Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-03-16 City Council Emails
DOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 3/16/2026 Document dates: 3 /9/2026 - 3/16/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Laura Bowser To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Cha, Kelly Subject:Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (March 16, 2026 - Agenda Item #14) Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 10:05:32 AM Attachments:SHP Letter re Bird Ordinance - Mar 16 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers of the City Council, Please see attached for our comments regarding the proposed Bird Safe Ordinance under consideration at tonight’s meeting. Best, Laura Laura Bowser Sand Hill Property Company 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel. +1 650 344 1500 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410 | Palo Alto, California 94306 March 16, 2026 Re: Ordinance re: Bird-Friendly Design (Council Hearing March 16, 2026 – Item #14) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), we are writing regarding the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (Ordinance). SHP values its longstanding working relationship with the City and is committed to delivering and maintaining high quality projects that support the City’s goals, including new housing and reinvestment in existing development. We appreciate the work that Planning staff has undertaken to address a challenging issue. However, SHP respectfully urges the City Council not to adopt the Ordinance in its current form and instead allow staff additional time to conduct further analysis before adopting a policy with significant impacts. While SHP supports the City’s objective of addressing legitimate bird-safety concerns, the current Ordinance imposes a sweeping solution before the City has adequately diagnosed the problem it is trying to solve. The Ordinance is not sufficiently tailored to local conditions and will create substantial unintended consequences for existing property owners, future investment, and new development without evidence that such a broad approach is warranted. These concerns echo the substantial stakeholder feedback already provided to the Planning Commission and City Council, which has consistently called for additional study and a more carefully tailored ordinance before adoption. These concerns are particularly important given the City’s substantial RHNA obligations and its ongoing need to facilitate multifamily housing production. As drafted, the Ordinance would materially affect the design, cost, and feasibility of multifamily residential and other projects at a time when the City should be focused on removing unnecessary barriers to housing and reinvestment. For these reasons, SHP respectfully requests that the City Council defer adoption of the proposed Ordinance and instead direct staff to return with a more fully studied proposal that better considers local conditions, best practices, and engagement with stakeholders. The Ordinance needs to address the actual risks and adopt an approach that can effectively address real bird-safety concerns without inadvertently creating significant new problems. Mayor and Members of the City Council, City of Palo Alto City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org; Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org; Vicki.Veenker@cityofpaloalto.org; Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org; Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org; George.Lu@cityofpaloalto.org; Keith.Reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org * * * Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with Planning staff and decisionmakers on an approach that addresses bird-safety concerns in a practical and effective manner. Sincerely, Laura Bowser Director, Development Sand Hill Property Company Copies: Jonathan Lait, Director, Planning & Development Services Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Jennifer Armer, Asst. Director, Planning & Development Services Jennifer.Armer@CityofPaloAlto.org Kelly Cha, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services Kelly.Cha@CityofPaloAlto.org From:James Lloyd To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty Subject:public comment re item 12 for tonight"s Council meeting Date:Monday, March 16, 2026 9:59:28 AM Attachments:Palo Alto - 2100-2400 Geng Road - HAA Letter - CC.pdf CalHDF v LCF.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 145-unit housing development project at 2100-2400 Geng Road, which includes 19 units affordable to low-income households. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ Mar 16, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 2100-2400 Geng Road By email: Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov; George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov; Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov; Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; city.council@PaloAlto.gov Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org; CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org; Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), AB 130, California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines when evaluating the proposed 145-unit housing development project at 2100-2400 Geng Road, which includes 19 units affordable to low-income households. Under the HAA,1 a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides a certain percent of the total units to lower-income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).2) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA. However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law. 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) The City’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed. CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to floor area ratio; height; front setback; rooftop garden width; private street width; and distribution of below market rate units. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA review pursuant to section 15183 of the CEQA guidelines and it may also be eligible for the newly enacted CEQA exemption under AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will increase the city’s tax revenue; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2 of 3 CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:Tom Fountain To:Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly Subject:"Bird-Friendly" Design Ordinance Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:42:53 PM 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, With respect to the proposed "Bird-Friendly" Design ordinance, I am writing in support of an exemption for residential buildings. Specifically: Lack of Local Bird-Collision Studies. There are no data or studies of bird collisions in Palo Alto, commercial or residential, nor any in neighboring jurisdictions. The advocates for this new ordinance generally base their conclusions on studies conducted elsewhere covering different species of birds with different migratory patterns. Analyses of the relevant bird species, their propensity to collide, and impact of conservation efforts are needed before imposing costs on property owners. The Burden of Compliance on Residential Development is Substantial. Bird-safe glass windows for residential use are not readily available and are prohibitively expensive. The alternatives of permanent metal screens and shades are impractical, expensive, aesthetically unappealing, obscure visibility, and are unsafe for fire escape. Similarly, the alternative of plastic dots or films are impractical and pollute the environment with microplastics and PFASs. Homes need unobstructed windows for safety to keep an eye on our children and see who is on the property. These burdens combine to unfairly reduce market value and slow housing development. Adopt Non-Mandatory Bird-Friendly Design Guidelines. Direct staff to prepare and adopt guidelines consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s authorization. Voluntary uptake under design review, combined with staff encouragement and public outreach, can generate meaningful real-world experience with residential bird-safe design in this community. Follow the Lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley. If residences are to be regulated, the city should follow the lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley, as recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission. These cities exclude residential homes unless over 45 or 35 feet and with large facade of glass (e.g., 50% or more glass), in which case, the bird-safe requirements apply to large glass panels (e.g., 24 square feet or more). These cities reached a fair balance of benefit against burden and give home designers a choice Thank you, Tom Fountain From:A. Mason To:Council, City; Raybould, Claire Subject:3/16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #13 Palo Alto Commons Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:39:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council I am writing to express my 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, 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. 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, Anne Mason Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From:Steve Levy To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Switzer, Steven; Armer, Jennifer Subject:Geng Road project Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 8:24:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veekner and council members, I watched the PTC and ARB hearings and impressed with the benefits of the project and the willingness of the applicant to respond to comments. Please continue your positive record recently of approving housing consistent with city goals. These are for sale units mostly large with BMR sale units. Looking forward to watching from Ventura. Steve Sent from my iPad View this email in your browser. Events & Trainings From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA upcoming activities & trainings Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:00:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. "Coffee, Chat and Connect" Date: Thursday, March 26, 9:30-11am Place: 480 Gary Court, Palo Alto Join us for a morning of connectivity, socializing, exchanging ideas, and sharing experiences. Let us hear from you about your concerns as Palo Altans and members of the broader community. Learn about our recent activities and discover ways to get involved while mingling with fellow members. The League is our voice in this political landscape, and we want to make sure that we pursue the issues and priorities that matter most to you. We want to better understand the experiences, needs, and perspectives of our members and how we can expand our impact in democracy and civic life Help us choose the topic(s) for our next “Coffee, Chat, and Connect” next month. See you and your guests on March 26th! For more information, please call, text, or email Sunny Dykwel, Membership Director, 650.400.6960 sunny.dykwel@gmail.com Bring a sign and join us! NO KINGS 3 - March 28, 2-4pm @Embarcadero & El Camino Real Join us for a SIGN-MAKING PARTY! March 21, 11am-2pm Raptor Room at the League office, 3921 E Bayshore, Palo Alto Brings ideas and embellishments - we will have basic supplies. RSVP by text to Laura at 650/561-5090 LWVPA Voter Registration & Tabling TrainingSession Friday, April 10, 2026 at 4 PM -OR- Saturday, April 11 at 10 AM (select one of the options below) PCC Raptor Room, 3921 E Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto Every year, the League has many opportunities to table at community events. Upcoming events include the Earth Day Rally on 4/24, the Civic Impact Summit on 4/25, and the May Fete Parade & Fair on 5/2. At these events, we register voters and encourage everyone to participate in our democracy. With the June primary approaching, we will discuss what’s on the ballot and answer questions about the election. To help us engage and empower voters, we need volunteers who can table at one event or several, depending on their availability. Join us for one of two Voter Registration and Tabling training sessions so you’ll be ready to jump in and help at our next event. The one-hour training will be informative and interactive. We look forward to seeing you there! RSVP Coming up! MARCH 2026 3/21: Individual Rights and Immigration team interest meeting, 9:30am 3/21: Sign-Making Party for NK3, 11am-2pm, Raptor Room 3/24: Board Meeting, Chamber Office, 7pm 3/27: Grand Jury Applications Due 3/28: No Kings 3, 2-4pm APRIL 2026 4/10: Voter Registration & Tabling Training (option 1) - 4pm 4/11: Voter Registration & Tabling Training (option 2) - 10am 4/24: Earth Day Rally (tabling) 4/25: Civic Impact Summit (tabling) MAY 2026 5/2: May Fete Parade & Fair (tabling) 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. SAVE THE DATE! Sunday, May 31: LWVPA Annual Meeting Community Room, Lucie Stern Center, 1:30-3:30pm Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. 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:Martin Balestie To:Council, City Subject:Critical Infrastructure: headworks, lithium mining, seawater brine, PSU project fair, HVAC chiller/tower optimization (recent hires/area managers/most eng & science majors: env/chem/mech/civil/cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy) RDBV Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 5:43:46 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. wwtp headworks, lithium mining, seawater brine RO, PSU project fair, HVAC chiller/tower partial load optimization, 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/EPC 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, recommended practice, 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! 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 FGI Webinar: Lithium Solar Evaporation Pond Geomembrane Durability Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2026 In this webinar, Dr. Stark will describe the use of solar evaporation ponds for lithium and other minerals in Chile. In particular, Dr. Stark will focus on geomembrane durability in the harsh desert environment after five years of exposure. Durability was assessed by sampling and testing 45 different factory fabricated panels, including seams, that had been exposed in the desert. The results show the 30 mil PVC geomembrane still met specifications after five years of exposure. 1.0 PDH Presenter: Timothy D. Stark, Ph.D., P.E. Driving Cost Efficiency in Brine Valorization via Low Salt Rejection Reverse Osmosis Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 Informative webinar that explores the latest advancements in desalination technologies. Focus on the critical comparison between Low-Salt-Rejection Reverse Osmosis (LSRRO) and Osmotically-Assisted Reverse Osmosis (OARO) for brine management and valorization. As the global water crisis intensifies, optimizing energy consumption and improving operational efficiency in desalination processes is more important than ever. This is especially crucial for transforming salts from seawater brines into valuable products, such as sodium chloride (NaCl). Reverse osmosis membranes can help achieve a 56% reduction in total water costs through brine valorization. Participants will also learn that implementing LSRRO can lead to substantial decreases in both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX) by approximately the same percentage. These advantages underscore LSRRO's potential to deliver enhanced performance without the drawbacks often associated with OARO. By attending this webinar, you will gain actionable insights, industry-leading expertise, and practical case studies that showcase the effectiveness of LSRRO technology in optimizing energy use for brine management. This event will also provide a unique opportunity to discuss these topics with a leading expert in the field. 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! Optimizing Cooling Tower and Chiller Systems for Part Load Efficiency - Webinar (corporate) Date: Thursday, April 23, 2026 Join keynote speaker Nathan Payne, PE, Senior Project Engineer at E4E Solutions, as he explores the critical considerations that shape the overall performance of a chilled water system. Although chillers and cooling towers are sized for design conditions, they normally operate under variable load conditions that differ significantly from those design points. This session highlights strategies to reduce resource consumption and minimize the environmental impact of a chilled water system. Receive 1.0 PDH credit Presenter: Nathan Payne Effective and Efficient Nutrient Removal for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Date: Thursday, April 23, 2026 Nutrient removal in wastewater treatment is essential for municipalities that need to meet increasingly stringent discharge standards. In this interactive Water Academy webinar, our team will explore: The critical role hollow fiber ultrafiltration (UF) membranes and Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) systems play in advanced nutrient removal Process intensification—and simultaneous nitrification and denitrification—with Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR). Register now to learn about proven membrane technologies that support resilient infrastructure, future-ready planning, and sustainable water stewardship across the full spectrum of municipal wastewater nutrient removal challenges. [] 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. 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:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:March 16, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #3: March 2, 2026 Meeting Action Minutes Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:31:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. MARCH 16, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MARCH 2, 2026 MEETING ACTIONMINUTES I urge you to remove this item from your Consent Calendar forthe purpose of amending the Draft Action Minutes of March 2,2026 that currently indicates that "NO ACTION" was taken onagenda Item 2 for that meeting, which was to (1) SelectCandidates to Interview for five Boards, Commissions, andCommittees and (2) decide whether to reopen applications forany Board, Commission, or Committee. In fact, the City Council did take action to (1) choose theapplicants to be interviewed; (2) reopen the application forone Board by unanimous consent; and reopen one Committeeapplication process because there were no applicationssubmitted. The Draft Action minutes should show: (1) the names of theCouncil Members who voted for each applicant for each Board andCommission, plus the names of the applicants chosen to beinterviewed; (2) the action taken by previously adoptedprocedure to seek more applications for one Committee; and (3)the action taken by unanimous consent to seek more applicationsfor one Board. The information required to be shown in the Action Minutes forthe March 2, 2026 Council meeting can be found on the meetingvideo starting at about 15:30. It is not sufficient to say that the video containing therequested information is part of the official proceedings bythe Council meetings, because when the Council takes an action,that action properly belongs in the Action Minutes of themeeting. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:Valen Varanasi To:Council, City Subject:Public comment March 16 Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 2:56:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10fjbdEEFCOVUVowTlBaml-2Kr2f1TVJQ/edit? usp=sharing&ouid=109192260781761581992&rtpof=true&sd=true Hi, These are slides for Valen V that I would like to present during public comment on Monday, March 16th. Thank you very much. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Palo Alto's 80x30 Climate Goal Public Comment — Valen | InductionRocks Climate & Energy Policy Intern WHERE THINGS STAND Palo Alto set out to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2030. As of 2022, the city has achieved a 47% reduction — but much of that came from switching to carbon-neutral electricity over a decade ago. The remaining gap is largely driven by natural gas use in buildings, which accounts for roughly a third of the city's total emissions. The S/CAP recognizes that building electrification and community participation are essential to closing that gap. 47% reduced so far — but the hardest reductions are still ahead HOW WE WANT TO HELP InductionRocks wants to help Palo Alto close the gap on 80x30 by focusing on one of the most tangible steps residents can take: switching from gas stoves to induction. Induction cooking cuts emissions, improves indoor air quality, and is something every household can act on. We'd like to support this transition by creating video demos that show residents how easy induction cooking is, and by building out an induction cooktop loaner program so more people can try induction at home before committing to the switch. We'd love to explore how InductionRocks can contribute to Palo Alto's climate goals — let's work together on 80x30. Presented by Valen | InductionRocks Climate & Energy Policy Intern From:Shani Kleinhaus To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Cha, Kelly; Dash Leeds Subject:Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance – Context from other Bay Area ordinances Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 2:35:45 PM Attachments:Palo Alto Updated Applicability Table (3).pdf Palo Alto Bird Safety Standards (raw language) comparison (3).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance – Context from Other Cities Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers, We prepared the attached comparison tables (Sheet 1 Applicability,Sheet 2 Standards) to show how Palo Alto’s proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance fits within policies already adopted by other Bay Area jurisdictions. Cities in the region have adopted a broad spectrum of applicability and standards for bird-friendly design. Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance falls in the middle of this range. It is the result of many years of vetting by multiple city boards, commissions and the community, and over time, its applicability and scope have narrowed. We believe that it now represents a reasonable, Palo Alto appropriate result. The proposed standards fall well within the mainstream of current practice. Other cities use similar bird-friendly glazing requirements, limits on untreated glass, and design standards for hazardous features such as transparent corners, skyways, glass railings, and other large reflective or see-through surfaces. The comparison also shows that bird-friendly standards are commonly applied to both residential and non-residential development and typically focus on lower building elevations where most bird collisions occur. Importantly, several jurisdictions that have adopted bird-friendly design requirements have also received state recognition as Prohousing Designated Jurisdictions.This demonstrates that adopting bird-friendly design standards is compatible with housing production and does not impede a city’s ability to obtain or maintain Prohousing designation. Bird-friendly design ordinances are now a common planning tool that can protect wildlife while remaining compatible with Palo Alto's housing goals. Respectfully, Shani Kleinhaus Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance 22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 650-868-2114 shani@scvbirdalliance.org From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Please protect birds Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:29:10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Palo Alto Councilmembers, My name is Diane McCoy and have been a Palo Alto resident since 1978. Before that, since 1959 I have spent all my childhood summers in Palo Alto, 'summer camping' at my grandma's house. My grandma and grandpa's love of Palo Alto, especially it's neighborhood parks and bay lands (sooooo many walks to the Duck Pond!) greatly influenced my appreciation for being able to be a resident here. Since 1959 (and earlier even) Palo Alto has continued to grow and grow and grow, in many ways, as it happens in life. But I've always been proud and appreciative of the way our city usually advocates and supports environmental values; we have almost all electric everything (heaters, a/c/ stove, water heater, solar panels, etc.) thanks partly to city supportive measures. Please continue that legacy. Thus, I am writing to ask you to adopt the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance as drafted. Please reject staff-recommended changes that could weaken the ordinance, such as expanding the 35-foot exemption to all development types. Most bird collisions occur at tree-canopy height, and expanding this exemption would remove protections where they are most needed. There are many bird-safe window treatments and design options available, and these should be used rather than exempting commercial buildings. Thank you for your service to our community. Diane McCoy Greer Road From:Prisha Goel To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 12:55:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thanks! On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 12:49 AM Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. ------------------Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @cityofpaloalto.organd there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on theCity’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations suchas the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto JuniorMuseum & Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department orCity Council Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other securedetails via email. Contact City Departments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Phone-Directory Contact City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Prisha Goel To:Council, City Subject:Subject: Support for the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance Date:Sunday, March 15, 2026 12:49:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker and Palo Alto Councilmembers, My name is Prisha Goel, and I am a junior at PAMC passionate about the preservation of our local wildlife. I noticed our city is harming the lives of many birds. Living in Palo Alto, I have had the opportunity to observe the vibrant birdlife that enriches our community. However, I have also witnessed the tragic consequences of bird strikes, which have made me acutely aware of the need for protective measures. I am writing to urge you to adopt the bird-friendly design ordinance as it is currently drafted. It is crucial to reject any staff-recommended changes that could weaken this ordinance, particularly the proposal to expand the 35-foot exemption to all development types. Most bird collisions occur at tree-canopy height, and expanding this exemption would significantly diminish the protections where they are most needed. There are numerous bird-safe window treatments and design options available that can be integrated into new developments. I believe we should prioritize these solutions instead of exempting commercial buildings from necessary safeguards. Thank you for your commitment to our community and for considering the well-being of our local bird populations. Sincerely, Prisha Goel 6507889694 Palo Alto Middle College This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City Subject:Please support bird friendly windows Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 5:28:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker & Members of the City Council. Please adopt the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance as drafted. It is particularly important in our Baylands which are critical to bird migrations. Please reject staff-recommended changes that could weaken the ordinance, such as expanding the 35-foot exemption to all development types. Most bird collisions occur at tree-canopy height, and expanding this exemption would remove protections where they are most needed. There are many bird-safe window treatments and design options available, and these should be used rather than exempting commercial buildings. Thank you for protecting Palo Alto’s birds. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel Councilmember 1979-1992 Planning Commissioner 1973-79 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Avroh Shah To:Council, City Subject:In Support of a Strong Bird-Friendly Building Ordinance Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 5:18:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker and Palo Alto Councilmembers, I hope you are all doing well. My name is Avroh, and I'm a junior at Paly. I think birds are pretty amazing, and I don't think it's fair to birds when they are harmed after ramming into barriers that are invisible to them. I have witnessed four bird strikes (two of which were fatal) in Palo Alto during my lifetime. I am writing to ask you to adopt the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance as drafted. Please reject staff-recommended changes that could weaken the ordinance, such as expanding the 35-foot exemption to all development types. Most bird collisions occur at tree-canopy height, and expanding this exemption would remove protections where they are most needed. There are many bird-safe window treatments and design options available, and these should be used rather than exempting commercial buildings. Thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Avroh Shah This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Kristin Sato To:Council, City; Cha, Kelly Subject:"Bird-Friendly" Design Ordinance Date:Saturday, March 14, 2026 4:32:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Council, city.council@PaloAlto.gov Kelly Cha, kelly.cha@paloalto.gov Re: "Bird-Friendly" Design Ordinance Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, With respect to the proposed "Bird-Friendly" Design ordinance, I am writing in support of an exemption for residential buildings. Specifically: Lack of Local Bird-Collision Studies. There are no data or studies of birds in Palo Alto colliding with buildings, whether commercial or residential. Analyses of the relevant bird species, their propensity to collide under the circumstances and their conservation risk are required to assess the risk to birds from houses. The Burden of Compliance on Residential Development is Substantial. Bird- safe glass windows for residential use are not readily available and are prohibitively expensive. The alternatives of permanent metal screens and shades are impractical, expensive, aesthetically unappealing, obscure visibility, and are unsafe for fire escape. Similarly, the alternative of plastic dots or films are impractical and pollute the environment with microplastics and PFASs. Homes need unobstructed windows for safety to keep an eye on our children and see who is on the property. These burdens combine to unfairly reduce market value and slow housing development. Adopt Non-Mandatory Bird-Friendly Design Guidelines. Direct staff to prepare and adopt guidelines consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s authorization. Voluntary uptake under design review, combined with staff encouragement and public outreach, can generate meaningful real-world experience with residential bird-safe design in this community. Follow the Lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley. If residences are to be regulated, the city should follow the lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley, as recommended by the Planning & This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Transportation Commission. These cities exclude residential homes unless over 45 or 35 feet and with large facade of glass (e.g., 50% or more glass), in which case, the bird-safe requirements apply to large glass panels (e.g., 24 square feet or more). These cities reached a fair balance of benefit against burden and give home designers a choice whether to have large glass panels. Phase in the Ordinance. If residences are to be regulated, the ordinance should be phased in over 5-10 years to give time for residential window manufacturing to catch up and bird-collision studies to be completed. Thank you for your consideration, Kristin Sato From:Bob Lenox To:Council, City Cc:board-plus@paloaltoairport.org; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael; Christopher Burtrum Subject:Bird Friendly Ordinance item 14, March 16, 2026 Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 9:05:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Councilmembers, This proposed ordinance must exempt the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower. Any obstruction to, or distortion of, visibility could present a safety-of-flight concern. ATC Controllers require a clear view of the surrounding surface and airspace in order to safely work aircraft. Please consider this before enacting this legislation. Sincerely, Bob Lenox, President Palo Alto Airport Association From:Andie Reed To:Council, City Subject:"Listening" session, Churchill temporary closing Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 7:50:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council, Thank you for making the attempt to get input from residents Thursday night at PAUSD, to help move along this process of considering closing Churchill temporarily. However, it missed the mark. One of my neighbors said "will they have another one for residents who want it to stay open?". From the moment of silence at the opening, and throughout Councilwoman Lithcott-Haims's and School Board President Dharap's remarks, what was top of mind was not Churchill closure but suicide clusters and the horrible pain suffered by all of us when students die by train. The meeting topic, tone, and point of view was set. Many public speakers anxiously awaited their chance to speak, including 3 personally involved parents, and they emotionally described the devastating suicides of Paly students. Was this meeting meant to be an important outlet for parents, students, and other affected folks to get the chance to display their pain? Those of us who came to make comments about our lived experience with the Churchill crossing felt the sadness. It certainly worked to keep us from adding input. Maybe the outrage at having the train pass by the school at an open crossing, as it has for decades, after such tragic events needs to be addressed, and what else can the City do but close it off? The City must do something, anything, and now. That was the takeaway, and it was clearly one-sided. Mr. Dharap mentioned he was at Gunn (not on a train crossing) when they had suicide clusters 18 years ago. There have been Paly clusters when they didn't close Churchill, so why now? We all know there are many factors that align with serious mental health issues, like bullying, social media reliance, and other pressures and triggers that could push a young person to take such a drastic step. Mr. Mehta stated they had been working with their wonderful daughter, Summer, and still she got away from them, from all of us. And we grieve. Many of us who live close by didn't participate, as it seemed insensitive. I cross the tracks at Churchill many times a week, mostly on foot, and I notice that Paly is the lead user of the access at Churchill. The cars pile up in line to cross and the bikes and peds are waiting in large groups for the train to pass. It's difficult to imagine that all Paly parents and kids want to close Churchill, although those that disagree would be, like us, unlikely to counter the "close Churchill, save lives" mantra. I can make do without the crossing, but where will all the students and parents and staff go to arrive and depart the school? Embarcadero has no bike lane or shoulder until the underpass beneath Alma and the train tracks. Around two thousand kids attend Paly, and accidents and injuries may result, as well as unforeseen circumstances. The City Council immediately put 24/7 guards on the crossing since the students and parents made a strong plea a couple of weeks ago. The quick action is admirable and we must also give credit to City Manager Shikada. Someone stated that when they put guards on the crossings the last time, there were no suicides. That may be performative (I don't see how a guard could stop a student, standing directly behind the crossing arms while a train is approaching, from jumping in) but if data shows that the sight of an adult has that effect, OK. I would support closing the crossing temporarily for a test period, while Paly figures out what is working at Gunn and hone in on the issue. Let us not do this without specifying the duration of the closure and what test results we will be measuring and how. Six months to a year were batted around; it will take some time to get through a cycle of school sessions. Neighbors fear it will not be temporary, which would permanently split our community in two. Therefore, if you go this direction, please calendar the ending mark of the "temporary" closure and provide results so a well informed decision can be made. Good luck, Thank you for all your work, Andie -- Andie Reed Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:March 2026 Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 7:17:03 PM BOOK SALE NEWSLETTER THIS WEEKEND AT CUBBERLEY Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES Saturday March 14 Main Room 11am - 4pm Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Popup Music Sale 10am - 2pm (outside Main Room) (weather permitting) Sunday March 15 All Rooms 1pm - 4pm FEATURED IN MARCH Computers Matchbox Replica Vintage Vehicles Tools! 4000 Middlefield Road Palo Alto NE corner of the Cubberley Community Center (650) 213-8755 www.fopal.org Maps and Directions More information on the sales Donate your used books, DVDs, &c ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO ALTO LIBRARIES Main Room In our Main Room, prices are way below what used book stores charge. Hardcover books start at $3 and softcover books start at only $2. No numbered tickets this month! Please note that due to crowding during the first two hours of the Book Sale, no strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be brought into the Main Room. This is for the safety of shoppers and volunteers alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins out and shoppers are welcome to bring these items into the sale. Children's Book Sale The Children's Room is located in the portable next to the soccer field near Greendell School. It is entirely filled with children's books and toys. You'll find picture books, school age fiction and non-fiction, fiction for teens, award winners, non-English titles, CDs and DVDs, and books for parents and teachers, many for 50 cents or $1. Strollers are welcome in the Children's Room at any time. Bargain Books in H-2 The Bargain Room is located in Rooms H-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley main campus, between our Main Room and Middlefield Road. On Saturday, paperbacks are $1, hardcovers are $2, and children's books are 50 cents each. The room also contains many records, CDs, and DVDs at $1 each. On Sunday, the room opens at 1 pm and all prices are half off. Or, save even more on Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable bags from us for $4/ea (or bring your own grocery-size reusable bag) and stuffing them with any items in the room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at $5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE! Library News The Library is celebrating all sorts of things in March: Women's History Month Birds There was more, but it's already happened! They also want you to know that they have a library of things you can check out. You can find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner from the Palo Alto City Library Blogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader. You could find out about other things by subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per month, more usually one. There is also the Library's events calendar that has a lot besides when the Library is closed. -Frank McConnell Computers A raft of books related to "Big Data" came in, and are on a special shelf near the window. If you are interested in database design, data mining, data analytics, or data streaming (Adobe Spark), check it out. Some other topic sections are also bulging with good stuff. The Java section has multiple books about functional programming in Java. The Networking shelf has books on a variety of networking technologies. And you never know what might show up in the Opinion/History shelf! -David Cortesi Tools When you see our tools for the first time you will think that you have died and gone to heaven, a veritable gangsters paradise. Why? Because our tools are so cheap that you will think that you are stealing. Most of the tools are $1 to $3. We abide by the Ottawa Treaty, no Dangerous Mines here. So don't cause a stink, be a fink and spend a night in the clink, buy our tools and be in the pink! -Toolio Politics After Mr. Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Feb. 24th, Americans are wondering what is really happening in the world. With our President saying that we are residing in a golden era of prosperity that seems not to be true. Although the Politics section can't provide books heavy on tariffs and the economic status of our country, what we can provide is the actions of our presidents before Mr. Trump. From comparing former president Obama's own address, to the 140 something long one that Mr. Trump delivered, to even the actions of the Clintons before they were put under fire for the Epstein files. In the end, a quote from George Orwell's book, 1984, can remind us, in 2026 about the dangers of our society; "Who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past." Therefore, to stop the loss of information from our own past, come to the Politics section in the main room to really keep and remember the past as it happened. -Emma Chen Poetry March is windy, March is wild, Hurries like an eager child; T.S. Eliot, Sylvia Plath Will guide you down that windy path And if you want some schoolboy kicks, Just add Byron to the mix. Eager child, what e'er you choose, With this month's poems you cannot lose. <https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html> -Mandy MacCalla Children's Room The March sale includes books for St. Patrick's Day, Passover (April 1-9). and Easter (April 5)--a good selection for each of the holidays. This month we ran out of room on our Giftable Hardbacks shelves for all our great picture books, so check out the $3-and-up boxes on the wooden table near the cashiers, as well. We also have some real finds in poetry and award winners. On the Picture Books tables you'll see fabulous Fancy Nancy hardbacks; many books with duplicate copies by local author Lynn Reiser; and several collections of 5-Minute Stories: Curious George, Disney, Thomas the Tank Engine, Pete the Cat, and Bedtime Stories. We also have Disney hardback Yearbooks 2002 through 2012. Visit our Multiple Copies bin for many stories by celebrated authors. Finally, there's a good collection of Sesame Street books, from board books through picture books. In the Activity section we don't have a monopoly on games, but we do have an amazing assortment of Monopoly games, including the classic, a "bookshelf" edition, Dog-opoly, Shepherd-opoly, Horse-opoly, NYC-opoly, and SF-opoly! We also have a floor-size checkers set, other classic games such as Scrabble and Clue, and loads of recent favorites. Our packed puzzle shelves include a magnetic "street map of San Francisco" as well as several Ravensburgers. For paper-puzzle solvers, we offer many Highlights puzzle books including Hidden Pictures and Mazes. You'll find a variety of wooden toddler toys, including small colorful puzzles. We also have a large selection of one-of-a-kind offerings such as a 600X microscope, a mathematics learning balance, an oversized sketch pad, a moon night-light, and a Cuttlebug die-cutting machine. As usual, our graphic novels shelves are overflowing. And be sure to shop early for the best selection of LEGO! School-age Fiction has boxed sets of both Roald Dahl and Beverly Cleary books. You'll find these gems in the award winners section, along with many other treasures. Non-fiction offers its usual widely varied collection, with sale items on the display table. In World Languages we're featuring lots of French-language graphic novels, along with Harry Potter books in German. For beginning readers we offer Mo Willems's Elephant and Piggie books, always a favorite. You'll also find many very inexpensive sets of books for early readers, in addition to great books for readers at somewhat more advanced levels. It's a good month to shop in the Children's Room! -Carolyn Davidson Children's Vintage The children's vintage book section is slowly morphing into children's vintage books and toys! Every month we seem to have more and more interesting items that fall into the "definitely vintage and definitely not books" category. This month we have an entire collection of Native American dolls by Carlson with tags attached. Made in the 50s, these six-inch dolls have buckskin dresses complete with beadwork. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a couple of math activities, including Cuisenaire rods and a "binary teacher" that help make abstract concepts real. Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2nd is celebrated as National Reading Day and in recognition, we have stocked an entire bookshelf full of Dr. Seuss books, including some of those no longer in print. So grab a couple of them, pull up a kid, and start them on a lifetime of joyful reading. If Seuss is not your thing, we've also got some Disney offerings, both on the art of the Walt Disney studios and also a treasury of some of his classic stories. Graphic novels of Asterix, Tintin and Iorix (in both French and English) and pulp fiction novels from the early 1900s add some pizzazz to the usual rich fare. Shelf pictures are available for all of these items at fopalbooks.com. And you can find even more children's vintage books at our eBay store: <https://www.ebay.com/str/friendsofthepaloaltolibrary> -Lisa Heitman Home & Crafts Spring is just around the corner; time to get rid of all that clutter around the house! How about donating some of those old books to FOPAL? Here are some "next-to-new" titles to help you freshen up with spring cleaning, new hobbies and crafts, bold fashion statements, plus home remodeling inspirations. Are you feeling lucky? We have a pot of golden books just for you! Craft titles include Easter by Tessa Evelech and How to Wrap Five Eggs, as well as Basketry by Ruby Taylor. There are several books on decorative mosaics, in addition to Making & Installing Handmade Tiles. A wonderful title, The Flower Recipe Book, will give you new ideas for 100 seasonal arrangements. Fabric arts feature: sewing, knitting, quilting, crocheting, needlepoint, cross-stitch, and embroidery, for beginners and pros. Our Beauty shelf is loaded with titles for both men and women, plus an array of fashion design, including The Power of Glamour and The Power of Style. Also, don't miss Fashion in Film by Christopher Laverty. Our Home shelves are packed with entertaining and decorating, plus organizing and storage. In Home Building there's Ana White's guide to The Handbuilt Home. Also this month, we have a plethora of regional home design titles, from western and desert homes, to southern country. eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Antiques & Collections In the month of March you'll find a great collection of books on LEGO: The Cult of LEGO, Brick Wonders, Brick City, and The LEGO Technic Idea Book: Fantastic Contraptions. Jewelry offerings include: Erte: Art to Wear, Fabergé, and Tiffany in Fashion. We also have the White House: At Home with History by Hilary Rodham Clinton (remember the East Wing?) What's more, we received several titles on making and collecting model soldiers, as well as making and collecting doll houses. In addition, look for Antiques Roadshow: 20th Century Collectibles. Discover these and more titles to guide you in your reference work. eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Judaica Browse the Judaica section for books on the Jewish religion and culture including editions of the Torah and other basic texts, Kabbalah, Jewish history, the Holocaust, memoirs, Israel, Jewish Women, the Jewish American Experience and other related subjects. Special this month - Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End The Twentieth Train: The True Story of the Ambush of the Death Train to Auschwitz Torah of the mothers : contemporary Jewish women read classical Jewish texts Hot Mamalah: The Ultimate Guide for Every Woman of the Tribe Hope Not Fear: A Path to Jewish Renaissance The Passover Haggadah: Legends and Customs The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism Holy Beggars: A Journey from Haight Street to Jerusalem Most fiction with Jewish themes will be found in Modern Literature/Classics or Current Fiction. Books entirely in Hebrew are shelved in the European Languages section. Shelf photos at <https://fopalbooks.com/judaica.html> -Charlotte Epstein, Judaica Section Manager Mystery Mystery has 55 new 2025 and 2024 books for sale this March. Come buy a new book for $3 or $4. A real good buy and a real good read. You will be glad you did! -Cathy Mitchell Park Store If you are unable to go to this month's sale or just want to be outside in the beautiful weather here is a reminder that the Mitchell Park Store is open during all library hours seven days a week. We stock books from most of the major sections of the Main Room. We do our best to have a wide selection of books that will appeal to a diverse audience of readers. We love to offer unique books that may have been overlooked in the Main Room in addition to current popular books. We also stock Children's books as well as CDs, DVDs and blank note cards. This month the special on the front kiosk of the store is Fiction on the front side and Cookbooks on the back side. The specials usually run about six weeks. Two of our smallest sections, Poetry and Language are very popular and it's hard to keep those books in stock. Often books will sell almost immediately after being shelved. War and Peace by Tolstoy and a large format book The New Yorker Cartoons are two examples of books that sold within minutes while I was volunteering on my Friday shift. Our goal is to have no books on the shelf for more than six weeks and no less than two weeks. (Those little colored dots on the spines help us meet those guidelines.) Our volunteers are in the store to answer questions and/or help you find a book every afternoon for two hours except Sunday. The range is from 2:00 to 5:00 pm depending on the particular volunteer's preference. We have delivery of new books two times a week so our selections are constantly changing. If Mitchell Park Library is not convenient for you, both Rinconada and Downtown Libraries have stores that are smaller but also filled with books for your reading pleasure. Come visit us. We think you will be pleased. -Suzanne Brown Little, Mitchell Park Manager Humor As a complete change of material for Humor in March there are no cartoon books on offer, the top shelf is only for vintage humor. Stage-Land, Jerome K. Jerome. Henry Holt, Publisher, 1890. Best known for his classic Three Men in a Boat this is based on his early experiences on the stage. An Attic Philosopher in Paris, Emile Souvestre. Appleton, Publisher, 1894. A comic take on a room with a view. A Bunch of Yarns, Cahill. Carey, Publisher, 1906. Vaudeville anecdotes. Bound in buckram. Irish Bulls, Kelly. Carey, Publisher, 1906. Irish bulls and puns. Bound in buckram. Check out the Humor section in the Bargain Room. Cartoons will be back in April! Shelf pictures at <https://shelfphotos.fopal.org/humor/>. -Nigel Jones Philosophy In Philosophy for March we have nine books by or about the ever popular Hannah Arendt. Making its first appearance we have Alexander Waugh's The House of Wittgenstein, a follow up of sorts to his previous book about the complexity of his own family. We have good looking editions of Machiavelli's The Prince, Plato's Selected Dialogues and three books on different aspects of epistemology. Make sure to check out the Bargain Room for more philosophy books. Shelf photos at <https://shelfphotos.fopal.org/philosophy/>. -Nigel Jones History This month FoPAL got a large donation of books about the US during the 1920s and 1930s, along with the usual collection of books on political and social history. -Lin McAllister Bargain Room This is a big month for CDs in the Bargain Room, more than 2200! Lots of Great titles. Tons of Children's books: lots of middle grade and YA books. Computer books, Health, Medicine, Self Help, Psychology, Reference, Vintage & Magazines: All full or overflowing. Lots of Mystery hardcovers, Cookery books and more. Plus plenty of DVDs, Tools, Collectibles, Odds and Ends, Doodads, Geegaws, etc. -The Boogie Woogie Frugal Boy From Company B Frugal Boy is NOT KIDDING. Classical music on CD will be taking up most of the space usually used by Records. Opera too. Popular music, International, Soundtracks, Comedy CDs will probably be out front on carts. No room for Shellac (78s) this month but they will return. -Frank McConnell (does that in the Bargain Room too) Cameras Sad news on the Camera front. Our former Camera correspondent, Squeegee, died doing what he loved, photographing the wild underbelly of the big city. The coroner's report said that his death was a combination of blunt force trauma from the piano that fell on him and choking after swallowing his ever present cigar. Now back to The News. Not much in the way of new cameras but we do have lenses, flashes and other camera accessories. -Sir-Lens-A-Lot Magazines We have 60+ Playboy Magazines for $3 each plus lots of vintage National Geographics for $1 and many collectable magazines. -Ghost in the Magazine Collectables We have tons of Matchbox replica vintage vehicles. Lots of fire trucks, old timey cars and a few WWII fighter planes. We also have an enameled cowboy coffee pot and a bugle! -Son of Sanford Tools Once again we have many tools! Screwdrivers, wrenches, a circular saw, a router, soldering irons and more! -Toolcan Sam Donations We accept donations on Monday through Friday from 3-5 pm in the Main Room, and on Saturday with extended hours from 1-5 pm. But we close to donations in the week before the sale so that we can prepare the Main Room for the sale, which means that we are closed for donations from Sunday March 8 through Sunday March 15. Please hold your donations until Monday March 16. Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us. Also look at that page if you need to bring us a donation larger than six boxes or outside our usual donation times, it has information on scheduling appointments and requesting a pickup. In addition to books, vinyl, DVDs, CDs, toys, etc. We now accept the following types of donations: Cameras Tools Watches Clocks Typewriters See our full list of accepted donations at fopal.org/donate. Suggestions? We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org. This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online. Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcoming books sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than to send you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply with the words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text. From:Ziem Neubert (Project Cornerstone) Subject:WNBA Golden State Valkyries Head Coach, Natalie Nakase, at YMCA Project Cornerstone"s Asset Champions Awards Breakfast Event! Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 6:25:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Elected Officials, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for all that you do to serve our communities. In case you have not received our email messages, I wanted to do one last pitch for our upcoming Asset Champions Awards Breakfast, taking place on Friday, March 27th at Villa Ragusa in Campbell. We hope you can join us as we celebrate our awardees and listen to Coach Nakase speak about her journey, leadership, and resilience. Registration is closing as soon as we reach our maximum number. Here is the direct link. With gratitude, Ziem Ziem Nguyen Neubert, M.Ed. (she/her/hers) Executive Director YMCA PROJECT CORNERSTONE 550 S Winchester Blvd, Ste 250, San Jose, CA 95128 (P) 408-351-6419 (E) ziem@projectcornerstone.org | (W) www.projectcornerstone.org The Y: We're for youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. Project Cornerstone is an initiative of the YMCA of Silicon Valley. JOIN US: 2026 Asset Champions Awards Breakfast (Get Tickets Here) Keynote Speaker: Natalie Nakase, Head Coach, Golden State Valkyries This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From: YMCA Project Cornerstone <ziem@projectcornerstone.org> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 9:30 AM To: Ziem Neubert (Project Cornerstone) <Ziem@projectcornerstone.org> Subject: ⏰ Ticket Sales Close Tomorrow EXTERNAL MAIL Warning: this message is from outside our association. Do not divulge information, click on links or openattachments unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe CHARTING A COURSE FOR YOUTH TO THRIVE This is a friendly reminder that ticket sales close tomorrow, Friday, March 13, for the Asset Champions Awards Breakfast. Join us for an uplifting morning celebrating the incredible individuals and organizations making a positive difference in our community. Featuring keynote speaker Natalie Nakase, Head Coach of the Golden State Valkyries. Reserve your seat today and join us in celebrating our community’s Asset Champions. TICKETS THANK YOU TO OUR EVENT SPONSORS YMCA Project Cornerstone | Website Project Cornerstone | 550 S. Winchester Blvd. Suite 250 | San Jose, CA 95128 US From:Claude Ezran To:Council, City Subject:Birdbrained idea: bird-friendly buildings in Palo Alto! Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 6:12:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear City Council Members, I hope you will decisively quash this birdbrained idea of mandating that we now have bird- friendly buildings in Palo Alto. A little bird told me that the City of Palo Alto is not always paying close enough attention to the unintended consequences of its well-intended decisions. Over time the City has been piling-up regulations on top of regulations on top of regulations. Each one of these regulations is, of course, well-intended. But if you step back and, for once, take a bird’s eye view to consider the end result of all of this, you will see a staggering pile of rules and regulations that substantially contributes to making housing construction very expensive in Palo Alto. Each one of these regulations adds complexity, costs, and delays to construction. And delays translate into additional costs: for instance, if you borrow $3M at 6% to build a house in Palo Alto, each single day that you lose waiting for a permit, a required report, an inspection, or the procurement of hard to find materials mandated by the City, will cost you about $500. Does the City ever look back at this gigantic regulatory mountain and consider retiring some of these feel really good to pass but birdbrained and costly regulations that are not that beneficial anymore? I doubt it does. It does not require an eagle eye to see that that the City is winging it. Where is the study showing the number of birds that actually die from building collisions each year in Palo Alto? How does this compare to the number of bird deaths due to natural causes such as birds being killed by predatory birds in Palo Alto? Are we making housing ever more expensive in Palo Alto in order to save the lives of something like five birds per year? What is the tradeoff? This proposed ordinance and the recently passed dark sky ordinance are example of extreme environmentalism gone haywire. How many astronomical observatories do we have in Palo Alto? None, but we do have astronomical housing construction costs! This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Best regards, Claude Ezran From:Nancy Krop To:Council, City Cc:board@pausd.org Subject:Close the Churchill Train Crossing Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 4:22:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Please close the Churchill train crossing. Dona Tversky wrote a very thoughtful, informative opinion piece in Palo Alto online supporting closing this crossing. Please read it. I absolutely want to be “inconvenienced” in my transit - to save the lives of our precious children. I drive in that area very frequently. Please make this happen - sooner rather than later. Thank you, Nancy Krop Palo Slto resident Sent from my iPhone From:Dashiell Leeds To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; James Eggers; Gita Dev; Sue Chow; advocate@scvas.org; director@scvas.org; Cha, Kelly; kparkins@abcbirds.org Subject:Support for March 16 Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance – Please Do Not Weaken Standards Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 3:55:36 PM Attachments:SCLP, SCVBA, ABC letter to Palo Alto re Bird Friendly Design.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Palo Alto Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the American Bird Conservancy support adoption of the Draft Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance adding Section 18.40.280 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code as proposed in Attachment A. Please read the attached letter for our full comments. Sincerely, Matthew Dodder Executive Director Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Kaitlyn Parkins Glass Collisions Program Coordinator American Bird Conservancy March 13, 2026 Subject: Support Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance – Please Do Not Weaken Standards Dear Mayor Veenker and Palo Alto Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the American Bird Conservancy support adoption of the Draft Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance adding Section 18.40.280 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code as proposed in Attachment A. Palo Alto residents consistently express strong support for protecting nature, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat, as reflected in City policies such as the Comprehensive Plan and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. Scientific research shows that ● Bird populations in North America are declining, and the decline is accelerating, ● Collisions with glass and other human-made structures are a major driver of this decline, ● Collisions occur wherever birds are active, and ● In urban and suburban landscapes, most collisions occur at tree-canopy height, from ground level to roughly 60 feet. Protecting birds is particularly important in Palo Alto, where birds are abundant not only in the Baylands and foothills, but also along riparian corridors and throughout the City’s urban forest, supporting large numbers of migratory and resident birds. The Draft Ordinance defines Bird Sensitive Areas in the Baylands and the foothills (east of Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway). Outside of these Bird Sensitive Areas, the ordinance does not apply to any existing, modified or new portion of residential structures under 35 feet. Routine window replacement does not automatically trigger bird-friendly treatment requirements unless the glazing would otherwise trigger a building permit and falls into the hazard categories defined in the ordinance. Therefore, the ordinance does not apply to most replacements of fenestration. We would have preferred stronger requirements for new residential development and major remodels in order to avoid creating new hazardous architectural elements, but we recognize that this ordinance has undergone extensive review by Boards and Commissions and reflects substantial community input across multiple commission and council terms. The result is a reasonable compromise, and we support adoption of the draft ordinance as proposed. Staff recommends that the City Council consider extending the 35-foot height exemption universally to all development types. It is not clear whether this extension would remove the Bird Sensitive Area qualifier. We are strongly opposed to extending the 35-foot height exemption universally to all development types as this would significantly weaken the ordinance and create a very low benchmark for other jurisdictions to follow. As pointed out above, most collisions occur at tree-canopy height, from ground level to roughly 60 feet. Alternatively, Staff recommends expanding the allowance of films and decals for non-residential projects, an option supported by local businesses in order to provide a more affordable compliance option when specialized glazing is cost prohibitive. If Council wishes to extend the allowance of films or decals to non-residential projects, we ask council to direct the ordinance to limit these installations to products that are approved by the American Bird Conservancy, and require the installation to be on the exterior-facing surface of the glass, where they are most effective (https://abcbirds.org/products/). Thank you for your leadership in protecting birds, biodiversity, and the natural character that residents value in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Matthew Dodder Executive Director Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Kaitlyn Parkins Glass Collisions Program Coordinator American Bird Conservancy From:John D Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Adrian Brandt; sdharap@pausd.org Subject:Re: Caltrain, Palo Alto Suicides by rail Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 3:02:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Oh dear! I apologize. Please forgive the errors in the previous submission. I apologize for the mis-addressing. Kindly remove this letter and replace it with these addresses: To: Mayor Veenker Vice Mayor Stone Councilmembers Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl City Manager Ed Shikada City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: PAUSD Board of Education 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 John Melnychuk 3707 Lindero Dr Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 906-5656 jdmelnychuk@icloud.com On Mar 13, 2026, at 2:31 PM, John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net> wrote: To: Mayor Lydia Veenker Vice Mayor Tom Stone Councilmember Greg Lauing Councilmember Karen Lu Councilmember Pat Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Tom Reckdahl City Manager Ed Shikada City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: PAUSD Board of Education 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: Supporting Evidence-Based Rail Safety Decisions Once again, we are grieving the tragic loss of a young life to suicide by rail. As discussed at last night’s PAUSD meeting, you know these tragedies affect far more than the immediate incident, touching families, classmates, first responders, and neighbors throughout Palo Alto. In moments like this, the wave of popular emotional sentiment is powerful. Yet the most meaningful solutions come from your thoughtful, evidence-based decision-making. You have already taken a practical and valuable first step by deploying safety monitors along the tracks for one year, providing immediate oversight while giving space to evaluate longer-term strategies. As city leaders, you have the unique opportunity to set a standard for transparency and public trust. Caltrain’s plans for faster, more frequent service bring benefits— but also greater exposure along the corridor. Their public engagement would demonstrate accountability and help the community understand how risks will be mitigated. Ideally, you could work with Caltrain to hold a joint press conference to present findings, explain your decision-making process, provide relevant statistics, and clarify the rationale and trade-offs behind any actions. This would allow the public to understand the full context and feel confident that safety decisions are carefully considered. National statistics show rail-related suicides are a small fraction of overall suicide deaths. Every loss is devastating, but understanding the facts helps ensure that interventions target the greatest risks and achieve the greatest impact. I don’t know exactly how to support you in this difficult time of public service, but I send this message in hope you feel supported and that you yourselves will use the grief counseling that you have made available to all of us. Your goal is clear: honor those we have lost through practical and valuable, evidence-based safety measures. Respectfully, John Melnychuk Fairmeadow, Palo Alto With respect, John Melnychuk Lindero, Dr. Palo Alto, CA (650) 906-5656 jdmelnychuk@icloud.com From:John D Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:sdharap@pausd.org; Adrian Brandt Subject:Caltrain, Palo Alto Suicides by rail Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 2:31:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Mayor Lydia Veenker Vice Mayor Tom Stone Councilmember Greg Lauing Councilmember Karen Lu Councilmember Pat Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Tom Reckdahl City Manager Ed Shikada City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: PAUSD Board of Education 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: Supporting Evidence-Based Rail Safety Decisions Once again, we are grieving the tragic loss of a young life to suicide by rail. As discussed at last night’s PAUSD meeting, you know these tragedies affect far more than the immediate incident, touching families, classmates, first responders, and neighbors throughout Palo Alto. In moments like this, the wave of popular emotional sentiment is powerful. Yet the most meaningful solutions come from your thoughtful, evidence-based decision-making. You have already taken a practical and valuable first step by deploying safety monitors along the tracks for one year, providing immediate oversight while giving space to evaluate longer-term strategies. As city leaders, you have the unique opportunity to set a standard for transparency and public trust. Caltrain’s plans for faster, more frequent service bring benefits—but also greater exposure along the corridor. Their public engagement would demonstrate accountability and help the community understand how risks will be mitigated. Ideally, you could work with Caltrain to hold a joint press conference to present findings, explain your decision-making process, provide relevant statistics, and clarify the rationale and trade-offs behind any actions. This would allow the public to understand the full context and feel confident that safety decisions are carefully considered. National statistics show rail-related suicides are a small fraction of overall suicide deaths. Every loss is devastating, but understanding the facts helps ensure that interventions target the greatest risks and achieve the greatest impact. I don’t know exactly how to support you in this difficult time of public service, but I send this message in hope you feel supported and that you yourselves will use the grief counseling that you have made available to all of us. Your goal is clear: honor those we have lost through practical and valuable, evidence-based safety measures. Respectfully, John Melnychuk Fairmeadow, Palo Alto With respect, John Melnychuk Lindero, Dr. Palo Alto, CA (650) 906-5656 jdmelnychuk@icloud.com From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Subject:PAN Chairs Regarding Palo Alto Commons Item #13 Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 1:28:59 PM Dear City Councilmembers: PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) has actively followed the Palo Alto Commons application and held manydiscussions about it among our members. Based on that, we are supporting the September 2026Planning and Transportation Commission’s 5-1 recommendation for just seven new units (none in therear) at Palo Alto Commons and enforcement of tighter parking rules. The Commission’s recommendation offers you important advantages that the staff report does notexplain. Specifically, by eliminating the proposed new rear units, the Commission eliminated several PaloAlto zoning code violations in the applicant’s proposal, namely: The failure to comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.150(e), which requires Palo Alto Commons next to the residences on WIlkie and West Meadow to conform to a daylight plane starting at 10 feet high at the property line and rising by 3 feet for every 6 feet away from the property line. The plans at A5.11, A5.12, and A5.13 show the proposed second floor additions will not comply with this. The failure to provide additional public benefits, as required for a PC amendment by 18.38.060(b). In its recent action to allow a PC amendment for the home on Ellsworth, the applicant’s attorney listed 15 separate public benefits to justify that one extra unit. Not only does Palo Alto Commons propose no public benefits in exchange for the additional FAR it seeks in excess of what is allowed, but it also wants to diminish its original public benefit of a partially-stepped-back facade backing up to the Wilkie and West Meadow residences. The Council’s job has unfortunately been made more difficult by incomplete andinaccurate information in the staff report, including: The use of the word “complies” in Attachment E’s Table 1 for the Daylight Plane. As explained above, the proposed expansion does not comply with our municipal code. The use of the word “complies” in Attachment E’s Table 2 bottommost row regarding daylight plane. Although the left side of that row correctly explains the law, the right side says the project complies when it doesn’t. To this last point, to claim that the proposed expansion “complies” with the daylight plane rules, the staff report silently relies on an extraordinary, precedent-breaking notion, namely that the expansion need not be compliant with our current laws, but only with itself. To our knowledge, such a legal conception has never before been used in Palo Alto nor anywhere else, no doubt because it wholly undermines the regulatory power of government. Consider that under staff’s new notion, any of the many homes constructed before Palo Alto adopted FAR residential limits can add as much square footage as they desire no matter what laws the City Council passes. The height, site placement, and nature of the expansions would also be unregulatable. The Council has rightly been wary in the past of creating bad precedents and has repeatedly avoided doing so. We strongly urge that in this case too you adhere to the long-established and supremely rational practice of requiring new development to comply with current laws. The application is for a PC, so there is also the matter of public benefits. Past problems with ephemeral public benefits caused our City Council to cease granting PCs, and subsequently allowed only PCs designed at PHZ projects containing a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Such a requirement would make sense for this PC expansion too. As you have heard, the monthly rent for a small unit at the Palo Alto Commons is typically upwards of $15,000 and far out of reach of many. In its letter to the Council, on page T2 of the plan set, the applicant seeks to be treated as a residential project despite its clear classification as a commercial convalescent facility per our municipal code 18.04.030(a)(35). If they wish to be treated as residential, it would be completely appropriate to require the 20% affordable housing that other recent PC applicants provide. Finally, we encourage you not to think of this item as one property owner versus its neighbors but rather as an opportunity to uphold Palo Alto’s laws. We believe the laws that apply to this project are reasonable and good -- and that it is best for all if the Council simply upholds them. In appreciation of your consideration of this matter, Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair From:Victoria S. Ramirez To:Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly; Molly Swenson (SHC) Subject:SHC Letter of Concern Item 14 - Bird-Friendly Design (3/16/26) Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 1:09:21 PM Attachments:image001.png Bird Safe Design Ordinance SHC Comment Letter - 3-11-26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, Attached you will find a letter from Stanford Health Care providing feedback and expressing our concerns with Item 14 on the Monday, March 16 Council Meeting Agenda – Bird-Friendly Design. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Sincerely, Victoria VICTORIA S. RAMIREZ, MPA she/her/hers Director of State and Local Government Affairs Stanford Health Care Office of Government Affairs – Stanford University 1840 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 cell: 650-374-8729 vsramirez@stanford.edu mailing address: 300 Pasteur Drive, M/C 5539, Stanford, CA 94305 Office of Government Affairs Confidentiality notice: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you. March 13, 2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Council Consideration of Proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance VIA EMAIL city.council@paloalto.gov; kelly.cha@paloalto.gov Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Stanford Medicine appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the current iteration of the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance. As it relates to our medical campus, we have several concerns with the proposal, particularly related to applicability, implementation costs, and user experience. We were invited to attend the virtual outreach meetings with Planning staff in October 2025 and January 2026, and share the concerns voiced in the outreach meetings regarding the lack of formal studies substantiating the need for this level of intervention and the negative impacts the bird-safe treatments would have on building users’ experience. Based on the review of the most current information, the proposed ordinance could negatively impact the design and costs of our future facilities. We assert that the ordinance should be targeted to areas and situations in which bird collisions are most likely to occur rather than being applied as a blanket rule across the entire city. Ordinances in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Oakland, are context-specific, requiring such measures for buildings adjacent to open spaces that are of a certain size (at least 1-2 acres) and consist of wetlands, open water, or heavy vegetation. For Palo Alto, applicability could be further informed for the local context through a formal study of bird collisions in the City; we view this as a critical step in establishing place- based policy. Implementation of the ordinance as currently proposed would place a financial encumbrance on future development. It has been noted by staff that implementation expenses for landowners and developers have not been analyzed. This ordinance would demand the use of treated glass and/or significant façade elements to break up large areas of glazing. Project budgets would need to be realigned to account for these bird safe treatments. Based on recent cost estimates, using the existing glazing of Stanford Hospital at 500 Pasteur Drive as a benchmark, the use of bird-safe glass etched with dots would increase project glazing costs by approximately 18-20 percent. Implementation of the proposed requirements would take away funds from other elements that may have a more proven benefit, considering the necessity for bird-safe treatments in the City has not been firmly substantiated through a formal study. Finally, the ordinance would dramatically impact the interior building experience for our staff, patients, and visitors. Bird-friendly treatments significantly alter the experience of building users with highly visible lines and dots on glazing and architectural elements that obstruct views. As demonstrated with Stanford Hospital located at 500 Pasteur Drive, clear unobstructed views of the surroundings from our patient spaces and other areas are a deliberate nod to biophilic design, shown in studies to improve overall patient outcomes and reduce stress on healthcare workers. With these noted benefits, the intent would be to carry this design language in the future development of our medical campus. We appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns. We would like to request a continuation of this item so that comments from us and others in the business community can be thoroughly assessed by staff and City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact me at vsramirez@stanford.edu if any questions arise. Sincerely, Victoria S. Ramirez Molly Swenson Director of State and Local Government Affairs Director of Land Use & Licensing Stanford Health Care Stanford Medicine From:Palo Alto Council of PTAs To:Council, City Subject:Vicki Veenker, RSVP to PTAC Honorary Service Awards 2026 Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 12:58:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. evite PTAC Honorary Service Awards 2026 Vicki Veenker, you're invited! View & RSVP See Who's Coming This email was sent to city.council@paloalto.gov because you have been invited to an event by Palo Alto Council of PTAs. Even if you have opted-out of receiving Evite marketing communications, you may still receive emails with relevant information based on your upcoming Invitation events or recent activity. Evite® and Life's Better Together® are the registered trademarks of Evite, Inc. © 2026, Evite, Inc. All rights reserved. Evite invitations and services may include other trademarks of their respective owners. Privacy Policy | Event Notification Settings | Block this Host | Do Not Sell My Info Evite 310 E. Colorado St. Glendale, CA 91205 From:Bre Thurston To:Council, City Subject:I"m the parent of a trans junior at Paly Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 10:26:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello all, I spoke at last night's listening session, but I wanted to send you the words that I could not say in a more public forum regarding my support for closing the Churchill crossing. My daughter is Juni Thurston, class of 2027 at Paly, and she is trans. She was watching the live stream last night. I want to speak to you as her mother, not on her behalf. Juni is an incredible student, a journalist, an accomplished musician and linquest. She is a member of Paly's SJP program, and thinking about where she's going to apply for school in the fall. I have this odd sensation and wondering of, "Is Juni going to be the only one left?" Will she be one of the only trans kids of Paly's class of 2027 to survive?" Through what their parents have shared, we know that both Ash and Summer struggled to find peace in their identity. How could they? How could even the most joyful trans kids right now? We all knew that when Donald Trump was elected, he was coming for our kids first. And that he did. No matter how protective and loving we are as families, we cannot shield our children from the understanding that their federal government wants them eliminated. That is an ever-present weight that we carry and it is so easy to see how it becomes "too much" for people. Every single day I find my mind wandering to all of the ways I could be doing more. It feels that way because it's just never enough when you're the parent of a trans child. "You're in the best possible place" "You're so lucky you live in California." "Your school and your community will protect your daughter." These are all things I have heard time and time again, from well meaning individuals uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the fear I carry. On one hand, yes, I know all of that is true. At the same time, this feels like it might be the most dangerous place in the country to have a trans child. Two kids at Juni's school, in her same grade, both trans, have died by suicide in less than 12 months, both in the same manner, steps from the school. It is unfathomable. If Trump is the architect of this pain, the train crossing at Churchill seems to be his greatest enforcer. Juni lives on the other side of El Camino, meaning she never has to cross Churchill, yet every single day I check her location to ensure that her dot is not behind the campus. I do believe that Juni is happy. Well, happy enough to survive. I know that there are countless families in Palo Alto that do not share that same confidence. I believe in you, and I believe that our city will do the right thing. You will do the hard thing, the imperfect thing, and it will mean EVERYTHING to families like mine. In doing the right thing, you will signal to not just our trans kids, but all of our kids, that their city is here to look after them. It is the greatest possible gift that you could give. Let's make this the best place in the country to raise a family again, because right now it is not. Thank you. -- Bre Thurston 916.220.0933 Website | Instagram From:Mr. Shore To:Council, City; Cha, Kelly Cc:Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Arellano, Caio Subject:Bird-Friendly Design Standards Ordinance - March 16, 2026 - Agenda Item 14 Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 10:07:06 AM Attachments:Palo Alto Airport Exemption - Bird-Friendly Design - 13 Mar 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker, Members of City Council and Ms. Cha, Please see the attached letter regarding the Proposed Bird-Friendly Design Standards Ordinance (18.40.280). Best regards, Jeffrey Shore This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report March 13, 2026 VIA E-MAIL [city.council@PaloAlto.gov and kelly.cha@paloalto.gov] Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Kelly Cha Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: March 16, 2026 Agenda Item 14 — Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (PAMC § 18.40.280) Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: Please consider exempting the Palo Alto Airport (PAO), including the FAA-operated Air Traffic Control Tower, from the Bird-Friendly Design ordinance. To avoid unintended comparisons, it is suggested that the language of a PAO Bird-Friendly Design exemption should parallel the exemption for “Lighting for Airport Operations” in PAMC § 18.40.250(d)(1)(C). See Ordinance No. 5692. Add new section § 18.40.280(g)(6) to read as follows: "(g) Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d): . . . . . . (6) Glazing for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict, limit, or otherwise regulate glazing that, in the reasonable judgment of the Airport Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Shore cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Ed Shikada, City Manager Caio Arellano, Interim City Attorney From:Susan Kemp To:Council, City Subject:March 16 Item #113 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units Max and Strong TDM Provisions! Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 10:02:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject: March 16 Item #13 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units and No More Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members: I urge you to let democracy work. We have clear majority direction from PTC only to approve the 7 internal units and deny the 6-9 units overlooking the homes of our neighbors on Maclane. To do so would be in violation of a host of existing laws and agreements and exacerbate parking headaches and safety problems already in play with existing units. Certainly the public, as evidenced by intense engagement, agree with PTC. The tactic of “asking for the moon” is an advantageous starting point in any negotiation. In this case, the business owners have “asked for the moon.” To be sure, we are willing to give them a slice! By adding only the 7 internal units, the business owners can still achieve their goals of expanding their services, adding more $17,000/head units to make more money. The Maclane neighbors can continue to live in their homes without 6-9 new off-code units overlooking their yards in violation of an agreement the owners entered into years ago, not to mention suffering an inevitable decrease in their property values due to the infringement on their privacy and daylight plane. I don't agree that granting the applicant 13-16 units in total as a “compromise.” is fair or reasonable since adding 7 new units is already a compromise, so let’s not get drawn in by false equivalences. Thank you for denying the applicant the moon and offering them a good deal instead. By sticking to our laws and code, you maintain a healthy and robust democratic process in Palo Alto. In addition, as the Palo Alto Commons owners have to date not shown serious enforcement of Transportation Demand Management provisions, please be sure to enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand Management with real consequences. Writing as a concerned resident and a Ventura neighbor, Susan Kemp Ventura Neighborhood This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr 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 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; 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; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook Subject:East Meadow Circle Street Sweeping/Fabian Bike Lane Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 7:21:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. And the beat goes on... Just as I was about to leave the house I received a text from a concerned neighbor that many of the OSVs were removed from one side of E. Meadow Circle after I counted 41 OSVs there the previous day. So I zipped over there on my bike to take a look and saw that five of them relocated to E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park, which is the Adobe Meadow Neighborhood Park and way to close to our homes. I stopped in my tracks to take these photos. I just got done documenting the OSVs in other Palo Alto Parks (Mitchell and Greer) the day before and now they are on our doorstep and further infiltrating our neighborhood. Needless-to-say, I’m appalled! This continues to get worse and someone needs to come to their senses and put the brakes on fast! We don’t want to see the OSV Issue in the City Priorities/Objectives in Q3, and Q4 - - We want Q2 Action! And then, on my way back into town this afternoon I went down Fabian Way and noticed that there were some changes and several of the primary bike lane blockers were either gone or instructed to slide in there slide outs (sleeper compartments, etc.), except for one (see photo below). His front door was open so I went over and asked if we could talk. I told him his slide out was blocking the bike lane and that he needed to slide it in because it was a hazard. All I got was a blank stare and an “I don’t understand.” So with that said, I’m hoping that the police can talk with this guy and set him straight and monitor this bike lane on a regular basis.. Regards, Bob Marinaro E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am E. Meadow Circle @ 8:45am next to the poor Echelon Townhomes E. Meadow Circle @ 8:45am - - One side of the street mostly vacated E. Meadow Drive adjacent to Ramos Park @ 8:45am Fabian Way @ 3:30pm - - Blocking the bike lane Fabian Way @ 3:30pm - - Blocking the bike lane Fabian Way @ 3:30pm - - Blocking the bike lane E. Meadow Circle @ 4:00pm after the morning street sweeping. No surprise - - They are all back! From:Jerome Barclay To:Deborah Goldeen Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; tim@teamsheeper.com Subject:Re: I LOVE Rinconada Pool Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 6:51:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Deb, We appreciate you sharing your feedback. It's always great to see you here at the pool. Best, Jerome On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 3:42 PM Deborah Goldeen <deborah.goldeen@sonic.net> wrote: I really, really LOVE Rinconada pool! Both the city maintenance staff and Palo Alto Swim are doing an excellent job of running and maintaining the pool. Due to age related health challenges, I depend on Rinconada to maintain a decent quality of life. I know I am not alone. Thank you. Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., Palo Alto, 94306 -- Jerome Barclay General Manager Palo Alto Swim & Sport Email: jbarclay@menloswim.com This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Betsy Gamburd To:Council, City Subject:Dear Council Members, Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 6:44:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i March 12, 2026 Dear Council Members, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed close rail crossing at Churchill Avenue. While deeply saddened by the recent deaths by suicide at that location, I do not understand how closing the Churchill rail crossing will help prevent future suicides, as there is easy access to the tracks nearby. The sad fact is that someone who is determined to end their life usually finds a way. I strongly support other measures—short-and long-term—such as continuing to station guards at rail crossings and providing students with easy access to counseling services to help young people feel safe and supported. The emotional well-being of our community’s teens should bepriority for Palo Alto and PAUSD, but that requires a well-planned and coordinated effort that is carried out over time. I appreciate Council’s efforts to do just that. I also recognize that closing the Churchill crossing could be viewed as a powerful response to recent tragedies, but it’s important to bear in mind that doing so creates added safety risks to students by increasing automobile traffic along their Embarcadero Road access to PALY. I ask that you please consider all possible consequences before taking this action. Thank you for your consideration, Betsy Gamburd 1024 Ramona St. Sent from my iPhone This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Mike Hagerty To:Council, City Subject:Concerns about Single Audit Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 6:34:54 PM Attachments:Federal Grant Compliance Gaps Exposed in Palo Alto.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I am writing to bring to your attention issues related to the City of Palo Alto’s federal Single Audit. As you know, I served as the City’s Grant Analyst for one year and contributed to the preparation of the 2025 Single Audit. I noticed that this item appears on the Consent Calendar for your upcoming meeting. I have prepared the attached report for your review, summarizing 25 years of documented federal grant compliance issues and recent audit findings. I hope this information is helpful as you exercise your oversight responsibilities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Hagerty, MPA Former Grant Analyst, City of Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 1 Federal Grant Compliance Gaps Exposed in Palo Alto By Michael Hagerty, MPA Introduction A federal Single Audit is required when a city expends more than $1 million in federal funds and must demonstrate basic internal controls, documentation, and compliance. From 2000 through 2025, Palo Alto repeatedly exceeded the federal audit threshold. Until October 2024, the threshold was $750,000; it increased to $1 million thereafter. Despite this, the City’s Single Audits over a 25‑year period show recurring administrative errors and unresolved compliance weaknesses. Executive Summary It is concerning that the City’s auditors reported no findings this year, because the historical record tells a very different story. As the City’s Grant Analyst, I worked directly on the Single Audit and helped departments address the recurring issues that have appeared for more than two decades. When the Administrative Services Department eliminated that role, the City lost internal grant management capacity. That decision did not just affect me personally; it weakened the City’s ability to meet federal requirements and contributed to the ongoing pattern of administrative errors documented across 25 years of audits. Two independent auditing firms, Maze & Associates (2000–2010) and MGO (2011–present), reviewed Palo Alto’s federal grant management over this 25‑year period. A review of every Single Audit and related document published on the City’s website shows a consistent pattern: high compensation paired with low accountability, repeated findings with no institutional memory, policies that existed only on paper, siloed departments, and leadership that neither understood nor enforced basic federal requirements. Despite the change in auditors, the findings remained the same. Both firms identified recurring deficiencies, including: • missing or incomplete grant agreements • inadequate record keeping • failure to verify contractor eligibility • lack of communication with subrecipients • repeated internal control deficiencies These are foundational elements of federal grant management, and their absence exposes the City to financial and legal risk. 2 2000–2006: Early warnings ignored • Internal Control Memoranda repeatedly flagged weaknesses in federal grant oversight. • Leadership did not build procedures, training, or documentation to address these issues. • A preventable pattern began to take shape. 2007–2008: Significant deficiencies emerge • Auditors identified a significant deficiency in federal grant oversight. • No corrective action was taken; no improvements were made to oversight, documentation, or cross‑department coordination. 2010: First major noncompliance discovery • The City had no signed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) agreement on file. • Auditors warned that the City could not demonstrate compliance without a valid agreement. • This same error reappears in 2025, indicating no institutional learning or functioning control environment. 2011–2013: New auditor, same administrative apathy • The City switched from Maze & Associates to MGO. • The new firm immediately identified significant deficiencies, confirming the issues were systemic and not auditor‑specific. • Staff failed to perform required federal debarment checks, stating they “did not know” the requirement existed. Early warnings escalated into structural weaknesses. Missing grant agreements, Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting lapses, and unreviewed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) reports by management, revealed a lack of leadership oversight and no functioning compliance framework. 2014–2017: Compliance culture collapses • By 2017, due to a lack of financial oversight, Public Works could not verify contractor debarment status, a basic federal requirement. • Missing certified payrolls and repeated Davis‑Bacon Act violations showed that federal labor standards were not being monitored. 3 • Despite years of warnings, no internal controls were implemented, and no citywide training or procedures were established. • The absence of leadership attention allowed deficiencies to become normalized. 2018: Leadership does not understand grant terms • Significant deficiencies were identified in a State Water Board loan/grant. • Auditors concluded that the Administrative Services Department did not understand the program’s requirements. • Cross‑department collaboration still did not exist, despite years of warnings. 2024 Procurement Audit: Projects Delayed by Red Tape • Routine purchases took up to five months to process; capital projects took even longer. • Low procurement thresholds triggered unnecessary bidding and administrative delays. • Half of all contracts were under $10,000, yet the City continued to apply megaproject‑level processes to small purchases. 2024–2025: Grant Management Audit Confirms Leadership Disengagement • The audit confirmed that the City maintains no oversight, no coordination, and routine noncompliance with its own grant policy. • Grant expenditures were not tracked, and departments continued to work in silos. • Palo Alto Online reported that the City’s system “lacks oversight and coordination,” echoing the same issues auditors documented for years. 2025: The 2010 Single Audit Deficiency Repeats • The City Manager’s Office again lacked a complete CDBG agreement, repeating the same deficiency identified in 2010. • Staff retrieved the agreement from HUD’s website, exactly as they did 15 years earlier. • This demonstrates a complete absence of institutional learning and a failure to implement even the most basic internal controls. Conclusion For 25 years, auditors warned the City of Palo Alto about the same deficiencies, yet the same issues continued. Within the Administrative Services Department and the City Manager’s Office, long‑standing staff structures created an environment where preparing staff reports for the City Council consistently took priority, while federal grant compliance remained an afterthought. 4 Because of this lack of oversight, the same federal grant management errors recur in: • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2017 • 2018 • 2025 Palo Alto’s record shows that without leadership attention, internal controls do not improve and compliance risks persist. My hope is that the City finally learns from its past so it does not continue to repeat history. I have always believed in collaborative work across departments, building strong grant systems, strengthening internal controls, and empowering staff to succeed. Thank you for the opportunity to present my side of the story. Sincerely, Michael Hagerty, MPA Former Grant Analyst, City of Palo Alto From:Lucia Ugarte To:Council, City Cc:Rich Spott Subject:Do Not Close Churchill! Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 6:10:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, We are parents to a 14yr old and soon to be 11 yr old, who are both students in PAUSD. The tragedy of the PALY student, which happened recently broke our hearts. Yet, we DO NOT want Churchill to close, even if it is "temporary". The issue at hand is much deeper than access to the tracks. Students need better mental health support at all levels. Closing the intersection will not fix this problem and will only create a much bigger secondary problem. The impact from this closure will have horrible consequences with traffic flow in the local neighborhoods. The streets of Old Palo Alto are already inundated with speeding and distracted drivers. Embarcadero is not suited to support EVEN more car traffic and has no safety measures for bikers. The walkways which run along Embarcadero would definitely not support the high volume of bikers and pedestrians which would be diverted to this area. We live at the corner of Kingsley and Alma and not only can we attest to the high frequency of pedestrians and bikers, twice a day, during high peak commute times, the amount of cars passing through is tremendous. Car accidents happen quite frequently and the temper of drivers waiting to turn left from Kingsley to Alma AND Alma to Kingsley is not a pleasant one. We don't even want to imagine what it would be like if MORE cars, bikers and pedestrians filled this area. We understand the emotions of wanting to close the tracks, believe me, we have known some of the kids & families of those who have passed and we would never want to diminish their pain. Please understand the impact it will have on the daily life of our community as this is a major artery for drivers, bikers and pedestrians who travel in this area. Please DO NOT CLOSE CHURCHILL! Sincerely, Concerned neighbors and parents, Lucia and Rich Spott This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Bob Stillerman To:Council, City Subject:Please do not close the Churchill/Alma/Caltrain intersection Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 4:52:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, This note is to urge you to drop the proposed closure of Churchill at Alma Street. I am a resident of Southgate and very aware of the issues involving the Churchill/Alma/Caltrain intersection. In my view, the proposed closure simply creates serious transportation problems for anyone who currently uses the Churchill corridor without solving the core issues arising from student desperation and the consequences thereof. There is no guaranteed benefit to the closure: I have not seen any analysis or studies related to the expected consequences of denying traffic through Churchill. It is my understanding that the City commissioned a traffic study (c. 2022) to model the effects of closing Churchill with and without mitigations (which were extensive). In the absence of mitigations, the study showed degraded "levels of service" (e.g., length of wait) at what were taken to be all affected intersections, particularly ECR/Emb and ECR/Or. I know from personal experience that Embarcadero traffic is already problematic due to Town and Country shoppers, Paly students, and Stanford traffic, etc. It is very common to see Southbound ECR drivers trying to turn left onto Embarcadero, stopped in the intersection and blocking the northbound lanes of ECR because they can’t continue onto Embarcadero, where traffic is at a complete standstill. I can only speculate that this will worsen. The fact is we have no data that demonstrates that these thoroughfares can support additional traffic, particularly in the absence of mitigation. I also have seen no analysis of the degree of inconvenience that would be caused for Southgate residents. For me personally, closure would make it considerably more difficult to access Hwy 101 and Alma (North and South), which provides direct access to downtown and to south Palo Alto and Mountain View. As things stand, there are few options for Southgate residents to exit the neighborhood. A closure would be even more restrictive. Even the transitory closures necessitated by the recent 2025 traffic signal reconfiguration at the intersection caused considerable inconvenience to and from my home. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report I have seen no impact studies evaluating the inconveniences to our neighbors west of the tracks trying to reach other parts of Palo Alto, nor for Paly students traveling from points east of the tracks who currently use Churchill to get to and from school. Besides the problems caused by closure, closing Churchill does not fully address the underlying societal problem. If Churchill is closed, there are still many ways for to access the tracks — specifically, the crossings at E. Meadow, Charleston, and Palo Alto Avenue, let alone the train station platforms nearby. Clinically depressed students are not prevented from accessing the tracks at any of these locations. Closing Churchill might remove one access route to the tracks, but many others remain. Further, any suicidal student who is at the breaking point will certainly find some way of dealing with their desperation, via tracks or other means. Closure does not get to the root of the problem, which is the mental health of the student body. The city and the school district should focus on identifying those students who are in crisis and providing them with access to services that will help them work through their issues. The city and school district should also increase their awareness of bullying, academic and social stress, and other factors that lead to desperation. Certainly, the closure of Churchill doesn’t come close to treating the actual issues. For well over a hundred years, Paly has been offering high quality education to students: The tracks have been nearby all that time. In summary, please consider treating the problem at its core. The city and school district should take action to address the root causes and not pin our hopes on an untried traffic solution. Thank you. Bob Stillerman From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Bhatia, Ripon; HutabaratLo@paloalto.gov Subject:Important Teen Suicide Article to Read and read comments Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:55:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, As we head to the meeting about the Churchill crossing closure, I found this article, which I encourage you to read and scroll down and read the comments [particularly those by Marc Vicenti, a former Gunn teacher]. https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/02/reflections-on-the-silicon-valley-teen-suicides-by- train-fifteen-years-later/ If you haven’t already read this and reviewed all the comments, including the more recent ones, I think that you will find it informative. Thank you. Melinda McGee 650-704-6236 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Deborah Goldeen To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City; tim@teamsheeper.com; jbarclay@menloswim.com Subject:I LOVE Rinconada Pool Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:42:32 PM I really, really LOVE Rinconada pool! Both the city maintenance staff and Palo Alto Swim are doing an excellent job of running and maintaining the pool. Due to age related health challenges, I depend on Rinconada to maintain a decent quality of life. I know I am not alone. Thank you. Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., Palo Alto, 94306 From:Chris Schremp To:McDonough, Melissa; Council, City; Robert Marinaro; Christine Schremp; Bulatao, Eric Cc:City Mgr Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:36:06 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Melissa, Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your time, the answers provided are unsatisfactory. They suggest the City Council is misdiagnosing the core issue: Palo Alto residents are subsidizing the externalized costs of Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) that negatively impact our neighborhoods, safety, and property values. My feedback on the Council’s plan is as follows: Misallocation of Tax Funds: Using resident taxes to fund specialized street cleaning for OSVs is a circular, "backward" solution. It effectively incentivizes the behavior by removing any accountability for the waste generated. The "Homelessness" Misnomer: The plan incorrectly frames this as a complex homelessness crisis. I am absolutely sensitive to homelessness in our cities, but I don't think that's the core issue here. In reality, many of these OSV occupants are part-time residents with primary homes elsewhere. Treating this as a housing crisis rather than a code and safety enforcement issue is a policy failure. And if the OSV is the their full time home, and only residence, that still is not a homeless issue, it's location issue where they need to find a place to park, or start paying Palo Alto taxes. Safe Parking Programs: Budgeting to "enable" these programs within residential zones encourages long-term settlement rather than transition. Geographic Displacement: Citing tow statistics from other neighborhoods misses the point. Enforcement in other areas has simply funneled the problem into East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way - and this not equitable to ALL residents of Palo Alto. Additionally: Transparency: Please provide the list of the 18 specific streets identified for permanent signage. Enforcement Gap: You made the point " if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response." However... My wife recently reported OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes at Ramos Park - an immediate ADA and safety hazard - only to be told by PAPD that no action can be taken for 72 hours. Why is a clear, immediate safety hazard (blocking public right-of-way) subject to a 72-hour grace period? And I know the city has been notified multiple times of the hazards caused by the OSVs on Fabian Way blocking the bike lane. Answers: We want a justification for why the City is prioritizing "supporting safe parking" over the safety of residents using bike lanes and sidewalks. Lastly, I have seen other cities find quick and tenable solutions for this - in fact in Mountain View, at the corner of Shoreline Blvd and Critteden Lane there is a large parking lot that is housing 40+ OSVs and there is room for more. Rather than spending tax dollars on street cleaning, why not look to partner with Mountain View to send OSVs there until a longer term solution can be found? I have included photos for your review. We have invested heavily in this community and pay significant taxes to live here. We expect the City to prioritize the safety and accessibility of our streets over the convenience of non- resident OSV owners. Chris On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:22 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your messages. I am responding on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada and will do my best to address the follow-up questions you posed. 1. What is being done longer-term to prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? City Council approved a phased, citywide plan on October 20, 2025 to address oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts, combining enforcement, cleaning, outreach, and new local regulations. Near-term, staff was directed to move forward ordinances to: (a) prohibit detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets and (b) prohibit “vanlording” (renting public parking spaces). For longer-term change, staff is also developing a citywide approach to “limit OSV parking to certain streets” (with a defined process/criteria), rather than continuing a pattern where enforcement in one location can result in vehicles moving into another. The City Council is also taking this very seriously and have dedicated their time to an ad hoc committee of the Council to work with staff on this issue. the City’s authority to regulate vehicle parking is constrained by state law and constitutional requirements, so changes need to be structured within these constraints to be enforceable. 2. Why does it feel like other neighborhoods prevented this—and ours became the landing zone? What can we adopt? What you’re describing is consistent with what staff has flagged as a key risk: actions like targeted cleaning/enforcement or time- limited restrictions can move OSVs to nearby blocks or other neighborhoods if the approach is not citywide and coordinated. That’s why the Council-directed work is looking at a comprehensive framework (including the “limit OSV parking to certain streets” concept), rather than relying only on one-off actions on individual streets which will certainly continue to just move people around. 3. What "action” is happening now (beyond meetings and email responses)? Since Council’s October 20, 2025 direction, through mid-February: a. Detached trailers and vanlord ordinances drafted, approved, and are being implemented. This prohibits parking of detached vehicles on public streets and prohibits the renting of public parking spaces b. 17 street segments deep cleaned (street cleaning, debris removal, tree pruning, catch basin & storm drainpipe line cleaning) c. Biweekly street sweeping on streets that have been deep cleaned d. 33 OSVs towed after initial outreach and notification did not result in compliance. This represents an increase in towing activity, there were 12 OSVs towed in 2024 and 47 OSVs towed in 2025, and additional OSVs towed following the October 20, 2025 direction. e. Field surveys conducted on 18 affected streets to determine permanent sign locations f. Timely notification, including A-frame signs placed 2 weeks prior to cleaning/sweeping, windshield flyers, mailers, and outreach g. 338 interactions between clients and case managers to build rapport and connect individuals to case management and services (interactions are not limited to OSVs) Please know that emails and calls to our non-emergency line help us to document observations and ensure proper routing and review by staff. On a related note, if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response. Best regards, Melissa Melissa McDonough, MPP Assistant to the City Manager pronouns: she/her 650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile) Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:24 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; adobeinfo@gmail.com 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. Eric and City Council Members - following up, a few items - and please as I ask these questions, I am sympathetic to the plight of those living in the OSVs - but as someone who pays more than $50k per year in taxes AND as someone who bought and invested in a home in Palo Alto, I demand that you take more direct and decisive action NOW. Please stop debating and act. 1. I would like an answer to my prior question: What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? 2. It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Why is that. What can we learn/adopt from other neighborhoods and apply in our own? 3. I watched the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting - https://www.youtube.com/live/wLg5yZTr6vg - and was appalled by the level of inaction, the seeming dismissal of residents concerns and complaints - and specifically dismayed by the comment "keep sending your emails, we read them." We don't want you to read them - we want you to ACT on them. Please follow up with specific answers to my questions and ultimately the requests of the tax paying residents who have had enough of this. Stop saying it's a difficult problem and stop saying it takes time - NO it does not. And you had to know going into running for City Council that you would been asked to solve difficult and complex issues - so please do it. Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 (cell) 3721 Ortega Court Adobe Meadows On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: 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. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 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 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. Becautious of 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 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:Eduardo F. Llach To:Council, City Subject:Paly holds the unfortunate distinction of being the only school in CA with an at-grade railroad crossing. Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 2:11:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and Council members, Palo Alto High School stands alone in California, being the only school with an active, at- grade railroad crossing immediately adjacent to its campus. This is despite California having 10,478 such crossings statewide. Approximately 1,000 times a day, the 1,817 Paly students cross these tracks. The tragic annual loss of students to suicide at the Churchill Avenue crossing underscores the severity of this issue. Compounding this trauma are the blaring rail horns, audible just yards from classrooms, which serve as a constant, dangerous reminder to students about the imminent risk and the loss of friends and teammates. We must prioritize the safety and mental health of our students above all else. This cannot be sacrificed for the convenience of driving or saving a small amount of time. Palo Alto offers numerous alternative routes for driving, biking, or walking to any destination. We have six other track crossings available within the area, spaced roughly every two- thirds of a mile. Reaching these alternatives takes barely over a minute by car and just over two minutes by bike—a minimal delay. Therefore, I propose temporarily closing the Churchill Avenue crossing to accurately assess the impact. This trial will provide critical data on: 1. The real-world effects on traffic. 2. The benefit to student mental health resulting from the cessation of the loud, This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report 3. The overall increase in safety for students traveling to and from school without crossing the tracks. Thank you, Eduardo Eduardo F. Llach 36 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto From:abby bradski To:Council, City Subject:Temporary Churchill Closure Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 1:58:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the City Council of Palo Alto concerning the closing of Churchill I have lived in Palo Alto since 1964 and attended Palo Alto High School. Since 1984, I have lived in the Southgate neighborhood. My brother and his family, as well as my son, his spouse, and my grandchildren, also live in south Palo Alto just off Alma. I regularly pick up children from Ohlone Elementary, care for them at my home, and return them to their homes around 5:00 p.m. I have many thoughts and questions regarding the proposed closure of Churchill. I want to begin by acknowledging my deep concern about the tragic suicides at the rail crossings. I have been personally affected. I understand that all meaningful safety solutions are expensive; however, short of full grade separation of trains from vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians, I believe a strong interim approach would be to install full-closure crossing gates, provide trained 24/7 on-site safety staff, and eliminate routine train horn use at this crossing. Below are my concerns and questions regarding even a temporary closure of Churchill: Traffic capacity and diversion Embarcadero Road and Page Mill Road are already at or near capacity much of the day, as is Churchill. How will these corridors realistically absorb additional diverted traffic? Paly parking lot access and circulation If Churchill is closed, I believe the Churchill entrance to the Palo Alto High School parking lot should also be closed. Paly would need to route all access from El Camino or connect the Embarcadero and rear lots internally. If the Churchill entrance remains open, there will be excessive conflict among bikes, pedestrians, and vehicles moving in a single direction. Cars will queue to enter and then need to turn around; buses will also have to enter and exit in one direction. That exit leads a very sharp turn for buses with vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian volumes increasing At El Camino, right-turning vehicles are often blocked by left-turn queues because the space is too narrow; traffic only being able to exit on El Camino (not Alma) will worsen this, likely causing back-up in the Paly parking lot and on Churchill. Street design and neighborhood spillover If Churchill is closed near the tracks, the center barriers would need removal to allow U-turns. Many drivers will travel down Churchill before realizing they cannot pass through. If the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report closure is only at the tracks and not at the Paly lot, drivers will divert into Southgate streets to turn around. Our streets are narrow, lined with parked cars, and already experience side mirrors being hit and taken off. The Castilla bike path also crosses this area and is heavily used. Cut-through traffic risks Drivers will likely discover they can turn right from El Camino onto Miramonte, then speed along Madrono Ave or Escobita St.into Southgate and reconnect to Churchill, bypassing the El Camino/Churchill intersection. Similar cut-through patterns in the past led to closures near Peers Park. Once drivers learn these routes, speeds increase and safety in the neighborhood declines. Neighborhood access impacts If Churchill is closed, Southgate’s primary exit becomes Miramonte → El Camino (right turn only). To travel south/east in Palo Alto, we would need to continue to Embarcadero to make a U-turn or turn right onto already way too congested Embarcadero. A workaround would be Miramonte → El Camino → right into the Paly lot → exit onto Embarcadero, which still adds delay and internal school traffic conflicts. Trips to downtown, ACE hardware or Whole Foods would likely require detouring to University Avenue and doubling back through neighborhoods, or navigating Embarcadero and cutting through Professorville streets. Specific routing questions To illustrate typical Southgate needs, I would appreciate guidance on the following with Churchill closed, both by car and by bike/walking, including estimated travel times: 1. My son works at Gamble Garden (Waverley and Churchill) and travels their multiple times daily. The trip is currently about 4 minutes by car 15 minutes walking. What would be the new recommended route? 2. Several days per week I travel Southgate → Ohlone Elementary → Southgate, then drop off three children on the east side of Churchill (1st block across Alma) and continue to Greenmeadow (Alma just past Charleston) by about 5:00 p.m. I then return via Alma and Churchill. Currently I leave at 4:20 and reach Greenmeadow at about 5:00 in traffic. What would this trip become both in route and time at that time of day? 3. I substitute teach at Walter Hays Elementary (Embarcadero and Middlefield), traveling during peak school commute times. What would be the recommended walking and driving routes and travel times? These patterns are representative of many families in Southgate, Evergreen Park, and Stanford neighborhoods: we live west of the tracks, while much of Palo Alto is on the east side of Alma. Navigation and event management Will the temporary Churchill closure be fully reflected in GPS/navigation systems? This is critical for Paly and Stanford events, our visitors, rideshare drivers, and deliveries. I realize this is not an easy situation. I would be put more at ease with the situations I have mentioned addressed and my questions answered. Thank you for considering these impacts on residents’ daily mobility, bikers using the Castilleja Ave bike path and neighborhoods safety. Sincerely, Abby Bradski 1543 Madrono Ave. abbybradski@gmail.com 650 269-0784 From:Art Small To:Council, City Cc:Sharon Small; Bruce Greenwood Subject:churchill temporary closure Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 1:34:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I urge the Council to support the proposal to temporarily close the rail crossing at Churchill. I am a Southgate resident, and use the access to Alma daily, but that convenience is not worth the life of a single Paly student. I believe that it is only a matter of time before a vehicle is struck on the crossing, as drivers constantly take the risk of crossing Alma in heavy traffic times, when cars fill the entire distance from Alma to El Camino, and as drivers are confused about crossing to turn right onto Alma off of Churchill. Lives are more important than convenience. Let's test the impact of the option, and finally take some action on this problem that has festered for years. Art Small This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:NYTimes: They Don’t Want Their Company’s Surveillance Tool Used by ICE Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 9:20:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/technology/thomson-reuters-ice-minnesota.html? smid=nytcore-ios-share Sent from my iPhone From:Teri Llach To:Council, City Subject:Allow a Temporary Test Closure of the Churchill Crossing Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 8:48:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers, I live on Churchill Avenue next to the Palo Alto High School rail crossing. This location is not just another traffic intersection. Two Palo Alto High students have died at this crossing in less than a year. The crossing sits directly beside a campus where hundreds of students hear train horns and crossing signals every day at a site tied to recent tragedies. The proposal before you is not a permanent decision. It is simply a temporary test of closing the crossing to vehicle traffic. Testing solutions is how responsible policy is made. If the temporary closure does not work, it can be reversed. But if it does work, the city will have learned something that could meaningfully improve safety and reduce trauma for students. Some neighbors are concerned about longer commutes. I understand that concern. But when the issue involves student lives, the question should not be whether testing is convenient. The question should be why we would not test a possible solution. A temporary closure allows the city to gather real data and make a more informed long- term decision. Refusing to test it means choosing to remain exactly where we are, despite what has already happened at this crossing. Temporarily close Churchill to vehicle traffic and test the results. Two Palo Alto High students have died at this crossing in less than a year. The school district has asked for action. A temporary closure costs little and can be reversed if it fails. But if it helps, the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report city will have taken a meaningful step to protect students. When lives are at stake, the responsible choice is to try. Respectfully, Teri Llach Churchill Avenue Palo Alto From:J Stinson To:Council, City Subject:Close Churchill Now: The Data, the Cost and the Case for Action Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:58:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i March 11, 2026 Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers, Re: Immediate Closure of the Churchill Avenue Rail Crossing I am writing to urge the City Council to close the Churchill Avenue rail crossing to vehicle traffic immediately — on a temporary basis if necessary — while the city advances toward a permanent grade separation solution. The case for closure is not new. It was built over years of rigorous study, confirmed by the city's own traffic consultants, and endorsed by the Expanded Community Advisory Panel. What is new is that the cost of continued inaction is being measured in lives. The Council should act now. The Data Has Always Supported Closure After more than three years of analysis involving multiple traffic consultants, engineering studies, community workshops, and deliberations by a nine-member citizens panel, the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) produced exactly one affirmative recommendation: close Churchill Avenue to vehicle traffic. On every other crossing, the panel reached a stalemate. On Churchill, the data was clear enough to compel a 6-to-3 vote in favor of closure with mitigations. The city's traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, found that closure paired with targeted improvements to Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway would reduce traffic impacts at those intersections to an insignificant level — and that neither closure nor the partial underpass would induce new vehicle travel demand in the broader corridor. The Cost Argument Is Decisive The Churchill closure, including all traffic mitigations at Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway, is currently estimated to cost $95–$115 million. The partial underpass — the Council's preferred alternative — is now estimated at more than $300 million. That is not a rounding difference. It is a factor of three. And it matters for a city that does not have unlimited capital and is simultaneously pursuing major grade separations at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. It is also worth noting that the majority of the closure cost lies in the Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway intersection improvements — mitigations that address substandard conditions at those intersections that exist today, independent of Churchill. The city will need to make those improvements regardless. When that shared cost is set aside, the true incremental price of closure versus the partial underpass is closer to four times — not three. The Partial Underpass Faces Unresolved Feasibility Problems This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report The partial underpass requires permanent encroachment into Caltrain's right-of-way for the pedestrian and bicycle ramps and for southbound Alma Street lanes. As documented in the XCAP report, Caltrain's approval of that encroachment is not guaranteed. The project also requires removal of the landscaping strips along Alma Street, driveway modifications for adjacent properties, and potential acquisition of residential parcels along Churchill west of the tracks. These are not hypothetical concerns — they were confirmed in 2024 engineering plans that showed over a dozen homes along Alma potentially affected. The Council heard from those homeowners directly. The closure alternative requires none of this. No private property acquisition. No Caltrain right-of-way negotiation. No removal of Alma Street landscaping. The XCAP report confirms this explicitly. The Council's preferred alternative carries feasibility risks that the backup alternative does not. The Safety Case Has Become Undeniable A 17-year-old Palo Alto High School student died at the Churchill Avenue crossing on February 3, 2026. A 15-year-old Paly student died at the same crossing on March 4, 2025. Two student deaths at one crossing in less than twelve months. The proximity of this at-grade crossing to Paly's campus — where train horns, crossing arms, and the sight and sound of trains are daily, unavoidable stimuli for hundreds of students — makes Churchill categorically different from the city's other crossings. Following the most recent death, PAUSD Superintendent Don Austin reversed his longstanding opposition to closure and wrote to this Council on February 5: the operational concerns about school bus routing and district vehicle access are "real" but "secondary to the continued loss of life at a specific and identifiable location." He called for immediate closure, even on a temporary basis. The PAUSD Board expressed explicit support. Community members, Track Watch volunteers, and the student body at Paly echoed that call. Reducing access to lethal means is an evidence-based suicide prevention strategy. Closing Churchill is the most direct way to implement it at this location. What Has Stopped the Council Before, and Why It Should Not Stop It Now When the Council declined to adopt XCAP's recommendation in December 2021, it was not because the data was insufficient. The data supported closure. It was because vocal opposition from residents in Southgate and Professorville raised concerns about traffic inconvenience — concerns that the traffic mitigations were specifically designed to address. The Council deferred to that opposition over the recommendation of its own advisory panel, its own consultants, and the logic of cost and feasibility. The Council now has an opportunity to reframe this decision correctly. A temporary closure is not the end of the grade separation process — it is the beginning of the permanent solution. It removes the most acute safety hazard at this location while the city completes the engineering and funding work that will take years regardless of which permanent alternative is chosen. It is the lowest-cost, fastest-to- implement, lowest-feasibility-risk path forward. And it is what the evidence has recommended since 2021. Conclusion The Churchill Avenue rail crossing should be closed to vehicle traffic now. The data supports it. The cost analysis supports it. The feasibility record supports it. The school district supports it. The community has said so for years. What has been missing is the Council's willingness to act on that evidence rather than defer to the loudest opposition. Close Churchill now. Protect students now. Complete the permanent solution on the timeline it requires — but do not use that timeline as a reason to leave a known hazard open for one more year. Respectfully, Jason Stinson 50 Churchill Ave Palo Alto, CA From:Dave Stellman To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr; 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; 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; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook Subject:Re: Bob"s OSV Count (3/11/26) Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:31:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks again for tracking this mess Bob. City council; you seem to have your own agenda and are unwilling to do what the majority of Palo Alto residents and business owners are asking for; put an end to this problem! Palo Alto is becoming a dumping ground for OHV’s. Implement a plan just like Menlo Park’s immediately and if it results in litigation, so be it. They seem to be handling it. The benefit to our neighborhoods would be worth the cost. We can’t wait months or even years experimenting with pilot programs that also have their own high cost. Why don’t we have an election and vote on it? Dave On Mar 11, 2026, at 9:01 PM, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee, City Council, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Please find attached an update to my periodic OSV count that I took this afternoon. Since I started near my house on E. Meadow Circle I thought the numbers were trending well until I got home and tallied them up to see that we actually added two since 2/27/26. Please see my comments below in the titles of the photographs. Palo Alto we can do better, we need to do better, you - - the City Council owe it to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto to do better! We are all tired of hearing the study it until you are blue in the face excuses. Afraid of litigation, need to prioritize folks with Palo Alto ties, “These people in the RVs are our people" BS. I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto that can’t afford to live here. How can you continue to let anyone (background unknown) drive their OSV up to the curb, squat without any ramifications, and then offer them City services. This is like a bad dream that doesn’t end. Maybe we should just copy Menlo Park’s OSV ordinance and be done with it. This would save everybody a lot of energy, headache, staff resources, and definitely help reduce that impending budget shortfall. City of Menlo Park, CA: Removal of vehicles parked in violation of oversized <apple-touch-icon-48ed3daf8de195214048d08490ab5db2.png> Regards, Bob <RV Inventory_11Mar26.xlsx> E. Meadow Circle: Down from 48 to 41. Can actually see some curb from the street. <IMG_4102.jpeg> East Meadow Circle - - Still inundated! <IMG_4105.jpeg> E. Meadow Circle - - This guy has been here for a while and has a boat and a motorcycle. Please no City services for him! The OSV on the other side of the street is also a fixture and also a likely 'no services’ candidate. And those poor condos at the end of the block. I cannot get out of my mind the last public speaker (the nurse) at the 2/23 City Council Meeting who has lived there for many years. The desperation in her voice gives me the chills! <IMG_4106.jpeg> LiveMoves Facility on San Antonio E. of 101. There were 5 OSVs on this stretch of road on 2/27 that are now gone. <IMG_4107.jpeg> LifeMoves Transitional Housing in San Antonio - - A great benefit for the City! <IMG_4108.jpeg> LifeMoves Transitional Housing in San Antonio <IMG_4109.jpeg> An open lot next to LIfeMoves. Who owns this and can it be used as a Safe Parking Lot? <IMG_4111.jpeg> Faber Place - - A private security person hired by Palo Alto Labs on E. Embarcadero that monitors the OSVs here. I have seen him out here with his clipboard several times. <IMG_4114.jpeg> Airport Parking Lot at 2:30pm on a Wednesday afternoon. Probably not a viable candidate for a safe parking lot. <IMG_4115.jpeg> Colorado Ave, adjacent to Greer Park. This is not what we want flanking our parks. A constant reminder to soccer parents of government failure! <IMG_4116.jpeg> Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Several of these vehicles have been here for the long haul. I talked with police in the park this afternoon. The standard line - - “Sorry, not much we can do!" <IMG_4117.jpeg> Ah Ha! Mitchell Park. Proof that the OSVs are migrating from Mountain View to Palo Alto as Mountain View will soon close one of it’s two safe parking lots. <IMG_4118.jpeg> Sheridan Ave. - - On the street segment that leads into the Cal. Ave. Caltrain Station. Agan fixtures much to the chagrin of the neighboring tech. offices. <IMG_4125.jpeg> From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr 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 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; 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; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook Subject:Bob"s OSV Count (3/11/26) Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:05:06 PM Attachments:apple-touch-icon-48ed3daf8de195214048d08490ab5db2.png RV Inventory_11Mar26.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. OSV Ad Hoc Committee, City Council, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Please find attached an update to my periodic OSV count that I took this afternoon. Since I started near my house on E. Meadow Circle I thought the numbers were trending well until I got home and tallied them up to see that we actually added two since 2/27/26. Please see my comments below in the titles of the photographs. Palo Alto we can do better, we need to do better, you - - the City Council owe it to the residents and businesses of Palo Alto to do better! We are all tired of hearing the study it until you are blue in the face excuses. Afraid of litigation, need to prioritize folks with Palo Alto ties, “These people in the RVs are our people" BS. I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto that can’t afford to live here. How can you continue to let anyone (background unknown) drive their OSV up to the curb, squat without any ramifications, and then offer them City services. This is like a bad dream that doesn’t end. Maybe we should just copy Menlo Park’s OSV ordinance and be done with it. This would save everybody a lot of energy, headache, staff resources, and definitely help reduce that impending budget shortfall. City of Menlo Park, CA: Removal of vehicles parked in violation of oversized vehicle restriction. ecode360.com Regards, Bob E. Meadow Circle: Down from 48 to 41. Can actually see some curb from the street. East Meadow Circle - - Still inundated! E. Meadow Circle - - This guy has been here for a while and has a boat and a motorcycle. Please no City services for him! The OSV on the other side of the street is also a fixture and also a likely 'no services’ candidate. And those poor condos at the end of the block. I cannot get out of my mind the last public speaker (the nurse) at the 2/23 City Council Meeting who has lived there for many years. The desperation in her voice gives me the chills! LiveMoves Facility on San Antonio E. of 101. There were 5 OSVs on this stretch of road on 2/27 that are now gone. LifeMoves Transitional Housing in San Antonio - - A great benefit for the City! LifeMoves Transitional Housing in San Antonio An open lot next to LIfeMoves. Who owns this and can it be used as a Safe Parking Lot? Faber Place - - A private security person hired by Palo Alto Labs on E. Embarcadero that monitors the OSVs here. I have seen him out here with his clipboard several times. Airport Parking Lot at 2:30pm on a Wednesday afternoon. Probably not a viable candidate for a safe parking lot. Colorado Ave, adjacent to Greer Park. This is not what we want flanking our parks. A constant reminder to soccer parents of government failure! Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Several of these vehicles have been here for the long haul. I talked with police in the park this afternoon. The standard line - - “Sorry, not much we can do!" Ah Ha! Mitchell Park. Proof that the OSVs are migrating from Mountain View to Palo Alto as Mountain View will soon close one of it’s two safe parking lots. Sheridan Ave. - - On the street segment that leads into the Cal. Ave. Caltrain Station. Agan fixtures much to the chagrin of the neighboring tech. offices. Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs DT OSVs DT #########11/2/2025 ##################12/3/2025 #########1/14/2026 1/28/2026 2/13/2026 ############### & 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 17 4 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 9 8 2 2 9 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 200 193 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 24 21 19 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 0 3 0 22 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4 2 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 20 18 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 0 15 1 Total:220 211 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 149 24 22 Delta:-9 -3 9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 -31 2 Days since first count: #########12 20 29 43 60 85 99 115 129 141 Months since first count: #########0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 Yellow OSVs on New Street Green Utility Construction Detached Trailor DT = Detached Trailers as a Subset of the Total Count RV Inventory_11Mar26 3/16/2026 12:18 PM From:Aram James To:Council, City; Vicki Veenker Subject:A young man raged about RV dwellers outside his L.A. home. D.A. says it led to murder Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:48:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. A young man raged about RV dwellers outside his L.A. home. D.A. says it led to murder https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-11/homeless-man-rv-killing-los-angeles From:Mr. Shore To:Council, City; Cha, Kelly Cc:Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Arellano, Caio; MFrancois@rutan.com; DLanferman@rutan.com Subject:Bird-Friendly Design Standards Ordinance - March 16, 2026 - Agenda Item 14 Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 11:14:11 AM Attachments:Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance Supplemental Letter - Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance - 11 Mar 2026.pdf Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance Letter Regarding Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance - 02 Dec 2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker, Members of the City Council and Ms. Cha, Please see the attached letter submitted on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance regarding the Proposed Bird-Friendly Design Standards Ordinance (18.40.280). This letter supplements our prior letter to the Planning & Transportation Commission, dated December 2, 2025, a copy of which is also attached to this email. Best regards, Jeffrey Shore This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report March 11, 2026 VIA E-MAIL [city.council@PaloAlto.gov and kelly.cha@paloalto.gov] Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Kelly Cha Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: March 16, 2026 Agenda Item 14 — Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (PAMC § 18.40.280) Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: We, the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance, are writing in reluctant and qualified support of the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (PAMC § 18.40.280) as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”). In so doing, we are compelled to note that, even with the PTC’s acknowledgement of the lack of quantifiable data, two PTC members, including one member (James) who spent his entire career focused on conservation at National Geographic, voted against the PTC’s motion and recommended against adopting any ordinance because neither the local problem nor its solutions are sufficiently understood. The truth is there are no local data that support this ordinance. In particular, there are no data of bird collisions with windows, residential or commercial, in Palo Alto. In the absence of data, Palo Alto should follow Sunnyvale and adopt guidelines for development. This is a solution in search of a problem.1 I. The Comprehensive Plan Only Authorizes Guidelines At most, the Comprehensive Plan authorizes guidelines, not mandatory zoning restrictions. The Plan addresses bird-friendly building design at Policy L-6.3 and Program L6.3.1 — the only provisions staff have cited as Comprehensive Plan authority across every staff report, board and commission hearing over the past two years: • Policy L-6.3: “Encourage bird-friendly design.” • Program L6.3.1: “Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions.” “Guidelines” are defined by the Comprehensive Plan as “[p]rovisions guiding the design of buildings that are not mandatory but may be used by Staff, the City’s advisory boards and commissions and the City Council in evaluating projects.” (“Design Guidelines,” p. 289, emphasis added.) 1 This letter supplements our prior letter to the PTC, dated December 2, 2025, a copy of which is attached. Considering the PTC’s split-vote recommendation and its fundamental reservations with the ordinance, our prior letter remains highly pertinent. Prior public comments on the Bird-Friendly Ordinance do not appear to have been compiled and included in Council’s Packet for March 16, 2026. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 11, 2026 Under Government Code section 65860, a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the General Plan is void. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 545- 546.) Where the Plan uses permissive language and authorizes a non-mandatory instrument, a mandatory ordinance directly conflicts with that authorization. No other Comprehensive Plan provision cures this defect. The draft ordinance’s own Section 1(A) recites that the Plan “included a policy encouraging bird-friendly design and a program to develop guidelines,” then proceeds to enact mandatory requirements with no consistency analysis. Under Lesher, that omission is fatal. II. The Proposed Ordinance Would Burden Housing Development We share the commitment to bird conservation, and we do not question the importance of investigating bird-window collisions. But the ecological case for imposing mandatory residential mitigations rests on extrapolations from generalized bird-window collision data, mostly from the East coast, which have not been validated in the local context.2 Bird abundance decline is driven by myriad contributing causes: habitat loss, predation, climate change, high-intensity agricultural activities, and outdoor cats, among others.3 The relative contribution of residential window collisions to local bird population trends, and the marginal benefit of specific residential glazing interventions, have not been the subject of localized study in Palo Alto or the broader Peninsula. Before imposing costly mandatory constraints on residential housing development based on these extrapolations, the Council should have a clearer picture of what those constraints would accomplish.4 At scale, the compliance costs and project delays associated with the proposed mandatory measures could materially frustrate housing production5 — a significant harm in a jurisdiction under intense state housing pressure — while their avian ecological benefits in the residential context could prove illusory. Those costs and delays stem from at least four compounding problems: (i) No established market for residential bird-friendly glazing. The glazing specifications in the ordinance were developed for commercial construction. There is no established consumer market for residential bird-friendly glass and no off-the-shelf residential products that satisfy the ordinance’s criteria. 2 Loss, Will, Loss, Marra, Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability, 2014 (the “Smithsonian Paper”), https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/25413/NZP_Marra_2014- Birdbuilding_collisions_in_the_United_States_Estimates_of_annual_mortality_and_species_vulnerability.pdf?sequence=1&i sAllowed=y. The authors reviewed eight prior studies with a total of 92,869 bird collisions and, applying extrapolation mathematics, projected between 365 million and 985 million birds are killed per year by buildings in the U.S. 3 See, e.g., Leroy, Jarzyna, Kell, Acceleration hotspots of North American birds’ decline are associated with agriculture, 2026, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads0871. The authors found that about half of the 261 species analyzed showed significant declines from 1987 to 2021, and a quarter showed accelerating declines. Hotspots of accelerating abundance decline were located in regions with high-intensity agriculture (high cropland area, fertilizer use, or pesticide use). 4 The effort to adopt bird-friendly design regulations presupposes a problem with bird-window collisions in Palo Alto, but there are no studies showing the nature or extent of the bird strike problem in Palo Alto. Crafting a suitable regulatory framework with incomplete data is at best scattershot. (ARB Member Rosenberg: Feb. 15, 2024 Summary Minutes, p.19; Feb 15, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:28:29; Jul 18, 2024 Summary Minutes, p.17; Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:44:49; ARB Member Baltay: Feb 15, 2024 Summary Minutes, p.19-20; Feb 15, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:34:25; Jul 18 Video Timestamp 3:54:47.) 5 Requiring bird-friendly glazing on residential buildings, particularly single-family homes, would be extremely onerous due to its special-order-only availability. Consequently, it would frustrate efforts to increase housing production. (ARB Member Hirsch: Jul 18, 2024 Summary Minutes p.18; Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:55:32; ARB Member Adcock: Feb 15, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:31:57; Jul 18, 2024 Summary Minutes p.18; Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:52:14; ARB Member Baltay: Feb 15, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:34:25; ARB Member Rosenberg: Feb 15, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:28:29.) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 11, 2026 (ii) High cost of commercial-rated glazing customized for residential use. Adapting commercial bird-safe glass to residential applications requires custom fabrication at costs disproportionate to residential project economics, raising serious feasibility concerns. (iii) Design constraints and aesthetic impacts. Commercial fritting patterns and glazing specifications impose design and aesthetic constraints that conflict with residential architectural norms6 and resident expectations.7 (iv) Environmental and sustainability concerns with non-permanent alternatives. Non- permanent markers and films raise unresolved environmental and sustainability concerns regarding adhesive materials and long-term durability that the ordinance does not address. These are not hypothetical concerns. They reflect the real-world gap between criteria developed for large-scale commercial construction and the requirements of residential development, a gap the ordinance has not addressed and that cannot be closed simply by making commercial-grade criteria mandatory. III. A Practical Path Forward: Voluntary Guidelines The Comprehensive Plan’s authorization of guidelines is the right instrument for this stage of the City’s engagement with bird-friendly design in residential construction. In lieu of the proposed ordinance that exempts most residential homes, we recommend the following course of action: Adopt non-mandatory bird-friendly design guidelines. Direct staff to prepare and adopt guidelines consistent with Program L6.3.1’s authorization. Those guidelines would be applicable to all discretionary projects — commercial, institutional, and residential — through the City’s architectural review process, reaching the substantial majority of new construction in Palo Alto. Voluntary uptake under design review, combined with staff encouragement and public outreach, can generate meaningful real-world experience with residential bird-safe design in this community. Obtain Palo Alto Bird Collision Studies. Partner with local environmental organizations to monitor and evaluate the voluntary implementation of the guidelines over time — tracking which measures are adopted, at what cost, with what design impacts, and with what observable effect on bird collision rates in Palo Alto. This localized evidence base, rather than extrapolations from generalized data, should inform any future decision about whether mandatory requirements are warranted and, if so, what form they should take. Once specific problematic buildings or building features are identified, adopt restrictions. If the studies ultimately demonstrate that specific residential mitigations deliver meaningful benefits at feasible cost, the Council will be in a position to put in place mandatory standards and bring forward a revised ordinance grounded in locally validated, residentially appropriate 6 Glazing as a percentage of floor area for residential energy efficiency purposes is already calculated, but measuring glazing as a percentage of each elevation in the context of residential development would add significant design costs, not to mention Planning staff time required to check each calculation. (ARB Member Baltay: Jul 18, 2024 Summary Minutes p.19; Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 4:05:27; ARB Member Adcock: Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 4:05:43.) 7 In circumstances where the only outdoor views for residents are through their bedroom windows, such as in long-term care developments, bird-friendly windows would not be a “pleasant” experience for those residents. (ARB Member Chen: Jul 18, 2024 Summary Minutes, p.18; Jul 18, 2024 Video Timestamp 3:56:12.) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 11, 2026 criteria. Coincident with a conforming amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, that ordinance will be both legally defensible and substantively justified. IV. Conclusion Forcing a solution to a perceived problem without supporting data is not good stewardship of the City. The increased housing development costs and delays would be material, as the Architectural Review Board found. Nonetheless, if the Council desires to force a solution coincident with a conforming amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the PTC’s recommended approach, which excludes most residential properties except portions over 35 feet high, is a reasonable pathway as it attempts to balance burden and benefit in the absence of data. Respectfully submitted, EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE By, its representative, Jeffrey Shore cc: Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP David Lanferman, Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Ed Shikada, City Manager Caio Arellano, Interim City Attorney From:Daniel Hansen To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Cha, Kelly; jeff.shore@comcast.net Subject:March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 10:24:45 AM Attachments:Palo Alto City Council, March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - PA Commons Objection Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter regarding the Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way. Best regards, Daniel Hansen March 11, 2026 VIA E-MAIL [city.council@PaloAlto.gov and Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov] Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Emily Kallas Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: We are writing in support of the PTC’s recommendation regarding the limited expansion of Palo Alto Commons. Although, we do not live on Wilkie Way, we know the feeling of proposed land use changes that could reduce value and enjoyment of our property. In addition to the arguments of our Wilkie Way neighbors, which we support, we offer these observations: • Wellquest Living, which operates Palo Alto Commons, is owned by or closely affiliated with FJ Management, Inc. (FJM). FJM is a huge company based in Utah with billions of dollars in investments, real estate and assets under management, built mainly on petroleum. It can afford to build senior housing in locations other than Palo Alto Commons without adversely impacting residents. • Wellquest has provided no financial information supporting its position that less than X units is not feasible (X keeps moving). Palo Alto Commons is described on its website as “Luxury Senior Living” and these units rent from an astonishing $7,000 to $15,000 per month. How can even one additional unit not be profitable? To support additional expansion, Wellquest should provide full transparency on their financial models and projections, as well as its and FJM’s balance sheets, so feasibility claims can be tested. • Wellquest, like similar private equity businesses, is driven by profit. We’ve experienced how private equity acquisitions of veterinary and health care clinics have resulted in reduced care and higher costs in our community. The same thing is happening in senior living care. If this expansion proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbor’s concerns, the City should put in place regulations to ensure high levels of care, such as specified nurse to tenant ratios, and preference for Palo Alto residents. FJ Management, Inc. Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4 Palo Alto City Council May 11, 2026 Page 2 FJM owns (or is at least closely affiliated with) Wellquest Living.1 FJM and Wellquest share the same address in Salt Lake City with adjoining suites (185 S State St., Suites 1200 and 1300). Wellquest’s CEO, Steve Sandholtz, has served for many years as managing partner with FJ Capital, LLC, a real estate private equity and development firm, according to his linked in profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-sandholtz-1828574. Presumably, FJ Management also owns FJ Capital. The “FJ” in FJ Management stands for “Flying J,” the gas stations started in the 1960s by Jay Call. Over time, FJ Management has expanded further into petroleum refining, transportation, solar, hotel management and gas and convenience stations, including ownership of Maveriks and Kum & Go gas and convenience stores, which together have over 800 locations. https://fjmgt.com/about/. FJM is owned by the Maggelet family and run by Crystal Maggelet, Jay Call’s daughter. Crystal’s advice is: “Do what is best for the business, not what is best for the family.” https://familybusinessmagazine.com/family-offices/family-office-management/helm-crystal- maggelet/ In 2024, FJM’s annual revenue was $7 billion and it ranked #89 on the list of the largest US private companies, according to Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/companies/fj-management/ Clearly, Wellquest and FJM can afford to select a different location for their senior living expansion in Palo Alto, one that will not adversely impact neighboring residents. Wellquest Living, LLC With Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest is the operator and William Reller is the property owner. The arrangement between Wellquest and Mr. Reller is not disclosed. These operating agreements generally come in two flavors: (1) the operator manages the business and takes a percentage of revenue and the owner pays the costs, or (2) the operator manages the business and keeps the profit and pays the owner a lease-type fee. Either way, these agreements are crafted to drive a single goal: increase revenue and profit. Wellquest should disclose its management contract with Reller so the underlying incentives can be understood by the community. For example, does the agreement include tenant care covenants, incentives and conditions? Does it include requirements to follow zoning restrictions and comply with neighborhood agreements? The concern is Palo Alto Commons will suffer the same fate as other businesses acquired and run by private equity. For example, after Adobe Animal Hospital was acquired by Sage Veterinary Centers (ultimate owner JAB Consumer Partners SCA SICAR, a private equity firm), 1 “WellQuest was founded in 2018 by the owners of one of the largest privately -held companies in the United States, FJ Management. The Utah-based company, which owns gas stations like Flying J, Pilot and Maverick also works in hospitality and wealth management.” https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article311640315.html Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4 Palo Alto City Council May 11, 2026 Page 3 it shut down the 24-7 hospital, increased service rates and lost experienced veterinarians. The FTC has taken action against JAB to prevent further consolidation in veterinary services.2 Yelp reviews suggest this may already be happening at Palo Alto Commons: May 13, 2022 “This place has gone downhill quickly ever since it was bought by WellQuest. It used to be a place where people enjoyed to work and residents enjoyed to live. It's now a dreadful place to work and a place that is lacking in many areas in terms of care for the residents. …” May 16, 2022 “This community USED TO BE the best senior living in the bay area but since the take over by Well Quest Living and the new director Li Li, it has deteriorated. …” June 1, 2024 “These place is very unfair and racist, they don't even take the employee side they always listen to one side of the story without both side defend themself.one of the worst care quality plus the have lot of of residence and only two caregivers worst place ever.” Wellquest is no stranger to controversy. It has been the subject of many complaints and lawsuits in California. See Elk Grove Senior Home Sued for Negligence After 74 Year Old Dies of Extreme Heat, Sept 27, 2025, https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article311640315.html. Wilkie neighbors have documented countless times Wellquest has failed to be a good partner to the neighborhood. Wellquest should not be rewarded with additional expansion. If the expansion of Commons proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbors’ concerns, the Council should take steps to ensure care levels are appropriate and maintained, including specified nurse to tenant ratios, and preference for Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Daniel Hansen Jeffrey Shore 2 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-acts-protect-pet-owners-private-equity-firms- anticompetitive-acquisition-veterinary- services#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Trade%20Commission%20today,Hart%2DScott%2DRodino%20Act. Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4 From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:Proposed FY27 LAFCO Budget - Notice of Public Hearing Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 9:18:57 AM Attachments:Public Hearing Notice - Proposed LAFCO Budget.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To: County Executive, City and Special District Managers, Other Officials/Staff and Stakeholders Please see attached Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 LAFCO Budget. Thank you, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) The Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 1, 2026 at 1:15 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California, to consider: 1. Adoption of the Proposed Work Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2027. Staff report and related materials for this item will be on �ile at the LAFCO Of�ice and will be available on the LAFCO website (SantaClaraLAFCO.org) by March 27, 2026. All interested persons may be present at the meeting and provide comment at said time and place or may submit written comment. Written communications should be �iled prior to the date of the hearing by email or mail at the address noted below. Email: LAFCO@ceo.sccgov.org Phone: (408) 993-4709 Mailing Address: LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 March 9, 2026 From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 8:57:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. What letter did I send to council? On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 9:36 PM Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. ------------------Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @cityofpaloalto.organd there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on theCity’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations suchas the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto JuniorMuseum & Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department orCity Council Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other securedetails via email. Contact City Departments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Phone-Directory Contact City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council From:CeCi Kettendorf 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; Robert Neff; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; 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; Ian Halker; Chris Schremp; 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; Shikada, Ed; Transportation Subject:Re: Fabian Bike Lane - - Action Needed! Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 9:36:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. We could add to Rob's email to Council that the two schools there are reason enough to clear Fabian. One of the schools is the school of the rich. Many of the children attending those private schools come from Crescent Park. Zuckerberg's young children go there. It would be useful to get the name of the exec board at Crescent Park so as to let the rich and powerful speak up to protect their children on Fabian. Ceci On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 8:02 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto City Council, I have asked at least a half dozen times going back to Oct 2025 about removing these vehicles that block the bike lane on Fabian Way. As you can imagine this is very dangerous for cyclists that cannot ride in the bike lane and who have to ’take the lane’ and stop traffic to pass. I know this is an issue and you know this is an issue, but nothing ever happens. I’m asking you one more time to take action, stop kicking the can down the road, and do what is right for the residents and businesses of OUR community! Regards, Bob Marinaro 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; Robert Neff; 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; Ian Halker; Chris Schremp; 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; Shikada, Ed Cc:Transportation Subject:Fabian Bike Lane - - Action Needed! Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 8:05:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, I have asked at least a half dozen times going back to Oct 2025 about removing these vehicles that block the bike lane on Fabian Way. As you can imagine this is very dangerous for cyclists that cannot ride in the bike lane and who have to ’take the lane’ and stop traffic to pass. I know this is an issue and you know this is an issue, but nothing ever happens. I’m asking you one more time to take action, stop kicking the can down the road, and do what is right for the residents and businesses of OUR community! Regards, Bob Marinaro From:SusanPMeade To:Council, City Subject:Please don’t close theChurchill intersection Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 7:21:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. As a 46 year resident of Palo Alto, a parent of 3 Paly graduates, and a friend of a parent whose son died in that exact spot in 2002, please do not close that intersection. The kids in Palo Alto are stressed and need real help from the school,(not counselors in training) as well as their families. The train is not going away. Inconveniencing thousands of commuters daily is not the solution. Please vote against this temporary or permanent closure. I hate seeing those guards stationed there bored out of their minds. But I’d rather see that than a barrier that prevents commuters from getting to where they need to go. I do everything I can to avoid the El Camino and Embarcadero intersection. It’s a nightmare that will be made even worse when all of the housing goes in at Town & Country. Please vote no to the Churchill closure. Sincerely, Susan Meade 222 Byron St. Palo Alto 94301 Sent from my iPhone From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Flock Safety, Inc. Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 6:53:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I urge you to do a hard thing and not endorse an audit for Flock Safety, Inc. You are well aware of the many cities though out the United States which have rejected this vendor for handing over data to Homeland Security and Customs and Border Control. Today Japanese Americans who were rounded up and sent to camps in 1942 see Flock as an ominous tool of the present government that shocks these former internees as they see familiar actions by this administration weighing on our democracy. This republican president has already invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up Venezuelans in 2025. These former prisoners do not want our police departments to utilize Flock Safety, Inc. to surveillance residents, citizens and noncitizens alike. My father’s cousin though marriage was named Ben Peckham of San Jose. He was friends with and respected by the Japanese community. He held onto their documents and titles for these internees so that when they were finally freed they could come back to their businesses and homes. Norm Minetta always spoke of this fine man Ben Peckham. Palo Alto”s reputation exemplifies progressive and moral values. As Flock’s CEO has broken the trust Palo Alto needs to reject this vendor. Reflect on this critical decision and scrub an audit. You with your colleagues on the council need to stand up and reject a contract with Flock Safety, Inc. This is a historical moment and are required to align with municipalities which have taken the high ground. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:L Sharp To:Council, City Subject:Flock Cameras Discussion in Town Hall Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 5:59:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am concerned with the way our private data is susceptible to violations and misuse. I wish to request that instead of auditing the Flock cameras, that we do as Mountain View is deciding to do, and that is to *remove* them altogether. Thank you. Lorin Sharp This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Adrian Brandt To:pol1@rosenblums.us Cc:Council, City; ReconnectPaloAlto Subject:Re: Freight no Caltrain ROW Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 4:48:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. i I’m unsure whether Caltrain instigated it, but some years ago I recall reading about an effort to find another more flexible operator to buy-out UP’s Caltrain line freight concession/rights. It appears nothing ever came of it. I have to assume no suitable operators were both interested and able to satisfy whatever UP’s and/or Caltrain’s requirements might have been. Peninsula rail freight has dwindled from its heyday when SP built the Dumbarton rail line just to shorten the freight train path to/from their (now long defunct) huge Bayshore rail yard and locomotive maintenance facility in Brisbane. So maybe there just isn’t enough remaining freight revenue or potential to make it worthwhile for any other operator. ♂ On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 16:18 <pol1@rosenblums.us> wrote: Rail Committee members: At the meeting today , Mr. Torres made clear that maintaining freight service on the Caltrain ROW is a major impediment to cost effective grade separation. The time is long past for Caltrain communities to negotiate with UP to buy out their freight service and discontinue it. Stephen Rosenblum Old Palo Alto -- 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/03c901dcb0e4%240338abf0%2409aa03d0%24%40rosenblums.us This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:John ELMAN To:Council, City Subject:Rent Control & Rent Registry Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:27:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i 1.The department report tells you all the fuss doesn't seem to apply to our city's rental market. 2. The real problems are in the 2 or 3 unit properties where families live and in the single family homes and ADUs That is where you can protect families. 3. I have a 9 unit building and my rents are still lower than pre-covid rents. 4. You limit me to 5% increases but you raise utility costs higher than that. The tenants pay their own gas and electric. The insurance is up 22%. The plumbers are way up -- 10% or more, etc. Please let supply and demand or the marketplace or competition decide what rents should be and treat all landlords the same along with your friends who rent ADUs, etc. Thank you, john elman, 4150 Hubbartt DR. PALO ALTO This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:CaraSilver@proton.me To:Council, City Cc:LF_Act4Democracy; IPA+ Team Subject:Tonight"s Policy and Services Item AA-1 re Baker Tilly and Flock Camera Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:18:56 PM Attachments:March 10 Palo Alto City Council letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and City Council: Please see attached letter regarding this evening's Flock Safety audit. Thank you, Cara Silver Indivisible of Palo Alto Plus, Immigrant Rights Team Sent with Proton Mail secure email. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report March 10, 2026 Re: Policy and Services Item No. AA-1 Dear Mayor and Council: I am writing in connection with Policy and Services Item No.AA-1 relating to the Flock Safety Audit. I am a longtime resident of Palo Alto and a former Palo Alto Senior Assistant City Attorney. I am currently the co-chair of the Immigrant Rights team of Indivisible of Palo Alto Plus and write on their behalf. Baker Tilly Is Conflicted from Auditing Flock Because Flock Is a Client of Baker Tilly First, I encourage the Council not to use Baker Tilly to “audit” the Flock camera usage. Paragraph 21.1 of the Professional Services contract between Baker Tilly and the City entered into on October 1, 2020 expressly provides: “In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.” According to the March 10 Policy and Services Staff Report, Flock is a client of Baker Tilly and Flock performed several security audits for Flock: Baker Tilly identified that Flock Safety became a client of the firm in 2024. Baker Tilly provided Flock Safety with ISO 27001, 27701, 42001, 27017, 27018 Certifications audit services and SOC 2 Type II Examination services in 2025. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is a globally recognized standard that establishes requirements for implementing, maintaining and continually improving an.agency"s.information. security.management.system?.Privacy.and.AI. SOC 2 Type II examinations provide assurance that a company’s system adheres to criteria prescribed by the AICPA related to security?.availability?.processing.integrity?.confidentiality.and.privacy.as. selected.by.the.client.” (Emphasis added.) Interestingly, these audits occurred in 2025 around the time of Flock’s security breaches. (See City’s Flock transparency portal.) In addition, in 2025 Baker Tilly assisted Flock in obtaining a FedRAMP cyber security certification noting: See https://github.com/flocksafety/flock-core-fedramp20x. Given Baker Tilly’s financial contractual interest with Flock, its possession of confidential Flock security information and its reputational interest to uphold its prior audit conclusions regarding Flock, Baker Tilly has an unwaivable conflict under its contract with the City. The Audit Proposed by Baker Tilly Does Not Go Far Enough SB 54, California’s “Sanctuary State” law, prohibits cities from sharing personal information about immigration status with ICE. The proposed audit (presumably scoped by Baker Tilly) fails to get at the meat of the issue: what controls does Flock have in place to ensure that the City’s data will not be shared with ICE and other federal agencies. Flock repeatedly has been in the news regarding serious data breaches consisting of violations of SB 54, hacking and unauthorized use. Cameras have been used by ICE to track down immigrants (https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data- shows/), used to search nationwide for a woman who’d had a self-administered abortion — illegal in the state—and even used to surveil political protesters. See https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup. To ensure the City’s data is not used for ANY improper purpose, any audit should include: • Analysis of unredacted Flock network data; • What contracts does Flock have with immigration agencies; • Where does Flock store the City’s data which it retains as its own IP; how long does it store this data; is it subject to subpoena; has it forwarded it to any federal agencies; • Analysis of physical security of the cameras themselves. Independent security researchers have found, for example, the cameras can act as wifi hotspots, allowing the user to access the device with a common/shared wifi password. They also found that data are retained on the device longer than advertised retention periods, potentially indefinitely; • If someone had control of one camera, is the rest of the system compromised; • When a new configuration or feature is applied, what does Flock do to educate the City of Palo Alto; • How many federal and out of state searches have been conducted; what safeguards are there to prevent side searches; • What is process for approving searches • Does Flock keep copy of data and what can it be used for • Can Flock alter camera settings without telling city; • What steps are taken to screen out images other than license plates Flock Cameras Should Be Turned Off Until the City Has a Better Understanding of How Its Data Is Being Used Given the massive Flock security breaches and Flock’s questionable practices, a growing number of cities have taken action to remove Flock cameras (see recent actions in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, Los Altos Hills, Alameda County.) Most recently, Denver cancelled its Flock contract given Flock’s misrepresentation over its cooperation with Border Patrol: Flock CEO Garrett Langley told 9NEWS in July that the company had no federal contracts, a claim that angered council members after 9NEWS learned through public records requests that Flock had given Border Patrol access to tracking data in Colorado through that previously undisclosed pilot program. Flock later admitted the arrangement existed. See https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/denver-removing-flock-cameras-new- axon-contract/73-640b5af3-7c87-4fea-8aa1-2510ad3257b8. The Anthropic controversy has demonstrated -- on the world stage-- the lack of government regulation in this area, the inability of the federal government to show self-constraint and the potential harm of untested technology. Palo Alto’s low crime rate does not support the risks that use of this unregulated technology carries. Accordingly, we request: 1. We request that the Baker Tilly Flock audit item be placed at the top of the agenda. Several Palo Alto citizens plan to attend and share their views about Flock and the audit with you and your colleagues; and 2. We request that Baker Tilly be disqualified for this audit due to its clear conflict of interest. 3. Until a suitable auditor can be identified, and the City can better understand how its data is being shared and used, the cameras should be turned off. I believe Mountain View took this prudent step as it was analyzing the same issues. Sincerely, Cara Silver Indivisible of Palo Alto Plus, Immigrant Rights Team From:Rhoda Fry To:Council, City Subject:FW: Public Comment March 9, 2026 Item AA1 City Attorney Appointment Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:15:01 PM Dear City Council, This email was intended to be sent to you on Sunday in advance of your Monday meeting. Unfortunately, I had a typo in the email address and it bounced. Please read it when you get a chance. Thanks, Rhoda From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 12:44 PM To: 'city.council@paloalto.gov.' <city.council@paloalto.gov.> Subject: Public Comment March 9, 2026 Item AA1 City Attorney Appointment Dear City Council, Please include the following for public comment for March 9, 2026 Item AA1 City Attorney Appointment. Some of my friends sent me emails pertaining to the attorney appointment and I’ve glued them together below – they were afraid to comment (perhaps I should be too). I would like to add that I was alarmed by the press release https://www.paloalto.gov/News-Articles/City-Manager/News-Release-City-Council-to- Appoint-Chris-Jensen-as-City-Attorney and would like to share with you some additional information. While the press release claims $40M in savings from developer claims, the news stated that Cupertino waived $77M in developer fees. When the Vallco project is built, I have no idea as to how we will be able to afford public safety. Here is an article: https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-waives-millions-of-fees-for-vallco-development/ While the press release states that Jensen settled for the CDTFA, it was an outside attorney that did the work. And, given the contract that Apple had with Cupertino, it was Apple who would have funded that outside attorney. Furthermore, knowing that the City stood to loose income moving forward, Jensen did nothing to suggest austerity measures. We are now facing a new problem in Cupertino that is likely connected to his having waived our rights to an EIR for our housing element to settle the YIMBY lawsuit (I believe that Palo Alto had a similar one). There is a large development planned in a very high fire zone with impacted egress. If we had that EIR, perhaps the outcome could have been different. I am worried about the public safety of my fellow citizens. The rest speak for themselves. Contrary to the press release, he had major lapses in governance and ethics, the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, land use and environmental law, public contracting, litigation and risk management, utilities and infrastructure, and labor and employment issues. Rhoda Fry (recipient Cupertino Public Safety Award) From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 3:09 PM To: 'City.Council@PaloAlto.gov' <City.Council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: MORE: Concerns regarding the appointment of Chris Jensen for City Attorney 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:Craig Taylor To:Council, City Subject:Flock License Plate Readers Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 2:26:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Having recently experienced a burglary in our garage (our house has an alarm system and while there was evidence of looking in they did not ) I support maintaining the license plate readers. I now receive notices of thefts and assaults within a mile of our house and am amazed at the number. Plate readers have been shown to assist police in apprehending thieves and recovering stolen vehicles. Perhaps even more beneficial is that the knowledge that the city has plate readers as part of a crime reduction program has likely discouraged some crimes in the same way as burglar alarms and locks. Removing them would be like inviting criminals. Craig Taylor 1415 Hamilton Avenue This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:mcwood196@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Uber Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:32:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Members of the Council-Elimination of this ride service must be the easiest issue that has confronted you. The service costs twice that of which is available on the open market and serves an almost non-existent constituency. We have some 30 BMR or AHU apartments designed to help poorer members of our community. Maybe two of them don’t have a car or cars. Those two members are in their late 80s. If you insist on keeping this program going, then at least consider using existing public companies and offer some sort of coupon for those who are truly in need. I suspect that the total program costs will drop by 90%. Marcus Wood Colorado Ave. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Chris Schremp To:Bulatao, Eric Cc:cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr; Council, City; Robert Marinaro; adobeinfo@gmail.com Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:25:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric and City Council Members - following up, a few items - and please as I ask these questions, I am sympathetic to the plight of those living in the OSVs - but as someone who pays more than $50k per year in taxes AND as someone who bought and invested in a home in Palo Alto, I demand that you take more direct and decisive action NOW. Please stop debating and act. 1. I would like an answer to my prior question: What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? 2. It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Why is that. What can we learn/adopt from other neighborhoods and apply in our own? 3. I watched the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting - https://www.youtube.com/live/wLg5yZTr6vg - and was appalled by the level of inaction, the seeming dismissal of residents concerns and complaints - and specifically dismayed by the comment "keep sending your emails, we read them." We don't want you to read them - we want you to ACT on them. Please follow up with specific answers to my questions and ultimately the requests of the tax paying residents who have had enough of this. Stop saying it's a difficult problem and stop saying it takes time - NO it does not. And you had to know going into running for City Council that you would been asked to solve difficult and complex issues - so please do it. Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 (cell) 3721 Ortega Court Adobe Meadows On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: 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. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 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. Becautious of 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 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:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team Subject:RSVP by Friday, March 27: Tall Tree 2026 Award Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:09:16 AM Hello Council Members, This year’s Tall Tree Awards will take place on April 16, 2026 at the Oshman Family JCC. Please let me know by Friday, March 27 if you are interested in attending this year’s event and we will reserve your spot at the City table. After that date, any remaining tickets will be offered to ELT. Thank you, Joanna From: Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 4:27 PM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Tall Tree 2026 Award Winners Announced! - Register Today Celebrate With Us! 2026 Tall Tree Awards Awards Recognizing our city’s outstanding businesses and individuals Thursday, April 16, 2026 5:30 – 8:00 pm Oshman Family JCC 3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto Purchase Tickets >> 2026 Winners OUTSTANDING CITIZEN VOLUNTEER Sigrid Pinsky OUTSTANDING NONPROFIT Gamble Garden OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONAL Lee Pfab OUTSTANDING BUSINESS Terún and iTalico Read more about the winners featured in this Palo Alto Online article >> Sponsorship Opportunities Contact: Charlie@paloaltochamber.com Purchase Tickets >> Past Tall Tree Award Winners > This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:March 16 Item #13 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units and No More Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 9:18:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members: You are no doubt becoming well-versed in the Palo Alto Commons proposal before you. I won’t add in the paragraphs of documentation for your review as the PTC and invested residents have dedicated hours of research to this topic. I urge you to let democracy work. We have clear majority direction from PTC only to approve the 7 internal units and deny the 11 units overlooking the homes of our neighbors on Maclane. To do so would be in violation of a host of existing laws and agreements and exacerbate parking headaches and safety problems already in play with existing units. Certainly the public, as evidenced by intense engagement, agree with PTC. The tactic of “asking for the moon” is an advantageous starting point in any negotiation. In this case, the business owners have “asked for the moon.” To be sure, we are willing to give them a slice! By adding only the 7 internal units, the business owners can still achieve their goals of expanding their services, adding more $17,000/head units to make more money. The Maclane neighbors can continue to live in their homes without 11 new off-code units overlooking their yards in violation of an agreement the owners entered into years ago. I believe there was some talk of granting the applicant 11 units in toto as a “compromise.” Adding 7 new units is already a compromise, so let’s not get drawn in by false equivalences. Thank you for denying the applicant the moon and offering them a good deal instead. By sticking to our laws and code, you maintain a healthy and robust democratic process in Palo Alto. Writing as a concerned resident and a Ventura neighbor, Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Flock Audit Not Worthwhile (Policy & Services Committee Item AA1) Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 7:37:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Policy and Services Committee Members: Thank you for considering an audit of the Flock Safety service. The proposed audit will unfortunately not address key security concerns, including: 1.. Flock Safety having failed to report that it was allowing federal access despite claiming earlier that it wasn’t, as reported by NPR at https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1- 5612825/flock-contracts-canceled-immigration-survillance-concerns. The audit proposes no study of the truthfulness of past and present representations by Flock Safety itself. 2.. Local law enforcement running Flock searches for Federal agencies under false pretenses, again as reported by NPR. The proposed audit does not address this and is far too limited in scope and investigative authority to uncover such practices.. 3.. Potential Federal use of Flock data under a gag order that would block knowledge of this. Please recall the Bush Administration used a gag order in 2005 to block library employees from publicly acknowledging that they had been compelled to divulge private data to the government. The proposed audit will not reveal if Flock Safety is currently under such a gag order or will be in the future. Some items in the audit also seem irrelevant. For example, the source code review to determine if the “vendor scans source code updates prior to release to identify potential security flaws” isn’t useful, as most security flaws in source code and computer systems cannot be uncovered by such scans. No reasonable security expert would ever rely on scans to guarantee that software is secure. The audit process says it will identify “key stakeholders” and the staff report identifies the stakeholders as “the Palo Alto Police Department and City Manager’s Office as well as This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report representatives from Flock Safety.” It sounds as if the City does not consider individuals whose lives and well-being could be threatened by Flock Safety’s release of data as key stakeholders, when in fact they should be at the very top of the list. At a minimum, local immigration lawyers representing that community should be considered as key stakeholders as well as organizations that protect civil liberties. Then, there’s the extraordinary conflict of interest in having our audit conducted by the very same company that Flock Safety uses. While the staff report notes that different Baker Tilly employees would be involved, standard audit practice is to use completely independent firms. Note too that Baker Tilly was itself fined $500,000 for failures in its audit procedures just last year, per https://pcaobus.org/news-events/news-releases/news-release- detail/imposing-a--500-000-fine--pcaob-sanctions-baker-tilly-us--llp-for-quality-control- violations. In short, it seems pointless to spend $30,000 on an audit that fails to address vital issues using a conflicted firm known for inadequate audit procedures, especially given our very tight city budget. Rather, staff and the Council should look at why many others have already cancelled their contracts with Flock Safety, including just locally Mountain View, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara County. You might also consider the potential civil liability to Palo Alto if it continues to use Flock Safety despite all the public disclosures of the many security problems Please recommend not proceeding with the audit and instead that the City terminate Flock Safety and look for a good alternative. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky From:nick grabon To:Council, City Subject:Support for new housing near Geng Rd Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 11:30:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am writing in support of new housing near Geng Rd. Housing prices are the dominant source of hardship for people in CA and Palo Alto. Additionally they influence the cost of labor which then makes everything more expensive. Everyone in the community then benefits when housing prices go down. Nick This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Kat Snyder To:Council, City Subject:PSC: Item AA1 on Flock Cameras Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 8:15:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Policy and Services Committee, Thank you for choosing an outside group to audit Flock. This is long overdue. I’ve stated multiple times from the beginning that we should not have a contract with Flock because any positives do not outweigh the civil liberty concerns, so I won’t focus my comments on that today. Instead, I would like to ask the folks with law backgrounds to evaluate how well our Surveillance and Privacy Protections Ordinance is working, and whether we need to change any of our policies or the wording of the ordinance itself to properly enforce it. First off, I see in section 2.30.670 of the municipal code “Oversight following Council approval” that “the city shall produce and make available to the public an annual surveillance report.” I’ve looked through the records and I can only see one informational report from the City Manager’s Office that covered both the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years, but none since then. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it looks like we are not in compliance with a part of our own municipal code which, given the current political climate, ought to be more of a priority. My question about the audit - is this meant to replace this annual surveillance report? What mechanism prompted this audit, and what mechanism prompts our promised annual surveillance report? Another relevant section, 2.30.630 “Council approval required for contracts, agreements, grant applications and donations involving surveillance technology” says “The council shall approve each of the following: […] (c) Use of Council-approved surveillance technology for a purpose, in a manner, or in a location outside the scope of prior Council approval.” Clearly, Flock sharing our data with outside agencies would fall under section C and need to be something that Council approves first. But the problem is, how would Council know about these non-approved uses in the first place? I think there are two problems that led us here. (1) The guardrails were insufficient from the beginning. Palo Alto’s sensitive data has always been stored by Flock in the cloud instead of on premises in the city, and thus could never have been guaranteed to be under our control. (2) without proper audits, we are blind to the kind of out-of-bounds activities that vendors might participate in. The Palo Alto police audits aren’t in public view and they may even be doing them wrong - in fact, the Mountain View police only realized that they were conducting their audits wrong a few months ago when responding to a PRA request. It turns out they were only focusing on their own officers’ search history, which did not show whether anyone else had access. It’s frustrating to see local and national news coverage of Flock abuses unfold overtime without having insight into Palo Alto specifically. I can only conclude that Flock *must* be out of compliance with our city’s surveillance use policy, and that they *must* have put Palo Alto out of compliance with state rule SB 34 on authorized and unauthorized sharing of ALPR data. It makes no sense that we would be the only city on the peninsula that Flock played fair with. I look forward to hearing more about this audit proposal Tuesday night and hope that many of my concerns are addressed then. Thank you all for your hard work. Take care, ~Kat Snyder Palo Alto Resident From:John Melnychuk To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Rail crossings in Palo Alto, possible closure of Churchill Ave crossing, Quiet Zones, Grade Separation options Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 4:32:35 PM Attachments:26_0304 FINAL CPUC CalTrain Palo Alto Quiet Zone Support Letter.pdf 26_0304 FINAL FAR CalTrain Palo Alto Quiet Zone Support Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear Chairman Burt and Councilmembers Lauing and Lythcott-Haims, Palo Alto should move quickly to implement Quiet Zones as the next practical step to improve rail safety. Quiet Zones require additional protections such as quad gates and enhanced crossing barriers that prevent drivers from going around lowered gates. According to the City’s consultants at Kimley-Horn, these improvements not only enable Quiet Zones but also improve safety at our most dangerous crossings. These upgrades are relatively low cost, achievable in the near term, and provide immediate safety benefits. As a neighbor living directly across the street from the rail corridor, I appreciate the years of effort by residents, XCAP volunteers, and Rail Committee members. However, the corridor involves multiple agencies and infrastructure decisions that could exceed $1 billion, requiring regional coordination and specialized engineering. Large projects carry substantial execution risk: the Mitchell Park Library opened roughly 2½ years late at nearly double its budget, and the Public Safety Building faces a $20 million legal dispute over change orders on a $120 million project. Grade separation would be far more complex than either. A city-wide viaduct would permanently reshape neighborhoods, creating long-term noise, privacy, and visual impacts. Committing to such an expensive, irreversible structure now could generate significant public opposition and political risk, even before engineering or funding challenges are fully understood. While long-term options are studied, Palo Alto should move forward with near-term safety improvements achievable today—starting with Quiet Zones and the quad-gate protections recommended by Kimley-Horn. Respectfully, Powered by Mimecast John Melnychuk Fairmeadow, Palo Alto 94306 P.S.: Please find attached letters supporting speedy creation of Quiet Zones by our State Assemblymember Berman. March 3, 2026 California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: Support for the City of Palo Alto’s Railroad Quiet Zone Application Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing in support of the City of Palo Alto’s Railroad Quiet Zones application due to its ability to offer improved public well-being and increased safety benefits for the community. Studies suggest that the proposed quad-gate installation, pavement markings and new signage that is required for Quiet Zones will improve the safety of the multiple rail crossings for all users. Quiet Zones are a federally authorized, safety-compliant solution to various recognized issues in the area such as stress and sleep disruption. The City of Palo Alto has demonstrated readiness and strong community support to implement the required safety measures. As a City priority, the City Council has approved the $4 million to see this project to completion. I respectfully request that the California Public Utilities Commission approve the requested Quiet Zones in Palo Alto. Prompt action will help with the public’s well-being while improving automotive rail crossings with upgraded safety. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact my staff member Helen Wolter at helen.wolter@asm.ca.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marc Berman Assemblymember, 23rd District STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0023 (916) 319-2023 FAX (916) 319-2124 DISTRICT OFFICE 721 COLORADO AVE, SUITE 101 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 FAX (650) 324-7932 WEBSITE www.assembly.ca.gov/berman MARC BERMAN ASSEMBLYMEMBER, TWENTY-THIRD DISTRICT March 4, 2026 Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Karl Alexy Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C., 20590 RE: Support for the City of Palo Alto’s Railroad Quiet Zone Application Dear Mr. Alexy: I am writing in support of the City of Palo Alto’s Railroad Quiet Zones application due to its ability to offer improved public well-being and increased safety benefits for the community. Studies suggest that the proposed quad-gate installation, pavement markings and new signage that is required for Quiet Zones will improve the safety of the multiple rail crossings for all users. Quiet Zones are a federally authorized, safety-compliant solution to various recognized issues in the area such as stress and sleep disruption. The City of Palo Alto has demonstrated readiness and strong community support to implement the required safety measures. As a City priority, the City Council has approved the $4 million to see this project to completion. I respectfully request that the California Public Utilities Commission approve the requested Quiet Zones in Palo Alto. Prompt action will help with the public’s well-being while improving automotive rail crossings with upgraded safety. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact my staff member Helen Wolter at helen.wolter@asm.ca.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marc Berman Assemblymember, 23rd District STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0023 (916) 319-2023 FAX (916) 319-2124 DISTRICT OFFICE 721 COLORADO AVE, SUITE 101 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 FAX (650) 324-7932 WEBSITE www.assembly.ca.gov/berman MARC BERMAN ASSEMBLYMEMBER, TWENTY-THIRD DISTRICT From:Carrie Levin To:Council, City; Council, City Subject:Resending -Policy and Services Committee Re: Get FLOCK out of Palo Alto Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 4:14:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Councilmembers of Palo Alto- Resending RE: Agenda Item AA1 Flock Cameras To the Policy and Services Committee- There is nothing safe or inclusive using Flock Cameras, a company known to access data without authorization. Under public pressure, places like Los Altos, Santa Clara County, Mountain View and a handful of cities around the country are canceling Flock contracts. Sensitive data being handed over to ICE for mass surveillance of immigrants and women seeking abortions add more unnecessary fear to these vulnerable groups. Both the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation advise against working with Flock. For these reasons, I strongly urge the City of Palo Alto to cancel the contract with Flock Safety to protect our community members. Thanks, Carrie Levin Sunnyvale resident On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:06 AM Carrie Levin <carriejlevin@gmail.com> wrote: 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 From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Bhatia, Ripon; Transportation; HutabaratLo@paloalto.gov Subject:Re Churchill Closing and Quiet Zones Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 3:15:54 PM Attachments:Churchill Closing and Quiet Zones ltr Mar 9 2026.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Monday, March 9, 2026 Dear Rail Committee and City Council, As we are now discussing the “temporary” closing of the Churchill crossing, I suggest that we “temporarily” close Churchill and IMMEDIATELY install quad gates and other necessary safety measures to stop the train horn blowing at that crossing. I have pointed out at several Rail and Council meetings that the near constant blowing of the horns at the level crossings is detrimental to Paly students’ education. It is a disruptive and constant reminder of the trains passing. I will quote from today’s Daily Post article about Churchill [Mon, Mar 9, pages 1 & 19]: ““Every time the train went by — the deafening sound and the fast speed — a little more of my heart died,” Lucas said.” “Student Ann Nguyen said she hears the train almost constantly — in class, on her short walk to school and while lying in bed trying to sleep.” As you know Palo Altans have been advocating to stop the horn blowing for decades. I have pointed out that the train horns can be a siren song to troubled teens. They are not a protective measure that some have claimed them to be. Atherton has had a Quiet Zone level crossing since 2016 and another one added last year. Finally, PA City Council approved moving forward with Quiet Zones in November 2025, after years of delay for a project that can take up to five years. What action has been taken since November to move the Quiet Zones project forward? For how long will we have to endure the 832 horn blasts a day for those of us in Fairmeadow and in the Park Blvd neighborhoods living between the two level crossings at Meadow and Churchill? Enough is enough. This is a health issue that destroys our ability to have a decent night’s sleep. This is particularly critical for developing teen brains. Take action now to stop the train horn blowing. Please install the Quad Gates and other safety measures at all three level crossings NOW. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Melinda McGee melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com 650-704-6236 quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com Monday, March 9, 2026 Dear Rail Committee and City Council, As we are now discussing the “temporary” closing of the Churchill crossing, I suggest that we “temporarily” close Churchill and IMMEDIATELY install quad gates and other necessary safety measures to stop the train horn blowing at that crossing. I have pointed out at several Rail and Council meetings that the near constant blowing of the horns at the level crossings is detrimental to Paly students’ education. It is a disruptive and constant reminder of the trains passing. I will quote from today’s Daily Post article about Churchill [Mon, Mar 9, pages 1 & 19]: ““Every time the train went by — the deafening sound and the fast speed — a little more of my heart died,” Lucas said.” “Student Ann Nguyen said she hears the train almost constantly — in class, on her short walk to school and while lying in bed trying to sleep.” As you know Palo Altans have been advocating to stop the horn blowing for decades. I have pointed out that the train horns can be a siren song to troubled teens. They are not a protective measure that some have claimed them to be. Atherton has had a Quiet Zone level crossing since 2016 and another one added last year. Finally, PA City Council approved moving forward with Quiet Zones in November 2025, after years of delay for a project that can take up to five years. What action has been taken since November to move the Quiet Zones project forward? For how long will we have to endure the 832 horn blasts a day for those of us in Fairmeadow and in the Park Blvd neighborhoods living between the two level crossings at Meadow and Churchill? Enough is enough. This is a health issue that destroys our ability to have a decent night’s sleep. This is particularly critical for developing teen brains. Take action now to stop the train horn blowing. Please install the Quad Gates and other safety measures at all three level crossings NOW. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. Melinda McGee 650-704-6236 quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com From:Molina, Priscilla To:Council, City Subject:Santa Clara Valley Water District - Annual Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies (Feb. 2026) Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 2:32:12 PM Attachments:Santa Clara Valley Water District Annual Report 2026.pdf image001.png Hi City Council, For your awareness, please see the attached letter received in the mail today (3/9/26). Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Priscilla Molina Administrative Associate III Office of the City Clerk (650) 838-2274 (650) 329-2571 (Office) Priscilla.Molina@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From:Chris Schremp To:Bulatao, Eric Cc:cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr; Council, City; Robert Marinaro Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 12:13:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: 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. 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. Becautious of 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 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 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)