Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-02 City Council EmailsDOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 3/2/2026 Document dates: 2/23/2026 - 3/2/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Bill Hough To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Public comment on agenda item 4 on March 2 council agenda Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 9:12:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council should OPPOSE the proposed transit sales tax increase. We don’t need another regressive transportation funding measure. Our taxes are already too high. Vote NO. Over the last several elections, voters in Santa Clara County have passed multiple tax and fee increases including gas taxes, the Caltrain Measure RR tax, two bridge toll increases, three VTA sales taxes, Santa Clara County’s Measure A 1/8 cent sales tax, the state prop 30 ¼ cent sales tax and the 2010 Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee of $10,and most recently a Santa Clara County stealth sales tax." Additionally, we’re on the hook to pay back numerous state bond issues including high- speed rail, the Proposition 1 water bond and the infrastructure bonds of 2006. All this nickel and diming contributes into making the Bay Area a horribly expensive place to live; especially for people of modest means, who must pay the greatest percentage of their income in these regressive taxes and fees. Each increase by itself does not amount to much, but the cumulative effect is to add to the unaffordability of the region. Before increasing taxes YET AGAIN, waste needs to be removed from transportation projects. VTA needs to "value engineer the BART to San Jose project, going with a twin bore tunnel and eliminating the redundant BART extension between the San Jose and Santa Clara Caltrain stations. The BART segment from these stations would duplicate both the existing Caltrain line and VTA's 22 and 522 buses. Why don’t the wealthy high rollers at MTC suggest taxing rich tech companies and leave the little guy alone for a change? Bill Hough From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - March 2, 2026 Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 7:48:38 AM Attachments:FW Request for Partnership Stem Cell Donor Drive for Local First Responders.msg FW PAN"s Concerns Regarding Flock Safety.msg FW RE Attempted theft_ safety security concern to Echelon Community.msg FW Garden gate.msg RE Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts.msg image001.png image002.png Flock contract.msg FW Bobs OSV Count (12926).msg Fw IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through March 2, 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:Alison Vanegeren To:Council, City Subject:Terminate Flock contract Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 7:21:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please terminate our contract with Flock license plate scanners. I don't want hundreds of agencies able to access this information without our permission. Thank you. -- Alison Van Egeren This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Nikaniki To:Council, City Subject:Confirmation Before Booking Date:Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:22:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon, I trust you are doing well. I am writing to inquire whether your establishment is at present accommodating visitors? I prefer to confirm this before planning my visit, to ensure that stays are currently possible. I await your reply. Kind regards From:Chancy伊芙丽娜 To:info@preventhomelessness.org Cc:Elaine Elbizri; PaloAlto Mediation; Joyce Davidson Subject:Formal Complaint Regarding Retaliatory Eviction Threats and Habitability Issues Date:Saturday, February 28, 2026 6:44:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Sir or Madam, On February 27, 2026, at approximately 4:00 PM, I participated in a scheduled Palo Alto Peer Mediation meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss several unresolved hazards and maintenance issues at my residence, 103 Tennyson Avenue. Present at this meeting were Annie Jones (manager at Tishau Holding), two Palo Alto mediators, and two additional witnesses. During this discussion, I raised one of many concerns regarding the failure to service the HVAC system. Specifically, I noted that the filters—which manufacturers recommend replacing every 90 days—have been neglected. This negligence previously left my son and me without heat for three days during the December holiday season and forced us to breathe air from dirty filters. When I brought this up in December, Ms. Jones claimed the filters only need to be changed every five years, a claim that is both unprecedented and factually incorrect. Because I attempted to schedule the necessary filter replacements during the meeting, Ms. Jones threatened me with eviction in front of all four witnesses. She stated, and I quote, "You have been evicted. I'll send you your notice; you have 30 days. You don't have a renewal lease." She then turned to an individual named Gonzalez, who was with her, to confirm this course of action, and he agreed. I have resided in this complex for over five years without any record of wrongdoing. This threat feels like a direct retaliation for demanding a habitable living environment. Consequently, my son and I no longer feel safe in our own home, knowing that management holds the keys and believes they can arbitrarily displace us for requesting basic maintenance. I am urgently requesting assistance and information on resources available to protect my son and me. We are terrified of being forced onto the street without a home to go to simply because we asked for functional heat and clean air. Please reach out to me immediately with any legal or housing support that can prevent this wrongful displacement. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. This person's name has non-English characters. Mark Safe Report Evelyne L. Chancy 917-881-0848 From:Kenneth Streib To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Date:Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:57:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please don't close Churchill, ever for a short while. It is the only viable way I can get to the B of A on Lytton. And it will only increase traffic through the other crossings. Embarcadero is already unworkably busy. Thanks, Ken This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:jason@mail.ca-filings.com To:Council, City Subject:PALO ALTO POLICE MANAGER"S ASSOCIATION, INC.: Help Filing CA Statement of Information Date:Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:25:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hello I noticed that you haven't completed filing the Statement of Information for PALO ALTO POLICE MANAGER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., which is a mandatory requirement to do business in California. Click here to get started. (average time to complete 1 - 2 minutes). Don't hesitate to send me an email if you have any questions. Whether it's just general information about what a statement of information is or if you need help filling out the form, I'm happy to help. Best, Jason Cook For further assistance, reply to this message. 1401 21st ST, STE R SACRAMENTO, CA 95811 This electronic communication, including any authorized attachments, contains information that may be legally privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from all computers on which it may be stored. Although every attempt has been made to ensure that the information contained in this email is accurate, the most up to date records may be obtained by searching the Secretary of State's website directly. THIS PRODUCT OR SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ENDORSED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, AND THIS OFFER IS NOT BEING MADE BY AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. Unsubscribe from future messages. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:notices@soi-filing.com To:Council, City Subject:PALO ALTO POLICE MANAGER"S ASSOCIATION, INC.: CA Statement of Information is PAST DUE Date:Saturday, February 28, 2026 7:15:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The California Secretary of State is showing that PALO ALTO POLICE MANAGER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. missed the deadline of 10/31/2023 to file its Statement of Information. PALO ALTO POLICE MANAGER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. (3417319) Initial Filing Date 10/03/2011 Formed In CALIFORNIA Principal Address 275 FOREST AVE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Statement of Info Due Date 10/31/2023 Click Here To File Now Failure to file a statement of information can lead to a $250 fine which will be assessed by the California Franchise Tax Board and suspension of your business. For further assistance, reply to this message. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 1401 21st ST, STE R Sacramento, CA 95811 This electronic communication, including any authorized attachments, contains information that may be legally privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from all computers on which it may be stored. Although every attempt has been made to ensure that the information contained in this email is accurate, the most up to date records may be obtained by searching the Secretary of State's website directly. THIS PRODUCT OR SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ENDORSED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, AND THIS OFFER IS NOT BEING MADE BY AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. Unsubscribe from future messages. From:kathy marsh To:Council, City Subject:Right turn ban Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 3:46:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I’ve lived in Palo Alto nearly my whole life and have seen a lot of wasted money. Matadero gets a painted line, then it’s removed, then we get multiple types of bumps, then removed. What about letting a contractor cut all the trees down on California Avenue years ago because no one was there to supervise the outsourced contractors? I’m writing now because we are very much against the ban on turning right on red up and down El Camino and all the streets around Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods that feed into El Camino. What a colossal waste of our tax payer money. I’ve yet to see anyone use these El Camino bike lanes and we now have huge traffic snarls around our neighborhoods. It was bad enough to have to put a traffic light at every single intersection in Barron Park on El Camino. Another huge waste of money with no thought at all on how this affects increased traffic down the side streets and creates problems for people that live on those streets. El Camino never has and never will be a Bike Boulevard. Thank you to Greg Tanaka for voting against this , we’ll definitely be supporting him in the future. Kathy Marsh Barron Park This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Patent Protector To:city.council@menlopark.gov; jaherren@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; city.council@mountainview.gov; city.clerk@mountainview.gov; Council, City; Clerk, City; wlincoln@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; mbarragan@cityofepa.org; mdinan@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; District1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; District6@sanjoseca.gov; District7@sanjoseca.gov; District8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; ClerkRecorder@rec.sccgov.org; tips@techcrunch.com Subject:Update: New reporting on AI model extraction relevant to public petition Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 2:07:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Leaders and Editors, I recently shared a public petition calling for stronger protection of artificial intelligence–related intellectual property and greater enforcement prioritization by federal agencies. I am writing to provide a brief update that may be relevant to this topic. On February 23, 2026, VentureBeat published an article titled “Anthropic says DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax used 24,000 fake accounts to rip off Claude,” reporting allegations that thousands of fraudulent accounts were used to extract AI model outputs at scale for potential competitive model development. Below is the VentureBeat article link: https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-says-deepseek-moonshot-and-minimax-used-24- 000-fake-accounts-to This reporting appears to reflect the growing policy and security concerns surrounding AI intellectual property protection that my petition addresses. Given Silicon Valley’s leadership in AI innovation, I wanted to share this development for awareness and possible discussion within civic, policy, and media contexts. Petition link: https://c.org/K4SDSwx9hN Thank you for your time and for supporting civic dialogue on emerging technology policy issues. Sincerely, Morgan Vale This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Independent petitioner and AI policy researcher Email: patentprotector@proton.me From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Help guide my review of the unredacted Epstein files…. Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 1:32:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION Do you want to know what I find in the Epstein files? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear City, As a former prosecutor of a sexual assault and child exploitation, I take the safety of children–and the horrific crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his coconspirators–very seriously. Members of Congress can review the unredacted Epstein files in a secure room at the Department of Justice. I’ll be there this week, and I’d like to “crowdsource” our search strategy. There are millions of pages in the file – and importantly, many missing and heavily- redacted pages. Many of you have already reviewed the public, redacted files on the DOJ’s website, and you’ve searched Epstein’s emails on platforms like Jmail. Several of you have already taken a “deep dive,” and may have very specific information that can help us. To help us find that needle in the haystack, I’ve created a document request form. If you’d like to shed light on a suspicious redaction, or on an obvious gap in a logical sequence of critical pages, tell me by completing this form. Your input will help focus my review, and I will report back on those leads that seem most promising. Thank you for your partnership, by helping us “crowdsource” the truth about these horrible crimes. Talk soon, Sam Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Help guide my review of the unredacted Epstein files…. Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 1:31:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION Do you want to know what I find in the Epstein files? Yes No Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Dear Council,, As a former prosecutor of a sexual assault and child exploitation, I take the safety of children–and the horrific crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his coconspirators–very seriously. Members of Congress can review the unredacted Epstein files in a secure room at the Department of Justice. I’ll be there this week, and I’d like to “crowdsource” our search strategy. There are millions of pages in the file – and importantly, many missing and heavily- redacted pages. Many of you have already reviewed the public, redacted files on the DOJ’s website, and you’ve searched Epstein’s emails on platforms like Jmail. Several of you have already taken a “deep dive,” and may have very specific information that can help us. To help us find that needle in the haystack, I’ve created a document request form. If you’d like to shed light on a suspicious redaction, or on an obvious gap in a logical sequence of critical pages, tell me by completing this form. Your input will help focus my review, and I will report back on those leads that seem most promising. Thank you for your partnership, by helping us “crowdsource” the truth about these horrible crimes. Talk soon, Sam Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga To:Council, City Subject:Balancing privacy with crime-fighting. Strengthening guardrails and standards. Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 12:18:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Supervisor Abe-Koga's Newsletter Dear Friends, This week, the Board of Supervisors delved into a policy topic that has gotten a lot of attention lately: ALPRs - - automated license plate readers - - and Flock Safety, the widely used vendor that is one of the largest, with 5,000 contracts with law enforcement agencies across the country, including cities in District Five that contract with the County Sheriff’s Office. These AI-enhanced cameras that record the license plate numbers from passing cars on roads and freeways have rapidly increased in usage and have been credited with solving crimes as well as finding lost individuals ...But lately, use of ALPRs have become deeply concerning because of reports in this state and across the country that vehicle data has frequently been made available to federal agencies such as the U.S. Border Patrol. On Feb. 24, supervisors voted to remove Flock as a vendor that county personnel can access or use. This is part of the newly updated consolidated surveillance use policy that was approved. It enhances administrative efficiency and promotes consistency across jurisdictions. The cities of Saratoga and Cupertino, who contract with the Sheriff’s Office for police services, currently have contracts with Flock. The Board of Supervisor’s action effectively means Flock camera usage is suspended for those city contracts. The County cannot compel cities to drop Flock. The action taken Tuesday also does not cover private entities such as home-owners associations and businesses. The quality of the discussion on this policy was strong. This is just the beginning of what I hope will be a robust and thorough series of policy discussions on many aspects of ALPR use and data privacy in the future. We know that our constituency is both concerned about the vulnerability of their privacy and also want the use of technology. Can we achieve a balance? Is it possible to place adequate guardrails on this technology? I know this much: We have to try. And be exhaustive in the process. Sheriff Bob Jonsen has been asked by supervisors to expand conversations with his regional peers – other chiefs who are grappling with this same issue – in an effort to develop analysis that will aid our discussions Santa Clara County made headlines in 2016 for its first-in the-nation Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance that was heralded by the ACLU of Northern California as “landmark.” Nothing stays still, however, least of all technological advances. That set the bar for Santa Clara County. And I fully expect us to research, debate and consider all aspects of ALPRs as part of our continuing commitment to be fully transparent, accountable and capable of building effective oversight measures. We owe that to the residents of this county. 'Seeing people as people': An invocation from the Rev. Kaloma Smith, UAMEZ To meet these challenges, we also need time for reflection. I believe the invocation we received at the beginning of our meeting help set the tone for this discussion and the many that will follow. For such an invocation, I want to thank our District 5 constituent, the Rev. Kaloma Smith of the University AME Zion Church, also known as UAMEZ. In recognition of Black History Month, and of the core values of the oldest Black Church in in Palo Alto, Smith called on us to see in each other our common humanity. The Board of Supervisors chambers was packed with people: Constituents, who had all come to voice their views and desires. The supervisors, who each had so much on their minds. Union members and privacy activists. Smith told a story about meeting Martin Luther King Jr.’s lawyer and speechwriter, Clarence B. Jones. He asked Jones for advice. It started with seeing people, Jones responded. “You have to recognize ... people are not numbers. People are not budget items. People are people.” This is the lesson, the tradition and the gift carried down in the African-American church, he added. “...To see the domestic at the same level as we see a lawyer. To see the person who rakes the grass at the same level as an elected official.” Rev. Smith acknowledged that we may be facing difficult times, we may be divided, and that this is a world that would have us label and marginalize each other. “But in this chamber, on this day, and the many moving forward, my prayer is that in this place here, have light where people are seen as people, hope is given and transformation happens.” That's a reason to pause. And reflect. Thank you. With commitment and care, Stay Informed: Your Guide to Supervisors’ Board Meetings Below are the upcoming meetings that you can join in person at the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, or virtually. Tuesday, March 10 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 24 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 14 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Please email or call our office with any questions at 408-299-5050. How to Participate in Board Meetings Residents are encouraged to get involved in the decision-making process in the following ways: Attend in person at the Board of Supervisors Chambers. Join via Zoom to share public comment. Zoom links for each meeting are available on the Board of Supervisors Meetings Resource Page. If you need help using Zoom on your smartphone, instructions are available on the same resource page. Submit written comments by email to BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org. Comments will be shared with the Board as quickly as possible. Please note: It may take up to one business day for documents to appear on the meeting’s agenda outline. Watch via YouTube at the Santa Clara County’s YouTube channel. Community Events in District 5 County of Santa Clara Animal Services Center -- Shelter animals need a dental X-ray machine – Donations through March 6 Be Ready Be Prepared: Inclement Weather – Key steps for inclement weather and emergency situations – In- person, hybrid option available - Los Altos Hills County Fire District – 10AM to noon, Feb. 28 District 5 Women's History Month Luncheon - RSVP by Fri., Mar. 13 Watershed Watch Earth Day Poster Contest – Artwork Deadline: Mon., Mar. 16 District 5 Summer Internship Program – Applications Due Fri., Mar. 20 CalWater Service Group Scholarship applications - $2500 to $10,000: Mar. 26 Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Summer Leadership Academy – Applications due Wed., Apr. 22 Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga 70 W. Hedding Street San Jose, CA (408) 299-5050 Unsubscribe from future updates From:Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga To:Council, City Subject:Balancing privacy with crime-fighting. Strengthening guardrails and standards. Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 12:03:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Supervisor Abe-Koga's Newsletter Dear Friends, This week, the Board of Supervisors delved into a policy topic that has gotten a lot of attention lately: ALPRs - - automated license plate readers - - and Flock Safety, the widely used vendor that is one of the largest, with 5,000 contracts with law enforcement agencies across the country, including cities in District Five that contract with the County Sheriff’s Office. These AI-enhanced cameras that record the license plate numbers from passing cars on roads and freeways have rapidly increased in usage and have been credited with solving crimes as well as finding lost individuals ...But lately, use of ALPRs have become deeply concerning because of reports in this state and across the country that vehicle data has frequently been made available to federal agencies such as the U.S. Border Patrol. On Feb. 24, supervisors voted to remove Flock as a vendor that county personnel can access or use. This is part of the newly updated consolidated surveillance use policy that was approved. It enhances administrative efficiency and promotes consistency across jurisdictions. The cities of Saratoga and Cupertino, who contract with the Sheriff’s Office for police services, currently have contracts with Flock. The Board of Supervisor’s action effectively means Flock camera usage is suspended for those city contracts. The County cannot compel cities to drop Flock. The action taken Tuesday also does not cover private entities such as home-owners associations and businesses. The quality of the discussion on this policy was strong. This is just the beginning of what I hope will be a robust and thorough series of policy discussions on many aspects of ALPR use and data privacy in the future. We know that our constituency is both concerned about the vulnerability of their privacy and also want the use of technology. Can we achieve a balance? Is it possible to place adequate guardrails on this technology? I know this much: We have to try. And be exhaustive in the process. Sheriff Bob Jonsen has been asked by supervisors to expand conversations with his regional peers – other chiefs who are grappling with this same issue – in an effort to develop analysis that will aid our discussions Santa Clara County made headlines in 2016 for its first-in the-nation Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance that was heralded by the ACLU of Northern California as “landmark.” Nothing stays still, however, least of all technological advances. That set the bar for Santa Clara County. And I fully expect us to research, debate and consider all aspects of ALPRs as part of our continuing commitment to be fully transparent, accountable and capable of building effective oversight measures. We owe that to the residents of this county. 'Seeing people as people': An invocation from the Rev. Kaloma Smith, UAMEZ To meet these challenges, we also need time for reflection. I believe the invocation we received at the beginning of our meeting help set the tone for this discussion and the many that will follow. For such an invocation, I want to thank our District 5 constituent, the Rev. Kaloma Smith of the University AME Zion Church, also known as UAMEZ. In recognition of Black History Month, and of the core values of the oldest Black Church in in Palo Alto, Smith called on us to see in each other our common humanity. The Board of Supervisors chambers was packed with people: Constituents, who had all come to voice their views and desires. The supervisors, who each had so much on their minds. Union members and privacy activists. Smith told a story about meeting Martin Luther King Jr.’s lawyer and speechwriter, Clarence B. Jones. He asked Jones for advice. It started with seeing people, Jones responded. “You have to recognize ... people are not numbers. People are not budget items. People are people.” This is the lesson, the tradition and the gift carried down in the African-American church, he added. “...To see the domestic at the same level as we see a lawyer. To see the person who rakes the grass at the same level as an elected official.” Rev. Smith acknowledged that we may be facing difficult times, we may be divided, and that this is a world that would have us label and marginalize each other. “But in this chamber, on this day, and the many moving forward, my prayer is that in this place here, have light where people are seen as people, hope is given and transformation happens.” That's a reason to pause. And reflect. Thank you. With commitment and care, Stay Informed: Your Guide to Supervisors’ Board Meetings Below are the upcoming meetings that you can join in person at the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, or virtually. Tuesday, March 10 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 24 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 14 at 9:30AM -- Regular Meeting Please email or call our office with any questions at 408-299-5050. How to Participate in Board Meetings Residents are encouraged to get involved in the decision-making process in the following ways: Attend in person at the Board of Supervisors Chambers. Join via Zoom to share public comment. Zoom links for each meeting are available on the Board of Supervisors Meetings Resource Page. If you need help using Zoom on your smartphone, instructions are available on the same resource page. Submit written comments by email to BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org. Comments will be shared with the Board as quickly as possible. Please note: It may take up to one business day for documents to appear on the meeting’s agenda outline. Watch via YouTube at the Santa Clara County’s YouTube channel. Community Events in District 5 County of Santa Clara Animal Services Center -- Shelter animals need a dental X-ray machine – Donations through March 6 Be Ready Be Prepared: Inclement Weather – Key steps for inclement weather and emergency situations – In- person, hybrid option available - Los Altos Hills County Fire District – 10AM to noon, Feb. 28 District 5 Women's History Month Luncheon - RSVP by Fri., Mar. 13 Watershed Watch Earth Day Poster Contest – Artwork Deadline: Mon., Mar. 16 District 5 Summer Internship Program – Applications Due Fri., Mar. 20 CalWater Service Group Scholarship applications - $2500 to $10,000: Mar. 26 Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Summer Leadership Academy – Applications due Wed., Apr. 22 Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga 70 W. Hedding Street San Jose, CA (408) 299-5050 Unsubscribe from future updates From:Patent Protector To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Community petition on AI intellectual property protection Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 11:26:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Mayor Vicki Veenker, City Council, and City Clerk, I am a California resident who recently launched a public petition urging stronger protection of AI-related intellectual property and greater enforcement against technology theft. Given Silicon Valley’s leadership in AI innovation, I believe this issue is relevant to our local community and economy. I would be grateful if you could review the petition and consider raising awareness through council discussion, public comment, or community channels. Petition link: https://c.org/K4SDSwx9hN Thank you for your time and for supporting civic engagement. Sincerely, Morgan Vale Email: patentprotector@proton.me This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Patent Protector To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Community Petition on AI Intellectual Property Protection Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 10:32:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council and City Clerk, I am writing to share a community petition for your awareness. The petition addresses concerns about the protection of American intellectual property in the era of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence. Specifically, it calls for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement against AI-related intellectual property theft, strengthen inter-agency collaboration, and develop improved mechanisms to deter unauthorized technology transfer and misuse. The issue reflects broader economic and national security concerns, including the financial impact of intellectual property theft on American innovators and businesses, as well as the importance of safeguarding emerging AI technologies. You may view the petition here: https://c.org/K4SDSwx9hN I am sharing this petition with local civic offices and libraries for community visibility and guidance on any appropriate channels for public engagement or discussion. If there is a recommended process in the city for submitting or presenting community petitions, I would appreciate any direction you can provide. Thank you for your time and for your service to the community. Sincerely, Morgan Vale Email: patentprotector@proton.me This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Flock contract ended by the City of Mountain View Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:37:01 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 & Honorable Council Members, Palo Alto need not be an outlier concerning keeping a contract with Flock Safety, Inc. Mountain View Police Department discovered that hundreds of law enforcement agencies had accessed their ALPR data which was supposed to be restricted. The trust has been violated and Mountain View’s Police Chief alerted the city council as Flock Safety, Inc. had breached the contract. The Police chief had recently asked the council to examine and assess Flock Safety, Inc. Now the City of Mountain View has officially ended its contract with this vendor and disabled its network of automated license plate reader ALPR cameras. You the city council are obligated to end the contract with Flock Safety, Inc. Your action is of vital importance. I urge you to cancel the contract with this vendor Flock Safety, Inc. as our neighboring city of Mountain View has rightly done. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:LWV of Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Re: March 2 City Council Meeting, agenda items 9,10 (S/CAP, 350SV petition) Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:18:59 PM Attachments:supporting 350 SVgasstoveltrfinalpdf.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council members, The LWV Palo Alto supports 350SV Palo Alto's petition to warn residents of the health dangers of gas appliances. The League believes that the public has a right to know the potentially harmful effects of materials they encounter in their home, workplace and community. The burning of natural gas releases carbon dioxide, nitrous dioxide, particulates and more. The adverse health effects of exposure to these substances are well documented. Our supporting letter is attached. LWV Palo Alto Lisa Ratner Hannah Lu Co-Presidents -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 903-0600 Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report March 2, 2026 City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Re: March 2 Council Meeting, 350SV petition on gas appliances, Action Items 9,10 Dear Mayor Veenker and honorable Council members: The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto writes to support 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Climate Action’s petition to include health warnings about the use of natural gas appliances in Palo Alto Utility’s Gas Safety Brochure, which is distributed annually to residents. The petition recommends the following: ● Including health risk information in the City's Gas Safety Brochure. ● Including best practices such as including proper ventilation while cooking and alternatives to gas cooking in the City’s Gas Safety Brochure. ● Adding health risk questions to the City's Gas Safety Awareness Survey. The League believes that the public has a right to know the potentially harmful effects of materials they encounter in their home, workplace and community. The burning of natural gas releases carbon dioxide, nitrous dioxide, particulates and more. The adverse health effects of exposure to these substances are well documented. Therefore, the League supports 350SV Palo Alto’s recommendations in their petition. Sincerely, LWV Palo Alto Lisa Ratner Hannah Lu Co-Presidents 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Drop Flock Contract Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 4:17:27 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 & Honorable Council Members, As leaders you need to integrate the pressing need to drop the contract with the Georgia based company Flock Safety, Inc. The surveillance technology has been intrusive and harming. Stopping car thefts is important but the damage to citizens and others is staggering. Their own service agreement states “Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary.” In reality data has been shared without knowledge or consent of participating municipalities. We are living in an era of diminishing rights and control. Many officials realized after the fact that Flock has shared data and that federal agencies including US Border Patrol had Homeland Security searched their data. In August Flock revealed to 9News in Denver that it had a pilot program with US Customs and Border Protection. According to NPR Flock’s CEO Garrett Langley had previously denied the company had federal contracts. The council must act and cease the contract with Flock as you prioritize values and protecting residents and others. You could very well receive pushback from the Assistant Chief of Police Reifschneider as he has recently informed PAN’s leaders that “PAPD has been in contact with Flock’s executive leadership to express concerns and is continuing to work with Flock to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent a similar occurence in the future. “ Many residents and others feel the trust has been broken and no longer want our police department to utilize Flock’s surveillance technology in our town. Here are some cities that have ceased using this surveillance vendor: Austin, Denver, Aspen, Cleveland, Bloomington, Eugene, Flagstaff, Cambridge, Santa Cruz, and Los Altos Hills. Electronic Frontier Foundation after careful examination found a significant number of police departments had searched Flock’s data in connection with protest activity. I urge you Mayor Veenker to stand with your colleagues and stop this contract that violates Palo Alto’s values. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin Sent from my iPhone From:Chris Schremp To:Council, City Cc:Christine Schremp Subject:Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:58:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my profound disappointment and a formal grievance regarding the City Council’s failure to acknowledge or respond to my previous communication sent in December 2025. As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I find it unacceptable that a detailed report of municipal code violations and public health hazards has been met with no response to my email and minimal action by the City. Since my last email, the situation has not stayed stagnant; it has significantly worsened. New and Escalating Impacts: Vector Control Crisis: For the first time in four years, my property is being targeted by rats and raccoons. These rodents, drawn by the increase in unmanaged rubbish and waste surrounding the RV encampments, are now digging up my yard and creating a biological hazard on my private property. Physical Obstruction: The density of oversized vehicles on our narrow roadways has reached a point where safe transit is compromised, creating a "blind spot" culture that endangers pedestrians and cyclists. Its also unsafe to walk our dogs in these areas as they are attracted to the harmful waste. Sanitation Breakdown: The "rubbish" mentioned in December has now become a permanent fixture on our streets, signaling to residents that the City has effectively abandoned its commitment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Formal Reiteration of Demands: I am again demanding the immediate enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020. The continued refusal to enforce these existing laws is not a neutral act; it is an active decision to prioritize illegal encampments over the health, safety, and property rights of your constituents. I expect the following within 48 hours: This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report 1. An acknowledgment of this second notice and my original December correspondence. 2. A specific update on what the Palo Alto Police Department and Code Enforcement are doing to address the pest and refuse issues stemming from these vehicles. We have reached a breaking point. The lack of response is no longer just a clerical oversight; it is a failure of leadership. I look forward to your immediate reply. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 7:48 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Palo Alto City Council Members: We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive intervention. These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and Sheridan Ave. Failure to Enforce Existing Law We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal codes, specifically: 1. Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility, effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish. 2. All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and use of public rights-of-way as residences. The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax- paying residents and families are critical: Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk. Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents' driveways and emergency vehicles. Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction. Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions: 1. Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately. 2. Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient, we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act. We demand a public, concrete plan of action—complete with timelines for enforcement and new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter. TAKE ACTION NOW. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 (cell) From:Ellen Hartog To:Council, City Subject:NO to OSV permit parking Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 5:06:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, I oppose the OSV Permit Program described in the OSV Ad Hoc Committee Status Report. (1) The OSV Permit Program seems in conflict with California state law (10.56.060) and Palo Alto's own municipal code (Chapter 9.48) that prohibit obstructing public streets and sidewalks with items that restrict public use. We know that OSVs, by their length, width, and number, obstruct our public streets to prevent safe traffic flow and each occupy 2 -3 of the increasingly limited public parking spaces available in our neighborhoods. We also know that OSVs obstruct the sidewalks they park next to by intimidating pedestrians from using them. Pedestrians fear walking past OSVs because they know they are out of view of people at the other side of the OSVs. They are uncomfortable walking past the often-open front doors and "front yards" of the OSVs. Their walking is impeded by the housekeeping necessities, furniture, garbage, and other objects placed on the sidewalk by OSV-users. Thus, the OSV Permit Program does not seem consonant with state and city regulations designed to maintain unrestricted public use, and traffic and pedestrian safety, of Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks. (2) There is no way to equitably distribute sites of an OSV Permit Program across the City of Palo Alto. Because of discrepancies in street design (only a limited number of streets in Palo Alto are long, straight, and unmarked enough to accomodate OSVs), and neighborhood tolerance (no way the OSV Permit Program is going to to be set up across the street from Laurene Powell Jobs' or Mark Zuckerberg's properties!), almost all of the sites for the program will be located in South Palo Alto, including the Ventura neighborhood. It is not fair to foist the OSV Permit Program exclusively on to Ventura and other South Palo Alto neighborhoods. (3) In earlier council discussions of a potential OSV Permit Program council members distinguished between placing OSVs on "non-residential" versus "residential" streets. On paper it is possible to make this distinction. In practice, in neighborhoods like Ventura, non-residential and residential streets are integrated. Thus, even if OSVs are confined to "non-residential" streets, they will block pedestrian access to sidewalks and create traffic hazards for residents who walk, bike, and drive through the Ventura neighborhood. (4) The report proposes that the OSV Permit Program be set up on public streets, next to public sidewalks, of Palo Alto. Through payment of state, county, and city taxes and fees, Palo Alto residents and business owners have paid for the creation and maintenance of Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks, as well as the police and fire protection and all city services associated with OSVs parking on/next to them. In my opinion, any plans for an OSV Permit program involving Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks should require a vote of assent by the residents of Palo Alto. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Ellen Hartog From:Maia Harris To:Council, City Subject:Status Report from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee - Jay Paul Company Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 5:01:33 PM Attachments:Oversized Vehicle Impacts Ad Hoc Committe Report - Jay Paul Company.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Councilmembers, The attached letter follows up on prior correspondence dated October 20, 2025, and provides our perspective on the proposed OSV Permit Pilot Program, as well as specific requests for the Council’s consideration in light of the Ad Hoc Committee Report discussion tonight. We appreciate the Council’s continued attention to this issue and the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. Sincerely, Maia Harris | Jay Paul Company Director, Special Projects & Community Relations Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3620 San Francisco, CA 94111 Office: 415 263 2929 | Mobile: 415 465 0419 mharris@jaypaul.com February 23, 2026 Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers, I am writing on behalf of Jay Paul Company to follow up on our letter of October 20, 2025, regarding the ongoing impacts of oversized vehicle (OSV) parking adjacent to our Class A office property at 2747 Park Boulevard and along Sheridan Avenue. As the Council receives tonight’s Ad Hoc Committee report, we want to provide an update from our perspective as a directly affected commercial property owner and to share our views on the proposed OSV Permit Pilot Program. We acknowledge and appreciate the City’s progress since October. The passage of urgency ordinances prohibiting vanlording and detached trailer parking, the initiation of deep cleaning on Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue, and the increased towing enforcement represent meaningful steps, and we commend City staff for the dedication they have brought to this effort. That said, as the Ad Hoc Committee’s report candidly acknowledges, OSVs have returned to the same street segments following each cleaning cycle, and the conditions we described in October persist. Vehicle occupants continue to use the sidewalks, benches, and outdoor furnishings of our tenant’s private property as extensions of their living space. Our tenant continues to raise concerns about employee safety and the professional environment they expect from a Class A commercial property. The displacement pattern we described in October — whereby No Overnight Parking on the 100 block of Page Mill Road pushed vehicles directly onto Sheridan Avenue — has now resulted in long-term vehicle occupation of that corridor for over a year. We have reviewed the proposed OSV Permit Pilot Program carefully and want to be straightforward with the Council about our position. While we understand the reasoning behind a permit framework and appreciate the Ad Hoc Committee’s thoughtful approach to a genuinely difficult problem, we are concerned that extending a permit program to the Park Boulevard/Sheridan Avenue corridor would codify long-term vehicle dwelling as a permanent feature of a commercial transit district rather than resolve the underlying incompatibility. A permit program, by design, authorizes and regularizes the use it governs. In a corridor zoned for commercial and office use, steps from the California Avenue Caltrain station, we believe that outcome would be difficult to reconcile with the land use character the City has invested in developing — and would not provide the relief our tenant needs to maintain safe and accessible conditions for its employees and visitors. The October 2025 staff report cited the need for “localized parking management and clear signage” tailored to neighborhood context and use. We continue to believe that 2- hour time-limited parking on Sheridan Avenue is the most appropriate and legally defensible expression of that principle for this corridor. California Vehicle Code §22507(a) expressly authorizes local authorities to restrict parking on specific streets by ordinance after posting adequate signage. This tool applies neutrally to all vehicles, is consistent with Palo Alto’s existing use of time-limited parking throughout its commercial districts, and aligns directly with the commercial function of the street: facilitating turnover and access for employees, clients, and business visitors. It does not require the City to pursue an outright OSV ban, and it does not carry the same litigation risk the Ad Hoc Committee has rightly identified as a concern. Palo Alto has applied analogous frameworks through its residential preferential parking program; the commercial equivalent is equally available and, we believe, equally appropriate here. We recognize that the legal landscape around OSV parking remains unsettled, including the Ninth Circuit appeal in Yesue v. City of Sebastopol currently pending with a decision anticipated in 2026. We would encourage the Council to ensure that any pilot program structure does not foreclose stronger corridor-specific tools should that decision provide additional clarity. In the meantime, we respectfully request that the Council consider excluding active commercial corridors such as Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue from any pilot program zones, on the grounds that the mix of uses, employee access requirements, and transit adjacency make long-term vehicle dwelling particularly disruptive in this context. We also want to express support for the efforts the Ad Hoc Committee has made to expand off-street safe parking capacity. The Move Mountain View program at Geng Road has a demonstrated track record, and we understand the difficulty of finding suitable locations for expansion. We would encourage the Council to revisit whether temporary undedication of the adjacent parkland — removed from consideration at the August 2025 Policy and Services Committee — merits reconsideration as a near-term measure, and to continue pursuing the Caltrans lot at Highway 101 and San Antonio Road as a promising alternative site. Expanding access to safe parking with the services and case management that MMV provides is, in our view, the approach most likely to produce durable outcomes for OSV occupants and the broader community alike. To summarize, we respectfully ask that the Council direct staff to implement 2-hour time- limited parking on Sheridan Avenue pursuant to California Vehicle Code §22507(a); exclude the Park Boulevard/Sheridan Avenue commercial corridor from any OSV Permit Pilot Program zone; and prioritize expansion of off-street safe parking capacity as the primary mechanism for addressing vehicle dweller needs. We believe these steps are consistent with the City’s own stated objectives of tailoring parking management to neighborhood context and maintaining accessibility and circulation in commercial areas. We are grateful for the Council’s continued leadership on this issue and for the genuine seriousness with which the Ad Hoc Committee has approached a complex problem. Jay Paul Company remains committed to working constructively with the City, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Sincerely, Maia Harris Director, Special Projects & Community Relations Jay Paul Company From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael Subject:SFO should be held to account, CEQA challenged Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 3:08:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers Lauing, Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl; City Manager and City Attorney, We want to express strong support for the City to continue appealing SFO’s untruthful CEQA and feel strongly that an independent review of SFO’s FEIR in Superior Court is necessary. The opportunity for the City to do so appears to end on March 6. We also stand ready to support the City however we can with a court review. The San Francisco Planning contingent working on denying Palo Alto’s appeal ≃10 who huddled after the SF Board of Supervisors Feb 3 decision to deny Palo Alto’s appeal seemed very satisfied to evade the purpose of CEQA, which is to provide truthful and accurate disclosures of potential impacts. They prevailed based on a highly questionable play of words about baselines while not producing any accounting of the growth in negative impacts integral to the project. What remains is an untruthful and misleading CEQA report, and last minute document additions from SFO (without notice to the public) paving the way for continued misleading declarations from SFO that are especially harmful to Palo Alto. SFO should be held to account for producing an inadequate and misleading CEQA. We have learned from the past that SFO declarations of "zero impact" and "nothing has changed" are deliberate mischaracterizations of SFO arrival flights that have successively increased their impact over Palo Alto. It does not matter what the name of the change is, OTA, Nextgen, GBAS, or measures that also push the safety envelope, SFO in collaboration with airlines continually undermine “surprise” and deleterious impacts over Palo Alto. If SFO has not reached out or agreed to meet with the City to collaborate on the “reasonable asks of SFO” that we put forth, it will be up to the City to take responsibility for these specific tasks which are necessary to correct the record for the public about potential impacts; inform impending and future FAA actions; establish credible noise abatement programs; and to effectuate the City’s “fast track” policy. Especially in light of impending FAA actions that have not been adequately analyzed and that the public is being kept in the dark about. We have thus re-titled the “reasonable asks” as Critical and URGENT City Investments to abate air traffic noise and particulate pollution over Palo Alto. IFP Gateway reporting of FAA actions impacting Palo Alto (which should be published for the affected public) and permanent noise monitoring demand a responsible and trusted agency in charge. Noise monitoring is essential to implement the two voluntary night time solutions that were proposed by the FAA during the Select Committee during a discussion on September 1, 2016. The FAA explained to officials and the community how a collaboration between the FAA, airport, and airlines could be effective and the FAA also offered new infrastructure (new flight path design changes) for Palo Alto and MidPen to address nighttime impacts. We underscore (and the FAA agreed on the record) this means dedicated night time programs for MidPen and Palo Alto, not stepchild treatment via the SFO Roundtable and San Mateo. We would hope that a court should also be interested in knowing why an airport refuses to engage our City on night time noise abatement programs that already a decade ago were recommended by the FAA and with regional consensus. Measuring progress can only be done with action and results on these investments. Last week we sent a reminder that there were only two Council meetings left for Council to convene on this very important decision. PLEASE DO NOT LET SFO OFF THE HOOK FROM THEIR ABUSE OF CEQA. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - February 23, 2026 Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 3:02:45 PM Attachments:FW Avoiding Caltrain suicides in Palo Alto.msg FW Utilities analysis of 3606 el Camino Real development.msg Fw DHS contracts in Palo Alto.msg FW CPAU Fee.msg image001.png image002.png Flock Surveillance.msg FW WIRED inquiry Palantir.msg RE Urgent Ongoing Health Harm and Unequal Housing Response.msg RE Palo Alto Link - please replace it.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through February 23, 2026. Please note staff responded to 35 emails regarding rail safety at the Churchill Crossing. I have enclosed one for your awareness. Respectfully, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Penny Brennan To:Council, City Subject:NO to OSV Permit Program Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 12:29:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I oppose the OSV Permit Program described in the OSV Ad Hoc Committee Status Report. (1) The OSV Permit Program seems in conflict with California state law (10.56.060) and Palo Alto's own municipal code (Chapter 9.48) that prohibit obstructing public streets and sidewalks with items that restrict public use. We know that OSVs, by their length, width, and number, obstruct our public streets to prevent safe traffic flow and each occupy 2 -3 of the increasingly limited public parking spaces available in our neighborhoods. We also know that OSVs obstruct the sidewalks they park next to by intimidating pedestrians from using them. Pedestrians fear walking past OSVs because they know they are out of view of people at the other side of the OSVs. They are uncomfortable walking past the often-open front doors and "front yards" of the OSVs. Their walking is impeded by the housekeeping necessities, furniture, garbage, and other objects placed on the sidewalk by OSV-users. Thus, the OSV Permit Program does not seem consonant with state and city regulations designed to maintain unrestricted public use, and traffic and pedestrian safety, of Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks. (2) There is no way to equitably distribute sites of an OSV Permit Program across the City of Palo Alto. Because of discrepancies in street design (only a limited number of streets in Palo Alto are long, straight, and unmarked enough to accomodate OSVs), and neighborhood tolerance (no way the OSV Permit Program is going to to be set up across the street from Laurene Powell Jobs' or Mark Zuckerberg's properties!), almost all of the sites for the program will be located in South Palo Alto, including the Ventura neighborhood. It is not fair to foist the OSV Permit Program exclusively on to Ventura and other South Palo Alto neighborhoods. (3) In earlier council discussions of a potential OSV Permit Program council members distinguished between placing OSVs on "non-residential" versus "residential" streets. On paper it is possible to make this distinction. In practice, in neighborhoods like Ventura, non-residential and residential streets are integrated. Thus, even if OSVs are confined to "non-residential" streets, they will block pedestrian access to sidewalks and create traffic hazards for residents who walk, bike, and drive through the Ventura neighborhood. (4) The report proposes that the OSV Permit Program be set up on public streets, next to public sidewalks, of Palo Alto. Through payment of state, county, and city taxes and fees, Palo Alto residents and business owners have paid for the creation and maintenance of Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks, as well as the police and fire protection and all city services associated with OSVs parking on/next to them. In my opinion, any plans for an OSV Permit program involving Palo Alto's public streets and public sidewalks should require a vote of assent by the residents of Palo Alto. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood