Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-09 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: 3/9/2026 Document dates: 3/2/2026 - 3/9/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Tim MacKenzie To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Policy and Services Committee Agenda Item AA1 - Oppose Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 11:42:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Greetings, My name is Tim MacKenzie. I am writing to share my vociferous opposition to the staff recommendation to have an auditor that is paid by Flock Safety to conduct an audit of the ALPR system Palo Alto uses. First and foremost, the principles of an independent audit are fundamentally violated by the proposed recommendation. Flock Safety has hired Baker Tilly as a client. There is a strong financial incentive for Baker Tilly to produce positive findings from the audit. This is not just a conflict of interest, it borders on blatant corruption. Hiring a consultant that is paid by the company they are supposed to audit is like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. Furthermore, Palo Alto already possesses the information it needs to make an informed decision on the Flock contract and use of ALPRs without spending tens of thousands of dollars. Flock Safety has proven itself to be an unreliable partner that consistently violates terms of contracts and California law. There are repeated instances of agencies in California and elsewhere sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies, a practice that has been outlawed for more than a decade. Importantly, this illegal data sharing has often been done unwittingly, with Flock Safety allowing the data searches without informing the local police departments. When confronted by the issue, Flock throws local police departments under the bus and attempts to absolve itself of all responsibility. Continuing to work with Flock would mean siding with an out-of-state company over local police. No audit is capable of preventing abuses from a private company that has demonstrated a reckless disregard for protecting our personal ALPR data. Just like Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View had strict data sharing policies in place. Any department that wanted to access Mountain View's ALPR data needed to get written approval from the Chief of Police and needed to agree to Mountain View's strict data safeguards. As we recently learned, Flock allowed our local data to be shared nationally and statewide without that written approval. From August 2024 to December 2025, MVPD performed approximately 25,000 searches of our local ALPR data, while unauthorized outside agencies performed over 3,000,000 searches. In other words, 99.2% of the searches of our local data were performed by unauthorized outside agencies and had nothing to do with preventing crime locally like Flock attempts to 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 claim. These breaches of contract and violations of the public trust occurred despite stringent policies and good faith efforts from MVPD. As mentioned in the staff report from the February 24 Mountain View City Council meeting, many cities beyond Mountain View have had similar illegal data sharing turned on by Flock Safety. There is no need to spend $30,000 to tell us what we already know - Flock Safety is an unreliable partner that does not care about our community's needs or values if they get in the way of turning a profit. The reality is that ALPRs are tools of mass surveillance that put the public at risk. The density of cameras throughout all our local cities are equivalent to putting GPS tracking devices on everyone's cars as we go about our daily lives. There are numerous reports of direct harms caused by ALPRs. Women seeking health care have been tracked from their states where abortions are outlawed. Protestors engaged in peaceful assembly protected by the First Amendment have been tracked by ALPRs. Faulty AI-powered ALPRs have repeatedly given erroneous alerts, causing police to hold innocent people at gunpoint, including handcuffing a 12-year old. Marimar Martinez, the woman shot 5 times by ICE was tracked by ALPRs. At a time when the federal government has executed US citizens like Renee Good and Alex Pretti in the street, it is irresponsible to set up a surveillance dragnet that the federal government has been proven to abuse. Giving money to a consultant to perform an audit of a company they serve would be squandering Palo Alto's resources. The city already has the information it needs to make the right decision - cancel the contract with Flock Safety and stop the use of ALPRs. Spending $30,000 on a farce audit is unnecessary. Tim MacKenzie, PhD From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Join Me for a Town Hall Meeting Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 11:40:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, I'm hosting a town hall meeting on Saturday, March 14th at 3:00 PM in the Mountain View High School Gym. RSVP here to let us know if you can make it. What: Town Hall Meeting When: Saturday, March 14th at 3:00 PM (Doors open at 2:30 PM) Where: Mountain View High School Gym 3535 Truman Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 I look forward to seeing you there. Please, don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions in the meantime. Talk soon, Sam Subscribe for Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Join Me for a Town Hall Meeting Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 11:40:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, I'm hosting a town hall meeting on Saturday, March 14th at 3:00 PM in the Mountain View High School Gym. RSVP here to let us know if you can make it. What: Town Hall Meeting When: Saturday, March 14th at 3:00 PM (Doors open at 2:30 PM) Where: Mountain View High School Gym 3535 Truman Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 I look forward to seeing you there. Please, don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions in the meantime. Talk soon, Sam Subscribe for Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Bulatao, Eric To:Chris Schremp Cc:cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 11:01:48 AM Hey Chris, Thank you for the follow-up. Street cleaning on East Meadow Circle will continue every two weeks, as indicated by the posted signage. During the designated street-cleaning hours, vehicles, including oversized vehicles, are subject to citation and/or tow if they remain in violation. There is currently no citywide prohibition on oversized vehicles parking in that area outside of the posted street-cleaning times. Once street cleaning is complete, vehicles may return, provided they comply with all posted regulations. Regarding Ramos Park, I am not currently aware of any ongoing issues, and we haven't gotten any more complaints. That said, I will have my team look into the area to assess compliance and determine whether enforcement action is warranted. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please continue to let us know if you observe violations occurring during posted restriction times. Respectfully, Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 9:33 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Eric - thanks for following up. I drove by East Meadow Circle today and noticed that one side of the street had been cleared of the RVs and Trailers and street cleaning was underway. Thanks for that - and please confirm that this means they will continue with this process and after the street cleaning the vehicles will not be allowed to return. Also, as those vehicles have been forced off East Meadow Circle, I did notice they are now parking in front of Ramos Park and blocking local citizens from parking there. Are oversized vehicles allowed to park there? - and if not, can you please confirm that you are aware of this and steps will be taken to prevent them remaining there? Thanks, Chris On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: The temporary signage has been posted, and the community outreach is ongoing in partnership with homeless outreach teams. We have towed several oversize vehicles from East Meadow Circle; however, we cannot prevent future oversize vehicles to repark in locations where vehicles were towed, including vehicles that were towed, released from tow storage, and reparked in the same location. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:08 PM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for your reply. While we understand this is not an overnight solution, in our neighborhood we have not seen much enforcement or action taken by the city. Powered by Mimecast Also, when you say that..."Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance." Can you tell me if the required signage and outreach period has been completed for East Meadow Circle and the surrounding areas? And if not, when will it be done? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:34 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email and for outlining your concerns. Your email was received in the City Manager’s inbox and bundled with other correspondence related to Line Item 4 for City Council review. We apologize if you did not receive a direct response from City staff previously. That was not their intent, and we appreciate you taking the time to follow up. The Police Department has fully pushed out its limited resources and is prioritizing oversized vehicle enforcement citywide. We are currently addressing impacts across more than 18 streets affected by oversized vehicles. Over the past six months, we have towed exponentially more oversized vehicles than in the previous several years combined. Our team has also collaborated closely with homeless outreach services throughout the affected areas to connect individuals with available resources while addressing public nuisance concerns. Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance. This issue cannot be resolved overnight. With limited staffing and a limited number of towing companies willing to accept oversized vehicles, enforcement is currently operating at its peak within the available resources. That said, we are prioritizing problem areas and have already seen measurable improvements in other parts of the city. If you witness a specific traffic hazard, active sewage dumping, or any immediate public safety concern, please contact the Police Department in real time so officers can respond promptly. We appreciate your time and your continued engagement on this issue. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 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: 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:Carrie Levin To:Council, City Subject:Get FLOCK out of Palo Alto Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 9:08:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To Councilmembers of Palo Alto- Even though I am a Santa Clara county resident and not residing in Palo Alto, I still drive in your neighborhood. The idea of having FLOCK cameras on me and my neighbors given the Trump regime's horrific abuses used against citizens is disgusting. I urge the City of Palo Alto to follow the lead of neighboring cities such as Santa Clara, Mountain View and Los Altos Hills to cancel contracts with FLOCK. thank you for your considerations, Carrie This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Penny Brennan To:Council, City Subject:3/16 Mtg: Palo Alto Commons Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 8:54:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, The Palo Alto Commons has historically broken its 1986 promises to its Wilkie Way neighbors and by breaking them has significantly diminished the quality of life of Wilkie Way residents, especially with regard to the invasiveness of the Palo Alto Commons into the backyards and interiors of Wilkie Way residents' homes, and the burden of excess traffic and over-parking of Wilkie Way by Palo Alto Commons employees, suppliers, and residents' visitors and service providers. Palo Alto Commons should be permitted a maximum of an additional 7 internal units to its complex and then only with enforceable contingencies that require Palo Alto Commons to live up to its current promises to minimize the negative impacts of 7 new iinternal units on its Wilkie Way neighbors, especially with respect to the traffic and parking problems it has created on Wilkie Way. At every meeting regarding the Palo Alto Commons proposal much is made of the need for more senior housing in Palo Alto. I note again that, although this need is quite real, Palo Alto Commons has always been and will continue to be housing for wealthy seniors. Over the years Palo Alto Commons has made no effort to provide affordable housing to Palo Alto elders who have modest-to-low incomes in the same way that, for example, Lytton Gardens has. Palo Alto Commons is generating huge profits that are flowing out of Palo Alto to benefit out-of-state, for-profit corporations. In my opinion, Palo Alto Commons provides no appreciable benefit to its local neighborhood and negligible benefit to the broader City of Palo Alto. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Dave Price Subject:Out-of-state police access Silicon Valley license plate readers - San José Spotlight Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 8:40:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! https://sanjosespotlight.com/out-of-state-police-access-silicon-valley-license-plate-readers/ Isn't Palo Alto supposed to be a leader?? PLEASE act now. Out-of-state police access Silicon Valley license plate readers he company behind a network of automated license plate reading cameras is losing its public safety contracts across Silicon Valley. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is the most recent slate of officials to join Los Altos Hills and Mountain View in severing ties with Flock Safety over concerns the company has enabled unlawful data-sharing between California law enforcement and out-of-state police. Mountain View officials revealed last month Flock had included their camera network in a national “lookup” setting without the city’s permission, allowing unauthorized law enforcement agencies to access their data. San José Spotlight has learned the practice repeated elsewhere in the county. Police in Massachusetts, Georgia and other states appeared hundreds of times in a camera network audit of neighboring Los Altos, whose 18 cameras remain operational. The city’s network logged 20 searches by out-of-state police for This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast records obtained by this news outlet. California law has barred police departments from sharing license plate reading camera data with out-of-state or federal agencies for any reason since 2016, under Senate Bill 34. The law has been invoked in debates about the cameras’ use and their role in federal immigration enforcement. “This looks unlawful,” Brian Hofer, executive director of Bay Area civil rights group Secure Justice, told San José Spotlight. He reviewed multiple camera records at this news outlet’s request. “It definitely looks like Los Altos wasn’t paying attention.” Los Altos officials said Flock had enabled a national and statewide “lookup” feature on their network of cameras without notifying the city or seeking its permission. Officials said they switched off the setting after discovering it, and added they don’t believe camera data was unlawfully accessed. One immigration-related search appeared in Los Altos’ logs even though it had set a filter excluding all networks outside Arizona, according to the data. “The network audit identifies all agencies within the broader Flock Safety network during a given period. It does not indicate they had access to or searched Los Altos’ specific data,” City Manager Gabriel Engeland told San José Spotlight. “While we believe our data has not been improperly accessed, this can ultimately only be confirmed by Flock. … We are limited by the fact that we cannot independently corroborate their internal system logs.” Flock Safety spokesperson Paris Lewbel said the contract cancelations will move public safety backward and prolong the time it takes to solve criminal cases. “We understand communities expect strong guardrails and full compliance with California law,” Lewbel told San José Spotlight. “Flock has implemented enhanced safeguards across the state, including disabling the national lookup feature for California agencies, blocking out-of-state discoverability, preventing federal access to California agency data and supporting agencies in auditing and confirming their settings.” ..... From:Adrian Brandt To:mforster1910@gmail.com Cc:Burt, Patrick; Council, City; Transportation; Bhatia, Ripon Subject:Re: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 1:57:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i I’m no costs expert, but wanted to share some extremely inspirational viaduct videos for Caltrain-like rail lines: In suburban Melbourne (as part of the big Level Crossings Removal Project): https://youtu.be/yxk5OB3FSTA Editorial: Melbourne’s grade seps are “worth the money”: https://youtu.be/5T_auX_R4dw Viaduct construction technique used in Toronto for its “Go Transit” commuter trains: https://youtu.be/S24bqxJ2BGs Lastly, of the Berkeley - El Cerrito “Ohlone Greenway” under the BART viaduct: https://youtu.be/gPXVIjhxB4s (long!) On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 23:22 <mforster1910@gmail.com> wrote: Pat, Thank you for your very quick response and interest on a Sunday afternoon. My initial primary source of viaduct costs was from a 2012 California HSR report reporting costs for viaducts and bridges as of 2011. I applied a non-residential construction annual inflation factor of 4.7% to arrive at the $180M/mile cost. (It was surprisingly difficult to find detailed public records of projects that broke out viaduct costs from other costs.) Prompted by your question, I did more research this evening. I came across a source that provided details on viaduct projects that provide a good basis of evidence for costs. I have included 5 of these projects in the attached addendum (pages 3 and 4). All of these are for roadway projects, but they appear to have similar characteristics to our Caltrain/CA HSR viaducts. All use features of accelerated bridge construction, such as spans precast/prestressed offsite and assembled onsite. All have parameters that exceed our Palo Alto requirements, including one or more of these: more difficult terrain (pilings/piers into water); This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report (much) higher clearances; larger widths; longer spans (which would be heavier and harder to transport); environmental requirements (seismic, hurricane winds, vessel collisions). Yet all but 1 of these 5 projects have per-mile costs significantly less than my report's estimate of $180M per mile. The construction timeframes are much longer than my report proposes. But our Palo Alto situation must be the simplest, ideal situation: slightly inclined from San Antonio to University Avenue, already graded, with good opportunities for multiple teams working concurrently. I do not know the sources of the previous estimates, but it appears so far that those estimates were much higher than necessary. Perhaps those estimates did not take into account the cost and schedule savings available through the application of accelerated bridge construction. Thanks again for your consideration of my report. Mike Forster From: Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 2:05 PM To: mforster1910@gmail.com; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Mike, What is the basis for your belief that the costs are comparable? Our previous costs estimates for a vadict were drastically more expensive than grade separations and funding is not available for multiple grade separations. Regards, Pat Burt Get Outlook for iOS From: mforster1910@gmail.com <mforster1910@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 12:53:48 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov> Subject: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. March 8, 2026 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Transportation Department and Committee Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer Everyone, A viaduct from San Antonio to the Palo Alo University Avenue train station is the best approach for grade separations for Palo Alto. Here is a quick list of the advantages of the viaduct approach: * Costs that are comparable to or much lower than the other alternatives. Cost avoidance from not lowering roadways at all. Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. Cost of pumps to handle sea level rise and groundwater for lowered roadways. Cost of a permanent maintenance and flooding risk issue * Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex approaches. * Reduces assembly timeframe and periods of disruption during construction. Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. * Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. Loss of part or all of a property, driveway length and access, and street parking. * Avoids likely legal quagmire. Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. * Enables major cost reduction for future cross-town bike-ped underpasses. My report supporting this conclusion is attached and is also available at: https://mikeforster.net/caltrain/palo-alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-approach/ Please review this report and follow it recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mike Forster, Evergreen Park 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike@mikeforster.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReconnectPaloAlto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reconnectpaloalto+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reconnectpaloalto/23c701dcaf8d%241f1dabc0%245d590340%24%40gmail.com From:Robert Snyder To:Council, City Subject:Policy and Services Committee, Ref: Agenda Item AA1 concerning Flock cameras Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 12:24:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Policy and Services Committee, I am concerned about Palo Alto's use of Flock cameras. It has been reported by news agencies that the data these cameras provide is being abused by policing agencies to track women seeking reproductive health nationwide, legal immigrants, ex-girlfriends, and other unjustified uses. I believe it has been shown that the abuse of this system outweighs the value it brings. While the local Police Department is probably not abusing the data, they have inadequate control over whether Flock shares their data, This is due to Flock's intentionally allowing other jurisdictions to quietly use the data or a failure to be able to block misuse of their system. I have heard the argument that sharing this data is illegal, but it would seem that there is no agency that is taking on the policing of that allowing for victimization of citizens from over zealous policing practices. I would urge Palo Alto to drop this system, if for no other reason to allow pregnant women who come to California for legal reproductive heath care to not be tracked by other states that don't provide the health care they legally seek in our state. Since this data is not adequately controlled by Flock, its abuse is inevitable. Robert Snyder Palo Alto Resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:mforster1910@gmail.com To:Burt, Patrick; Council, City; Transportation; Bhatia, Ripon Subject:RE: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 11:25:38 PM Attachments:Palo Alto - Caltrain Viadcut - Costs Addendum - Mike Forster v11.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Pat, Thank you for your very quick response and interest on a Sunday afternoon. My initial primary source of viaduct costs was from a 2012 California HSR report reporting costs for viaducts and bridges as of 2011. I applied a non- residential construction annual inflation factor of 4.7% to arrive at the $180M/mile cost. (It was surprisingly difficult to find detailed public records of projects that broke out viaduct costs from other costs.) Prompted by your question, I did more research this evening. I came across a source that provided details on viaduct projects that provide a good basis of evidence for costs. I have included 5 of these projects in the attached addendum (pages 3 and 4). All of these are for roadway projects, but they appear to have similar characteristics to our Caltrain/CA HSR viaducts. All use features of accelerated bridge construction, such as spans precast/prestressed offsite and assembled onsite. All have parameters that exceed our Palo Alto requirements, including one or more of these: more difficult terrain (pilings/piers into water); (much) higher clearances; larger widths; longer spans (which would be heavier and harder to transport); environmental requirements (seismic, hurricane winds, vessel collisions). Yet all but 1 of these 5 projects have per-mile costs significantly less than my report's estimate of $180M per mile. The construction timeframes are much longer than my report proposes. But our This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Palo Alto situation must be the simplest, ideal situation: slightly inclined from San Antonio to University Avenue, already graded, with good opportunities for multiple teams working concurrently. I do not know the sources of the previous estimates, but it appears so far that those estimates were much higher than necessary. Perhaps those estimates did not take into account the cost and schedule savings available through the application of accelerated bridge construction. Thanks again for your consideration of my report. Mike Forster From: Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 2:05 PM To: mforster1910@gmail.com; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Mike, What is the basis for your belief that the costs are comparable? Our previous costs estimates for a vadict were drastically more expensive than grade separations and funding is not available for multiple grade separations. Regards, Pat Burt Get Outlook for iOS From: mforster1910@gmail.com <mforster1910@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 12:53:48 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov> Subject: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. March 8, 2026 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Transportation Department and Committee Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer Everyone, A viaduct from San Antonio to the Palo Alo University Avenue train station is the best approach for grade separations for Palo Alto. Here is a quick list of the advantages of the viaduct approach: * Costs that are comparable to or much lower than the other alternatives. Cost avoidance from not lowering roadways at all. Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. Cost of pumps to handle sea level rise and groundwater for lowered roadways. Cost of a permanent maintenance and flooding risk issue * Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex approaches. * Reduces assembly timeframe and periods of disruption during construction. Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. * Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. Loss of part or all of a property, driveway length and access, and street parking. * Avoids likely legal quagmire. Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. * Enables major cost reduction for future cross-town bike-ped underpasses. My report supporting this conclusion is attached and is also available at: https://mikeforster.net/caltrain/palo-alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-approach/ Please review this report and follow it recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mike Forster, Evergreen Park 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike@mikeforster.net NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholde r to insert your own image. Caltrain Viaduct for Palo Alto: Costs and Timeframes Addendum Mike Forster March 2026 mike@mikeforster.net www.mikeforster.net Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Costs Addendum - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 1 Palo Alto Online, June 14, 2023 Palo Alto architect Joe Bellomo's vision for high-speed rail http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/11/27/arch itect-calls-for-design-contest-for-high-speed-rail Viaduct Grade Separations – Costs: Palo Alto, Menlo Park Current Proposals 2 •Palo Alto Churchill Closure with Mitigations: $115M midpoint, $104M to $126M, tracks at grade level, Churchill vehicle traffic closed / bike-ped underpass and upgrades at Embarcadero and Page Mill, night and weekend traffic limitations, 2 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/churchill- closure_factsheet_pa_june_7_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Churchill Partial Underpass: $318M midpoint, $285M to $351M, tracks at grade level, Churchill/Alma vehicle/bike/ped traffic access limited, loss of street parking, property acquisitions, 2.5 to 3 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/churchill-partial- underpass_factsheet_pa_june-3_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Meadow-Charleston Hybrids: $477M midpoint, $428M to $526M, tracks raised 15 feet, Meadow-Charleston traffic access limited, no property acquisitions but driveways affected, 4 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/meadow-charleston- hybrid_factsheet_pa_june-6_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Meadow-Charleson Underpasses: $844M midpoint, $756M to $932M, tracks at grade level, Meadow-Charleston traffic closed/Alma traffic limited during construction, property acquisitions, 4 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/meadow-charleston- underpass_factsheet_pa_june-3_2024.pdf •All share these characteristics: pump station/long term maintenance and risk of flooding, utilities relocation, construction 2 to 4 years; 2026 dollars. •Underpass costs, Menlo Park / Middle Avenue: $62M •https://nationaltoday.com/us/ca/menlo-park/news/2026/02/04/menlo-park-struggles-to-fund-costly-rail-crossing-project/ •Underpass costs, Palo Alto / Homer Avenue: $13.6M ($5.2M 2005, 2.6 inflation 2026 February); likely no longer allowed by Calt rain •https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2005/05/05/homer-tunnel-officially-opens Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Costs and Timeframes: Viaduct, Bridge References 3 •Viaduct: cost per mile for CA HSR: $180M, 2026 dollars; $9.8B / 113 miles, $90M midpoint estimate, 2011 dollars •https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf page 10 •Viaduct: cost per station for heavy rail transit (HRT): $45.9M (adjusted 2026 dollars; 6 HRT projects) •https://projectdelivery.enotrans.org/fta-capital-costs-database/ •Grade-level east track moved/new cost per mile: $3.0M, 2026 dollars; $2.6M for new HSR single track; + for catenaries, - for reuse. •https://www.scribd.com/document/428116190/2017-RailRoadEngineering •Viaduct: cost per mile for a 2-lane automobile roadway: $156M, 2026 dollars; $235M / 1.9 miles, 2021 dollars. •Location: Tampa, Selmon West Extension. •Terrain: comparable to Palo Alto: level terrain, in median strip with roadway on both sides. •Parameters compared to PA viaduct: clearance 30 feet vs. PA 17 feet; width 60 feet vs. PA / CA HSR 45-52 feet; span sections 130 feet vs. 100 proposed in this report. •Concrete strengths, comparable to CA HSR requirements: 8500 for spans, down to 4000 for piers. •Special mitigations: Within 2500 feet of salt water, within 150 mph winds. •Construction timeframe: 41 months. •Constraints: no daytime traffic closures. •https://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2022Spring/AspireBook_Spring22_2022DesignAwardspdf.pdf pages 12-16 •https://www.tampa-xway.com/initiatives/completed-projects/selmon-west-extension/ •Viaduct: cost per mile for a 2-lane automobile roadway: bridge: $147M, 2026 dollars; $450M / 3.2 miles, 2025 dollars. •Location: North Carolina, Alligator River. •Terrain: much more complex than Palo Alto: across a river. •Parameters compared to PA viaduct: clearance 65 feet vs. PA 17 feet; width 40 feet vs. PA / CA HSR 45-52 feet; span sections 80 to 170 feet vs. 100 proposed in this report. •Special mitigations: Corrosion protection. •Construction timeframe: 36 months. •https://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2026Winter/Aspire-Winter2026.pdf Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Costs Addendum - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Costsand Timeframes: Viaduct, Bridge References 4 •Viaduct: cost per mile for a 6-lane automobile roadway expansion: $222M, 2026 dollars; $1.5B / 7.6 miles, 2024 dollars. •Location: San Antonio, Northeast Expansion Central. •Terrain: comparable to Palo Alto: level terrain. •Parameters compared to PA viaduct: clearance 17 feet up to much higher (exact height TBD) vs. PA 17 feet; width over 60 feet for 6 lanes vs. PA / CA HSR 45-52 feet; span sections average 100+ feet vs. 100 proposed in this report. •Characteristics: very limited right-of-way; construction in a confined space. •Includes some non-viaduct construction, such as frontage road reconstruction. •Construction timeframe: 60 months. •https://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2024Summer/Aspire-Summer2024.pdf pages 5 to 9. •https://www.txdot.gov/35nex/nex-central.html •Viaduct: cost per mile for a 2-lane automobile roadway bridge: $115M, 2026 dollars; $60M / .6 miles, 2023 dollars. •Location: North Carolina, Harkers River Bridge •Terrian: much more complex than Palo Alto: across water. •Parameters compared to PA viaduct: up to 45 feet over water’s surface vs. PA 17 feet; width 35 feet vs. PA / CA HSR 45-52 feet; span sections up to 164 feet vs. 100 proposed in this report. •Special mitigations: Corrosion protection. •Construction timeframe: 15 months (spread over 33 month due to no April to September construction restriction). •https://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2023Fall/Aspire-Fall2023.pdf pages 24-29 •Viaduct: cost per mile for a 2-lane automobile roadway bridge: $109M, 2026 dollars; $55M / .6 miles, 2021 dollars. •Location: South Carolina, Harbor River Bridge. •Terrian: much more complex than Palo Alto: across water. •Parameters compared to PA viaduct: up to 65 feet over water’s surface vs. PA 17 feet; width 47 feet vs. PA / CA HSR 45-52 feet; span sections up to 78 feet vs. 100 proposed in this report. •Special mitigations: hurricane-force winds, seismic events, vessel collisions.. •Construction timeframe: 43 months. •https://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2023Summer/Aspire-Summer2023.pdf pages 26-29. Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Costs Addendum - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 From:bounce@bounce.votervoice.net on behalf of Aifeng Su To:Council, City Subject:Support Staff Recommendation to End Work on Rent Stabilization Ordinance Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 8:30:11 PM Dear Mayor Veenker & Council, Re: Policy & Services Committee – Item #3 As a Palo Alto housing provider, I want to ask you to support the city staff recommendation to defer further consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance. The data from the Rental Registry Program clearly demonstrates that a rent stabilization ordinance isn't warranted. Specifically, the report shows that nearly two-thirds of market-rate units (62.85%) reported no change in rent. This data suggests that the Palo Alto market is stable. Pursuing a local ordinance is impractical due to significant legislative and bureaucratic hurdles: Legislative Restrictions: Voters in California have rejected attempts to repeal Costa-Hawkins and expand local rent control on three separate occasions, recognizing that stricter rent control is not the answer to our community’s housing challenges. Bureaucratic Hurdles: With an estimated annual budget of approximately $2 million and hiring 5 additional employees, a local ordinance would not be a prudent use of taxpayer funds. I would encourage the city to focus its efforts on incentivizing the development of new units instead of regulating existing housing. I ask that the Council follow the data-driven recommendation of city staff and vote to defer this matter indefinitely. Sincerely, Aifeng Su 100 El Carmelo Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 suaifeng@gmail.com From:Bobbie Riedel To:Council, City Subject:Get Flock Cameras Out of Palo Alto Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 8:27:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Policy and Services Committee Members, Instead of recommending an expenditure of $30,000 for Baker Tilly to audit Palo Alto’s Flock system, you should recommend the termination of the contract with Flock and the disablement of the city’s entire fleet of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) effective immediately. Under the Trump administration’s anti-immigration efforts and reproductive healthcare crackdown, cities have become aware of ALPR data being used by hundreds of unauthorized law enforcement agencies across the country. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used Flock systems to help locate people during deportation efforts and raids by way of local law enforcement agencies that have access to the data. This is something Flock knows about and has admitted as much. The City of Palo Alto should be doing everything possible to oppose the inhumane and lawless actions of this Administration. Furthermore, Flock Safety became a client of Baker Tilly in 2024. Paying Baker Tilly to assess Palo Alto’s Flock system is a conflict of interest. I urge the City Council to vote to disable the city’s entire ALPR fleet effective immediately, and to terminate the contract with Flock by June. Roberta Riedel Palo Alto, CA From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:March 9, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item AA1: Public Employee Appointment -- City Attorney Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 5:06:45 PM Attachments:Attachment #1.pdf Attachment #2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. MARCH 9, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM AA1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY Before appointing Christopher Jensen as City Attorney, youshould obtain and make public every Statement of EconomicInterest (FPPC Form 700) filed by Mr. Jensen with the cities ofBerkeley and Cupertino. Attachment #1 is a copy of the San Jose Spotlight January 24,2025 article "Cupertino city attorney resigns" that says Jensenresigned as Cupertino's city attorney when the Cupertino CityCouncil majority became less development-friendly. Attachment #2 is a copy of the "Employment Agreement For CityAttorney" between Christopher Jensen and the City of Cupertino. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Ordinance Doesn’t Match Council Request (Item 9 on Monday Council Agenda / De Minimis Exceptions) Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 4:25:07 PM Dear City Councilmembers: The proposed ordinance on tomorrow’s agenda doesn’t match what the Council requested. The proposed ordinance begins: Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 18.70.080, 18.70.090, and 18.70.100, up to 250 square feet of non-complying floor area (i.e. floor area associated with a non-complying feature) may be relocated as follows, provided that the degree and manner of non- compliance is not increased There are several ways that floor area may be “non-complying.“ The obvious one is that it exceeds the allowed floor area ratio. But it might also be within a setback area, extend beyond the daylight plane, and/or exceed the allowed ground floor size (aka the “footprint”). Suppose a home has ground floor square footage that does not exceed the allowed amount but extends into the side setback, making that part of the home non-compliant. The proposed ordinance as written would allow that square footage to be relocated elsewhere within the side setback as long as it does not extend deeper into that setback. It could thus be relocated nearer to a neighboring home, potentially causing the neighbor to suffer greater privacy and noise issues. While the proposed ordinance does contain some protection from this for square footage added/relocated on upper floors, it offers none for ground floors. Similarly, the proposed ordinance would allow a first floor room that exceeds the daylight plane to be relocated nearer to a neighbor's home. Again, this could easily increase problems for those neighbors. The above scenarios allowed by the proposed ordinance are not consistent with your Council motion that initiated this. In that September 15, 2025 motion, you explicitly said that allowed adjustments should be: “not impactful to adjacent properties” Yet the proposed ordinance clearly will allow adjustments that are impactful. One easy way to fix this is to limit the allowed non-compliance to only excess square footage , which was the actual situation that triggered the Council to request this proposed ordinance. With that limitation, any relocated square footage would still need to comply with our current development standards such as setbacks, daylight planes, footprints, and similar rules, thereby protecting adjacent properties. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky Dear All, we are delighted to announce the new issue of the Herbert Simon Society Newsletter. Please feel free to post and distribute the newsletter to colleagues and any people you think would be interested Dear all, From:Herbert Simon Society To:Council, City Subject:LAW AND POLITICAL ECONOMY - KATHY WILKES MEMORIAL CONFERENCE -PAPER BY HERBERT SIMON Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 3:24:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. ! View in the browser Logo Herbert Simon Society This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report we are delighted to announce that Industrial and Corporate Change (a journal published by Oxford University Press) has just published an “almost unpublished” paper by Herbert Simon, titled “Organizational Behavior and Rational Behavior.” This article was never published in English but appeared in its French translation, “Comportement organisationnel et comportement rationnel,” in the August–September 1955 issue of Connaissance de l’Homme, a French journal which lived only for three years (1954–1956). Here, we present the English manuscript containing Simon’s handwritten notations. Presumably written in the first half of 1955, this version—corrected by Simon himself—corresponds exactly to the published French translation. You can find this paper in the Advance Articles section of ICC: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtaf066 together with a postface/commentary by Rouslan Koumakhov (who found the manuscript) and myself: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtaf067 They will both appear in print in issue n. 2, 2026 of ICC. Luigi Marengo Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik (IUC) 24 – 25 April 2026 From then to now: the journey from the early days of the cognitive revolution to today’s AI challenges From around the mid-20th century philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and fledgling neuroscientists joined forces in an eIort to understand the mind and its workings. Almost 75 years on, we are seeing the fruits in the development of large language models and sophisticated robotics. In this workshop we will recall the early beginnings, and reflect on some of the intellectual twists and turns that led to today’s achievements. We also aim to honour one of the pioneer figures in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, who died in the summer of 2025, Professor Margaret Boden, OBE and FBA. Friday, 24 April 14.00 – 14.40 Welcome and Introduction Prof. Ivan Šimonović, IUC Director General, Dr. Anita Avramides, St.Hilda’s College, Oxford, Prof. Riccardo Viale, Herbert Simon Society, Ms. Nada Bruer Ljubišić, IUC Executive Secretary 14.40 – 15.55 Prof. Andy Clark: Generative Models in the Wild: From Cybernetics to LLMs and Back Again 15.55 – 16.25 CoIee Break 16.25 – 17.40 Ass. Prof. Mirela Fus-Holmedal: LLMs and Strong Plausible Deniability 17.40 – 18.55 Prof. Shaun Gallagher: Intelligence: From AI to ZI — Some lessons from myrmecology 20.00 Dinner Saturday, 25 April 9.00 – 10.15 Ass. Prof. Remo Pareschi: Cognitive Sovereignty in the Age of Agentic AI 10.15 – 10.45 Coffee Break 10.45 – 12.00 Dr. Julija Perhat: Beyond AI Content Moderation: A Three-Tier Approach to Online Harmful Speech 12.00 – 13.15 Prof. Barry Smith: Artificial Intelligences and Us 13.30 Lunch Honouring Kathy Wilkes Dr. Kathleen Vaughan Wilkes (1946-2003) was a distinguished philosopher at Oxford University and a courageous defender of academic freedom. Her work spanned ancient philosophy, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, but she is perhaps best remembered for her heroic eIorts supporting underground education in Communist-controlled Eastern Europe. From 1979, she worked alongside dissidents in Czechoslovakia, helping to bring about the Velvet Revolution. She remained in Dubrovnik during the 1991 siege, continuing to organize academic programs at the IUC even under bombardment. Her dedication earned her the Commemorative Medal from Czech President Václav Havel and honorary citizenship of Dubrovnik. These conferences celebrate her interdisciplinary scholarship and her unwavering belief that education is a fundamental human right worth defending at any cost. Organisers and Speakers: Dr. Anita Avramides, St Hilda’s College, Oxford, UK Nada Bruer Ljubišić, MA – Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik, Croatia Dr. Paul Flather, St Antony's College, Oxford, UK Prof. Andy Clark, University of Sussex, UK Ass. Prof. Mirela Fus-Holmedal, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway Prof. Shaun Gallagher, University of Memphis, USA Ass. Prof. Remo Pareschi, University of Molise, Italy Dr. Julija Perhat, University of Rijeka, Croatia Prof. Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, University of Rijeka, Croatia Prof. Barry Smith, University of London, UK Prof. Ivan Šimonović, Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik, Croatia Prof. Riccardo Viale, University of Milano-Bicocca; Herbert Simon Society, Italy From:Martin Balestie To:Council, City Subject:Critical Infrastructure: U of Illinois Liner Design, wwtp internships, headworks (recent hires/area managers/most eng & science majors: env/chem/mech/civil/cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy) Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 3:23:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi! Nice to touch base! Hope all is well! Just a short email (hope it makes it through). I'm helping get the word out as regards up and coming webinar series, i.e. liner design and performance analysis, benefits of wwtp internships, headworks, continuing funding and more. Feel free to pass along/forward to possibly available/interested parties/dept heads/area managers/recent hires. Applies to almost all eng & science areas: env/chem/mech/ civil/ cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy. Will be glad to redirect to registration links! Always happy my side to support engineering/education, student mentoring, industry/global outreach and much more. Global and digital go hand in hand! Have a nice week start and beyond. Stay safe, healthy and happy! Best of greetings from way down south "el Sur" ... Tschusssssssssssss!! Martin Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! Liner Design & Performance Analysis - March 10th, 2026 - University of Illinois/FGI - Dr. J.P. Giroud Date: March 10th, 2026 New Developments with Practical Implications on Geomembrane Liner Design and Performance Analysis In this 100th FGI webinar, Dr. J.P. Giroud will describe new developments in geomembrane liner design and performance. This presentation will address essential aspects of 10 subjects: (1) Time necessary for a soil layer on a geomembrane liner system on a slope to slide when it is subjected to a rainfall. (2) Impact of seepage forces on slope stability. (3) Sliding of trucks and dozers on geomembrane liner systems. (4) Creep of seams of bituminous geomembranes. (5) Effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of geomembranes. (6) Frequency of holes in geomembrane liners. (7) Rate of leakage through holes in vertical geomembrane liners. (8) Magnitude of water diffusion through geomembrane liners. (9) Intentional geomembrane wrinkles. (10) Geomembrane seams next to rigid structures. All cases will be illustrated by field examples, and, in all cases, relevant papers will be mentioned. Dr. J.P. Giroud has 63 years of experience in geotechnical engineering, including 55 years of experience with geosynthetics. He is past president of the International Geosynthetics Society and a member of the US National Academy of Engineering. He developed many of the design methods currently used for geosynthetics applications (leakage evaluation, filter criteria, liner system design, slope stability, unpaved roads, etc.), designed more than a hundred structures incorporating geosynthetics, and performed numerous forensic analyses. He has presented lectures on geosynthetics in all continents, and two well-attended FGI webinars in 2023 and 2024. [] .The Benefits of Internships for Wastewater Systems - Thursday, March 12, 2026 - Shannon Hazelton, Wichita State Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 Description: This webinar will explore why establishing an internship program can be highly beneficial for utilities. We will share practical ways to fund internships, where to find potential interns, and the types of tasks they can support to ease supervisory workloads. We’ll also cover strategies for helping interns transition into full time roles. By the end of this webinar, participants will be able to: Explain the benefits of establishing an internship program within a utility organization. Identify multiple funding options for supporting internship positions. Locate effective sources for recruiting qualified intern candidates. Describe meaningful tasks interns can perform to support supervisors and enhance operational efficiency. Outline strategies that help interns successfully transition into full time utility roles. Understand how internship programs contribute to long term workforce development and build a pipeline of future talent. Presenter: Shannon Hazelton, Wichita State University Who Should Attend: Managers, owners, and operators of wastewater systems with an average daily flow of less than 1 million gallons Decision-makers for wastewater utilities, including mayors, finance officers, utility managers, public works directors, city councilors, board members, tribal council members, and clerks, Consultants and technical assistance providers serving wastewater systems Headworks: The Start to Wastewater Treatment - Thursday, Mar 19, 2026 Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026 Description: One-hour essential overview of headworks—the critical first line of defense in wastewater treatment facilities. This one-hour webinar is designed for wastewater operators, utility board members, and municipal decision-makers seeking to understand how headworks systems protect and support treatment facilities. Will cover the essential components found in headworks (screens, grit removal, and flow measurement), explore common operational and maintenance considerations, and explain how effective headworks performance impacts the entire treatment process. Whether you're hands-on in daily operations or making strategic decisions about your utility's infrastructure, you'll gain practical knowledge about this vital preliminary treatment stage and its role in protecting downstream equipment and ensuring regulatory compliance. Presenter: James Markham, Research Engineer at the Southwest Environmental Finance Center [] Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal for Wastewater Utilities Free Webinar Series (Wichita State; ongoing) Join the Environmental Finance Center for a free webinar series on Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal. Attend any of the six sessions, each worth 1 CEU for wastewater operators! These monthly webinars are designed for wastewater plant operators and managers. Participate in the discussion and engage with other wastewater professionals. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Small Wastewater System Funding Series - Syracuse University Successfully securing and managing federal funding for publicly owned and decentralized wastewater treatment systems is no small task, especially with shifting program priorities and uncertainty about future allocations. This no-cost webinar series from the Capacity Collaborative will guide participants through the entire funding process: where to find nationally available funding, how to craft competitive proposals, and how to stay in compliance through project completion. Designed for small wastewater systems, each session focuses on a step in the funding application and management journey, equipping participants with tools and knowledge to increase their chances of funding success. This series runs every other Tuesday from January 13, 2026, through May 5, 2026 . Workshops and webinars are complimentary under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! Penn State University Climate Resilience and Adaptation Project Fair on Tuesday, April 21st from 6pm to 8pm in the Penn State New Kensington Art Gallery. This event will include interactive projects that focus on exploring adaptation solutions for climate-related problems in power generation, transmission, and distribution from students from a wide variety of majors. Please consider sharing this event with anyone who you think would be interested in attending (remotely or in- person). Dinner will be provided for those who attend in-person. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! COLLEGE FUNDING: Last Mile Education Fund Applications Now Open – Tech Student Financial Assistance Last Mile Education Fund application portal is now open for students to apply for financial assistance. Last Mile exists to help tech and computing students cross the finish line to graduation. Fast, flexible funding for students facing unexpected financial barriers—covering everything from tuition gaps to groceries, transportation, childcare, and other essential needs that traditional scholarships often overlook. Who qualifies: Juniors and seniors within four semesters of completing a bachelor's degree Majoring in tech, engineering or computing fields Facing financial challenges Attending a U.S. institution and residing in the U.S. No GPA minimum, applications are accepted on a rolling basis. Students with financial emergencies mid-semester can apply as long as they're actively enrolled. Over 13,000 students served and a 74% graduation rate Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! James C. Young Project - Ken Schifftner Consulting Air Pollution Control - Balestie & Balestie Ingenieros www.facebook.com/industrialwastewater - www.PocketGoogle.com - www.DigitalProspection.com - www.MartinBalestie.com - www.GalopeApproach.com - www.TrumpetBible.com UNIVERSITY MENTOR University of Maryland: serving a third consecutive term as Computer Science Mentor Iribe Initiative Program https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-Peer-Alumni-Mentoring-Agreement-Fall-2021-signed.pdf uc davis University of California, Davis (College of Engineering ENG 003 Introduction to Engineering Design Showcase Evaluator): volunteered highly technical feedback to a full one third of 45 presented student teams although initially scheduled to review just five projects https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/Evaluator%20Assignments%20%26%20Team%20Info%20%28Sp22%29%20U%20California%20Davis.pdf University of Michigan: Chemical Engineering Mentoring Platform https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-umich-chemical-engineering-mentor-ucan-chemical.pdf Penn State University: Engineering Design 100 Climate Resilience and Adaptation Design December 2025 https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/penn-state-engineering-design-100-december-2025-invitation.pdf Critical Infrastructure Webinars and More - 2026 [] Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal for Wastewater Utilities Free Webinar Series (Wichita State; ongoing; next date to be confirmed) Join the Environmental Finance Center for a free webinar series on Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal. Attend any of the six sessions, each worth 1 CEU for wastewater operators! These monthly webinars are designed for wastewater plant operators and managers. Participate in the discussion and engage with other wastewater professionals. March 10, 2026 | Developing Logs & Standard Operating Procedures April 14, 2026 | Introducing New Operators to the World of Wastewater Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! p.s.: My good friends, my best friends computers NEVER fail to fail! You may receive duplicates of this message/others as at times I having email snafus/bounces. Feel free to get back to me ad lib, either via balestie@umich.edu and/or cc.: Martin Balestie <answers@engineeringfundamentals.com> (1) 917 300 3024 (on and off NEW NUMBER ). From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:Recent Population Data, Trends Suggest Slow Growth Ahead Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 3:02:49 PM Attachments:Recent Population Data.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 365 FOREST AVENUE 5A • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 March 8, 2026 Recent Population Data, Trends Suggest Slow Growth Ahead In December 2025, the California Department of Finance (DOF) released new population estimates through June 30, 2025. The DOF estimates show upward revisions in 2023 and 2024 and slowing growth in 2024-25 with ominous signs for future population growth as explained in our February Numbers in the News. U.S. and California population growth slowed in the year ending in June 2025. The statewide findings are now well known. This Numbers in the News looks at regional and county changes in population and the determinants of change. The regional population changes are shown below. Over the period since 2020, three regions-- the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento and San Diego--added population while the other 3 regions lost population. The changes in immigration and domestic migration contributed to the regional trends as explained in the attached file. State and Regional Population Change (Thousands) 2020- 21 2021- 22 2022- 23 2023- 24 2024- 25 Southern California -118.5 -47.9 10.8 91.8 -23.1 Bay Area -113.5 -29.3 12.4 48.3 4.0 San Diego -21.2 10.0 7.2 20.8 10.8 Sacramento Region -3.6 4.9 12.5 27.0 12.6 San Joaquin 8.5 19.8 24.9 39.9 18.0 Valley Rest of State -33.4 2.5 -8.0 2.0 -3.1 California -281.7 -40.0 59.9 229.8 19.2 Source: DOF -281.7 -40.0 59.9 229.8 19.2 At the county level, 11 of the state's 58 counties added more than 5,000 residents, all but Riverside and San Bernardino in the three growing regions and 9 counties, all in Southern California and the Bay Area, lost more than 5,000 residents. Full details in the attached Numbers in the New Stephen Levy 650-814-8553 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 1 March 2026 Recent Population Data, Trends Suggest Slow Grow th Ahead In December 2025, the California Department of Finance (DOF) released new population estimates through June 30, 2025. The DOF estimates show upward revisions in 2023 and 2024 and slowing growth in 2024 -25 with ominous signs for future population growth as explained in our February Numbers in the News. This Numbers in the News looks at historical trends within California by region and county. The DOF estimates revised immigration levels upward in the 2022-24 period, which contributed to higher population growth in these years compared to previous DOF estimates. State and Regional Population Trends The 2020-22 data show the impact of the COVID pandemic with large out - migration from the state. The 2022-24 data show the impact of upward estimates of immigration. The sharp slowdown in growth in the 2024-25 period suggests very slow (if any) future population growth statewide and is discussed later in this report. State and Regional Population Change (Thousands) 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Southern California -118.5 -47.9 10.8 91.8 -23.1 Bay Area -113.5 -29.3 12.4 48.3 4.0 San Diego -21.2 10.0 7.2 20.8 10.8 Sacramento Region -3.6 4.9 12.5 27.0 12.6 San Joaquin Valley 8.5 19.8 24.9 39.9 18.0 Rest of State -33.4 2.5 -8.0 2.0 -3.1 California -281.7 -40.0 59.9 229.8 19.2 Source: DOF As a result of the upward revisions to immigration estimates, California has regained nearly all the population lost after July 1, 2020. However, population grew between 2020 and 2025 in only 3 regions—San Diego, Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley. The other three regions, Southern California, the Bay Area and the Rest of State region, experienced population losses during these five years. The small population gain in 2024-25 is a warning sign for what the future holds. 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 2 State and Regional Population (Thousands) 2020 2024 2025 2020-25 2024-25 Southern California 18,833.7 18,769.8 18,746.7 -87.0 -23.1 Bay Area 7,746.6 7,664.5 7,668.6 -78.0 4.0 San Diego 3,308.4 3,325.3 3,336.1 27.6 10.8 Sacramento Region 2,585.9 2,626.7 2,639.3 53.4 12.6 San Joaquin Valley 4,313.3 4,406.4 4,424.4 111.1 18.0 Rest of State 2,753.9 2,717.0 2,713.9 -40.0 -3.1 California 39,541.7 39,509.7 39,528.9 -12.8 19.2 Source: DOF Future population trends will depend on national immigration policies for both legal and unauthorized immigrants (including potential deportations), natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) and on state and regional success in building housing affordable to all income groups. Both sets of policies come with great uncertainty as to success and timing. The recent history shown below is an uncertain guide to the future. California Population Components of Change 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Natural Increase 67,423 105,524 107,201 110,579 108,311 Immigration 20,035 133,360 199,095 259,321 126,473 Domestic Migration -369,152 -278,895 -246,434 -140,142 -215,542 Net Migration -349,117 -145,535 -47,339 119,179 -89,069 Total Change -281,694 -40,011 59,862 229,758 19,242 Source: DOF Natural increase should slowly decline from recent levels. The Congressional Budget office recently forecast that natural increase in the nation will turn negative after 2031, but the decrease will occur more slowly in California as the state has a comparatively large population of women of childbearing ages. Domestic migration levels will depend on California’s success in adding housing that is broadly affordable and on comparative price movements in other st ates. Recent state legislation in California and the decrease in long-term interest rates could slow out-migration from California. Recent trends are shown on the following page. 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 3 State and Regional Domestic Migration 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Southern California -148,670 -160,567 -131,869 -82,508 -126,918 Bay Area -135,833 -83,927 -54,534 -28,046 -48,810 San Diego -31,509 -12,138 -19,811 -11,495 -13,845 Sacramento Region -9,421 -8,895 -7,675 2,985 -5,735 San Joaquin Valley -11,611 -11,787 -18,636 -14,246 -12,879 Rest of State -32,108 -1,581 -13,909 -6,832 -7,355 California -369,152 -278,895 -246,434 -140,142 -215,542 Source: DOF Out-migration is a larger % of population in high housing cost areas, particularly Southern California and the Bay Area. Some out-migration from these regions went to the lower cost Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions. With almost 75% of the state’s population, Southern California and the Bay Area are where success in adding housing is most critical for reducing out-migration. Future immigration levels will determine if the state’s population can continue to grow and, if so, by how much. Recent immigration trends are not a useful guide to the future as, with the exception of three months in 2025, they represent the experience before the administration’s new immigration and deportation policies were in force. The immigration level in 2024-25 primarily reflects policies in effect from 2020 to 2024. 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% Southern California Bay Area San Diego Sacramento Region San Joaquin Valley Rest of State California Domestic Out-Migration as % of Population 2024-2025 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 4 State and Regional Immigration Levels 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Southern California 12,005 66,073 95,559 125,095 55,810 Bay Area 3,858 33,215 48,441 57,126 33,609 San Diego 405 9,546 14,619 19,580 12,548 Sacramento Region 1,364 9,222 14,856 19,154 12,772 San Joaquin Valley 3,536 11,794 20,711 31,243 8,291 Rest of State -1,133 3,510 4,909 7,123 3,443 California 20,035 133,360 199,095 259,321 126,473 Source: DOF County Population Trends Twelve counties added at least 5,000 residents between 2020 and 2025. With the exception of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the counties were in the San Diego, Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions. Six counties— Riverside, Fresno, San Joaquin, San Diego, Sacramento and San B ernardino added at least 20,000 residents. The largest gains in the most recent year were in San Diego and Sacramento counties, which saw an uptick in housing permits. Counties with 5,000+ Population Growth 2020-2025 2020-25 2024-25 Riverside 64.8 5.1 Fresno 28.6 5.4 San Joaquin 27.8 3.1 San Diego 27.6 10.8 Sacramento 23.5 8.8 San Bernardino 20.3 3.5 Placer 18.8 2.1 Kern 16.7 3.1 Tulare 13.4 1.8 Merced 12.0 1.6 Madera 7.4 1.1 Yolo 7.0 1.0 Source: DOF 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 5 Nine counties lost at least 5,000 residents between 2020 and 2025. All were in the Southern California and Bay Area regions. Los Angeles County had by far the largest population decline and was the only county losing over 2,000 residents in 2024-25. Counties with 5,000+ Population Loss 2020-2025 2020-25 2024-25 Los Angeles -145.5 -28.5 San Francisco -25.5 0.3 Alameda -18.6 2.1 Ventura -16.3 -1.6 Orange -15.5 -1.4 San Mateo -12.1 0.4 Marin -8.3 -1.0 Contra Costa -7.1 -1.0 Sonoma -6.0 0.0 Source: DOF Regional Structure The Southern California, Bay Area, San Diego and Sacramento region boundaries match the related regional planning agencies—SCAG, ABAG, SANDAG and SACOG. The San Joaquin Valley region includes multiple regional planning agencies. Southern California Counties Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Bay Area Counties Alameda Contra Costa Marín Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 6 San Diego Region San Diego Sacramento Region Counties El Dorado Placer Sacramento Sutter Yolo Yuba San Joaquin Valley Counties Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:March 9 Agenda Item # 11 - What happens with items submerged “below the water line” in the City’s iceberg metaphor Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 2:59:52 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, Reckdhal, Thank you for all your efforts on the Council Priority Setting process. It was however concerning to hear the iceberg metaphor used at the retreat for annual priorities and resource allocation planning when Council and the public currently lack a systematic way to track and measure what lies “below the water line.” The City only recently adopted the workplan to track objectives and progress on “above the water line” issues. This facilitated your discussions about what to elevate as a 2026 priority, and – for the first time in these discussions –I commend that Council is making the objectives in the priorities workplan more metrics-driven. More alarming though- and repeatedly stated at the retreat - is the assumption that items “below the water line” do not require Council involvement during the year. Please clarify this point because in reality, many such items make the public agenda. The implication appears to be that Council’s attention to resource allocation is primarily (or only) about the annual priorities, treating everything else as mostly staff’s domain. As I have written before, this poses problems when an issue lacks any other formal direction or oversight - such as a commission or standing committee - that provides transparency and ways for public input to be considered on a topic. Understandably, Council cannot review every City issue annually. Councilmembers are eager to advance their highest aspirations during their terms, and some issues may not personally interest individual Council members. Nevertheless, every Council has a responsibility to ensure that issues that are important to the community and “below the water line” make the public agenda at least periodically. This would improve public understanding of how resources are being allocated and enable more seamless tracking of performance across all issues. Many items reached Council priority lists through community input, so their treatment and follow up with Council representation matters. Aircraft noise serves as a clear example. Thanks to community involvement, it has appeared on the priorities workplan for several years (including 2025) yet the topic has not had a staff report or appeared on a public agenda in over six years. The City’s efforts lack measurable goals, its recent strategy was developed without considering other viewpoints or objectives, it has no commission or standing committee oversight, and obtaining updates or answers to questions has been extremely difficult. If an issue that has been “above the water line” exhibits this level of limited attention, it is highly concerning that it could be further submerged. The current state of aircraft noise is unclear: last year’s priorities were grouped into Group 1 or Group 2 visibility, except for 10 items explicitly set aside by staff. I could not find aircraft noise – previously ranked on the 2025 Public Safety, Wellness and Belonging objectives list – in either Group 1, Group 2, or among the ten issues set aside. As a side note, in your discussions on January 24 some climate issues were qualified as falling under the City’s “public health mantle;” it should be noted that SFO big-jet particulate matter is possibly much more immediately serious to Palo Alto. Frankly, the title of above or below the water line is not the core issue. What matters is clarity on how any issue is handled from year to year and the ability to track results and performance. Some issues are inherently more complex and long running, involving multiple departments (e.g., aircraft noise includes a role for the City Attorney’s office) and intergovernmental concerns. Pre-COVID, it was managed by an Assistant City Manager and overseen by Policy & Services. In 2020 it was assigned to Public Works, now often confused with Palo Alto Airport issues. Community outreach and communications went dark after this unannounced and unexplained shift. Potentially labeling it now as a City Council “value” only adds confusion. I suggest using City Council's values as tests instead; Are issues managed with transparency, innovation, community well-being and so forth? To track "below the water line” issues more effectively, labels organized by department or line of responsibility - and better threaded with the budget process - would be more appropriate. It is not surprising that the City finds itself in its current fiscal situation when neither our elected representatives nor the public has a systematic way to track performance, results, or transparency for the bulk of the CIty’s portfolio. As long as Council focuses year-to-year only on trailing priorities or new ideas, it tends to expand the already expansive portfolio further. There are many ways to approach the whole picture with more disciplined practices. I hope the Government Efficiency priority (now “above the water line” this year) will provide an opportunity to address these concerns. Best regards, Jennifer From:Burt, Patrick To:mforster1910@gmail.com; Council, City; Transportation; Bhatia, Ripon Subject:Re: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 2:05:33 PM Mike, What is the basis for your belief that the costs are comparable? Our previous costs estimates for a vadict were drastically more expensive than grade separations and funding is not available for multiple grade separations. Regards, Pat Burt Get Outlook for iOS From: mforster1910@gmail.com <mforster1910@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 12:53:48 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Transportation <Transportation@PaloAlto.gov>; Bhatia, Ripon <Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov> Subject: Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report March 8, 2026 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Transportation Department and Committee Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer Everyone, A viaduct from San Antonio to the Palo Alo University Avenue train station is the best approach for grade separations for Palo Alto. Here is a quick list of the advantages of the viaduct approach: * Costs that are comparable to or much lower than the other alternatives. Powered by Mimecast Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. Cost of pumps to handle sea level rise and groundwater for lowered roadways. Cost of a permanent maintenance and flooding risk issue * Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex approaches. * Reduces assembly timeframe and periods of disruption during construction. Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. * Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. Loss of part or all of a property, driveway length and access, and street parking. * Avoids likely legal quagmire. Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. * Enables major cost reduction for future cross-town bike-ped underpasses. My report supporting this conclusion is attached and is also available at: https://mikeforster.net/caltrain/palo-alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-approach/ Please review this report and follow it recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mike Forster, Evergreen Park 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike@mikeforster.net From:mforster1910@gmail.com To:Council, City; Transportation; Bhatia, Ripon Subject:Viaduct - the best grade separation approach for Palo Alto Date:Sunday, March 8, 2026 12:58:52 PM Attachments:Palo Alto - Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster v11.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i March 8, 2026 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Transportation Department and Committee Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer Everyone, A viaduct from San Antonio to the Palo Alo University Avenue train station is the best approach for grade separations for Palo Alto. Here is a quick list of the advantages of the viaduct approach: * Costs that are comparable to or much lower than the other alternatives. Cost avoidance from not lowering roadways at all. Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. Cost of pumps to handle sea level rise and groundwater for lowered roadways. Cost of a permanent maintenance and flooding risk issue * Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex approaches. * Reduces assembly timeframe and periods of disruption during construction. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. * Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. Loss of part or all of a property, driveway length and access, and street parking. * Avoids likely legal quagmire. Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. * Enables major cost reduction for future cross-town bike-ped underpasses. My report supporting this conclusion is attached and is also available at: https://mikeforster.net/caltrain/palo-alto-caltrain-viaducts-a-better-approach/ Please review this report and follow it recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mike Forster, Evergreen Park 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike@mikeforster.net NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholde r to insert your own image. Caltrain Viaduct for Palo Alto: Summary Concept Design and Approach Costs and Future Savings Timeframe Benefits Notes and References Mike Forster March 2026 mike@mikeforster.net www.mikeforster.net Previous version submitted to PA City Council: 2018, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025 Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 1 Palo Alto Online, June 14, 2023 Palo Alto architect Joe Bellomo's vision for high-speed rail http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/11/27/arch itect-calls-for-design-contest-for-high-speed-rail Palo Alto Grade Separations – Preface: Will the cost of grade separations make sense? Grade separations of any configuration make sense only if a combination of enough of the following apply: •CA HSR actually connects from points south to San Jose (an unanswered question). •CA HSR ridership from SJ to SF supports 4 HSR trains per hour both ways. •It is likely that many perhaps most of CA HSR riders will embark and disembark in SJ from or to destinations around SJ, the East Bay, or along the peninsula using Caltrain – NOT all the way from and to SF. •Caltrain ridership continues to be high enough to support Caltrain itself, without CA HSR. •Still a question - hence the upcoming ballot measure to support Bay Area transit. •Shared robotaxis for commuters in the very near future will tend to further reduce Caltrain ridership (as well as VTA, SamTrans, and others). •Over $200M in future savings for cross-town bike/ped routes adds sufficient justification for a viaduct approach. •Safety considerations (autos on tracks, suicides) are deemed important enough. 2Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Recommendations •Immediately stop further investment of City funds in the next step designs of the currently-selected alternatives. •Determine when sufficient motivations combine to justify restarting such investment. •Based on the criteria in the Preface in this report. •When restarting such investment is deemed to be justified ... •Only invest in planning the viaduct approach. •This report confirms that the viaduct approach using Accelerated Bridge Construction techniques is the far better than other approaches. 3Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Summary: Comparable or lower cost, shorter timeframe, less risk, and others •The viaduct approach has costs that are comparable to or much lower than the other alternatives. •Cost avoidance from not lowering roadways at all. •Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. •Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections •Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. •Cost of pumps to handle sea level rise and groundwater for lowered roadways. •Cost of a permanent maintenance and flooding risk issue •Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. •Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex approaches. •Reduces assembly timeframe and periods of disruption during construction. •Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. •Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. •Loss of part or all of a property, driveway length and access, and street parking. •Avoids likely legal quagmire. •Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. •Enables major cost reduction for future cross-town bike-ped underpasses. 4Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations: Conceptual Design Avoids Many Issues 5 Palo Alto Station at grade level Me a d o w Ch a r l e s t o n San Antonio Station (unchanged) Stanford Station (abandoned) Cal Ave Station (elevated)Ch u r c h i l l Pa l o A l t o A v e Se a l e Grade-level ped-bike paths under viaduct, ped-bike signals across Alma. Churchill / Meadow / Charleston Avenues roadways unchanged avoids: * Private property acquisition * Ped/bike tunnel residential parking impacts * Odd, complex, convoluted underpasses * Traffic congestion from new traffic patterns * Under-street utilities impacts * Future sea level rise, flood impacts Viaduct enables new cross-town connections and other options: •Bike/ped underpasses beneath viaduct with low- cost paving approaches and pedestrian signals across Alma. •Citywide greenspace, bike/ped path, or other uses under and adjacent to the viaduct. Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct: 17 feet clearance + 5 feet girder to track depth Current track at grade level Co l o r a d o Lo m a V e r d e Li n d e r o 6Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct grade separations construction approach: Separate freight line from viaduct Remove eastside tracks, construct viaduct •Westside tracks: keep as a permanent grade-level track bed •Keep in place or move slightly westward where necessary, with quad gates. •Short-term: •Perhaps support the viaduct construction •Perhaps support Caltrain alternative operation during construction •Long-term:: •Infrequent freight trains and Caltrain maintenance •Avoids adding freight weight requirements to viaduct strength •Eastside tracks: remove, replace with two-track viaduct •Remove eastside catenaries and tracks. •Construct the dual-track viaduct, catenaries, and elevated Cal Ave station on the eastside close to Alma. •Include privacy screens and/or trees on one or both sides in residential sections to shield yards from Caltrain riders. H St, Union City: Freight rail line and BART 7Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct grade separations construction approach: Accelerated bridge construction Support Caltrain ridership during construction •Viaduct construction approach •Prefabricated piers and spans assembled within Caltrain right-of-way. •3.64 miles / 19,200 feet; 100-foot spans; 192 spans, 191 piers. •Likely reduction of Alma to 1 lane each way during construction period, to enable prefab parts delivery and cranes operations in 2 westside lanes. •Construction during weekday nights and weekend days. •Multiple teams on different segments to minimize overall construction time. •Install the Churchill/Meadow/Charleston Caltrain overpass spans over a single weekend each, minimizing cross-town traffic disruption. •Transit alternative operations during construction - options: •Caltrain uses westside tracks for single tracking •Caltrain uses westside tracks one direction in the morning and the opposite direction in the afternoon, •Paired with bus or shared robotaxis for the opposite direction. •Bus and shared robotaxis bridges both directions 8Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct costs •Move 1 set of tracks west; allow room for viaduct near Alma, freight traffic ($3M/mile) •Construct viaduct ($180M/mile) •Construct elevated Cal Ave station ($46M, based on comparable projects) •Upgrade Palo Alto station – extend platforms to 800 feet for CA HSR ($15M) •4 new crosstown bike-ped connections: Seale, Colorado, Loma Verde, Lindero ($1M each) Forest to San Antonio - viaduct to PA Univ Ave station Item Per Mile Total $M Miles $M Move 1 track west 3.00 3.64 10.92 Viaduct 180.00 3.64 655.20 Elevated Cal Ave station 46.00 46.00 Upgraded PA station 15.00 15.00 Total 727.12 Future 4 connections at $1M each 4.00 Total with 4 connections 731.12 9Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct costs in range or lower to much lower than alternatives Combinations >A B C D Viaduct Plans Meadow/Charleston Hybrids Hybrids Underpasses Underpasses Churchill Closure, Bike-Ped Underpass Parial Underpass Closure, Bike-Ped Underpass Partial Underpass Costs $M $M $M $M $M Meadow/Charleston 477 477 844 844 Churchill 115 318 115 318 Totals 592 795 959 1,162 727 Future Costs: new crosstown connections at $62M each $1M each 3 or 4 connections 187 187 248 248 4 Overall Costs including new crosstown connections 779 982 1,207 1,410 731 Notes All costs in 2026 dollars. All costs are based on midpoints of sources in Notes and References. Meadow/Charleston Hybrids enable Lindero grade-level crossing, so $62 x 3 + 1. Viaduct enables future cost savings: Multiple crossing points under viaduct with minimal expense: Only westside paving to approach Alma and pedestrian beacons at Alma 10Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Base map: Google Earth Project Annotations: Mike Forster (Homer) Peers Park new ped signal (U)(Embarcadero)(Churchill)(Cal Ave) Colorado new ped signal Loma Verde new ped signal Barron Creek new ped sig or creek underpass (Charleston)(Meadow) Lindero new ped signal Adobe Creek new ped sig or creek underpass New crossing underneath Caltrain viaduct Existing crossing •Over $200M cost savings: •4 crossings at $61M savings per crossing •Constructed under viaduct and with pedestrian beacons for crossing Alma •$1M cost per grade-level crossing ($350K paving, $750K beacon) •Versus $62M cost per tunnel under Caltrain (latest Menlo Park Willow/Middle project), 11Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct assembly timefrme For parameters, see page: Notes and References: Assembly Parameters and Durations On-site assembly schedule 1 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 82 Mike Forster 3/6/26 53 days (+ Cal Ave station) Prefabrication (offsite, starts earlier)<earlier Existing tracks Move west, remove east; 21 days On-Site Assembly Pier footings and caps; 32 days Spans; 32 days New tracks on spans; 8 days New/reused catenaries; 10 days Testing: 10 days Cal Ave elevated station: 60 days ... Disruptions Caltrain alternative operations; 53 days Churh/Mead/Charl - 1 day each Alma 2 lanes: piers, spans; 36 days Calendar June-August; less traffic, no rain Viaduct Grade Separations – Best Solution Matrix Viaduct is the Best Solution 12 See Notes and References for Noise and Vibration (2020), and water impacts (2024), studies. Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Combinations> Mead/Charl, Churchill Combination A: Hybrids, Closure Combination B: Hybrids, Underpass Combination C: Underpasses, Closure Combination D: Underpasses, Underpass Viaduct Simplicity to avoid risk to cost, construction timeframe Moderately complex, medium risk Moderately complex, medium risk Very ccomples, high risk Very complex, high Risk Simple, low risk Maintain, Improve All Modes East/West Connectivity Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Maintains Maintain or Improve Traffic Patterns Mixed Results Mixed Results Inconveniet traffic patterns Inconveniet traffic patterns Maintains Bike-Ped Circulation: Clear, Safe, Separate from Autos Improves Improves Improves Improves Improves Minimizes Caltrain operation disruption No disruption, shoofly tracks No disruption, shoofly tracks No disruption, construction below No disruption, construction below Very short-term disruption Reduce Rail Noise and Vibration (Study, July 2020)Best Best Significant (with barrier)Significant (with barrier)Significant Construction Noise and Vibration (Study, July 2020)Severe Severe Severe Severe Moderate Timeframe of Construction 4 fyears, 2 years 4 years, 2.5 years 4 years, 2 years 4 years, 2.5 years 2 months (plus Cal Ave station) Minimize Visual Changes Significant Significant None None Significant Minimize Property Acquisition No property acquisitions Some property acquisitions Signifcant property acquisitions Signifcant property acquisitions No property acquisitions Minimize impacts on driveway access, parking, street safety Driveways affected Loss of street parking TBD Loss of street parking No impacts Minimize Disruption and Duration of Construction Major disruptions Major disruptions Major disruptions Major disruptions Minimal disruptions (Alma moderate) Avoid Sea Level, Groundwater Issues (Study, January 2024) Need pump, long-term maintenance, risk of flooding Need pump, long-term maintenance, risk of flooding Need pump, long-term maintenance, risk of flooding Need pump, long-term maintenance, risk of flooding No risk Avoid utilities relocation Utilities relocation required Utilities relocation required Utilities relocation required Utilities relocation required No relocation required Minimize Trees Removal or Trimming TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Grade Separations Cost $592M $795M $959M $1,162M $727M Include 4 New Connections Cost $779M $982M $1,207M $1,410M $731m Viaduct Grade Separations – Conclusion 13 •A viaduct is the best solution for Palo Alto •As shown by this report •Construction and disruption timeframes for the non-viaduct approaches could be much longer than 2 and 4 years •And these might be additive: •We could not close any 2 of the 3 crossings concurrently: Crosstown traffic would come to a halt •If this report’s budget and timeframe are a little optimistic and would be increased ... the viaduct option will still: •Have comparable or lower cost •A shorter assembly timeframe •Less risk for cost and schedule than the other complicated approaches •Enable future savings on east-to-west crossings •Satisfy all of the qualitative criteria: •Much less disruption •No property acquisitions •No impacts on parking or driveways •Better traffic patterns •Avoids long-term water mitigation maintenance (including pumps) •Avoids utilities relocations Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Notes and References: Costs 14 •Palo Alto Churchill Closure with Mitigations: $115M midpoint, $104M to $126M, tracks at grade level, Churchill vehicle traffic closed / bike-ped underpass and upgrades at Embarcadero and Page Mill, night and weekend traffic limitations, 2 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/churchill- closure_factsheet_pa_june_7_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Churchill Partial Underpass: $318M midpoint, $285M to $351M, tracks at grade level, Churchill/Alma vehicle/bike/ped traffic access limited, loss of street parking, property acquisitions, 2.5 to 3 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/churchill-partial- underpass_factsheet_pa_june-3_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Meadow-Charleston Hybrids: $477M midpoint, $428M to $526M, tracks raised 15 feet, Meadow-Charleston traffic access limited, no property acquisitions but driveways affected, 4 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/meadow-charleston- hybrid_factsheet_pa_june-6_2024.pdf •Palo Alto Meadow-Charleson Underpasses: $844M midpoint, $756M to $932M, tracks at grade level, Meadow-Charleston traffic closed/Alma traffic limited during construction, property acquisitions, 4 years •https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/rail/connecting-palo-alto/fact-sheet/meadow-charleston- underpass_factsheet_pa_june-3_2024.pdf •All share these characteristics: pump station/long term maintenance and risk of flooding, utilities relocation, construction 2 to 4 years; 2026 dollars. •Viaduct: cost per mile for CA HSR: $180M, 2026 dollars; $9.8B / 113 miles, $90M midpoint estimate, 2011 dollars •https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf page 10 •Viaduct: cost per station for heavy rail transit (HRT): $45.9M (adjusted 2026 dollars; 6 HRT projects) •https://projectdelivery.enotrans.org/fta-capital-costs-database/ •Grade-level east track moved/new cost per mile: $3.0M, 2026 dollars; $2.6M for new HSR single track; + for catenaries, - for reuse. •https://www.scribd.com/document/428116190/2017-RailRoadEngineering •Underpass costs, Menlo Park / Middle Avenue: $62M •https://nationaltoday.com/us/ca/menlo-park/news/2026/02/04/menlo-park-struggles-to-fund-costly-rail-crossing-project/ •Underpass costs, Palo Alto / Homer Avenue: $13.6M ($5.2M 2005, 2.6 inflation 2026 February); likely no longer allowed by Calt rain •https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2005/05/05/homer-tunnel-officially-opens Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations – Notes and References: Timeframe parameters 15 •Viaduct span lengths: 100 feet applied here (98 to 145 feet in practice); 19,200 feet means 192 spans, 191 piers •https://www.pci.org/PCI_Docs/Publications/PCI%20Journal/2014/Spring/Full-span%20precasting%20for%20light- rail%20transit%20and%20high-speed%20railway%20bridges.pdf •Viaduct spans installed per shift or day •1 span per day: https://www.idc- online.com/technical_references/pdfs/civil_engineering/Longer_and_Longer_Concrete_Viaducts_for_Transportation_Growing_ Needs.pdf •2 spans per day https://www.pci.org/PCI_Docs/Publications/PCI%20Journal/2014/Spring/Full- span%20precasting%20for%20light-rail%20transit%20and%20high-speed%20railway%20bridges.pdf •Drilled piers: 2 piers per day for piers greater than 60 inches in diameter •https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Structures/StructureResources/NCDOT%20Working%20Days%20Guidelines%20for%20Stru cture%20Construction,%2001-05-2016.pdf •New track per day: 0.5 miles per day (8-hour shift) •“replace 10,000 ties or several thousand feet of rail in a concentrated work window (often 48 hours)” (Google AI response) •3250 ties per mile, for 10,000 ties (above), 3 miles over 48 hours, 1.5 miles per 24 hours •https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,774445 •Catenary renewal: 0.4 miles per day; up to 150 miles (250km) per year / 365. •https://uic.org/com/enews/article/at-uic-the-world-s-rail-platform-french-innovation-in-catenary-renewal-for-the Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct grade separations - Notes and References: Assembly Parameters and Durations 16Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Item Action Parameters Days Existing tracks Move/replace west, remove east 3.7 miles 21 On-Site Assembly 19,200 feet; 100-foot spans; 192 spans, 191 piers Pier footings and caps 191; 3 teams, 2 per day 32 Spans 192; 3 teams, 2 per day 32 New tracks on spans 3.7 miles; 0.5 miles/day 8 New/reused catenaries 3.7 miles; 0.4 miles/day 10 Testing inspection, trial runs 10 Cal Ave elevated station after nearby spans done 60 Disruptions Caltrain alternative operations single track or bus bridge 53 Churchill/Meadow/Charleston 1 weekend day each 3 Alma 2 lanes: piers, spans 2 lanes used for cranes 36 Viaduct Grade Separations – Notes and References: General Information 17 General Configuration Parameters •CA HSR platform length: 800 feet •https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/high-speed/shorter-platforms-for-california-high-speed-rail/ •Clearance above roadways: 17 feet (16.6 feet) for California •https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/hov/hov-guidelines-2020-a11y.pdf •Inflation calculator, non-residential construction: 4.7% average per year; 2.6 factor 2005 to 2026 •https://edzarenski.com/category/inflation-indexing/ •Pedestrian crossing candidate locations in Palo Alto •https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/southern-palo-alto-bikeped-railroad-crossings/spa- ped-bike-connectivity_existing-conditions-report_final.pdf •Pedestrian hybrid beacon costs (Caltrans): $300K to $1.5M; used $750K plus $350 for paving and other costs •https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/202505-tsb-25-01-phb-guidelines-a11y.pdf •Rail height above clearance: 5 feet (4 to 5.5 feet) •https://meadhunt.com/designing-steel-plate-girder-bridges/ Best Solution Matrix References •Criteria based on Appendix E, City Council Staff Report, Meeting Date 9/5/17. Expanded criteria and evaluations by Mike Forster. •Vibration/Noise Study, July 2020: https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Noise-Vibration-Comparative-Analysis- Report.pdf Page 24 •Sea Level Rise Study, January 2024: https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Attachment-C-Sea-Level-Rise- Assessment-1.pdf Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 Viaduct Grade Separations Notes and References: Peninsula Examples 18 •Burlingame: Chose a viaduct approach: fully elevates tracks, does not lower roads •https://burlingame.org/DocumentCenter/View/2932/Presentation -Slides---Virtual-Community-Meeting-July-13-2022-PDF •https://www.caltrain.com/media/33194/download •San Bruno: Viaduct-like - as built: •Minimal road lowering at San Bruno Ave •Minimal or no road lowering at San Mateo Ave •Little or no impact on nearby properties •Redwood City: Favoring a viaduct approach, plan 1A, north of Highway 84 •Caltrain grade separation plans take shape in Redwood City | Local News | smdailyjournal.com Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 San Bruno Avenue San Mateo Ave Broadway (proposed) Cadillac Way underpass (proposed) Similar to future Palo Alto Bike-Ped crossings The End: Visually Attractive Examples of Viaduct Grade Separations •Elevated tracks do not have to be berms that might divide cities. 19 (Images from Google Earth / Streetview) Montessoro, Italy Paris, France - Bercy Sunnyside, NY Paris, France – Blvd. St. Jacques Union City, CA – Kennedy Park - BARTBerlin, Germany – SPUR 2017 Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct - Approach and Costs - Mike Forster – March 2026 v11 From:Matt Schlegel To:Council, City Subject:Flock Audit Date:Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:07:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and Policy and Services Committee members, Palo Alto "is preparing to renew its contract with Flock, which is up on June 30.” “Under the Trump administration’s immigration and reproductive healthcare crackdown, some cities have become aware of the ALPR data [of Flock, is] being used by hundreds of unauthorized law enforcement agencies across the country.” "The City’s Policy and Services Committee will vote to recommend to the City Council on Tuesday that the city reallocate $30,000 so that the consulting firm Baker Tilly, which serves as the City Auditor, can assess Flock’s systems.” Apart from City business, "Flock Safety ... became a client of [Baker Tilly] in 2024.” We demand "that the city’s entire ALPR fleet ... be disabled, effective immediately” and that "the City Council [terminate] its contract with Flock” by June. No compromises, no reform of the contract, no delays! No audits by auditors with a conflict of interest. Please get Flock (and ICE cameras) out of Palo Alto. Thank you, Matt Schlegel =========================================== REFERENCE https://www.paloaltoonline.com/public-safety/2026/03/06/palo-alto-looks-to- audit-flock-license-plate-cameras-after-breaches-in-other-cities/ https://www.mv-voice.com/police/2026/01/30/amid-immigration-crackdown- mountain-view-discovers-unauthorized-access-to-license-plate-data/ "Flock's actions ... support anti-immigration efforts being carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency has been dependent on Flock to help locate people during raids and deportation efforts by way of local law enforcement agencies with access to the data. It's something Flock knows about and has admitted as much." Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/2116705/flock-license-plate-reader- vandalism-trend-attacks/ From:bounce@bounce.votervoice.net on behalf of Jerrid Vannelli To:Council, City Subject:Support Staff Recommendation to End Work on Rent Stabilization Ordinance Date:Saturday, March 7, 2026 3:30:13 PM Dear Mayor Veenker & Council, Re: Policy & Services Committee – Item #3 As a Palo Alto housing provider, I want to ask you to support the city staff recommendation to defer further consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance. The data from the Rental Registry Program clearly demonstrates that a rent stabilization ordinance isn't warranted. Specifically, the report shows that nearly two-thirds of market-rate units (62.85%) reported no change in rent. This data suggests that the Palo Alto market is stable. Pursuing a local ordinance is impractical due to significant legislative and bureaucratic hurdles: Legislative Restrictions: Voters in California have rejected attempts to repeal Costa-Hawkins and expand local rent control on three separate occasions, recognizing that stricter rent control is not the answer to our community’s housing challenges. Bureaucratic Hurdles: With an estimated annual budget of approximately $2 million and hiring 5 additional employees, a local ordinance would not be a prudent use of taxpayer funds. I would encourage the city to focus its efforts on incentivizing the development of new units instead of regulating existing housing. I ask that the Council follow the data-driven recommendation of city staff and vote to defer this matter indefinitely. Sincerely, Jerrid Vannelli 620 Rice St Brentwood, CA 94513 jvannelli@wres.com From:Rhoda Fry To:Council, City Subject:MORE: Concerns regarding the appointment of Chris Jensen for City Attorney Date:Saturday, March 7, 2026 3:09:36 PM Dear City Council, Please also consider this video where the City Attorney slammed his PC shut and begins to storm out of a meeting after council voted to extend a meeting by 5 minutes, after his disruption, he sits down: https://youtu.be/_kaS2nhqpsY?si=msz4M1v8DzhfRjBt City Attorney acknowledges that a city council member (appropriate) inquiry into credit card usage was inaccurate in material respects in the grand jury report, but he refused to make corrections, in spite of the council member and resident concerns. https://youtu.be/lnC10DDSMDQ?si=napaN5IYDsdnYAmt I don’t have time to go over the council meetings where Jensen failed in his duty and much of it happened off-camera. I was there when he’d walk off the dais in a huff when he didn’t like a speaker. Please also consider that the City Attorney refused to respond to a Public Records Request on the City’s cost of the YIMBY lawsuit – it was granted after many months. This also revealed that the cost of the lawsuit had exceeded the original contract and that contract should have been properly extended but it was not. Jensen also contracted with a private investigator into City Council member alleged behavior BEFORE the new council majority approved it. He had done this on at least one other occasion. You can also find community input on the City Attorney’s performance here: 11/18/2024 https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1243834&GUID=AA898583-52E3- 47BB-804A- 168DCA727C09&Options=info|&Search=Attorney+performance+evaluation#docaccess- 7a58e0897db9ea2593a26d8e36f2a43a5a168c584cb37387332f18410f82c1cc 10/30/2023 https://cupertino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx#docaccess- 9893f0215af619820102038b8a4fcff5b46fe8117c827a4b7662b19beeb3bd7f 7/6/2023 https://cupertino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx#docaccess- d1eda261a668d75df4213c8dd26fda1a5386f7ce619e42f7aecdc5dda42f7ddf Apologies for the jumble of information – I wanted to get information to you as soon as possible. Regards, Rhoda Fry From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 6:24 PM To: 'City.Council@PaloAlto.gov' <City.Council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Concerns regarding the appointment of Chris Jensen for City Attorney Dear City Council, I read that you are considering hiring Chris Jensen for City Attorney and urge you include a short low-cost separation agreement should you not be pleased with his performance. Jensen worked in Cupertino and at first he was quite good. After a while, his behavior was an embarrassment to my city. He would often storm off the dais or slam down his notebook. In addition to his sowing dissent among council members, some of his land-use decisions have created problems for us now. 1. Like many cities, Cupertino was late with its housing element and faced a lawsuit. Unlike other cities, Jensen settled by waiving our City’s right to do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its Housing Element Update. We have no EIR now. 2. The City is presently putting the final steps in donating land for a 40-unit low-income- housing project. Part of this land is a road where cars park. Now that we are getting into the end-game, it is clear that Jensen failed to take the proper steps in determining how to vacate the land and declare it as surplus. Jensen refused to show any concern for the mis-allocation of our city’s precious BMR funds to fighting a YIMBY lawsuit. I brought the issue to his attention multiple times, hoping that the City could handle it quietly. I gave up and went to the press. And even after that, he failed to resolve the issue timely. You can read the article here: https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino- spent-affordable-housing-funds-on-lawsuit/ You may be aware that members of the Cupertino City Council went through a Civil Grand Jury debacle. Jensen used it to continue to sow dissent. At the time, Jensen and the council majority did not like Kitty Moore, who is now mayor. She has resolved many issues that the city had, such as discovering that the city held over $60M in a checking account for years without earning interest (now it is). She had asked our City Manager to see some credit card receipts from a few employees because she suspected abuse – which appears to have happened. Her approach to doing this was correct – she asked the City Manager who complied with her request. However, when the story got into the Grand Jury report, it stated that she had inappropriately requested the receipts from an employee. This incorrect story was used as a narrative to say that she behaved improperly toward city employees, which was not true. I brought this to the City Attorney’s attention during a council meeting when this item was on the agenda and asked that the record be changed. While Jensen agreed that the report was not accurate, he refused to correct the record in a letter that was being prepared in response to the grand jury report. He did everything he could to defame her. He also presided over a hostile public meeting to dismiss one of our planning commissioners from his post. The man is now a beloved councilmember. The council could have easily dismissed the man during closed session and kept decorum. Counter to City rules, Jensen also approved a city-paid trip to Taiwan and time off with pay for the City Manager. When residents expressed their concerns about this misuse of taxpayer money, he became upset with the residents. Ultimately, the City Manager was let go. Jensen also moved forward with reporting one of our former councilmembers to the District Attorney. As that man was an attorney himself, it could have ended his professional career. Jensen was vengeful and held grudges. Nearly a year later, he sent a missive threatening the former councilmember who had served the city for 8 years. Jensen also lashed out in writing at residents and the victim complained to the mayor at a public mayor meeting about his lack of professionalism. In another instance he emailed a resident, calling her a serial liar, and said, “The City Attorney’s Office does not provide legal advice to member of the public or respond to biased, ignorant, and inaccurate commentary. It is of course your right to say whatever you want, but I won’t engage with serial liars.” (attached) During team-building exercises, Jensen had his attention in his cell phone and laptop instead of the meeting. The occurred during city council meetings as well. I’ve said enough but I could say more. Please proceed with caution. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (City of Cupertino Public Safety Award Winner) From:Chris Schremp To:Bulatao, Eric Cc:cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Saturday, March 7, 2026 9:33:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Eric - thanks for following up. I drove by East Meadow Circle today and noticed that one side of the street had been cleared of the RVs and Trailers and street cleaning was underway. Thanks for that - and please confirm that this means they will continue with this process and after the street cleaning the vehicles will not be allowed to return. Also, as those vehicles have been forced off East Meadow Circle, I did notice they are now parking in front of Ramos Park and blocking local citizens from parking there. Are oversized vehicles allowed to park there? - and if not, can you please confirm that you are aware of this and steps will be taken to prevent them remaining there? Thanks, Chris On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: The temporary signage has been posted, and the community outreach is ongoing in partnership with homeless outreach teams. We have towed several oversize vehicles from East Meadow Circle; however, we cannot prevent future oversize vehicles to repark in locations where vehicles were towed, including vehicles that were towed, released from tow storage, and reparked in the same location. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:08 PM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for your reply. While we understand this is not an overnight solution, in our neighborhood we have not seen much enforcement or action taken by the city. Also, when you say that..."Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance." Can you tell me if the required signage and outreach period has been completed for East Meadow Circle and the surrounding areas? And if not, when will it be done? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:34 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email and for outlining your concerns. Your email was received in the City Manager’s inbox and bundled with other correspondence related to Line Item 4 for City Council review. We apologize if you did not receive a direct response from City staff previously. That was not their intent, and we appreciate you taking the time to follow up. The Police Department has fully pushed out its limited resources and is prioritizing oversized vehicle enforcement citywide. We are currently addressing impacts across more than 18 streets affected by oversized vehicles. Over the past six months, we have towed exponentially more oversized vehicles than in the previous several years combined. Our team has also collaborated closely with homeless outreach services throughout the affected areas to connect individuals with available resources while addressing public nuisance concerns. Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance. This issue cannot be resolved overnight. With limited staffing and a limited number of towing companies willing to accept oversized vehicles, enforcement is currently operating at its peak within the available resources. That said, we are prioritizing problem areas and have already seen measurable improvements in other parts of the city. If you witness a specific traffic hazard, active sewage dumping, or any immediate public safety concern, please contact the Police Department in real time so officers can respond promptly. We appreciate your time and your continued engagement on this issue. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 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 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: 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, 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 (cell) March 2026 View this email in your browser. In this Issue Coming Up Message from our Co-presidents Advocacy Report June 2 Primary LWVPA Updates & Events Opportunities & Events of Interest Board Meeting Highlights Involvement Opportunities Video Archive Links From:LWV Palo Alto VOTER To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA March VOTER: make march the month for democracy! Date:Saturday, March 7, 2026 8:17:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Coming up! MARCH 2026 3/9-13: LWVUS Civic Engagement Learning Week 3/21: Individual Rights and Immigration team interest meeting, 9:30am 3/24: Board Meeting, Chamber Office, 7pm 3/27: Grand Jury Applications Due 3/28: No Kings 3, 2-4pm (TBD: Sign-Making Party for NK3) PRIMARY ELECTION DATES 5/18: last day to register to vote for the June 2 Primary Election 5/4: Ballots mailed 5/5: Ballot drop-off locations open 5/23: Vote centers open for early in-person voting 6/2: ELECTION DAY 6/9: Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by June 9, 2026. Message from our Co-presidents Our League held its annual Program Planning meeting on Feb. 6. Members reached a consensus to recommend LWV’s six focus issues and to continue our local issues. The six issues for 2026-28 recommended by LWV under its “Democracy in Crisis” program include Voting Rights, Election Protection, Redistricting, Individual Rights, Immigration, and the Presidency. Our four local focus issues for 2026-27 include: Natural Resources/Climate, Housing and Transportation, Gun Violence Prevention, and Local Campaign Finance Reform. Recognizing that national issues could affect us locally, we will discuss how our local program could include Individual Rights and Immigration. Those interested in being a part of a LWVPA Individual Rights and Immigration team are invited to a meeting on Saturday March 21, 305 Emerson Street, 9:30 am. RSVP HERE. (Let us know if you are interested even if you can't make that date, by RSVP'ing.) LWV’s national convention is scheduled for June 25-28 in Columbus, Ohio. We are entitled to 5 in person delegates and unlimited virtual delegates. Members interested in attending as a delegate or virtual delegate, let us know: lwpaoffice@gmail.com Organizing for the June 2 primary and November 3 midterm elections is underway. An enthusiastic group of League members and others interested in Youth Voter Outreach has been meeting during February and will continue through the months before the June primary. We plan to train high school students to register and preregister 16,17 and 18 year olds at their schools through existing youth councils and youth service clubs. Voter registration and issue education will continue to be a major League activity this year, especially with a probable state ballot initiative making it more difficult to vote. Please join us, to act locally and have an impact nationally. - Lisa Ratner & Hannah Lu, Co-presidents Advocacy Report - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair/Co-president LOCAL: LWV Palo Alto sent letters to our representatives in Congress calling for an investigation of ICE killings and to cease funding until restrictions on ICE are enacted. LtrcongressLiccardoICEfundingoversight.pdf The board approved a letter to the City Council supporting a 350 Silicon Valley PA petition asking the City to notify residents of the health dangers of using gas appliances. The letter was based on a League position that government has a duty to warn the public about hazardous materials in the community, workplace, and home. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bTVeTF6NL- 7aTLV3lPihZlEFrI7K_TDK/edit? usp=sharing&ouid=115040315904085341656&rtpof=true&sd=true STATE: LWVC committed to opposing a dangerous ballot imitative Californians will face in November that would require voters to show government issued identification in order to cast a ballot. LWVC will educate voters about how voter ID laws create additional, unnecessary obstacles to voting for many citizens. LWVC moved to intervene in a suit to defend personal information after the federal government demanded private voter information from the Secretary of State (USA v. Weber) NATIONAL: Statement from the League of Women Voters on Reported Elections Executive Order Civil Rights Groups Urge the Supreme Court to Strike Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order VICTORY: Federal Court Upholds Right to Fair Congressional Map in Utah LWV intervened in cases to defend voter privacy after the federal government filed lawsuits to force disclosure of private voter data in Minnesota, Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. https://www.lwv.org/legal-center-search?f%5B0%5D=issues%3A601#main-content LWV is joining No Kings as a national partner on Saturday, March 28. Leagues are welcome to lean in locally and participate in activations with partners on the ground in a nonpartisan manner. With immigration enforcement activity increasing in our communities, it can create fear, confusion, and barriers to participation in civic life. Leagues can now review our civic action toolkit on the League Management Site to learn how to show up safely, lawfully, and in solidarity during ICE activity. The League has a new blog post describing what’s happening with ICE and how to respond, including Know Your Rights information. Please feel free to share this with your networks! STAY INFORMED! Follow LWV press releases. Vote in the June 2 Primary! Primary Election - June 2, 2026 The last day to register to vote for the June 2, 2026, Primary Election is May 18, 2026. All California active registered voters will receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the June 2, 2026, Primary Election. Your county elections office will begin mailing ballots by May 4, 2026. Ballot drop-off locations open on May 5, 2026. Vote-by-mail ballots can be returned by mail, at a drop-off location, or your county elections office. Vote centers open for early in-person voting in all Voter’s Choice Act counties beginning on May 23, 2026. Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by June Click for more information LWVPA Updates & Events Bring a sign and join us! NO KINGS 3 - March 28, 2-4pm @Embarcadero & El Camino Real Want to join us for a SIGN-MAKING PARTY? Let Laura know at LauraSBajuk@gmail.com for details. We'll supply materials and inspiration, or bring your own! GET A YARD SIGN! The LWVUS contest chose this winning yard sign - order yours today! Donate $24 for a Yard Sign LWVPA February 2026 Board Meeting Highlights: At its February meeting, the board discussed: Confirmed League participation in No Kings Day 3, March 28, 2-4 pm El Camino Real/Embarcadero, Palo Alto. 5 delegates from our local league may attend the LWVUS convention on June 25-28 in Columbus, Ohio – interested members should contact Lisa or Hannah at lwpaoffice@gmail.com Completing legislative interviews with our representatives Sen. Josh Becker and Asm. Marc Berman Recap of annual Program Planning meeting on Feb 6 (with thanks to all who participated!). To understand how we can act locally on national League focus issues, we will discuss creating a local League team on Individual Rights and Immigration on March 21 at 9:30am at 305 Emerson St., Palo Alto Reinvigorating youth voter outreach efforts by partnering with local youth groups Seeking people interested in serving on the board or heading committees (individually or in teams) for 2026-28 – Nominating Committee is in full swing Identified members interested in developing a civics education panel event on the roles of a school board and school district superintendent The board approved two Motions: To send a letter in support of 350SV Palo Alto’s petition to the City of Palo Alto Utilities to include in its annual gas safety brochure information about the health risks associated with the use of gas appliances. Passed a resolution fixing the number of board members for 2025-26 at 12, per our bylaws. The Board will next meet on Tuesday, March 24. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. - Julie Cardillo, Secretary Opportunities & Events of Interest Civic Learning Week: March 9–13, 2026 Making civic learning a nationwide priority for a stronger democracy. More than ever, civic learning is needed to ensure each and every person across this country has the necessary tools to engage as members of our self-governing society. Learn more at: Home | Civic Learning Week _________ Civics information sources include government archives, specialized educational websites, and primary legal documents focusing on U.S. history, government structure, and active citizenship. Key, reputable sources for educators and students include iCivics, the National Constitution Center, Congress.gov, and the National Archives (Civics for All of US). Educational & Non-Profit Organizations iCivics: Founded by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, offering games and lesson plans to teach civic engagement. Bill of Rights Institute: Provides resources on constitutional history, seminars, and student programs. Annenberg Classroom: Features resources from the National Constitution Center, including videos and the “Interactive Constitution." Center for Civic Education: Offers curriculum and programs like “We the People.” Legislative Interviews 2026 In January and February annually, local Leagues participate in legislative interviews on behalf of LWVC. This annual program ensures that the League of Women Voters increases its visibility in the political space, gathers information about issues that our elected representatives in Sacramento will tackle in 2026, and raises awareness of issues which are important to the League. This February, Senator Josh Becker (SD 13) and Assemblymember Marc Berman (AD District 23) were interviewed by Leagues in their respective districts. The interviews will be posted on the County Council website. Hannah Lu from LWV Palo Alto coordinated the interviews for the County Council. Many thanks to the League members in Districts 13 and 23 who participated in the interviews: Hannah Lu, Linda Henigan, Tim Persyn, Hilary Glann, Mary O’Kicki, Lisa Ratner, Mary Nemerov, Kathleen Jones, Tom Enger, Patty Tennant, MarieAnn Shovlin, Polly Bove, Li Zhang, Liz Kniss, Katie Zoglin and Claudia Hevel. Sen. Becker interview highlights: As Chair of the Natural Resources and Human Resources Committee, Senator Becker is focused on energy policy, utility rate reform, childcare, and criminal justice. This includes addressing the risks and the impacts of wildfires and rising sea-levels. He expressed strong support for the housing and transportation bonds on the November 2026 ballot, noting that we need funding for low-income housing and to support public transportation. He asked us for more information on classifying affordable housing as “public infrastructure” as a potential way to qualify for State Infrastructure Bank loans. He also addressed the state budget deficit in light of increasing costs for healthcare and education. He cited a few options for increasing revenue, such as taxing services or reforming the Prop 13 "split-roll" systems, but also acknowledged that they would face significant hurdles. He does not support the Billionaire’s tax. He spoke about his efforts to protect privacy, including the passing of SB 362 (aka The Delete Act), which allows individuals to delete their personal data from data brokers. Another of his bills to apply the Delete Act to businesses has not yet passed. He also advocated for requiring data centers to pay for electricity use upfront and to require them to curtail use during peak use hours in order to keep electric rates affordable. He believes the financing of school districts needs to be more equitable and would reform the current system of allocating property tax revenues. Highlights of Asm. Berman’s interview will appear in the next Voter. Join us for an LWVPA Individual Rights and Immigrationteam interest meeting on Saturday March 21 at 305 Emerson Street, 9:30 am. RSVP HERE CAN'T MAKE THIS DATE? LET US KNOW BY RSVP'ing. LWV ICE Talking Points Messaging guidance for Leagues responding to ICE activity As ICE continues to ramp up action in communities across the country, Leagues can use this guidance and these talking points to develop a public response. The most important messaging tactic for Leagues on the issue of immigration is to identify local and statewide organizations who lead on immigration issues and uplift their messages. Strong national partners representing and defending immigrants who may have an affiliate in your state include the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union and LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens). Due Process As a nonpartisan, pro-democracy organization, the League is deeply alarmed by the ongoing ICE detentions, which too often fly in the face of due process and other fundamental rights. These actions undermine the democratic values of fairness, equal treatment under the law, and government transparency and accountability. The League supports due process for all persons, including the right to a fair hearing, right to counsel, right of appeal, and right to humane treatment. Value of Immigrants Immigrants are part of the fabric of our communities — they make our country strong. Immigrants are your neighbors, co-workers, and fellow community members. All immigrants in our country deserve due process and fair treatment. The League does not support deporting undocumented immigrants who have no history of major and/or violent criminal activity. LEAGUE LINKS Resources: Support Communities Impacted by ICE ● The League’s Position on Immigration. Immigration policies should promote the reunification of immediate families, meet economic, business, and employment needs, and be responsive to those facing political persecution or humanitarian crises. ● How to Support the Immigrant Community Organizations and Resources to Get Involved ● Santa Clara County Rapid Response Network (RNN), via Amigos de Guadalupe - this is the main response locally and the training is easy and prepares us for a likely presence. To find latest training and info, follow RRN on Instagram. ● Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a Bay Area-based resource that is deeply rooted in the community, committed to working with and educating immigrants, community organizations and the legal sector to help build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people. ○ Know Your Rights Toolkit - Help community members protect themselves from ICE - materials to educate the community and prepare individuals for possible encounters with immigration authorities. ○ Red Cards/Tarjetas Rojas - All people in the US, regardless of immigration status, have certain rights and protections under the US Constitution; these cards give examples of how people can exercise these rights. Print and carry them to give out. Available in 56 languages. ● California’s Immigration Protections: Resistance & Resilience - a LWVC webinar discussing the challenges immigrants face in California, policy solutions, and ways to help our communities stay informed and aware of their rights. (Watch it on YouTube) ● Asian Law Caucus: immigrant resource kit. Learn about your rights and options in the event of interactions with immigration enforcement, transfers from jail or prison, and deportation orders. If you are a California resident seeking legal advice regarding a removal order, please contact the Asian Law Caucus at 415-896-1701. ● Immigrant Defense Network is a MN-based resource with a lot of useful info. Use Your Voice ● Contact your Members of Congress and use this ACLU form to call for an end to the ICE operation in our cities, oppose further funding, and a transparent investigation. Reach their offices by phone or email at: SEN. ALEX PADILLA SEN. ADAM SCHIFF REP. SAM LICCARDO (16th District) Find your CA state representative ● Protest Safety Guidance for attending a protest, rally, or other demonstration. Know your rights: Protesters’ Rights (ACLU) ● Resources and Actions to Protect Our Immigrant Communities from LWV Wisconsin including an Advocacy Toolkit on 287(g) Agreements - oppose local law enforcement officers acting as immigration agents What Else Can I Do? 1. Patronize immigrant and refugee-owned businesses across the state. 2. Check in on your neighbors: join your local volunteer Signal chat or ask community leaders where requests for mutual support are needed. 3. Faith at Work is a collaboration of local faith-based organizations engaging in the community. Currently they are focused on staffing the Mt View Day worker center during mealtimes each day. Contact them (or your local faith-based org) to get involved 4. Go to local businesses that you patronize and ask them to put up signs stating that ICE is not welcome and what rights businesses have under the 4th amendment. 5. Get a whistle and keep the RRN hotline on you at all times and share widely: 408-290-1144 ICYMI: Immigration, Congress and Common Sense - CanEveryday Americans Move Action Forward in These Times? On Feb. 24, sponsored by the Civic Engagement Committee of the LWV Santa Clara County, the National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD) shared an insider look at the work of their CommonSense American (CSA) program, where everyday Americans make a tangible difference by bringing common-sense voices to Congress through a bipartisan focus. CSA members are four-for- four in identifying solutions wise enough to attract support across our divisions and then championing them into law. Discussion centered on the question: is that possible now, around Immigration issues? Here is CommonSense American’s simple 4-step process for GETTING BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION PASSED: 1. Members identify key issues that are ripe for bipartisan action. 2. CSA staff develop a brief on each issue. 3. CAS members review and weigh in on the briefs. 4. Staff shares overall results with Congress. It takes only 1-2 hours/year to share your responses. CSA hopes to release the current brief in mid-March, and everyone signed up on commonsenseamerican.com will receive it. As soon as enough member responses are in, CSA will start meeting with legislative staff. Congress loves this input. And on the four issues addressed to date, most of what CSA members recommended has ended up in the final legislation. JOIN CSA and be heard! Watch this program on YouTube at Immigration, Congress and Common Sense - Can Everyday Americans Move Action Forward In These Times LWV of Santa Clara County APPLICATIONS DUE MARCH 27: Recruitment for the 2026-27Santa Clara County CivilGrand Jury Presiding Judge Julie A. Emede of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, is inviting civic-minded residents to apply for service on the 2026–27 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, a cornerstone of government transparency, accountability, and public oversight. The Civil Grand Jury is an independent investigatory body convened annually to examine the operations of county and city government, school districts, special districts, and other local public agencies. Under the Court’s direction, grand jurors are empowered to review records, evaluate government programs, inspect detention facilities, and issue findings and recommendations that promote ethical, efficient, and transparent governance. Why you? Individuals, with experience in the League of Women Voters are especially well suited for Civil Grand Jury service. LWV members and volunteers bring a strong foundation in nonpartisan civic engagement, government structure, and public policy analysis—skills directly aligned with the Jury’s investigative and oversight responsibilities. Your experience researching complex issues, facilitating candidate forums, and preparing unbiased voter education materials, equips you to evaluate evidence objectively, work collaboratively, and communicate findings clearly to the public. This commitment to informed participation and good government makes you an ideal applicant for Civil Grand Jury service. Please do consider applying. 2025, with applications due by Friday, March 27, 2026. Applications and informational materials — including the Civil Grand Jury brochure and online application — are available on the Court’s website. For questions or additional information, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Court Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at 408-882-2721 or CGJ@scscourt.org. Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. ICYMI: Video Archive of Past Events 2.24.26: Immigration, Congress and Common Sense - Can Everyday Americans Move Action Forward in These Times 10.7.25: 2025 Santa Clara County Assessor Candidates Forum 10.4.25: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2.25: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9.25: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. 8.17.25: 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:Phoenix Gao To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Link Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 8:42:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Loren Brown To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Robert Marinaro; Loren Brown; JEANETTE BALDWIN; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Steve Wong; News@padailypost.com; gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org Subject:OSV Program Comments/Suggestions Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 5:41:59 PM Attachments:American Legal Publishing.png Geng Road 10.5 Acre Property.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 3-06-2026 Dear City Representatives, I attended the City Council Study Session OSV parking on Monday, February 23rd, and left very depressed, frustrated, and angry. It is my conclusion that the City of Palo Alto is taking the wrong path forward with respect to OSV parking on the streets of Palo Alto. To date, the City’s plan to deal with the huge problem of OSVs parking on City streets is not comprehensive, has not identified an ultimate solution, and has no timeframe to end the problem. In this email, I am going to frame the OSV parking issue and then offer the City suggestions on how the City can quickly and comprehensively resolve the OSV parking issue in a cost-efficient manner. Loren Brown Property Owner/Landlord on Park Blvd. ORIGINS OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS: OSVs began parking in approximately five Palo Alto business districts approximately 8-10 years ago. Parking of these OSVs (in certain cases) was a violation of the City’s existing laws (as codified in the City’s Municipal Code). Despite complaints lodged by property owners and commercial tenants of parked OSVs, which were observed violating the City’s municipal code, enforcement was largely non-existent, weak or ineffective. Lax regulation of parked OSVs in commercial business districts merely led to an increased number of OSVs parked in Palo Alto business districts. In response to the violations that my company reported to the City, the City responded that OSV parking issues were a part of a greater homeless problem, which the City wanted to deal with more comprehensively. And so, the continued lack of police department enforcement, coupled with a City Council philosophy, resulted in even more OSVs parking in the Palo Alto business parks. The Palo Alto Weekly reported on February 23, 2026, that the number of OSVs parking on the streets of Palo Alto had doubled between 2023 and 2025. As of last fall, there were over 200 OSVs parking in six specific areas of Palo Alto (see the list below). The Palo Alto Weekly also reported on February 23, 2026 that neighboring cities to the north and south of Palo Alto have all but banned OSV parking, driving much of the rise in the population of OSVs in Palo Alto. In conclusion, the OSV parking problem in Palo Alto business parks, etc. is a result of the City not enforcing its own regulations, not timely responding to a growing issue before it became a huge problem, allowing incompatible uses immediately adjacent to eachother in Palo Alto neighborhoods, etc., and the City not being willing to do what is required to eliminate the OSV parking problem on public streets. It is not a problem that the Palo Alto property owners, tenants, or residents could/can head off because the OSVs are parking on city streets, where city streets are the exclusive domain of the City of Palo Alto. LOCATION OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO (Six General Areas): 1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way. 2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way. 3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage Avenue/Ash Street/Acacia Avenue/Orinda Street. 4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle. 5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue. 6. Other: Including Mitchell Park, Greer Park, Colorado Avenue, Amarillo Avenue, etc. Note: The City of Palo Alto effectively forces OSV parking into these six locations through inconsistent enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code by the police department. Enforcement of illegal OSV parking in downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, Professorville, Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto is purposely high, while enforcement in the above-listed areas is purposely lax. CURRENT MAGNITUDE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM IN PALO ALTO: Palo Alto citizen, Robert Marinaro, reported to the City that as of February 13, 2026, there are approximately 180 OSVs parking on the public streets in Palo Alto (excluding OSVs parking at the Life Moves facility on Geng Road). On or about November 19, 2025, the total number of OSVs parked on City streets was approximately 217. As of March 3, 2026, the number of OSVs parking on City streets may be closer to 150 OSV’s (to be confirmed by Bob in his next count). NATURE OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO: The OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue, and it is a residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue. A) Housing Affordability Issue: The housing-affordability issue is related to a greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be solved in our country, our state, our county, or the City of Palo Alto. The cost housing in a building (house, apartment, etc.) is now unaffordable to a subset of Americans. The high cost of housing relative to income levels has resulted in a large number of people living on the streets or in their vehicles (including OSVs). This email does not address this issue nor try to solve the housing affordability issue related to OSVs in Palo Alto. B) Residential/Business Neighborhood Deterioration Issue: The residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue within Palo Alto is created by the simple incompatibility of OSVs parking in both residential neighborhoods and business parks (as documented to the City staff innumerable times over years and years). Parking of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods is a zoning use incompatibility. Zoning use incompatibility refers to the spatial conflict between different types of land development, such as placing residential areas near high-noise, polluting, or high-traffic industrial zones . These conflicts often reduce property values, create nuisances, and hinder the community. Parking of OSVs in Palo Alto residential/business neighborhoods results in a variety of objections from the adjacent business and residential properties, which include visual blight of OSV vehicles, blocked sidewalks, littering (trash, human waste, etc.), safety concerns, difficulty leasing property where OSVs park, lost rental income where properties cannot be leased due to OSVs continuously parked in front of properties, negative impacts to businesses operating where OSVs are continuously parked. etc. Mitigation strategies for zoning use incompatibility include strict zoning separation, buffer zones, or phasing out nonconforming uses to protect the quality of life. CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTIONS TAKEN TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: A) Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking. B) Enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking. C) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit unattached trailer parking - effective December 8, 2025. D) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit vanlording - effective December 8, 2025. E) Police Department Enforcement of Items D and E. ARE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS EFFECTIVE? NO: There are still a huge number (in excess of 150 OSVs) of OSVs parked on City of Palo Alto streets in business and residential neighborhoods. DEFICIENCIES WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: A) The City is not yet fully committed to removing OSVs from parking on City streets. The City Council is not willing to enact an outright ban on OSV parking on City streets. By not banning OSVs outright, the City Council has effectively granted OSVs an entitlement to park on City streets - resulting in hesitation on the part of the City to adopt additional measures required to eliminate OSV parking on City streets. B) The City has not seriously pursued identifying and procuring off-street land for the purposes of providing safe parking for OSVs. C) The City has not taken action to relocate OSVs from parking in existing City of Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods. D) The City has not taken action to prohibit additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto (Prohibiting additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto would cap the OSVs' parking in Palo Alto at their present level). E) Existing City of Palo Alto Police Department policy on towing OSVs in violation of the City’s Municipal Code is capped by towing yard space availability. OSVs then know that enforcement of OSV parking regulations is lax. F) Existing City ordinances and enforcement do not serve to decrease the number of OSVs parking on City streets. Instead, existing City ordinances and enforcement allow OSVs to merely relocate their parked location on City streets (similar to a game of musical chairs where no chairs are ever eliminated). This allows new OSVs to begin parking their OSVs on the streets of Palo Alto. WHAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NEEDS TO DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF OSVS PARKING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS: A) Enact an OSV Permit Program where all OSVs must be registered in the OSV Permit Program in order to park their OSV in Palo Alto. Enacting this program will serve to cap the number of OSVs at their current level. New OSVs that want to park in Palo Alto must meet Program eligibility criteria (eligibility criteria to be created and determined by the City). If the number of OSVs is not capped, new OSVs will just replace every OSV that leaves Palo Alto or finds alternative housing. B) Enact a program element designed to find alternative housing for those people currently living in OSVs who have obtained a permit. Once housing is found for the redeints of each OSV, that OSV will no longer be allowed to park on City of Palo Alto streets or in a City of Palo Alto Safe Parking lot. C) Identify, procure, and zone land that can/will be used for OSV Safe Parking lots. This land should not be located near business or residential neighborhoods. D) Relocate OSVs parked on City streets to newly-created Safe Parking locations. E) Amend the Municipal Code to ban all OSV parking on City of Palo Alto streets. F) Revise City policies to fully enforce the City’s Municipal Code on OSV parking (including immediate towing of OSVs from City streets). PROCUREMENT OF LAND IS THE KEY ELEMENT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: Realistically, the OSV parking problem in the six Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is going to continue to exist until an alternative location is found for the OSVs to park. The City Council is both unwilling to allow OSVs to park in other areas of the City and unwilling to force OSVs out of their existing locations. WHAT KIND OF LAND IS NECESSARY FOR OSV PARKING? A) Land that can be procured very soon. The OSV parking problem in business/residential neighborhoods will not be solved until an alternative OSV parking site can be identified, procured, zoned, and set up to house OSVs. B) Publicly-owned land. It is unrealistic to think that the private sector will contribute/donate land to the City of Palo Alto for OSV parking use. Buying private-sector land will also be very expensive. Land for OSV Safe Parking will likely come from the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara or State of California (i.e. Caltrans). HOW MUCH LAND IS NEEDED? Currently, land is needed to park between 150 and 175 OSVs plus any support amenities required for a Safe Parking facility. A parcel of land that could accommodate this number of OSVs would mean that NO OSVs would need to park on City of Palo Alto business district or residential streets. The City of Palo Alto determined in August 2025 that a 13,334 SF parcel at 2000 Geng Road could accommodate 13 parked OSVs. Using this data, approximately 3.5 to 4.2 acres of land would be required to accommodate 150 to 175 parked OSVs. If the City can cap the number of OSVs permitted to park in Palo Alto and then decrease this number by finding OSV residents alternative housing situations, the amount of land required to park OSVs would decrease over time. If the City can reduce the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as a result of the new van lording ordinance, the land requirement could also be lessened. HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME IS THE LAND NEEDED TO HOUSE OSVs? This is up to the City to decide. Does the City plan to have a permanent OSV Safe Parking program (in perpetuity) or does the City plan to entirely phase the OSV Safe Parking program out over a finite time span? Land for parking OSVs is required only for the finite period during which the City operates a Safe Parking program. The amount of land required for the Safe Parking program depends on the size of the Safe Parking program operated by the City. PUBLIC LAND PROCUREMENT IDEAS: As the land requirement for OSV parking likely reduces over time (see above discussion), potential sources of land for OSV parking can include a temporary use of land that is not currently used for other purposes, yet may be earmarked/dedicated for another long-term use (i.e. parkland, Caltrans right- of-way, etc.). As the City can find alternative housing for OSV residents, the amount of land required to park remaining OSVs in the City’s Safe Parking program decreases. Land required to park an initial 150 to 175 OSVs can come from some combination of the following potential land sources. A) Street parking on the City of Palo Alto portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is OSV parking potential of approximately 300 yards on Deer Creek Road and 450 yards on Coyote Hill Road. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, approximately 1,500 yards of roadway could accommodate between 100 and 150 OSVs (depending upon the average length of OSV). Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the City of Palo Alto controls these roadways, this location could be put into service quickly. Concentrating OSVs at this location will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very- inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is immediately available (subject to signage and pavement re-striping). B) Street parking on the County of Santa Clara-controlled portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is a considerable length of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road under County control. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, the combined capacity of Palo Alto-controlled streets and County-controlled streets may be sufficient to accommodate the entire contingent of OSVs currently parking in Palo Alto. Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the County controls this section of roadway, the City would have to negotiate its usage for OSV parking with the County. Concentrating all OSVs at the Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road locations will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very-inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is available fairly quickly (subject to negotiating a deal with the County, installing signage, and re-striping pavement). C) 1.81 Acre San Antonio/101 CalTrans Property (currently leased/used by Ciardella’s Garden Supply): This site could potentially accommodate 77 OSVs. The City would need to equip this site similarly to their Geng Road Safe Parking Site. The City would need to negotiate a lease with Caltrans. Note: State of California laws (i.e., SB211) authorize Caltrans to lease (for a nominal amount), non-surplus property to a local government for shelter (including interim housing). A copy of the lease between Caltrans and Ciardellas was provided to the City Manager’s office last year. D) Geng Road 10.5 Acres: In 2015, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was reconfigured. After the reconfiguration, a 10.5-acre area of land became unused and is currently undeveloped and unused (See attached aerial photos showing this property). While this parcel of land may be part of the original Municipal Golf Course land dedicated as parkland, it is not currently utilized as publicly accessible parkland. This land abuts Geng Road and is adjacent to the OSV Safe Parking facility located on Geng Road that is operated by Move Mountain View. Where a local shelter crisis exists, the State of California Government Code 8698.4 allows cities to temporarily use undeveloped parkland for temporarily housing a Safe Parking facility. This site could be an ideal location for a temporary Safe Parking lot (i.e. immediately available, no land purchase/lease cost to City, immediately adjacent to Move Mountain View Safe parking facility on Geng Road, not adjacent to businesses/residents, can be easily/cheaply transformed to a Safe Parking lot, is of sufficient size to accommodate all 150-175 OSVs, other than a temporary parking surface and perimeter fence, no other improvements to this land need to be made - OSVs that utilize this parking lot can use Safe Parking amenties at 2200 Geng Road, etc. See attached literature supporting this site as a temporary OSV Safe parking lot. Suggestion: The City should identify a 4-acre section of this land that is most adjacent to 2200 Geng Road and create a Safe Parking lot for OSVs that can use/share any amenities at 2200 Geng Road. Once the OSV parking lot is established, the City should require any/all OSVs that are then parking on Palo Alto streets to instead park at this OSV lot or be banned from parking their OSV in Palo Alto. The City should then work with OSV residents to find them alternative housing. The City would then decrease the size of this temporary OSV parking lot over time to the point where there are no OSVs left at this parking lot, and the land can be restored for parkland use. E) Stanford Industrial Park (Stanford land GUP): Stanford University owns vacant land adjacent to Coyote Road and Deer Creek Roads that could be utilized as temporary parking for OSVs. The City of Palo Alto would have to negotiate the upcoming County/Stanford GUP to secure land for Palo Alto OSV parking use and the duration of that use. F) Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: I drove through the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park today. There are approximately 10 unoccupied vehicle spaces at this site that could potentially be used to park OSVs. The City of Palo Alto should work with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to determine whether there is capacity at this property to house OSVs that currently park on City of Palo Alto streets. CONCLUSION: The City of Palo Alto needs to take immediate action to define a Safe Parking Program (program duration and size) and then take action to procure the land necessary to operate the Safe Parking program. Once the land has been procured, the City of Palo Alto needs to enact a ban on OSVs parking on City streets. From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - March 6, 2026 Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 5:23:33 PM Attachments:RE Formal Proposal Add SMS Notification to Improve Communication at Rinconada Community Garden.msg RE Right turn ban.msg 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.msg image001.png image002.png Subject why is Palo Alto surveilling its citizens with Flock cameras.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 6, 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:Hersha Lodhia To:Council, City Subject:High Speed Concerns ON Channing Ave Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 4:47:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Esteemed Members of the City Council, I am writing to you today as a concerned, lifelong resident of Palo Alto, having lived in my childhood home on Channing Avenue, between Greer Road and Rhodes Drive, for 50 years. I have witnessed many changes in our community over the decades, but the transformation of Channing Avenue in the last four months has been particularly alarming. Channing Avenue, a residential street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph (Only one sign I believe), has unfortunately become a bypass for drivers seeking to avoid Embarcadero Road. This has led to a dramatic increase in traffic volume and, more critically, in vehicle speeds. I have observed countless vehicles traveling at least 35-40 mph, at all hours of the day, every day of the week. This disregard for the speed limit is not only dangerous but also deeply concerning given the presence of elementary school children and elderly people walking in our neighborhood. Adding to this hazardous situation, electric bikes are also frequently using Channing Avenue at unsafe speeds. While there are stop signs at the intersections of Greer and Heather, the stretch of Channing Avenue between these points remains exceptionally unsafe due to the excessive speeds at which drivers are traveling. The safety of our children and residents is paramount. I strongly urge the City Council to conduct a thorough review and assessment of Channing Avenue, with a specific focus on the implementation of speed bumps. I believe that strategically placed speed bumps would significantly deter speeding and help restore safety to our neighborhood. Speed bumps on the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report bike lanes also would be a good decision to help slow the electric bikes going on the bike lanes should they overtake a car passing through the speed bumps on Channing Ave which is a normal occurrence. I would be more than happy to provide further details and share my observations with any city official who wishes to investigate this pressing matter. Or if there is someone who I should talk more about this concern with, please forward me their information. Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical issue. Sincerely, Hersha Lodhia-Miller Email: ursula7670@gmail.com Cell: 415-613-7560 From:Uzma Minhas To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Closing Churchill and Summary of Coal Gas Study Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 3:58:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable City Council Members, First of all, thank you so much for your support at our Ramadan Iftar DInner! It really means a lot to our community. I have been wanting to reach out to you about the recent PAUSD suicide cluster and the possibility of closing Churchill. I'm including the same email I sent to the school board below. I hope you will take this important study into consideration. Sincerely, Uzma Dear Dr. Austin and Members of the School Board, I am writing to follow up on my public comment yesterday at the board meeting regarding the recent suicide cluster within our student body. While I know we all share the goal of supporting our students' mental health, I want to specifically urge the board to take immediate, physical action to secure and make the local train tracks inaccessible. There is a common misconception that if a person is intent on self-harm, they will simply find another way. However, behavioral science, specifically the research highlighted by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Talking to Strangers, proves the opposite. The Lesson of "Coupling" and Coal Gas: Gladwell details the "British Coal Gas" study. In the 1950s, coal gas (high in carbon monoxide) was the primary method of suicide in the UK. When the government transitioned to non-toxic natural gas, the suicide rate did not "displace" to other methods, instead, the overall suicide rate plummeted. Suicide is often "coupled" to a specific, accessible, and familiar location. By removing the ease of access to that specific "bridge," we provide the critical window of time needed for an impulsive crisis to pass. The Necessity of Physical Barriers: By failing to secure the tracks, we are leaving a "lethal link" open in our environment. Increasing "friction" by making it physically difficult to access This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report the tracks is one of the most effective, evidence-based ways to prevent further loss during a cluster. I have included links to the research and case studies below for your review: The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Means Matter: Lethal Means Counseling The British Coal Gas Study (Selection from "Talking to Strangers"): Gladwell’s Research on Coupling Oxford Academic Study: Effectiveness of barriers at suicide hotspots We cannot wait for another tragedy to realize that the environment plays as much of a role in safety as counseling does. I hope the above research assists any conversations you may have with city council, Caltrain, or any other influencing body. I look forward to hearing your plan for securing the tracks as soon as possible. Sincerely, Uzma From:Shashank Divekar To:Council, City Cc:Raybould, Claire; Jayashree Divekar Subject:3/16 Palo Alto Commons City Council (Final Meeting) Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 3:34:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation. When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to uphold it. Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in 1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property. Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and the PTC. A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals (Attachment Q), including residents of The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any external expansion of the Commons. Failure to Follow Council Direction Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A), the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted. Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved. Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include: Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N) Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C) Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O) Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D) Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E) Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G) Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H) Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I) Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J) These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and the PTC. As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O). Reduced Parking and Future Impacts Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking. Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how fully parked El Camino Way already is. These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support. Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad- faith negotiation: An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting rooms into offices, without reducing building mass. At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer than 16 units was financially infeasible. Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.” These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims. Daylight Plane Violations As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing, which we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard. Loss of Property Values : The proposed development will result in loss of property values of the neighbors' single family homes. Palo Alto Commons shares the backyard wall with ours. One of the neighbors sold their house and left. Our house is our strongest real estate asset that we have and wish to leave as legacy to our children after us and retain Palo Alto as a desired neighborhood and City for future generations. Palo Alto Commons should not profit resulting in significant financial losses for the neighbors. Our Request We respectfully ask City Council to: Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation Approve only the 7 internal units Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction. In Summary : Approve only the 7 internal units recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC). Enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM), with real consequences. Why Upon City Council's request, PTC carefully reviewed the project and strengthened its recommendation (from 3-2 vote to 5-1) for only 7 units with additional conditions. Historical agreement (1986) promised no development on the Wilkie Way side; neighbors already compromised by allowing 7 Developer violating existing PC Ordinance and using parking spaces for construction equipment, parking in fire lanes, and causing overflow into nearby streets such as Wilkie The Commons are in non-compliance. Why do we expect them to be in compliance with their proposed expansion? Developer ignored Council’s direction to remove all third-floor units when the project was sent back to PTC. Parking and safety problems are serious and will worsen, with the recent loss of parking on El Camino and planned removal on El Camino Way Rooms cost $15K per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national corporation that can afford to build only 7 units or expand on the El Camino Way side instead. Loss of residential property values resulting from Palo Alto Commons profit. Bottom line: 7 internal units is the maximum reasonable compromise. Anything more increases safety risks, parking problems, and breaks past agreements. Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust, and sound planning. Sincerely, Shashank & Jayashree Divekar 4054 Wilkie Way Palo Alto, CA (650)681-7494 From:bounce@bounce.votervoice.net on behalf of Sanjeet Thadani To:Council, City Subject:Support Staff Recommendation to End Work on Rent Stabilization Ordinance Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 2:30:14 PM Dear Mayor Veenker & Council, Re: Policy & Services Committee – Item #3 As a Palo Alto housing provider, I want to ask you to support the city staff recommendation to defer further consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance. The data from the Rental Registry Program clearly demonstrates that a rent stabilization ordinance isn't warranted. Specifically, the report shows that nearly two-thirds of market-rate units (62.85%) reported no change in rent. This data suggests that the Palo Alto market is stable. Pursuing a local ordinance is impractical due to significant legislative and bureaucratic hurdles: Legislative Restrictions: Voters in California have rejected attempts to repeal Costa-Hawkins and expand local rent control on three separate occasions, recognizing that stricter rent control is not the answer to our community’s housing challenges. Bureaucratic Hurdles: With an estimated annual budget of approximately $2 million and hiring 5 additional employees, a local ordinance would not be a prudent use of taxpayer funds. I would encourage the city to focus its efforts on incentivizing the development of new units instead of regulating existing housing. I ask that the Council follow the data-driven recommendation of city staff and vote to defer this matter indefinitely. Sincerely, Sanjeet Thadani 435 Sheridan Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 sanjeet_thadani@yahoo.com From:bounce@bounce.votervoice.net on behalf of Jeff Bosshard To:Council, City Subject:Support Staff Recommendation to End Work on Rent Stabilization Ordinance Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 2:30:12 PM Dear Mayor Veenker & Council, Re: Policy & Services Committee – Item #3 As a Palo Alto housing provider, I want to ask you to support the city staff recommendation to defer further consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance. The data from the Rental Registry Program clearly demonstrates that a rent stabilization ordinance isn't warranted. Specifically, the report shows that nearly two-thirds of market-rate units (62.85%) reported no change in rent. This data suggests that the Palo Alto market is stable. Pursuing a local ordinance is impractical due to significant legislative and bureaucratic hurdles: Legislative Restrictions: Voters in California have rejected attempts to repeal Costa-Hawkins and expand local rent control on three separate occasions, recognizing that stricter rent control is not the answer to our community’s housing challenges. Bureaucratic Hurdles: With an estimated annual budget of approximately $2 million and hiring 5 additional employees, a local ordinance would not be a prudent use of taxpayer funds. I would encourage the city to focus its efforts on incentivizing the development of new units instead of regulating existing housing. I ask that the Council follow the data-driven recommendation of city staff and vote to defer this matter indefinitely. Sincerely, Jeff Bosshard 1653 Westmoor Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 jbosshard@wres.com From:Tiffany Griego To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shweta Bhatnagar; Armer, Jennifer; Frick, Coleman; Cha, Kelly; Kelly Kline; Jamie S. Jarvis; Diana O"Dell; Jean G. Snider Subject:3/16 City Council hearing on the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 12:40:09 PM Attachments:2026-03-05__Bird Safe Buildings Comment Letter - Stanford University.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Please find enclosed Stanford University’s comments related to the draft Bird-Friendly Ordinance related to impacts to Stanford Research Park ad Shopping Center. Thank you in advance for your efforts to respond to these comments. Respectfully submitted, Tiffany Griego Senior Managing Director, Stanford Research Park Take advantage of our transportation programs: www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park From: "Cha, Kelly" <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Date: Friday, March 6, 2026 at 10:33 AM Cc: "Cha, Kelly" <Kelly.Cha@paloalto.gov> Subject: 3/16 City Council hearing on the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance Hello everyone - I would like to share with you that the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance will be heard before the City Council on March 16, 2026. Please check out the online agendato see the staff report and associated attachments. The ordinance is scheduled as Item #14 under Action Items. Please be informed that the time estimated on the agenda is an estimate, but could be changed as the council discussion progresses. If you would like to send written comments or provide oral comments at the hearing, either in person or virtually, please read the PUBLIC COMMENTS section of the online agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your continued participation in this effort, Kelly Cha (she/her) Senior Planner Planning and Development Services (650) 329-2155 | Kelly.Cha@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov March 5, 2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 VIA EMAIL City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council Consideration of Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, On behalf of Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, I would like to extend our sincere gratitude to City staff for their continued hard work on the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance. In this letter, we reiterate the concerns shared with the City over the past months, including those raised during the January webinar for business owners. As the landowner of the Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center, we are concerned that the proposed ordinance poses significant design and implementation challenges for remodels and new construction, particularly new residential construction. We strongly recommend that City Council revise the ordinance to (1) limit the new restrictions to office/R&D properties located within the Bird Sensitive Area boundaries that were originally recommended by the PTC, and (2) exempt all residential buildings regardless of location within the City. The reasons are many: 1. The draft ordinance as written, which includes triggers for window replacement, would force landlords in Stanford Research Park to retrofit all windows with bird-friendly glazing even if tenant-required remodeling or repositioning scope would otherwise exclude existing windows. Forcing landlords to replace windows when they otherwise would not opt to is so costly that it would put a chill on proactive reinvestment in the existing building stock in SRP. Over time, without proactive reinvestment, SRP would see a gradual degradation, affecting business and property tax revenue generation. 2. Staff has acknowledged the added cost burden resulting from this draft ordinance, which would curtail the construction of new high-density residential development, when this product type is already challenged by the high-cost burden. 3. The City should not make policy without data and a valid justification for including sites that are outside of a riparian corridor or migratory path. Targeted Regulations: The current requirements do not consider the diverse conditions throughout the City, and there is limited reliable data on bird-building conflicts in areas beyond the designated Bird Sensitive Area. As a viable alternative, we suggest adopting San Francisco’s Bird-Safe Building Standards, which provide a more nuanced approach by limiting required treatments to buildings in expansive open spaces or near water, as well as specific architectural features that may pose a bird hazard. This approach represents a more balanced strategy, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach throughout the City. We support targeted regulations that focus on the specific Bird Sensitive Areas and exempt new residential construction. Insufficient Data: While we understand that the ordinance aims to mitigate bird collisions, there is no comprehensive data that speaks to the scope of this issue. The proposed ordinance would require fairly sweeping changes throughout the City based on insufficient data. To date, we are unaware of any documented bird collisions within Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center. Since most of our buildings are two stories tall and not situated on a flyway or riparian corridor, we believe it is crucial to conduct a data-driven assessment of local collision frequencies, risk factors, and anticipated outcomes to justify the extensive breadth and costs of these requirements. As was called for in the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.3, we respectfully request that the City undertake a study before developing guidelines for bird-friendly design (rather than this ordinance). Altered User Experience, Limited Supply Chain, and Higher Costs: The use of bird-friendly glass significantly impacts building occupants' experiences due to the visible lines and dots on windows, which detract from aesthetic appeal, especially without clear evidence of local benefits. The ordinance suggests allowing only 10% untreated glazing on any non-residential elevation citywide, requiring commercial buildings to have permanent glass treatments with patterns no more than two inches apart to minimize collision risks for birds. This broad requirement fails to consider essential factors like overall benefits, occupant experience, and construction costs, especially new residential construction. (See Ex. A for example photos taken at 3215 Porter Drive.) It inadvertently increases expenses while negatively impacting user experiences. Additionally, the limited availability of bird-friendly treatment materials raises concerns that a sudden demand increase could strain resources and delay projects, highlighting the need for a reliable supply chain before implementing any mandates. We urge the City to adopt an approach that allows a broader range of practical alternatives outside of permanent glazing treatments. In conclusion, we encourage the City to maintain Palo Alto's appeal to businesses while exploring bird-friendly design options and non-binding guidelines that align with best practices from neighboring jurisdictions. Stanford Research Park already balances environmental initiatives and economic viability. We have voluntarily installed bird-glass on all bus shelters and in some new developments in SRP near potential migratory paths. We appreciate your consideration, and please let me know if you have further questions at tgriego@stanford.edu. Sincerely, Tiffany Griego, Senior Managing Director Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services Coleman Frick, Long-Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services Exhibit A: Bird-glass film, installed voluntarily at 3215 Porter Drive, shows the significant compromise to user experience. From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; City Mgr; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga Subject:Mountain View Safe Parking Lots Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 1:20:05 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2026-03-06 at 12.16.48 AM.png Screenshot 2026-03-06 at 12.15.50 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, I took a ride over to Mountain View's two safe parking lots this afternoon and thought I would share some photos and thoughts. The Shoreline lot is located on the overflow parking lot of the Shoreline Amphitheater and is of good size. It appears to be arranged with an open parking space between each of the RVs. They have this lot cordoned off, but they do have the space to make this lot much bigger if they wanted to. The Evelyn lot located on the corner of Evelyn and Pioneer Way is a bit larger and is only half full. I was going to suggest possibly coordinating with Mountain View to possibly locate some of Palo Alto’s RVs, but upon talking with one of the RV dwellers he said that they are closing the lot and everybody needs to leave by June. That led me to think that Palo Alto needs to keep an eye on this so these folks, then, do not move over to Palo Alto. Regards, Bob Marinaro Shoreline Safe Parking Lot Shoreline Safe Parking Lot Shoreline Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot Evelyn Safe Parking Lot From:Rhoda Fry To:Council, City Subject:Concerns regarding the appointment of Chris Jensen for City Attorney Date:Thursday, March 5, 2026 6:24:33 PM Attachments:2024-09-13 EMAIL from Jensen-inappropriate response from CA.pdf Dear City Council, I read that you are considering hiring Chris Jensen for City Attorney and urge you include a short low-cost separation agreement should you not be pleased with his performance. Jensen worked in Cupertino and at first he was quite good. After a while, his behavior was an embarrassment to my city. He would often storm off the dais or slam down his notebook. In addition to his sowing dissent among council members, some of his land-use decisions have created problems for us now. 1. Like many cities, Cupertino was late with its housing element and faced a lawsuit. Unlike other cities, Jensen settled by waiving our City’s right to do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its Housing Element Update. We have no EIR now. 2. The City is presently putting the final steps in donating land for a 40-unit low-income- housing project. Part of this land is a road where cars park. Now that we are getting into the end-game, it is clear that Jensen failed to take the proper steps in determining how to vacate the land and declare it as surplus. Jensen refused to show any concern for the mis-allocation of our city’s precious BMR funds to fighting a YIMBY lawsuit. I brought the issue to his attention multiple times, hoping that the City could handle it quietly. I gave up and went to the press. And even after that, he failed to resolve the issue timely. You can read the article here: https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino- spent-affordable-housing-funds-on-lawsuit/ You may be aware that members of the Cupertino City Council went through a Civil Grand Jury debacle. Jensen used it to continue to sow dissent. At the time, Jensen and the council majority did not like Kitty Moore, who is now mayor. She has resolved many issues that the city had, such as discovering that the city held over $60M in a checking account for years without earning interest (now it is). She had asked our City Manager to see some credit card receipts from a few employees because she suspected abuse – which appears to have happened. Her approach to doing this was correct – she asked the City Manager who complied with her request. However, when the story got into the Grand Jury report, it stated that she had inappropriately requested the receipts from an employee. This incorrect story was used as a narrative to say that she behaved improperly toward city employees, which was not true. I brought this to the City Attorney’s attention during a council meeting when this item was on the agenda and asked that the record be changed. While Jensen agreed that the report was not accurate, he refused to correct the record in a letter that was being prepared in response to the grand jury report. He did everything he could to defame her. He also presided over a hostile public meeting to dismiss one of our planning commissioners from his post. The man is now a beloved councilmember. The council could have easily dismissed the man during closed session and kept decorum. Counter to City rules, Jensen also approved a city-paid trip to Taiwan and time off with pay for the City Manager. When residents expressed their concerns about this misuse of taxpayer money, he became upset with the residents. Ultimately, the City Manager was let go. Jensen also moved forward with reporting one of our former councilmembers to the District Attorney. As that man was an attorney himself, it could have ended his professional career. Jensen was vengeful and held grudges. Nearly a year later, he sent a missive threatening the former councilmember who had served the city for 8 years. Jensen also lashed out in writing at residents and the victim complained to the mayor at a public mayor meeting about his lack of professionalism. In another instance he emailed a resident, calling her a serial liar, and said, “The City Attorney’s Office does not provide legal advice to member of the public or respond to biased, ignorant, and inaccurate commentary. It is of course your right to say whatever you want, but I won’t engage with serial liars.” (attached) During team-building exercises, Jensen had his attention in his cell phone and laptop instead of the meeting. The occurred during city council meetings as well. I’ve said enough but I could say more. Please proceed with caution. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry (City of Cupertino Public Safety Award Winner) 1 Peggy Griffin From:Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2024 10:08 AM To:Griffin Cc:Pamela Wu; Sheila Mohan; Kirsten Squarcia Subject:RE: 2024-09-17 City Council Meeting - Issues/questions with teleconferencing Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Ms. Griffin: The City Attorney’s Office does not provide legal advice to member of the public or respond to biased, ignorant, and inaccurate commentary. It is of course your right to say whatever you want, but I won’t engage with serial liars. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov (408)777-3105 From: Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:00 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.gov>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: 2024-09-17 City Council Meeting - Issues/questions with teleconferencing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. One more question… Q5: ADA requirements…Is the remote location ADA compliant? Is that a requirement? Peggy On Sep 13, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> wrote: From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City Subject:Temporary Churchill Ave Rail Closure Listening Session Date:Thursday, March 5, 2026 11:12:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and council members, I am opposed to closing Churchill Ave to cars. I realize that Palo Alto teens are under incredible pressures, but closing Churchill is not the solution, especially without a plan to mitigate this closure. I thought today's Daily article was timely, and I support the suggestions made in the article. Looking at closing Churchill: The statistics in the Daily pointed out that not all of the suicides were teens. Frankly, and not politically correct, if someone wants to commit suicide they will find a way or another rail crossing. A better solution is to support our teens, and adults too. There is a crisis of loneliness, not just teens but adults, especially older ones. We are living in stressful times. I applaud and recommend attending the Mental Health Awareness talk on March 18th at Mitchell Park for anyone who cares about this issue. thanks for listening Annette Glanckopf From:mickie winkler To:Council, City; city.council@paloalto.com Subject:Pls do NOT close the alma to churchill crossing Date:Thursday, March 5, 2026 10:42:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Closing the Churcill street crossing will cause massive traffic issues. for teachers, residents, kids, vendors, taxis and more. The (very few) alternative routes are not equipped to handle the traffic. A guard yes, until a better method can be found. Thanks for your consideration, As a former councilmember and mayor, know it's hard--but obvious. Mickie Winkler Mickie Winkler 650-324-7444 office 650-335-5540 cell MickieWinkler.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Jeff Hoel To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Clerk, City Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS-- 03-02-26 Council meeting -- Item 2 -- applications for boards and commissions Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:27:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Council members, Here's a TRANSCRIPT of Item 2 of Council's 03-02-26 meeting, which was about selecting which applicants to various boards and commissions (HRB, HRC, PTC, SWMOC, and UAC) to interview. I have added a few COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with ### ). I have also added presentation slide titles (paragraphs in orange beginning with ###. ). 03-02-26 Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18673 03-02-26 Video -- YouTube -- (the Midpen video was not available on 03-04-26 at 2:46 pm) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P26S0WrCNoM Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: Item 2 has seven attachments -- an at-places memo and six messages from the public -- in support of PTC candidate Forest Olaf Peterson. How usual is this? I would have thought that the correct vehicle for such advocacy would have been the Public Letters to City Council for 03-02-26. However, at the moment, the City's Public Letters to City Council webpage https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Council/Public-Letters-to-City-Council seems to be non-functional. (It used to go to an index of letters documents, sorted by week.) TRANSCRIPT 0:15:24 Mayor Veenker: All right. Well, thank you again. And with that, we will move on to our second Special Order of the Day, which is to review applications and select candidates to interview for several of our boards and commissions. Madam Clerk, do you want to start us off here? 0:15:42: Deputy City Clerk Bissell: So, good evening, Mayor and Council members. I'm Nicole Bissell, Deputy City Clerk. I'm joined by Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk. And tonight we'll be reviewing applications for our 2026 boards and commissions spring recruitment. Electronic ballots have been sent out to the Council and the results are being tabulated. In the meantime, I'm going to walk you through a couple details of this recruitment cycle. 16:06 ###. Slide 2 -- 2026 SPRING RECRUITMENT So, included in this recruitment, we had 10 vacancies across five commissions. * The Historic Resources Board had three full-term vacancies. * The Human Relations Commission had one partial term vacancy. * The Planning and Transportation Commission had two full-term vacancies. * The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee had one partial term vacancy. * And finally, the Utilities Advisory Commission had three full-term vacancies. As for recruitment timeline, recruitment opened on January 13th and closed on February 18th. At tonight's Council meeting, we'll be selecting candidates to interview. And then, on March 23rd, we have tentatively scheduled the candidate interviews themselves. And on April 6, we have tentatively scheduled appointments.. 0:16:54: ###. Slide 3 -- INTERVIEW SELECTION PROCESS As for our interview process, our approved process is as follows. The number of interviewees varies based on the number of vacancies. So, if we had six or fewer applicants, the guidance would be to interview all candidates. For one to two openings, the guidance would be to interview up to six candidates. For three openings, the guidance would be to interview up to eight candidates. And Council members will vote on whom they would like to interview, being allowed twice the number of votes as there are vacancies. ### Is it the case that no Council member can vote for a candidate more than once. ### Is it the case that a Council member can vote for fewer candidates that he/she is allowed to vote for? The top vote getters are interviewed and candidates must receive at least two votes to be interviewed. 0:17:33: ###. Slide 4 -- RECRUITMENT SUMMARY So, this slide just shows a summary of our vacancies in our applications. * HRB, as you can see, which had three vacancies, received three applications. So the guidance would be to interview all candidates. * HRC, which had one vacancy, received nine applications, and the guidance would be to interview up to six candidates. * PTC, which had two vacancies, received 11 applications, and the guidance would be to interview up to six candidates. * Storm water had one vacancy, and no applications have been received at this time. * And for Utilities Advisory Commission, which had three vacancies, we received 10 applications, and the guidance would be to interview up to eight candidates. 0:18:19: ###. Slide 5 -- HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD So now, I'll go over the results by commission. For the Historic Resources board. We had three applicants for three full-term vacancies. There's no vote to be taken at this time as for the interview process, because the procedures indicate that all candidates should be interviewed, given that less than six applications are received. ### This assumes that all six candidates would have received at least 2 votes. That being said, Council does have the discretion for this commission -- or any other boards or commissions -- to extend the recruitment if they desire. 18:48 ### Slide 6 -- HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (ROUND 1) For the Human Relations Commission, we had nine applicants for one partial term vacancy, and the votes are as follow: * Ann-Marie Duliege received one vote from Mayor Veenker (1). * Cynthia Wood received one vote from Council Member Lu (1). * Deborah Goldeen, no votes. * Ellen Bob received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl (4). * Haylea Hannah received no votes. * Jonake Bose received no votes. * Raizel Rosenberg received votes from Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (4). * Raymond Goins received votes from Lythcott-Haims (1). And * Rona Hu received votes from Burt, Lauing, and Stone (3). So for this commission, we have three candidates moving on to the interview process: Ellen Bob, Raizel Rosenberg, and Rona Hu. 0:19:43: ###. Slide 7 -- PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (ROUND 1) For the Planning & Transportation Commission, we had 11 applicants for two full-term vacancies. * Bobi Adel received no votes. * Byrna Chang received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (7). * Daniel Phillip Benas received votes from Burt and Reckdahl (2). * David Wu and * Ellen Shay received no votes. * Forest Olaf Peterson received votes from Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, and Veenker (4) * Jeff Watt received votes from Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl (4). * Joyce Beattie received no votes. * Martin Blanchet received votes from Stone and Veenker (2). * Nikita Kutsalev received no votes. And * Tom Siegel received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (6) ### So, candidates Chang, Benas, Peterson, Watt, Blanchet, and Siegel will be interviewed. Right? 0:20:37: ###. Slide 8 -- STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE As for the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee, as I mentioned previously, no applications were received. Staff is recommending extending this recruitment. 20:48 ###. Slide 7 -- UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (ROUND 1) And finally, for the Utilities Advisory Commission, there were 10 applications for three full-term vacancies. And the votes are as follows. * Andy Poggio received votes from Reckdahl (1). * Barry Wolf received votes from Reckdahl (1). * Benjamin Piiru received votes from Burt, Lauing, and Stone (3). * Grant Chang received votes from Lu and Stone (2). * Greg Scharff received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (7). * Hassan Naqvi received no votes. * Julia Zeitlin received votes from Burt, Lu, Lythott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (6). * Meagan Mauter received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (6) * Olgu Tanriverdi received votes from Burt and Lu (2). And * Robert L. Phillips received votes from Burt, Lauing, Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, and Veenker (6). So, for this commission, we would have Benjamin Piiru, Grant Chang, Greg Scharff, Julia Zeitlin, Megan Mauter, Olgu Tanriverdi, and Robert L. Phillips proceeding to the interview round. 22:04 And, finally, as for our next steps, the Clerk's Office will reach out to the candidates to coordinate interviews which are tentatively scheduled for the March 23rd City Council meeting. and appointments are tentatively scheduled for the April 6th Council meeting. 22:19 Mayor Veenker: Thank you. Wow. I think we finally found the process. We have been working on this for years, but I think we've got it. That said, I wanted to ask my colleagues about the HRB. We know that the stormwater commission -- there will be extended recruitment for that, since we did not have applicants, The HRB had the precise number of applicants as there were positions. So, we should discuss whether or not we would like to extend that recruitment, so we could have a broader pool. Colleagues, thoughts? Council member Stone. I mean Vice Mayor Stone. 0:23:00: Vice Mayor Stone: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think we should extend the recruitment for HRB. 0:23:05 Mayor Veenker: Council Member Lauing. 0:23:08: Council Member Lauing: Agree. I think it's just not good policy to have the exact number of candidates that we have openings for. Which might imply to the public that we're going to just sort of take whatever we get. Which, of course, we won't, but -- 0:23:23: Mayor Veenker: I would concur with that. Other thoughts? Do we need to vote on whether to extend the recruitment? Or can you just take advice? We can ask colleagues. Does anyone object to extending the recruitment for HRB? Seeing no lights and no indication, is that sufficient as far as staff is concerned? ### I assume that means that Council will not consider HRB applicants on March 23rd or April 6th. Right? 0:23:47: Deputy City Clerk Bissell: I feel that's clear direction for the Clerk's Office to extend the recruitment for the Historic Resources Board. 0:23:51: Mayor Veenker: Okay. Well, thank you. We know you did an awful lot to get us this far. We're grateful and appreciate if you'd help us just get a little further. Deputy City Clerk Bissell: Of course. Thank you. 0:24:01: Mayor Veenker: Okay, that concludes the Special Orders of the Day.... From:amoebas-rookies-2a@icloud.com To:Council, City Subject:why is Palo Alto surveilling its citizens with Flock cameras? Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:41:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Over the last 6 months I have noticed a rapidly increasing number of surveillance cameras and license plate readers being deployed throughout Palo Alto. Every major intersection seems to have at least 4-6 cameras installed on the traffic light poles. Within the last month I have noticed something far more troubling and disturbing—two Flock Safety cameras within a block from my home. As I’m sure the members of City Council are aware, mass surveillance data is synthesized by AI tools to do far more than just watch for fender benders. It is currently being used by the administration to create watch lists of Americans that disagree with its policies or that speak out against it. Or to analyze the movements and behaviors of specific groups of people so that it can target them for “law enforcement” actions. Why is the city installing these cameras and license plate readers? Why is the city contracting with Flock Safety? Did City Council approve these contracts? I did not consent to being surveilled in my own neighborhood. I did not consent to my tax dollars being used to spy upon me and my neighbors. When enough people of this city realize that Palo Alto has a contract with Flock there will be a backlash just like there are in neighboring cities right now. Council members (in any Bay Area city) in favor of mass surveillance will likely not win the votes they need to be re-elected. Palo Alto community members do not want this. I would like to believe that Palo Alto is better than this. Sincerely, Brad M From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Uber and Lift transportation for older people Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:07:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, You have been discussing alternatives to Link and it seems you may not be aware of a service called GoGo Grandparents. I live at Channing House where we have a very active No Cars group. They suggest to people who have trouble with apps and cell phones sign up for GoGo Grandparents that I believe allows you to use a regular phone and personal contact. I suggest someone contact residents here to get more information. I am happy to give you those contacts if someone contacts me. We also do many other activities to help people learn all the public transportation options available as persons here are encouraged to give up their cars when they cannot drive safely or want to reduce car traffic. I think you might find this effort helpful. Patty Irish -- Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:NYTimes: Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him. Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 9:14:18 AM Council Members - Given your upcoming consideration of joining four lawsuits, I thought today's NYT article would be of interest. Winter Dellenbach https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/03/upshot/trump-funding-lawsuits.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share From:San Mateo County Transportation Authority To:Council, City Subject:Cancelled: 3/3/2026 TA Community Advisory Committee Meeting Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 6:58:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. i View this email in your browser Join Our Email List San Mateo County Transportation Authority NOTICE OF CANCELLATION This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report for San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) Community Advisory Committee Meeting The TA Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting for Tuesday, March 3, 2026 has been cancelled. The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, March 31, 2026 Check out the Transportation Authority on Social Media TA| 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe Sent by board@smcta.com powered by From:Bill McLane To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer Subject:Re: Bob"s OSV Count - - Correction Date:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 5:25:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Looks like a lot of unhitched trailers there. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance 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. On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:18 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Folks, The updated OSV count I sent out yesterday needs to be amended and a new street segment added (will be reflected in my next update). In all likelihood these OSVs probably moved here after they were forced to move off of Corporation Way due to utility construction. The below photo taken today is of the segment of San Antonio Rd. east of 101 adjacent to the soon to be opened LifeMoves Homekey transitional housing development estimated to open in late Spring (see link below). So the more accurate count is 144 + 5 =149. Best, Bob San Antonio Rd. East of 101 Palo Alto LifeMoves Homekey Transitional Housing to Open in Late Spring Growth lifemoves.org From:milo To:Council, City Subject:Support for development in 2100 Geng Road Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 6:47:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC, My name is Milovan Kovacevic, and I live in the College Terrace neighborhood. I am writing to ask for your support the homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. This is a wonderful opportunity for more energy- and space-efficient housing and starter home ownership options in our community, as well as an opportunity for bringing more life, small business opportunity, and revenue to the neighborhood and Palo Alto in general. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community. Regards, Milovan From:Marty Douglas To:Council, City; Raybould, Claire Subject:Public comment- Proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons (City council mtg 3/16) Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:08:32 PM Attachments:Public comment- proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the City Council, Please accept the attached letter as public comment from me and my husband regarding the agenda item on the Monday, 3/16 City Hall (250 Hamilton) City Council Meeting into the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. As 46-year residents of Palo Alto near the Palo Alto Commons, we have witnessed the 38+ years of non-compliance with Planned Community Ordinance, persistent parking violations and safety concerns, reduced parking, and pattern of bad-faith negotiation by the owners of Palo Alto Commons. As senior citizens ourselves who will be seeking assisted living in the near future, we wish to be good neighbors. However, how the owners have conducted themselves over these past years of negotiations does not seem to be in good faith. We respectfully request that you approve only 7 internal units, along with the other recommendations of the PTC. Thank you for your consideration of our opinions. Marilyn (and John) Douglas 360 Maclane St Palo Alto, CA 94306 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 Page 1 of 3 Dear Members of the City Council We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation. When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to uphold it. Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in 1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property. Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and the PTC. A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals (Attachment Q), including residents of The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any external expansion of the Commons. Failure to Follow Council Direction Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A), the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted. Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved. Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include: • Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N) • Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C) • Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O) Page 2 of 3 • Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D) • Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E) • Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G) • Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H) • Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I) • Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way • Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J) These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and the PTC. As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O). Reduced Parking and Future Impacts Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking. Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how fully parked El Camino Way already is. These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support. Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad-faith negotiation: • An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting rooms into offices, without reducing building mass. • At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer than 16 units was financially infeasible. • Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.” These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims. Daylight Plane Violations As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were Page 3 of 3 considered housing, which we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard. Our Request We respectfully ask City Council to: • Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation • Approve only the 7 internal units • Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood • Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction. Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust, and sound planning. Sincerely, Marilyn & John Douglas 360 Maclane St (Wilkie Way dead-ends into Maclane St & we get Wilkie Way’s overflow parking) Palo Alto, CA From:HappilyGoingMad To:Council, City Subject:Support for proposal to build more homes along Geng Road Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 3:43:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Cindy Carroll and I live in Barron Park, Palo Alto. Please support the homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. I want to create more ownership options in our community, including affordable homeownership. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community, Cindy Carroll This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Subject:Why I Support Continued Use of ALPRs by PAPD Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:57:03 PM Attachments:ALPR Letter - Hamilton Hitchings - v3.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I support continuing Palo Alto’s use of Flock ALPR cameras because they provide meaningful public-safety benefits, and Palo Alto has implemented clear privacy safeguards with “trust but verify” accountability. Public safety benefits ALPR provides: • Real-time detection of stolen or wanted vehicles entering the city • Faster identification of offenders, reducing additional victims and improving recovery of stolen property • Deterrence as offenders sometimes avoid cities known to use ALPRs • Stronger investigative leads after crimes, even with incomplete descriptions or stolen plates/vehicles As Assistant Chief James Reifschneider stated: “The Police Department has found ALPR to be a tremendous public safety tool, assisting in the apprehension of violent felons, the recovery of stolen property, and the safe location of missing persons… ALPR data played a crucial role in our detectives solving a string of dozens of residential burglaries… and apprehending the perpetrator.” Measured results are also available from a nearby comparator city. In roughly one year, Mountain View Police reported ALPR assisted investigations in 87 commercial burglary cases, 65 vehicle burglaries, and 42 residential burglaries, and helped identify or arrest 41 suspects. Palo Alto has nearly three years of experience with fixed ALPR, and staff are currently preparing a clear, quantified outcomes summary that will include more detail than the statistics released by MVPD. Council should evaluate Palo Alto’s program based on that completed local Palo Alto data. Privacy safeguards and accountability in Palo Alto (trust but verify) Data retention is limited to 30 days. Palo Alto’s cameras are positioned to capture rear license plates only and are not designed to capture vehicle occupants or use facial recognition. Access is limited to trained personnel for legitimate law-enforcement purposes; searches are logged and subject to audit. Neither PAPD nor Flock found any instance where Palo Alto data was shared with out-of- state or federal agencies. Flock disabled the relevant out-of-state/federal search feature for all California agencies in March 2025. In addition, the City has engaged its Auditor to begin independent verification of both vendor controls and Palo Alto’s internal ALPR procedures. Conclusion Palo Alto’s ALPR program is helping deter and solve vehicle-enabled crime while operating with limited capture, short retention, controlled access, and strengthened independent oversight. Continuing this program helps stop repeat offenders sooner, recover stolen property faster, and reduce the number of future victims. I support continuing the program and evaluating it based on Palo Alto’s forthcoming outcomes summary and the independent audit results. Respectfully, Hamilton Hitchings Dear City Council, I support continuing Palo Alto’s use of Flock ALPR cameras because they provide meaningful public-safety benefits, and Palo Alto has implemented clear privacy safeguards with “trust but verify” accountability. Public safety benefits ALPR provides: • Real-time detection of stolen or wanted vehicles entering the city • Faster identification of offenders, reducing additional victims and improving recovery of stolen property • Deterrence as offenders sometimes avoid cities known to use ALPRs • Stronger investigative leads after crimes, even with incomplete descriptions or stolen plates/vehicles As Assistant Chief James Reifschneider stated: “The Police Department has found ALPR to be a tremendous public safety tool, assisting in the apprehension of violent felons, the recovery of stolen property, and the safe location of missing persons… ALPR data played a crucial role in our detectives solving a string of dozens of residential burglaries… and apprehending the perpetrator.” Measured results are also available from a nearby comparator city. In roughly one year, Mountain View Police reported ALPR assisted investigations in 87 commercial burglary cases,65 vehicle burglaries, and 42 residential burglaries , and helped identify or arrest 41 suspects. Palo Alto has nearly three years of experience with fixed ALPR, and staff are currently preparing a clear, quantified outcomes summary that will include more detail than the statistics released by MVPD. Council should evaluate Palo Alto’s program based on that completed local Palo Alto data. Privacy safeguards and accountability in Palo Alto (trust but verify) Data retention is limited to 30 days. Palo Alto’s cameras are positioned to capture rear license plates only and are not designed to capture vehicle occupants or use facial recognition. Access is limited to trained personnel for legitimate law-enforcement purposes; searches are logged and subject to audit. Neither PAPD nor Flock found any instance where Palo Alto data was shared with out-of-state or federal agencies. Flock disabled the relevant out-of-state/federal search feature for all California agencies in March 2025. In addition, the City has engaged its Auditor to begin independent verification of both vendor controls and Palo Alto’s internal ALPR procedures. Conclusion Palo Alto’s ALPR program is helping deter and solve vehicle-enabled crime while operating with limited capture, short retention, controlled access, and strengthened independent oversight. Continuing this program helps stop repeat offenders sooner, recover stolen property faster, and reduce the number of future victims. I support continuing the program and evaluating it based on Palo Alto’s forthcoming outcomes summary and the independent audit results. Respectfully, Hamilton Hitchings From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer Subject:Bob"s OSV Count - - Correction Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:24:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Folks, The updated OSV count I sent out yesterday needs to be amended and a new street segment added (will be reflected in my next update). In all likelihood these OSVs probably moved here after they were forced to move off of Corporation Way due to utility construction. The below photo taken today is of the segment of San Antonio Rd. east of 101 adjacent to the soon to be opened LifeMoves Homekey transitional housing development estimated to open in late Spring (see link below). So the more accurate count is 144 + 5 =149. Best, Bob San Antonio Rd. East of 101 Palo Alto LifeMoves Homekey Transitional Housing to Open in Late Spring Growth lifemoves.org From:Dave Warner To:UAC Cc:Artola, Adriana; Council, City; Kurotori, Alan Subject:Palo Alto"s water rates at risk Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:09:02 PM Attachments:Palo Alto"s water rates at risk.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, Would you distribute the attached letter to the UAC members? Kind regards, Dave Warner This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Page 1 of 9 March 3, 2026, Re: Palo Alto’s Water Rates at Risk Dear Commissioners, The Utilities team should be commended. They were able to hold residents’ water rate increases to the previously projected 10% range despite the surprise of the cost of SFPUC water increasing in the 7-8% range in each of the next two years, while just months ago the SFPUC was projecting a 1% increase. Not only that, sta4 is basing their rate projections on declining demand projections,1 which is excellent for being fiscally responsible and is rare amongst water agencies. While bringing near term rate increases back down to 10% was a great tactical move, there are still two big strategic issues, at least one you are well aware of. 1) Already high water rates will become stratospheric Consecutive 10% rate increases have been discussed for a while and there’s a fear that you might inadvertently become complacent about them particularly given that sta4 was able to absorb this latest surprise. As table 1 shows, the average annual water rate increase between 2020 and 2030 will be 8.7% a year, which compares to Palo Alto’s median household income increasing 2.4% annually.2 These are massive increases and will adversely impact a4ordability. 1 See Figure 2 in the item 3 sta4 report for the March 4th UAC meeting. 2Per Nielsberg Research Palo Alto’s median household income (MHI) grew from $205,303 in 2020 to $220,408 in 2023, a 2.4% annual rate. This analysis assumes that MHI continues to grow at that rate. Table 1: By 2030 the average water bill will be more than double what it was in 2020, while median household income growth will have grown by only a small fraction of that. FY'20 FY'27 FY'30 ccf used 9 9 9 Monthly water bill 128$ 204$ 294$ Cumulative growth from 2020 59%129% Annual growth from 2020 6.9%8.7% Palo Alto Median Household Income growth* Cumulative growth from 2020 26.8% Annual growth from 2020 2.4% Page 2 of 9 2) What’s worse: Likely more surprise wholesale rate increases coming The SFPUC is projecting that after these next two years wholesale rates will increase in the 3% range annually. To understand why, it is worth a closer look at the recent surprise increases. The SFPUC has stated that the increases happened because water demand was lower than previously projected. Chart 1 shows how the demand projections changed. FY 2027 demand projections from BAWSCA dropped from 136.2 mgd last May to 125.4 mgd this January, which combined with the FY 2026 decline caused the rate increase. The trouble is that the latest demand projections continue to assume increasing demand over time (the dark blue line). If demand doesn’t increase as expected, the wholesale rates will have to go up more than projected. It is unlikely that demand will increase over the medium or long term. BAWSCA’s own 2025 demand study, which assumes 37% population growth by 2050, shows demand growth of Chart 1: SFPUC Finance Bureau projections for BAWSCA demand declined significantly but still show an upward trend. May 2024 and May 2025 data are from associated SFPUC wholesale rate increase schedules. February 2026 data is from the SFPUC February FY 2027 10-year financial plan. 116.5 129.2 124.7 125.4 130.9 132.2 137.2 143.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 145.0 150.0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 MG D FY'26 to FY'27 Wholesale Paying Demand Projection Comparison Wholesale demand FY'27 (mgd)Wholesale demand FY'26 (mgd) Page 3 of 9 16%.3 Its demand study also looked at alternative demand scenarios, two of which projected less population growth, show demand declining between 8 and 18%. The Sierra Club developed an innovative water demand model that incorporates the impact of droughts into projections. As shown in chart 2, BAWSCA demand on the SFPUC’s regional water system could drop to as low as 100 mgd, more than 20% below FY 2025 demand of 129 mgd. This is in contrast to demand increasing per the SFPUC’s financial projections. Projecting declining demand can be di4icult for some water managers. The term “demand hardening” is sometimes expressed as a defense. It’s the idea that there’s been so much conservation, it’s not possible to conserve any more. Based on the response to the last drought, the data doesn’t support the idea. Attachment A provides further detail. Based on the above data it is unlikely demand will increase in the medium to long term. This means wholesale water rates will likely be higher than projected. 3 If BAWSCA constituents think that demand growth is likely, this is a problem in that it will drive investment in unneeded alternative water supplies, which will drive rates even higher, an unfortunate financial experience the San Diego County Water Authority knows quite well. Chart 2: Sierra Club projected demand of the SFPUC’s regional water system (RWS) per their letter dated February 19, 2026. The dotted red line is the projection for BAWSCA’s portion of RWS demand. Page 4 of 9 A complicating factor: BAWSCA hasn’t taken on the problem One would expect that BAWSCA would drive how to eliminate future wholesale rate surprises and take various actions to hold down wholesale rate increases. But no. While BAWSCA members first heard about the surprise rate increase at their January Board meeting, no action has been taken, despite Greer Stone, our BAWSCA representative, raising the concern. At BAWSCA’s policy committee meeting in February, still no action was taken. Board slides for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s October 14, 2025 meeting provide an example of the kind of information we should expect from our water supplier, the SFPUC. See attachment B In your role representing Palo Alto citizens on utility matters, please consider the following: Actions to consider: 1) Recognize that we have a substantial water rate problem and that it is likely to get worse as future wholesale demand will likely not meet projections. 2) Press the Utilities team to sharpen their pencils and present a contingency plan should wholesale rates increase more than projected. Ideally this would be in combination with a plan to trim costs to bring down rates. 3) There are many things that can be done to eliminate both wholesale rate surprises and hold down SFPUC rate increases, ranging from price sensitivity analyses to declining demand, to developing more realistic demand projections (so that the SFPUC realizes it doesn’t need to be prepared for big demand increases and can instead shift to focusing on cost reduction), to modestly revising their drought planning model to plan for a 1 in 1,000 year drought rather than a 1 in 8,000 to 70,000 year drought as presently contemplated.4 Rather than trying to explain here, please consider holding a workshop to explore actions to be taken. Kind regards, Dave Warner Attachments 4 The SFPUC’s design drought is so remote such that it hasn’t been seen in 1100 years of tree ring data nor 25,000 years of statistical data prepared by the University of Massachusetts, Amherst as part of the SFPUC 2021 Long Term Vulnerability Analysis. Page 5 of 9 Attachment A: So far, the data does not support the idea of demand hardening Page 6 of 9 Page 7 of 9 Attachment B: Selected Slides from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s October 14, 2025 Board Meeting Please note that none of the data shown here is provided by the SFPUC Water shortage risk analysis: Note 2 scenarios shown with water shortage probabilities. Rate impact of major projects broken out Page 8 of 9 How rates are a4ected over time with additional projects How rates are a4ected using current, uninflated dollars Page 9 of 9 Demand sensitivity analysis, scenarios studied Price sensitivity analysis From:Peter Drekmeier To:UAC Cc:Council, City; Kurotori, Alan; Artola, Adriana Subject:Letter to UAC Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:51:13 AM Attachments:YRA Letter to PAUAC - 3326.pdf 20250415_UAC_Letter_to_SFPUC_-_Greer_Stone.pdf PastedGraphic-1.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Hi Folks, Please see my attached letter to the UAC. Thanks. -Peter Please note my new email address. ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier Policy Director Yosemite Rivers Alliance (Formerly Tuolumne River Trust) peter.drekmeier@yosemiterivers.org Powered by Mimecast 1 March 3, 2026 Chair Greg Scharff and Commissioners Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission UAC@paloalto.gov Dear Chair Scharff and Commissioners: Last year, at your encouragement, Councilmember and BAWSCA Director Greer Stone sent a letter to the SFPUC requesting information to help Palo Alto with long-term water supply and financial planning (letter attached). Of the four questions posed, I’d like to draw your attention to the following: What is the impact of using lower demand projections (including the SFPUC's Finance Bureau assumptions and projections informed by BAWSCA’s 2022 demand study low scenario) on the potential water supply deficit? How would these lower demand projections influence the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan and associated revenue requirements and cost/acre foot to wholesale customers? The SFPUC refused to answer Councilmember Stone’s questions. In light of recent developments, the answer to the above question (as well as the others) is of critical importance to Palo Alto and the other BAWSCA member agencies. I encourage you to recommend to Council that the City ramp up efforts to engage with the SFPUC. BAWSCA has not been helpful, so it would be helpful to involve our State legislators. Last year, when City Council approved this year’s water rates, it was projected that the cost of water purchased from the SFPUC would increase 1% in FY 2027 and 1.2% in FY 2028. The updated projection is now 7.4% for each of those years. The reason given is that water sales have been lower than projected, thus reducing SFPUC revenue. In a fixed-cost system, such as the Hetch Hetchy Water System, a decline in sales requires the price per unit to increase. Ratepayers must make up the difference. Following is a table showing the year of rate projections in the column on the far left followed by the projections for future fiscal years. For 2 example, in 2022 the wholesale rate projection for FY 2025 was $5.25 per CCF, but the actual price was $5.67. The rate projection for FY 2026 also was $5.25 per CCF, but the actual was $5.80. In both 2024 and 2025, the rate projections for FY 2027 was $5.86 per CCF, but the new preliminary projection is now $6.23. Projection Year Projected Price per CCF for Fiscal Years * preliminary projection Attachment A includes the preliminary FY 2027 projections followed by projections from FY 2023 through FY 2026. A major driver of rate increases is the financial death spiral. As the cost of water increases, demand and sales decrease. This forces the SFPUC to increase the price per CCF to cover fixed costs, sending an even stronger price signal to consumers to conserve. The spiral builds on itself. In response to BAWSCA’s 2025 updated water demand study that suggests slower growth in demand than previously projected (see top graph below), the SFPUC recently reduced its sales projections by more than 10 mgd (see second graph below). This means the price of water will increase even more than previously projected. 3 Source: BAWSCA presentation to BAWS, February 2, 2026 Source: SFPUC budget hearing, January 12, 2026 The questions Councilmember Stone asked in his letter to the SFPUC last year are even more relevant today. Had they been addressed, this latest wholesale rate increase might not have been such a surprise and perhaps could have been partially mitigated. Please encourage City Council to pursue this issue. 4 Thank you for the opportunity to share these insights with you. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Policy Director Cc: Palo Alto City Council CA Senator Josh Becker CA Assemblymember Marc Berman 5 Attachment A Preliminary FY 2027 Wholesale Water Rates Source: SFPUC Annual Meeting with BAWSCA, February 19, 2026 FY 2023 Wholesale Water Rates Source: SFPUC FY 2022-23 Wholesale Water Rates - May 10, 2022 6 FY 2024 Wholesale Water Rates Source: SFPUC FY 2023-24 Wholesale Water Rates - May 9, 2023 FY 2025 Wholesale Water Rates Source: SFPUC FY 2024-25 Wholesale Water Rates - May 14, 2024 7 FY 2026 Wholesale Water Rates Source: SFPUC FY 2025-26 Wholesale Water Rates - May 13, 2025 From The Desk of Councilmember Greer Stone CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | (650) 329-2571 General Manager Dennis Herrera San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear GM Herrera: The City of Palo Alto appreciated the participation of Steve Ritchie from your staff at our Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting on November 6, 2024. Since then, the UAC has reviewed Palo Alto’s One Water Plan (a roadmap for addressing potential water supply shortfalls) and is recommending the City Council reject the plan as is. They are concerned that the impetus of the plan (Palo Alto might experience 50% rationing at some point) is unreasonable, and that before committing to large-scale investments in alternative water supplies, we should feel confident they are needed. The City Council has yet to review the plan and discuss further the UAC’s recommendation, but your assistance in answering the following questions would be helpful in our future decision making. The UAC is recommending that we request the following information from the SFPUC to help inform our decision. 1. What is the return period of the design drought and the calculations behind it? Please also provide sensitivity analyses evaluating the impacts of two less severe design droughts on the return period, the water supply deficit, and associated financial impacts (costs). The first alternative design drought would simply remove the final year from the current design drought. The second would replace the 1976-1977 drought in the current design drought with the average water supply deficit during the 1987-1992 drought. 2. What is the impact of using lower demand projections (including the SFPUC's Finance Bureau assumptions and projections informed by BAWSCA’s 2022 demand study low scenario) on the potential water supply deficit? How would these lower demand projections influence the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan and associated revenue requirements and cost/acre foot to wholesale customers? 3. How would the combination of the two less conservative design droughts and lower demand projections influence potential water rationing and the need to pursue alternative water supplies? 4. Using current demand and the three droughts presented in the Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment, what would the low point of the SFPUC’s total system storage have been had the Bay Delta Plan been in affect at the time of those droughts? From The Desk of Councilmember Greer Stone CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | (650) 329-2571 We would appreciate responses to these questions by the end of April to help us with our long-term financial planning. Thank you for your attention, Greer Stone, Palo Alto Councilmember BAWSCA Director From:Antonia del Río To:Council, City Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer Subject:Proposal: Leveraging State SPM Grants for Non-Toxic Rodent Control in Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:31:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Members of the City Council, As a Palo Alto resident and a recent graduate of Foothill College's Horticulture and Landscape Design program, I propose a proactive, ecologically sound solution to the rising rodent population in our neighborhoods. While our city has a commendable history with Integrated Pest Management (IPM), our current approach—relying on resident education and traditional trapping—is struggling to keep pace with the roof rat "highways" affecting our residential corridors. Many residents, out of frustration, are turning back to anticoagulant poisons, which pose a direct threat to our local raptors, pets, and the health of the San Francisco Bay watershed. I would like the Council to consider a pilot program for rodent fertility control (e.g., ContraPest). This approach has already proven successful in other West Coast urban environments. Specifically, the "Queen Anne Pilot" in Seattle—led by the non-profit Raptors Are The Solution (RATS)—achieved a 91% reduction in the local rat population in just seven months without using lethal toxins. (You can view the full case study here: https://raptorsarethesolution.org/poison-free-by-2023/). A similar pilot in Palo Alto aligns perfectly with your 2026 goals for environmental leadership and government efficiency: 1. Grant Funding Opportunity: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is currently awarding Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Grants (up to $1M) specifically for projects that reduce rodenticide use. Palo Alto is an ideal candidate for a model urban pilot. 2. Ecosystem Protection: Unlike traditional poisons, fertility control does not move up the food chain. It protects the very owls and hawks that provide natural pest control in our canopy. 3. Long-Term Efficiency: By addressing the birth rate rather than just the death rate, we can break the "rebound effect" where populations surge back after trapping. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report I suggest a small-scale pilot in a specific residential tract (such as an Eichler neighborhood with interconnected fencing) to track the efficacy of this "buffer zone" approach. I urge the Council to direct city staff to review this case study and investigate how fertility control could support Palo Alto’s "Clean Bay" and "Sustainable Pest Management" goals. Sincerely, Antonia Del Rio 2459 Greer Rd From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Low Population Growth is the Future for the Nation and California Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:00:03 AM Attachments:Numbers-Feb2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 365 FOREST AVENUE 5A • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 March 3, 2026 U.S. and California Population Growth Slows Trend Will Continue Unless Immigration Levels Rise U.S. and California population growth slowed in the year ending in June 2025. The cause was a sharp decline in international immigration, though the new administration policies were in place for only a small part of the year. The current decline in legal immigration combined with current deportation efforts and declining birth rates will lead to a period of zero or declining population growth in the nation within 5 to 10 years. U.S. population growth declined by just over 1.4 million between 2023-24 and 2024-25, virtually the same as the decline in immigration levels between these two years. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report But the decline in population growth is even more dramatic when one compares six- month periods and incorporates the Census Bureau short-term projections shown below. In September 2025 the Congressional Budget Office projected that U.S. natural increase (births minus deaths) would decline to zero and go negative in the early 2030s meaning that U.S. population growth would depend entirely on immigration levels. CCSCE developed some illustrative projections of state population growth based on analyzing and projecting natural increase, domestic migration and immigration using Department of Finance (DOF) historical data. The results are shown below. CCSCE developed some illustrative projections of state population growth based on analyzing and projecting natural increase, domestic migration and immigration using Department of Finance (DOF) historical data. The results are shown below. Illustrative Projections of Population Growth California 2022-25 Low Middle High Average Natural Increase 108,697 95,000 100,000 105,000 Domestic Migration -200,706 -200,000 -175,000 -150,000 Immigration 194,963 25,000 50,000 75,000 Net Change 102,954 -80,000 -25,000 30,000 Source: CCSCE The era of large population growth is over for the state as declining birthrates, high housing prices and unwelcoming immigration policies push growth lower and possibly negative. For California an increase in housing supply and affordability would soften these trends and for the state and nation, a return to welcoming immigration policies will help address looming challenges in finding workers as well as boost population. The data, sources and analyses are contained in the attached Numbers in the News. These trends seem likely to continue but the magnitude of impact on population growth is acknowledged to be uncertain. Stephen Levy 650-814-8553 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 1 February 2026 U.S. and California Population Growth Slows—Trend Will Continue Unless Immigration Levels Rise U.S. and California population growth slowed in the year ending in June 2025. The cause was a sharp decline in international immigration, though the new administration policies were in place for only a small part of the year. The current decline in legal immigration combined with current deportation efforts and declining birth rates will lead to a period of zero or declining population growth in the nation within 5 to 10 years. A decline in population growth combined with continuing baby boomer retirements and the uncertain impacts of AI will affect job and economic growth. Let’s start with the national picture as it will set the background for what will happen in states and localities. U.S. Population Trends and Projections U.S. population growth declined by just over 1.4 million between 2023-24 and 2024-25, virtually the same as the decline in immigration levels between these two years. 0.52 1.9 2.76 3.24 1.78 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 U.S. Population Growth (Millions) 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 2 But the decline in population growth is even more dramatic when one compares six- month periods and incorporates the Census Bureau short-term projections shown below. Population growth declines from 1.7 million in the last six months of 2023 to 0.5 million in the last six months of 2025 and a projected 0.3 million in the next six months. This mostly reflects deportations and declining immigration levels both from policy and the sense that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming place for many foreigners. Here is a link to the Census Bureau press release describing these trends and data sources: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- releases/2026/population-growth-slows.html 0.38 1.67 2.26 2.73 1.26 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 U.S. Immigration (Millions) 1.7 1.6 1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 7/23-1/24 1/24-7/24 7/24-1/25 1/25-7/25 7/25-1/26 1/26-7/26 U.S. Population Growth (Millions) 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 3 In September 2025, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued projections of U.S. population growth based on their projection of natural increase (births minus deaths) and immigration incorporating their assessment of the new administration policies. Here is the link to their report: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61390 The CBO projects that declining birth rates and the aging population will turn natural increase negative in just 5 years. “Annual births are projected to exceed annual deaths through 2030. Beginning in 2031, net immigration more than accounts for the projected population growth; that is, without immigration, the U.S. population would shrink.” CBO acknowledges that projections, especially of immigration levels, are uncertain. “CBO’s population projections are highly uncertain, especially in the later years of the 2025–2055 period. If rates of fertility, mortality, or net immigration are higher or lower than CBO projects, the resulting population will differ in size and composition from the one described here.” For example, a new administration in 2029 could reverse the current deportation policies and promote increased immigration. That will not reverse the finding that immigration will soon be the only source of U.S. population growth. And analysts and readers will have to assess how much, if any, permanent damage has been done to the image of the U.S as a welcoming home for immigrants. The Impact on California States will see different impacts from slowing U.S. population growth, depending primarily on their job growth and housing affordability. But all shifts among states will be bounded by the U.S. population total. What can California look forward to? First, let’s look at recent history. The California Department of Finance (DOF) and Census Bureau (CB) have just published estimates of recent state population growth. While some aspects of the estimates differ, they are consistent in recording slower state growth as immigration slowed. The Census Bureau estimates the state population as slightly lower than DOF throughout the period since 2020. 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 4 DOF has the state population on July 1, 2025 as close to the 2020 total and the Census Bureau estimate is slightly lower. In the 2024-25 year, CB shows a slight decrease while DOF shows a slight gain, but the pattern and magnitude of differences is small in a state with nearly 40 million residents. The chart below shows the difference between each component of change. DOF has slightly higher estimates of change in immigration and domestic migration than DOF. But the differences are not large in a state with more than 39 million residents. 38,900,000 39,000,000 39,100,000 39,200,000 39,300,000 39,400,000 39,500,000 39,600,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Population in California Census DOF -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Natural Increase Immigration Domestic Migration Net Migration Total Change Difference Between DOF and Census 2024-25 365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com 5 The table below shows the DOF estimates of each component of population change by year since 2020. California Population Components of Change 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Natural Increase 67,423 105,524 107,201 110,579 108,311 Immigration 20,035 133,360 199,095 259,321 126,473 Domestic Migration -369,152 -278,895 -246,434 -140,142 -215,542 Net Migration -349,117 -145,535 -47,339 119,179 -89,069 Total Change -281,694 -40,011 59,862 229,758 19,242 Source: DOF California, with a younger population compared to the nation, continues to have positive natural increase with births declining but remaining near 400,000 per year. Immigration surged in 2022-23 and 2023-24 along with the nation and then declined by over 50% in 2024-25 following the national trend. Domestic migration reflecting continued low housing affordability dipped slightly in 2023-23 before moving above negative 200,000 in 2024-25. The source data for the DOF population estimates can be found here: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/E-2/ CCSCE developed some illustrative near-term projections of state population growth. These illustrative projections show that the days of state population growth are over. Future population growth could be slightly positive or slightly negative but is extremely unlikely to ever top 100,000 a year unless immigration and housing production and affordability increase substantially. Illustrative Projections of California Population Growth 2022-25 Average Low Middle High Natural Increase 108,697 95,000 100,000 105,000 Domestic Migration -200,706 -200,000 -175,000 -150,000 Immigration 194,963 25,000 50,000 75,000 Net Change 102,954 -80,000 -25,000 30,000 Source: CCSCE From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:My Response to the War on Iran Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:58:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, In recent days, I have been asked by many constituents about my position on the U.S. war on Iran, and on the War Powers Resolution pending before the House of Representatives this week. Although I have expressed my views through multiple news accounts and social media, I understand that we all miss bits of a rapidly-changing news cycle, so I will summarize my views below, in two parts. The War Powers Resolution, and Congress’ Constitutional Role I will vote to support the War Powers Resolution to require President Trump to comply with the Constitutional mandate to seek Congressional authorization prior to the further deployment of military force in Iran. That does not mean to say that Congress won’t, or even shouldn’t, grant that authority. Constitutional scholars agree that presidents have the authority to nimbly use force to defend our nation from attack. For any protracted offensive military engagement, however, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires a Congressional verdict. That necessarily implies a very public debate. The Constitution's grant to Congress of the power “to declare war” conveys far more than legalistic procedure, but an essential political wisdom: Presidents should explain to Americans’ representatives in Congress the precise purpose for which they should authorize the sacrifice of American lives. Our founders observed and endured kings that too willingly gambled the lives of their soldiers, orphaned children, widowed spouses, devastated communities, and bankrupted treasuries–all for the ambition of conquest. Our founders sought accountability. A vote of Congress either evinces a united nation in a common endeavor–as we saw after September 11, 2001–or it prevents the commitment of American lives where the case for war appears insufficiently compelling. Congress–and only Congress–must decide. The Case for War As I noted, every President who sends our women and men into battle has the constitutional and moral duty to clearly identify and explain the objectives of the use of military force. Despite a dictatorial and murderous regime that governs Iran, President Trump has, as yet, failed to articulate that objective. For example, President Trump speaks frequently about the threat that Iran would pose with a potential nuclear arsenal, yet he also justified last year's attacks on Iran by claiming that he "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities. If true, he wouldn't need this year's war to do so. Minutes after American forces attacked Iran, Trump urged regime change. His War Secretary, Pete Hegseth, unequivocally retracted that assertion the following day, declaring “this is not a regime change war.” The President then suggested he might simply replace the top leaders with more pliant ones. That, of course, is not regime change. Hegseth then claimed that the military action had already changed the regime–which of course, it hasn’t. The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or his top lieutenants does not deliver regime change in Iran any more than the removal of Maduro produced regime change in Venezuela. In either case, people with guns largely make the decisions in the same way. In Iran, a deadly, totalitarian, theocratic regime remains, and the thousands of clerics and militants who ran the nation before the war continue doing so. There’s no leader with popular support who has emerged to take control of the government, to lead Iran toward a more democratic future. One thing appears certain: no mere bombing campaign—no matter how brutal—will deliver regime change by itself. Rather, it requires an armed, organized insurgency within Iran, which currently does not appear to exist. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and even Venezuela, history shows that regime change requires a far more protracted engagement– likely including months or years of fighting with ground troops– than the American public will likely support. Trump needs to tell the parents and spouses of American troops why he’s risking the lives of their loved ones. We can then decide, as a democratic republic, what is worth dying for. Regardless, in this war, there’s much upon which we should be able to agree. We all hope for the safety of our troops, and we pray and grieve for the families of the six American soldiers lost in battle. We should also grieve for the many innocent civilians severely impacted by this war, including the hundreds of innocent civilians killed in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, and throughout the Middle East. I suspect that we all feel some sense of relief with the demise of a ruthless dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, and with the deaths of those accomplices who administered his murderous regime. And, we should all agree to uphold the Constitution. In 1848, then-congressman Abraham Lincoln spoke on the House floor condemning those who rushed to war against Mexico “to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy.” As Lincoln described it, President James K. Polk “plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which [the adversary] might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.” Let’s ensure we know where we’re going, before we get there. The Constitution–and our common sense– demands as much. Sam Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:My Response to the War on Iran Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:58:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, In recent days, I have been asked by many constituents about my position on the U.S. war on Iran, and on the War Powers Resolution pending before the House of Representatives this week. Although I have expressed my views through multiple news accounts and social media, I understand that we all miss bits of a rapidly-changing news cycle, so I will summarize my views below, in two parts. The War Powers Resolution, and Congress’ Constitutional Role I will vote to support the War Powers Resolution to require President Trump to comply with the Constitutional mandate to seek Congressional authorization prior to the further deployment of military force in Iran. That does not mean to say that Congress won’t, or even shouldn’t, grant that authority. Constitutional scholars agree that presidents have the authority to nimbly use force to defend our nation from attack. For any protracted offensive military engagement, however, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires a Congressional verdict. That necessarily implies a very public debate. The Constitution's grant to Congress of the power “to declare war” conveys far more than legalistic procedure, but an essential political wisdom: Presidents should explain to Americans’ representatives in Congress the precise purpose for which they should authorize the sacrifice of American lives. Our founders observed and endured kings that too willingly gambled the lives of their soldiers, orphaned children, widowed spouses, devastated communities, and bankrupted treasuries–all for the ambition of conquest. Our founders sought accountability. A vote of Congress either evinces a united nation in a common endeavor–as we saw after September 11, 2001–or it prevents the commitment of American lives where the case for war appears insufficiently compelling. Congress–and only Congress–must decide. The Case for War As I noted, every President who sends our women and men into battle has the constitutional and moral duty to clearly identify and explain the objectives of the use of military force. Despite a dictatorial and murderous regime that governs Iran, President Trump has, as yet, failed to articulate that objective. For example, President Trump speaks frequently about the threat that Iran would pose with a potential nuclear arsenal, yet he also justified last year's attacks on Iran by claiming that he "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities. If true, he wouldn't need this year's war to do so. Minutes after American forces attacked Iran, Trump urged regime change. His War Secretary, Pete Hegseth, unequivocally retracted that assertion the following day, declaring “this is not a regime change war.” The President then suggested he might simply replace the top leaders with more pliant ones. That, of course, is not regime change. Hegseth then claimed that the military action had already changed the regime–which of course, it hasn’t. The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or his top lieutenants does not deliver regime change in Iran any more than the removal of Maduro produced regime change in Venezuela. In either case, people with guns largely make the decisions in the same way. In Iran, a deadly, totalitarian, theocratic regime remains, and the thousands of clerics and militants who ran the nation before the war continue doing so. There’s no leader with popular support who has emerged to take control of the government, to lead Iran toward a more democratic future. One thing appears certain: no mere bombing campaign—no matter how brutal—will deliver regime change by itself. Rather, it requires an armed, organized insurgency within Iran, which currently does not appear to exist. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and even Venezuela, history shows that regime change requires a far more protracted engagement– likely including months or years of fighting with ground troops– than the American public will likely support. Trump needs to tell the parents and spouses of American troops why he’s risking the lives of their loved ones. We can then decide, as a democratic republic, what is worth dying for. Regardless, in this war, there’s much upon which we should be able to agree. We all hope for the safety of our troops, and we pray and grieve for the families of the six American soldiers lost in battle. We should also grieve for the many innocent civilians severely impacted by this war, including the hundreds of innocent civilians killed in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, and throughout the Middle East. I suspect that we all feel some sense of relief with the demise of a ruthless dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, and with the deaths of those accomplices who administered his murderous regime. And, we should all agree to uphold the Constitution. In 1848, then-congressman Abraham Lincoln spoke on the House floor condemning those who rushed to war against Mexico “to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy.” As Lincoln described it, President James K. Polk “plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which [the adversary] might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.” Let’s ensure we know where we’re going, before we get there. The Constitution–and our common sense– demands as much. Sam Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Dave Stellman To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer Subject:Re: Bob"s OSV Count (as of 2/27/26) Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:22:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for taking the time to track this Bob. Please continue to publish your spreadsheet; this is the most accurate information we have seen and should be helpful to the city council as well. > On Mar 2, 2026, at 11:57 PM, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: > > Great News! > > My OSV count decreased from 180 to 144 in the last two week period (see attached spreadsheet). That is progress in the right direction! Now if we can be consistent with that rate of decease we would be on a very good trajectory. We also need to be a little careful with these numbers because they are a bit soft because with the street cleaning many of the OSVs have temporarily moved away but many will move back. This time I also counted the detached trailers and there were 20 on 2/27/26. > > The below photo I took on East Meadow Circle at 4:00pm this afternoon where one of the detached trailers was being towed away. On Friday there were 48 OSVs parked on this relatively short street. > > I also spoke with a security guard (a recent added business expense) for Recor Medical at the end of Elwell Ct. last Friday and he said that several OSVs were towed away there last week also. > > 144 is better than 180, but that is still 144 too many in the residential and business districts of Palo Alto! > > Best, > Bob > > > <RV Inventory_27Feb26.xlsx> > > > > <IMG_3930.jpeg> > > > > Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs DT #########11/2/2025 ##################12/3/2025 #########1/14/2026 1/28/2026 2/13/2026 2/27/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/3 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 16 17 4 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 9 8 2 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53 52 51 49 53 48 9 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 0 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 11 6 0 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15 13 10 11 11 3 2 8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15 15 17 16 17 9 2 9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10 11 10 11 11 4 0 10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13 12 2 0 0 0 0 11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6 2 4 3 1 1 0 12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8 10 5 5 9 6 0 14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11 7 8 7 6 9 1 15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25 20 19 15 16 17 0 16 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 0 17 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 200 193 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 133 20 18 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 19 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 20 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 0 21 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4 2 1 3 1 2 0 22 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 0 23 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 2 3 1 0 24 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 26 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -3 2 0 20 18 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 0 Total:220 211 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 144 20 Delta:-9 -3 9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 -36 Days since first count: #########12 20 29 43 60 85 99 115 129 Months since first count: #########0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.2 Yellow OSVs on New Street Green Utility Construction Detached Trailor DT = Detached Trailers as a Subset of the Total Count Ventura Area RV Inventory_27Feb26 3/9/2026 12:42 PM From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer Subject:Bob"s OSV Count (as of 2/27/26) Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:35:01 AM Attachments:RV Inventory_27Feb26.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Great News! My OSV count decreased from 180 to 144 in the last two week period (see attached spreadsheet). That is progress in the right direction! Now if we can be consistent with that rate of decease we would be on a very good trajectory. We also need to be a little careful with these numbers because they are a bit soft because with the street cleaning many of the OSVs have temporarily moved away but many will move back. This time I also counted the detached trailers and there were 20 on 2/27/26. The below photo I took on East Meadow Circle at 4:00pm this afternoon where one of the detached trailers was being towed away. On Friday there were 48 OSVs parked on this relatively short street. I also spoke with a security guard (a recent added business expense) for Recor Medical at the end of Elwell Ct. last Friday and he said that several OSVs were towed away there last week also. 144 is better than 180, but that is still 144 too many in the residential and business districts of Palo Alto! Best, Bob From:Angela Carmen Williams To:CSD Programs Cc:EnjoyOnline; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Follow-Up – Stanford Powwow 2026 Community Partnership Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 6:38:40 PM Attachments:Stanford Powwow Community Partnership Proposal.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Community Services Team, Thank you for the opportunity to follow up regarding our public comment at the most recent Palo Alto City Council meeting. Attached is a one-page overview of Stanford Powwow 2026, outlining the event’s scope, impact in Palo Alto, and a proposed City partnership investment of $15,000. This contribution would help stabilize our efforts and support this longstanding cultural event that brings thousands of visitors to Palo Alto each year. We would welcome guidance on the appropriate process, timeline, and next steps for reviewing this proposal and discussing potential support. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Angela Williams Co-Chair, Stanford Powwow angela28@stanford.edu    661-556-3719 Community Partnership Proposal – City of Palo Alto Contact: Angela Williams, Co-Chair Email: angela28@stanford.ed Overview Stanford Powwow is one of the largest student-run Powwows in the country and one of the largest Native cultural gatherings in the Bay Area. The event is free and open to the public and welcomes thousands of dancers, drum groups, artists, vendors, families, and visitors from across California and across the continent. For 55 years, Powwow has served as a regional intertribal gathering centered on cultural celebration, youth engagement, and community education. Impact in Palo Alto ● Thousands of visitors travel to Palo Alto annually for the event weekend ● Hotel stays, restaurant activity, and local business engagement ● Regional and intertribal visibility for the City ● Free public access for Palo Alto residents ● Intergenerational and youth cultural programming Powwow positions Palo Alto as a host city for one of the largest Native cultural gatherings in the region. Financial Context & Request Due to significant increases in security, staging, rental, and operational infrastructure costs, maintaining Powwow at its current scale requires raising approximately $60,000 in additional donations after Stanford funding and other committed sources. We propose $15,000 in City partnership support and welcome discussion of an investment level aligned with the event’s scale and community impact. Partnership Recognition City partnership could include: ● Recognition on event signage ● Logo placement in printed materials ● Public acknowledgment during the event ● Opportunity for a City information presence on-site ● Recognition in digital promotional materials We welcome the opportunity to explore a recurring partnership model that supports cultural programming and community engagement in Palo Alto. From:Andrea Wald To:Council, City Subject:The Climate Action & Sustainability Committee mtg 3/6/26 - agenda item #1 Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 2:44:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing regarding the upcoming meeting of the Climate Action & Sustainability Committee this coming Friday, March 6th. I've written and attended many city meetings - City Council and various committee meetings - where my purpose was to get the City to not replace the worn out AT field at El Camino field with more AT. I was quite disappointed when the efforts of our group did not yield the results we had so hoped for. The only ray of light that we are all looking forward to is the pilot program for natural grass that all on City Council were in favor of. What is unclear is what action is being taken by the city to make this a reality - what field(s) might be used, and WHEN any project might actually start. I'm hoping that this committee might be able to help move this effort forward and set some real goals/deadlines. The sooner a pilot for natural grass happens, the sooner we'll all have a clearer vision of what is possible and how this can impact all future field plans in Palo Alto. Although I do not see any mention of this project in the materials in the agenda packet, I'm hopeful that somehow this can be brought up in this meeting. Natural grass fields definitely will have a positive impact regarding Palo Alto's Climate Action and Sustainability Goals. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrea Wald Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces From:Roberta Rhudy To:Council, City; Transportation Cc:Roberta Rhudy Subject:Dangerous Intersection Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 1:35:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members and Transportation Team, We have lived in Palo Alto for two years now. We have noticed that when we drive down Homer Street, which is a one way street, and we reach the intersection at Cowper, there is confusion about what cars need to stop. This intersection is a two-way stop for the cars on Cowper. These drivers on Cowper think that the cars on Homer also have a stop sign. There have been near collisions and one of the residents was almost hit. We suggest that this intersection become a 4-way stop or that two signs be posted at Cowper that indicate to the drivers on Cowper that it is only a two-way stop and they must wait until the cars on Homer have passed. Thanks for your attention to this dangerous situation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this. Best regards, Roberta Rhudy 650 324-7459 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