at every level of government know that our League, and Leagues throughout the state, are paying attention. Our legislative interviews will be coordinated by co-presidents Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu. If you are interested in participating, please email hannahlu00@gmail.com. Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. VIDEO ARCHIVE: Past Events 10.7: 2025 Santa Clara County Assessor Candidates Forum 10.4: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. 8.17: District 16 Congressional Representative, REP. SAM LICCARDO Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:David Sacerdote To:Council, City Subject:City-level decarbonization requires a managed phase-out of gas Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 4:05:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I urge city council to not just approve the plan at https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=91d24986-d985- 4db7-9ed2-4e48a1bf5f5c but to specifically include review of a decommissioning process as part of item CA20. If conversion from gas to electric is done on an appliance-by-appliance basis, or household-by-household basis, we're going to end up leaving those least able to convert stuck on the gas system, and bearing the entire cost of maintaining the distribution system. A far fairer system would involve neighborhood-by-neighborhood decommissioning of the gas system, with notice provided a decade or more in advance, and appropriate support for those unable to bear the cost of electrification themselves. Thank you David Sacerdote 3716 Starr King Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:wcmoss To:Council, City Cc:Rebecca Sanders; Penny Brennan Subject:3606 el camino Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 10:28:25 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 ventura resident and I am writing to protest a seven story building at 3606 El Camino. I oppose making a canyon out of El Camino Real. Also 300 plus units equals many more vehicles. I would push for a lower building height, maybe 3 stories, which would cut down traffic. I realize progress cannot be stopped. But common sense should prevail. Thank you for your time. William Moss. Ventura resident. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Tricia Dolkas To:Council, City; Amy French Subject:FW: 407 Lytton Ave - Notice by Dept of ABC Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:33:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I live at 412 Everett Ave and have been here since 1983 with many changes in businesses close to the corner of Waverley and Lytton. There hasn’t been any issue with any establishment that sold alcohol. The worst was the coffee roasting smell from the coffee shop that was there about 10-15 years ago. I completely support the alcohol permit at 407 Lytton Ave. Tricia 650 280 0005 From: Tricia Dolkas Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:28 PM To: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com>; Janice Sedriks <janice325@gmail.com>; Walter Sedriks <sedriks@gmail.com>; Sacha Sedriks <sachased@gmail.com>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Dan Lorimer <lorimer@meer.net> Subject: RE: 407 Lytton Ave - Notice by Dept of ABC Gretha, Thank you for sharing your concerns. Personally, I disagree with your suggestion on not allowing alcohol at this location. I can’t imagine people in the new restaurant becoming boisterous after attending. Over the last 40 years, we have had the 2 restaurant/café places on the corner of Lytton and Waverley alternating between restaurants with alcohol (originally – Odette’s French restaurant) and coffee houses (the roasting company whose name I have forgotten). Most recently Ike’s and the Asian Bowl place. I agree with the alcohol permit. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Tricia 650 280 0005 From: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 8:00 AM To: Janice Sedriks <janice325@gmail.com>; Walter Sedriks <sedriks@gmail.com>; Sacha Sedriks <sachased@gmail.com>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Tricia Dolkas <tricia@dolkas.net>; Dan Lorimer <lorimer@meer.net> Subject: Fw: 407 Lytton Ave - Notice by Dept of ABC fyi ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Amy French <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: geetha srikantan <gsrikantan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 07:58:09 AM PST Subject: 407 Lytton Ave - Notice by Dept of ABC 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 From:Star Teachout To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Lait, Jonathan Subject:3606 ECR development + Tree Protections Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:27:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, Please accept my full comments which exceeded the allotted 3 minutes in open comments for the 1/20/26 meeting. 1. 18.24.030 (b)(3)(A) Amendment: This may be premature, but many residents of Barron Park are worried the 3606 ECR development will be rubber-stamped now that it has moved out of the ARB purview. Matadero and Kendall are bounded by streets with no sidewalks, allow street-side parking, Matadero has a nearby No R turn on Red, and both are Safe Routes to School (SRTS) for 6 large schools. Per my Jan 5 email, please consider amending the Objective Standard related to Site Access to allow a main driveway located on ECR. I also want to remind you that AB3177 (66005.1. (c)2B) exists for a reason--to hold these developments to a critical standard of safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists as well. The city planner guiding the 7-story, 335 unit development at 3606 ECR used Objective Standard 18.24.030 (b)(3)(A) to deny my suggestion of moving the egress onto ECR, despite the safety impacts. It is unfortunate he wasn’t even willing to entertain the idea of improving safety on this project. Palo Alto’s Municipal Code/Objectve Standards: Site Access 18.24.030 (b)(3)(A) … As written...Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property… consider appending with… "if it does not significantly increase health and safety dangers to human activities (pedestrian, cycling, and traffic), and emergency services.” 2. My main reason for speaking tonight is to improve our Tree Protection process, and to save an approximately 100 yo ring of coastal redwoods, on a 5,935 SF lot in Barron Park, located at 530 Barron Ave. Director Jonathan Lait has been gracious and respectful in our two review meetings, and whatever his decision is, there will most likely be an appeal requested with our city council. If you have not already, you will be receiving letters from neighbors concerned about its removal and the insufficiency of our protections. An applicant is citing the more than 25% reduced buildable area but has not provided increased project cost estimates per the code requirement: PAMC 8.10.050: ”Retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree, where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree unless retaining the tree would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. “ With the current Palo Alto local ordinance, every large tree on a small property will reduce the buildable area by more than 25% and is thus vulnerable to removal. Please consider some of the following to protect these trees, reduce community conflicts, ensure transparency prior to a home sale, and provide for continued development. a. For protected species and heritage trees only, remove the buildable area reduction threshold and increased project cost clause (show above) from PAMC 8.10.050 in section “Protected Tree Removal as Part of Development (residential).” Removing it will leave the 2 points related to a hazardous/dead tree and the right tree in the right place principle (which should be used judiciously). There would still be opportunities for applicants to remove non- protected, or unsafe/diseased protected trees. Incidentally, redwoods—and circles in particular —are safer than oaks and eucalyptus from falling. One example is shown below For lots < or = to 6,000 SF with a species-Protected/Heritage Tree, allow removal if the following apply: - the buildable area drops below 35% - if a home structure is present, but the location cannot be improved upon due to its proximity to a protected/heritage tree. - tree exhibits a hazardous/diseased condition in current policy - right tree in the right place principle is violated(which needs a clear description) b. Offer special rules/assistance in developing on the existing footprints, even allowing variances as you are able. Removals will still be allowed per the other clauses related to dead/unhealthy tree, repeated disruption of sewer lines, etc. Using the 530 Barron Ave property as an example… The property contains 2 structures with a total of 1,421 SF footprint [924 SF home + 497 SF ADU]. The current un-permitted ADU—which includes un-permitted gas and electricity utilities—has a setback less than 4ft. Development could ensure the utilities are up to code, and assist the applicant in improving the foundation to support a 2-story build. In unique situations such as this one, the city could facilitate setback variances with neighbors (the neighbors of this application have already agreed). c. Communicate: Our documents and web communications can duplicate what potential owners should already know—to check the seller/listing agent TDS (Transfer Disclosure Statement) and also require potential buyers to meet with our city Planning & Development office (and Urban Forestry) prior to purchase. This should be a standard process used at all real estate agencies. The 530 Barron listing and TDS may not have included Protected Tree. It did include, "Buyer should investigate the different options to rebuild, expand or remodel with the City of Palo Alto.” But the aforementioned clause in PAMC 8.10.050 leads buyers to believe they can remove what they wish. [Note: Currently, there is not one mention of protected, heritage, nor even tree in the City of Palo Alto ADU guidebook 2025.] d. Task our Planning & Development and Urban Forestry to research and champion some pilot projects using helical screw piles These are far less invasive to expansive tree roots, and cost less than a typical perimeter foundation. e. Support, encourage, and educate residents on caring for their Protected Trees. Offer owners with Protected Tress one day/month rebates for deep drip watering during the dry months of May - September if they register their trees with the city. Urban Forestry could send out quarterly tree care announcements to those on the list. As mentioned during comments, this could expand knowledge and interest in our Sustainability/decarbonization goals. Thank you for considering, Star Teachout From:Adina Levin To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 11 - Legislative Guidelines Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:22:39 PM Attachments:CBA Fact Sheet January 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you very much for considering the legislative platform on this evening's agenda, including items supporting transportation funding (copied below). Given this legislative platform item on the agenda, I would like to urge the city to support the Connect Bay Area ballot initiative. Authorized by Senate Bill 63 in 2025, the measure would prevent drastic cuts to Caltrain service and additionally could fund significant improvements to VTA. Caltrain ridership has increased over 50% since electric service started in September, 2024, and more than doubled on weekend, but the agency still faces a significant budget shortfall since ridership is still recovering from pandemic lows. If the measure does not pass, Caltrain has said that they would need to slash service to once an hour, end service at 9pm, and end weekend service. This unappealing would put ridership back into a steep decline. Maintaining Caltrain service is essential for quality of life, housing, and climate goals for the city. Palo Alto relies on Caltrain to prevent commute congestion from the city and from Stanford whose commuters share the roads. The City relies on Caltrain for job satisfaction and retention of many employees. The Palo Alto TMA relies on Caltrain for its programs for low-income service workers. For these reasons, as part of the Connect Bay Area Coalition, I would like to urge the City to support the Connect Bay Area ballot measure, and to support education for the public about the measure including the stakes for Palo Alto residents. The Connect Bay Area coalition has a program of education that we would happily bring to Palo Alto community members. This support is timely. The Connect Bay Area measure is authorized for a citizens’ initiative, and signature gathering is scheduled to start in January and continue through May. So it would be helpful for the city to support education in a time frame relevant for the signature gathering phase. Legislative Platform - transportation funding 2. Support Funding Opportunities: Protect, seek, and increase funding for programs, projects, and services. Seek opportunities that allow the City to compete for regional, state and federal funding. Support funding for programs including, but not limited to, climate action, economic development, infrastructure investment, housing, transportation projects (such as road improvements, rail grade separations, bicycle and pedestrian safety, multi-modal transportation systems and transit-oriented development), air quality, water quality and local water reliability, parks and recreation, historic preservation, natural resources, hazard mitigation, public safety and public health. Thank you for your consideration, Adina Adina Levin Executive Director Seamless Bay Area https://seamlessbayarea.org 650-646-4344 The Connect Bay Area ballot measure authorizes a sales tax in San Francisco, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties. The default rate is set at ½-cent, with the exception that San Francisco may decide to set a 1 cent rate to provide additional support for Muni. ACCOUNTABILITY & REFORM SB 63 includes strong accountability provisions. Transit agencies must: 1. Improve financial efficiency and coordination across systems. 2. Comply with MTC’s Regional Network Management policies. 3. Undergo an independent, third-party financial review and implement cost-efficiency plans. This ensures new funding delivers real improvements, not just short-term fixes. Connect Bay Area is a lifeline for transportation in the Bay Area. ■ Includes 5 Bay Area Counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara ■ 1 cent sales tax in San Francisco, ½ cent sales tax in all other counties ■ Averts catastrophic service cuts for 4 largest operators facing fiscal cliff: BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit ■ Transit Transformation improvements to safety, cleanliness, convenience and seamless integration of transit services This is our chance to reimagine and reinvest in a system that serves today’s riders and inspires the next generation. Join Us. State Senator Scott Wiener State Senator Jesse Arreguin San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee San Mateo County Board President David Canepa Assemblymember Matt Haney Assemblymember Catherine Stefani Berkeley Mayor Adena Ishii Campbell Mayor Sergio Lopez Pleasant Hill Mayor Sue Noack GET INVOLVED Please share this with your coalition and members, and encourage them to sign up for updates. Sign up here. ConnectBayArea.com Paid for by Connect Bay Area Transit. CalTrain could only run 1 train per hour and cut weekend service. SFMTA could cut almost 50% of MUNI service, reduce fare discounts, and shrink the streets division. AC Transit could implement 37% in service cuts. BART could drop from4,200 trains per week to just500 trains per week. Without Connect Bay Area, transit agencies will make significant service cuts that will make daily life harder and more expensive. From:charles javelona To:Council, City Subject:Autonomous Street Cleaning Robots for Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:55:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor Veenker, I'm exploring bringing autonomous sidewalk/street cleaning robots to the Bay Area - similar to what's deployed across cities in China. Quick background: Former COO of Tiny Mile (delivery robots, $50M valuation). I've deployed delivery robots in public spaces and navigated regulatory approvals. Now looking at cleaning as the next application. I'm early in this journey and trying to understand: What Palo Alto actually needs What a pilot partnership would look like Who I should be talking to Given Palo Alto's position in the heart of Silicon Valley, I thought this might resonate. I'd love 15 minutes to explore whether this is worth pursuing here. Would your office be open to a call? Charles Javelona : 1 647 779 8525 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Lait, Jonathan To:Mircea Cc:CHaggerty@valleywater.org; Raybould, Claire; Sauls, Garrett; Liberman, Art; John King; Kristan Green; Dror Katzav; Yu Wang; Tamara Harrison; Sauls, Garrett; City Attorney; Council, City Subject:RE: 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:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:09:53 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image007.png image008.png image010.png image011.png image012.png image013.png Thanks for your email, Mircea. I will review your request and get back to you. JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Mircea <mircea27v@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 7:47 PM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> Cc: CHaggerty@valleywater.org; Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov>; 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>; Tamara Harrison <Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Development - Formal Request for Project Status Investigation and Clarifications – SB 330 Application Status and Valley Water Easement Requirements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 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 provide i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR 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 by Planning 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 Claire Raybould. I am CC’ing Valley Water planning staff (Colleen Haggerty) that provided such comments on this correspondence because the City’s current position reflects a misunderstanding 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 that Easements do not exist on their property nor that they did not know what are the Creek Bank Buffer Requirements that Must be met (impacting any underground 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 scale or provide the applicant with clear, lawful direction. At this stage of design, easements must be explicitly identified, mapped, and addressed, not dismissed or misunderstood. 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 and zoning 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, Powered by Mimecast as this directly 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's Remedy 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. 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 directly affected 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 PM Subject: Re: 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Valley Water--Matadero Creek Concerns NOT ADDRESSED--PLEASE RESPOND ASAP To: 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 referenced below. Valley Water holds existing easements at 3400 El Camino Real, and those easements impose non-discretionary constraints on site development. 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 subject to 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 the entitlement 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 developments related 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 applicant has 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 only for 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 evidence that 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 apply a 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 SB 330 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 from Valley 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 that the 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 a valid 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 not paid 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 area compliant 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 were referencing? 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 have not 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 to comply 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 a builder’s remedy project, the applicant is provided with allowances under state law to not meet certain standards, including daylight plane. However, the City still encourages 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 area compliant standards. Regards, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (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 AM To: 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 or substantively addressed by the applicant, including during their March–April 2025 review period and most recently in their April 2025 submission. Tamara stated 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's remedy 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 the applicant’s design relative to Valley Water requirements. Despite this, the applicant continues to proceed as if these issues have been resolved, which they have 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 Review April 2025.... Why were they even scheduled in April 2025 for a public hearing when those issues are not even addressed?? waste of staff time. Applicant had 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 to revised 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 of those issues (Subtracting Creek Defined area from current parcels not from the entire parcel but from the each one/individually that Applicant defined their 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 calculations A recalculation of FAR and density, clearly showing the new allowable development envelope Updated 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 and 45-degree daylight plane standard. Please provide written confirmation that the applicant will not revise daylight plane assumptions in a manner consistent 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 include City Council and the City Attorney. I have also submitted a FOIA request seeking all City emails related to the Valley Water issues and other issues described 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 subtracted from 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 was done. 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-foot transition/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, Sep 8, 2024, 10:21 PM to 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-use project at 3400, El Camino Real in Palo Alto, received on July 18, 2024. Redevelopment of the site proposes to demolish various buildings and construction of 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 northwest corner of the site adjacent to Matadero By-Pass Channel. As per Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, work proposed on Valley Water’s fee 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’s Remedy is explicit that these projects must still undergo CEQA review. Any permit necessary from Valley Water (or any state agency) will require CEQA 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 in the Urban Water Management Plans for Valley Water and Palo Alto all available water conservation measures should be incorporated into the project including submeters for all residential units to encourage efficient water use. Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use 15 to 30 percent. 3. The project elements located outside of Valley Water’s property and easement should be in compliance with Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Guidelines and Standards) which was adopted by the City. Redevelopment of sites provides the opportunity to provide increased riparian corridor setbacks to better protect/enhance the riparian corridor; ensure structures have appropriate slope stability setbacks; and provide space 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 of 0.2% chance flood hazard, though a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone A with no base flood elevations over and adjacent to Matadero Creek. 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 with the 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 existing setback 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 the site. 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 and label 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 storm drain system. 11. Sheet L1.1 shows removal of trees from Valley Water property and Sheet L2.1 shows planting, including habitat enhancement plantings, proposed on Valley Water property. Planting and removal of trees from Valley Water property needs to be removed from the project. Valley Water has significant riparian 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 human aesthetics, conformance with Design Guide 3 will help ensure landscaping will be maintained in a manner consistent with the goals of protecting the local 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. Plantings not in conformance with this design guide will have a negative effect on the existing riparian corridor vegetation and habitat found along Matadero Creek. 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 and Standards. Additionally, structures, including the pool, should be located to include a slope stability setback as per Design Guide 7 of the Guidelines 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 to groundwater 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 plan that follows all local guidelines, regulations, and permitting, particularly with an effort to minimize the volume and duration of dewatering to the extent possible. 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 managed to avoid further impact (see related seawater intrusion outcome measure area, as defined in Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan in Chapter 5 and Appendix H, available here: https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes/groundwater/sustainable). We recommend that any future dewatering permit applications evaluate and mitigate if the dewatering activities, particularly any long-term or permanent 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. If previously unknown wells are found on the project site during redevelopment, they must be properly destroyed under permit from the Valley Water or registered 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 AM To: 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 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: New Project at 3400 El Camino RealCAUTION: 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 for consolidation 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 PM To: 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 the middle of it. We would like for you to review the project and provide comments. The plans can be found on the project webpage here: 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 (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org From:Clerk, City To:Sven Thesen; Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Avroh Shah; Prisha Goel; Anya Rasmussen; Ziwen Pei; Kanami Taniguchi; Sarah Seeger; Zara Harwell; Valen Varanasi; Alice Snyder Subject:RE: Slide for Tuesday"s City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 12:17:38 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image007.png Hi Sven, Your presentation has been received and will be displayed during tonight’s general public comment. As a friendly reminder, general public comment must be delivered in person. Thank you, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Nicole Bissell Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2267 | E: Nicole.Bissell@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 2:55 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: 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>; Valen Varanasi <valen.varanasi@gmail.com>; Alice Snyder <alicesnyder2244@gmail.com> Subject: Slide for Tuesday's City Council Meeting 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 and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers