HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-06 City Council EmailsDOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 4/6/2026
Document dates: 3/30/2026 - 4/6/2026
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Cynthia Fan
To:Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Subject:4/6/26 agenda item 5: Develop policies for preventing & responding to heat illness.
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 12:01:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
Since you’ve decided on another round of artificial turf for El Camino Park, I urge you
to direct staff to develop policies for preventing and responding to heat illness. We all
know the old artificial turf can get dangerously hot. What may surprise you is that data
from the City’s new artificial turf shows it is not any cooler than the City’s old artificial
turf.
During the January council meeting, Councilmember Pat Burt emphasized at timestamp
3:16:29, as part of reporting back about what he learned as a member of the turf Ad Hoc
Committee, that the older artificial turf systems have a “VERY significant heat differential”
compared to natural turf. He described the modern artificial turf system the City is proposing
for El Camino Park as “a FAR better product,” in part because its temperatures are “MUCH
closer to natural turf”. The modern turf system he’s referring to is FieldTurf with cork infill,
the same system installed at the Mayfield Complex a few months ago.
Where did the City get the idea the new artificial turf would be cooler than the old artificial
turf or anywhere close to the temps of natural turf? Let’s start making decisions based on real
data, not based on claims from manufacturers.
Here’s some real data…
Yesterday (4/5/26), I went over to El Camino Park to see how hot the City’s old artificial turf
was.
It was an 80F afternoon with a slight breeze: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a0Z-
aJPeI6pqYK5RgVf7xU7ve_-yQzgs/view?usp=drivesdk
The artificial turf was in the 130’s: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lXeU-
W61oPhuLZvp52gY8znF8VD3UDAi/view?usp=drivesdk
The natural turf adjacent to the field was in the
80’s: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZCRreHzxgHnGTcN6jZBDlpjsOw1ELMsH/view?
usp=drivesdk
I also went to the Mayfield Complex to see for myself just how much cooler the new artificial
turf systems really are. It turned out that the artificial turf there was also in the 130’s!
: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eW6R1wv33dCaMmNmzn6YpH6AZITWmf0d/view?
usp=drivesdk
In other words, the City’s new artificial turf system at Mayfield Complex was not any
cooler than the City’s old artificial turf system at El Camino Park!
I’m not sharing this heat information to change your mind about getting another round of
artificial turf at El Camino Park. I’m not recommending another manufacturer because I
suspect their products are also dramatically hotter than real grass; The mass of plastic carpet
fibers remain and they make the surface hot. Attempting mitigation by swapping infill seems
likely to offer a marginal improvement at best. My motive for sharing this heat data is simply
to underscore that modern artificial turf doesn’t obviate the need for the City to develop
policies for preventing & responding to heat illness.
I researched and recommended policy and procedure components on pages 11 and 12 of the
feedback I submitted to the city back in September :
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wovnu7vznaqzmcwvlq9i6/2025-09-03-feedback-on-palo-
alto-turf-study-draft-report.pdf?rlkey=0xwcwxro8y9emcaw5h52s97tk&st=rk9rkdp7&raw=1
By implementing these policies and procedures, the City can help protect the health and safety
of all Palo Alto’s kids, kids traveling to Palo Alto for tournaments, adult volunteers like
“Uncle Mitch,” and other community members using artificial turf
Thanks,
Cynthia Fan
From:Leanne McAuliffe
To:Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; keith.reckdahl@paloalto.org; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City;
julie.lythcott-haims@paloalto.org
Subject:Agenda Item 5, Council Meeting April 6 - Incorporate Heat Protocols
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 12:01:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As you approve the contract to renew the El Camino field with artificial turf, please do not
overlook the heat issues with this product. In January it was stated by a Council Member that
the proposed replacement field with cork infill will be close to natural grass temperatures.
This is not true. It might be 20 degrees or so less than tire crumb infilled fields but it is still
around 60 degrees hotter than natural grass. As such, I implore you to incorporate some kind
of protocol for heat when these fields are in use. These protocols should require
acknowledgement by users when they book the fields AND they should also be clearly
displayed at all entry points of the fields.
Attached are 4 slides.
1 - Heat from artificial fields
2 - Heat injuries
3 - High temperatures of artificial turf fields compared to natural grass. The other
demonstrates
4 - What heat protocols should look like.
Kind regards,
Leanne McAuliffe
From:Cynthia Fan
To:Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Subject:4/6/26 agenda item 5: Contract needs amendments regarding turf removal
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 9:25:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
The El Camino Park artificial turf renovation contract needs additions, corrections, and clarity
regarding turf removal. Please direct staff to make the following amendments to the Turf
Removal section of the contract (section 3.04C.1 on pages 171-172 of the pdf).
Require that turf and infill be covered when it’s hauled off. This is important for
reducing dispersal of loose microplastics during transport along the route to the waste’s
next destination.
Section 3.04C.1.b. needs to specify the proper infill. It specifies rubber infill, but the
system doesn’t have rubber infill.
Section 3.04C.1.b. says 90% of the infill must be reused. Is 90% reasonable? How can it
be reused since so much of it was melted/gummy?
Section 3.04C.1.i. says the Chain of Custody Forms “are provided after this
specification section,” but I don’t see them. If they are missing from the contract, they
need to be added.
Section 3.04C.1.c. requires a “chain of custody for the material from the site to the end user.”
To eliminate ambiguity and ensure accountability, the contract should explicitly define “end
user” as the final recipient that takes ownership of and uses the material in its ultimate
form. The term “end user” shall exclude any intermediary, including but not limited to
resellers, brokers, storage facilities, recycling facilities, or manufacturing facilities.
The Contractor shall maintain and provide a complete, unbroken chain of custody
documenting all transfers of the material from removal at the site through final delivery to the
end user. At a minimum, this documentation shall include:
The identity, location, and contact information of each entity that takes possession of the
material
Dates of transfer and quantities transferred at each step
A description of the material at each stage (e.g., raw turf, processed material, finished
product)
The identity and location of the final end user
A description of the ultimate use of the material by the end user
The Contractor shall also provide written certification from the end user confirming receipt,
intended use, and acknowledgment of the material’s origin and potential environmental
For clarity:
If the material is transferred to a reseller or temporarily stored pending sale, the “end
user” is the entity that ultimately purchases and takes possession of the material from
that reseller.
If the material is recycled or incorporated into a new product, the “end user” is the entity
that ultimately purchases and uses the finished product—not the recycler or
manufacturer.
The Contractor’s chain-of-custody obligation shall not be deemed complete until the material
has reached the defined end user and all required documentation and certifications have been
provided to and accepted by the City.
This clarification is necessary to prevent the Contractor from transferring the material to a
third-party intermediary and asserting that such intermediary constitutes the “end user,”
thereby prematurely terminating its chain-of-custody obligations.
Thanks,
Cynthia Fan
From:Cynthia Fan
To:Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Subject:4/6/26 agenda item 5: Ethical handling of El Camino’s turf waste
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 9:17:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
Please pull Item 5 from the consent agenda and discuss how El Camino Park’s artificial turf
waste will be handled.
The proposed contract (p. 104 of
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/community-services/staff-report-
contracts/open-space-parks-and-golf/field-turf-usa/c26196846-fieldturf-usa-el-camino-park-
turf-replacement-final.pdf)
states that the removed turf and infill will be “repurposed” by FieldTurf. There’s a ~$250,000
line item for a scope of work that includes, among other things, hauling away and repurposing
this material.
Because this turf was manufactured before industry claims of reduced PFAS content, it is
reasonable to assume it contains PFAS. This raises important ethical and policy questions:
1. Is repurposing PFAS-containing waste the most responsible course of action?
2. Will any recipient be fully informed of potential PFAS content and associated risks?
3. Will the City ensure that this material is not transferred to an environmental justice or
disadvantaged community?
From an ethical standpoint, the City should consider whether disposing of this material in a
permitted landfill is more appropriate than transferring potential environmental and public
health risks to another community, particularly one that may have fewer resources or less
access to information.
If Palo Alto is seeking to procure turf that avoids PFAS exposure for
its own residents and watershed, it seems inconsistent to treat PFAS-
containing turf as suitable for transfer to others without full disclosure
and informed consent.
This concern is not hypothetical. The Mayfield Complex turf renovation was completed last
year. According to the June 9, 2025 staff report (Item 9), staff “identified a feasible option
to repurpose” the removed turf and planned to establish a chain of custody.
Where did that material ultimately go?
1. Was the recipient informed that it may contain PFAS?
2. Were potential health and environmental risks disclosed?
3. Was the receiving site located in an environmental justice or disadvantaged community?
If repurposing PFAS-containing turf is not the most responsible option, please direct staff to
revise the contract accordingly, including disposal costs. If repurposing is pursued, the
contract should, at minimum, require documented proof that:
the recipient received full disclosure of potential PFAS content and risks, and
the receiving site is not located in an environmental justice or disadvantaged
community.
Thank you,
Cynthia Fan
From:Ellen Shay
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to pull Item #13 from the Consent Calendar for City Council meeting on April 6th, 2026 meeting
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 9:16:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am asking the City Council to pull item 13 from the Consent Calendar before voting on it, so
that the public can hear a full discussion of the justifications for the disparate treatment of the
Esther Clark neighborhood, which is bounded on one side of Foothill Expressway, and the
Greater Miranda neighborhood, which is bounded on the other side of Foothill Expressway.
The public deserves to understand what distinguishes these two adjacent neighborhoods by
reference to the building design objective of minimizing hazards for birds and reducing the
potential for collisions.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?
webmap=48437176c9824e8ab11c193c791c057a
This URL shows the Global (red) and California (green) IBAs (Important Bird
Areas), updated August 4, 2025. I found this on a map of IBAs with a focus on
California. "The IBA data is from the Authoritative ArcGIS web service maintained by
the National Audubon Society and its Enterprise Team." Notice that the Palo Alto area
is not on this map. "This is a map of IBAs with a focus on California. The IBA data is
from the Authoritative ArcGIS web service maintained by the National Audubon
Society and its Enterprise Team. The California Protected Areas Database (CPAD)
layer is from CPAD and the Green Info Network".
Notice that Palo Alto is not on this map.
The phrase "east of 101 and west of Foothill" has been carried from document to
document without being examined and justified.
Ellen Shay
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Grace Pariante
To:Council, City
Cc:Ellson, Penny
Subject:Re: Item 3 on the April 6 Agenda - San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 7:22:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello again Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
Here is what I found while unsuccessfully trying to find traffic data on San Antonio
Road:
The most recent (2016) traffic data report does NOT include data on San Antonio
Road. Why?
From Palo Alto Online, "According to a new report from consultants who are leading
the city’s effort to create a new vision for this area, the commercial corridor between
Alma Street and the U.S. Highway 101 currently contains about 2.7% of Palo Alto’s
housing stock but is responsible for about 5% of traffic collisions that involve
fatalities or serious injuries. Over the past decade, there were 143 collisions
reported in this area, according to a survey by Raimi + Associates, which includes two
fatal crashes and three that involved severe injuries."
I could not find the Rami + Associates survey. Has it been made public? Do you know
how I might access it?
According to the state freeway agreement document, San Antonio between 101 and
Alma is classified as an "arterial" while Oregon is classified as an "expressway".
Perhaps if it were reclassified as an expressway, it could safely manage the
additional traffic. "The word “expressway” as used in this manual has the same
definition as “controlled access highway.” I think that means removing direct access
from homes and businesses on that street. IMHO this would be the minimum
necessary to improve the current traffic dangers and perhaps allow additional cars
and truck to safely travel along this route.
Over the past few months, on 3 different occasions, I found myself traveling north on
101, exiting on Middlefield Road, and unable to turn left on San Antonio Road. I
waited about 20 minutes through many signal turns, moving up 3 cars. I had to
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
abandon that route to Greenmeadow and continue straight to Charleston to turn left. I
then entered Greenmeadow from the far side. How many people will be cutting
through our neighborhood to backtrack to San Antonio? Our neighborhood, with our
small children, a swimming pool, soccer fields, pre-school, and community center!
This is a dangerous situation already, without the addition of more homes.
We need to fix the traffic problem before allowing any new residential zoning. I
am not opposed to the construction of tall buildings along the 101 freeway to address
housing inadequacies. In fact, I am in favor of it especially if they were 100% below
market rate, but not before the infrastructure is there to support it, especially
infrastructure that supports that involves the safety of our community.
You say 100% below market rate is impossible, but Santa Cruz did it
- https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/03/279-below-market-rate-apartments-on-tap-in-
santa-cruz/. Food for thought.
Respectfully,
Grace Pariante
PS Unfortunately, I cannot attend tonight's meeting. I will try to zoom in towards the
end, but you will likely be on a different topic :-(
On Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 11:38:12 AM PDT, Grace Pariante <grace_pariante@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am writing
to express my opposition to rezoning both North Fabian and CTI areas to residential
before addressing the current traffic along the San Antonio Road corridor, especially
at the intersections of Middlefield, Charleston, and Highway 101.
I have attended workshops, filled in surveys, and read documents about the San
Antonio Road Area Plan. At the meetings, many attendees have tried to raise the
issue of traffic. The organizers, on two different occasions, have asked people to
stop, explaining it would be addressed at the end of the meeting. In both cases, after
everyone's energy has dissipated and 25% of the people have gone home, they
present a plan for pedestrians and bike lanes and are asked for opinions on 3 or 4
plans. It shifts the conversation away from cars, trucks, traffic. Intersections are not
discussed at all, even for bikes and pedestrians!
Bike lanes and pedestrian walkways DO NOT nearly adequately address the VERY
BAD traffic that already exists along this corridor. I believe deferring the issue over
and again degrades the trust in the workshop organizers and my city officials.
I challenge you to travel along 101 north at 5:00 PM, exit on Middlefield, and try to
turn left on San Antonio Road. You cannot. It doesn't matter how many lights you
wait. The only option is to continue straight along Middlefield, turn left on Charleston,
and then backtrack. On any weekday, the road and intersections are a mess. The
best bike lanes in the world could not rectify this situation. Now add 3900 to 7000
homes.
To add even half the number of housing units that is being proposed, the 101 and
San Antonio Road intersection needs a cloverleaf that addresses traffic coming from
and going to 101 in north and south directions. Minimally another lane needs to be
added to San Antonio Road, and a parking lot added to the train station. If you do not,
you will destroy my neighborhood, that will take the brunt of the cut through traffic.
How would you feel if you lived here? We have small children, a swimming pool,
soccer fields, a pre-school, and a community center. So many children who could be
struck by a frustrated commuter.
Prove me wrong. Show me the traffic studies that have been completed that show
how traffic will be improved by adding thousands more housing units and a bike lane.
Housing is important, but all in one place without first solving the traffic problem will
be disastrous.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Grace Pariante
4013 Ben Lomond Drive
From:Cynthia Fan
To:Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject:4/6/26 agenda item 5: Unambiguously define PFAS expectations in turf contract
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 4:23:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
I’m writing to flag what appears to be a serious oversight. I can find no mention of PFAS in the El Camino Park
turf replacement contract included under Item 5 of the 4/6/26 consent agenda.
Please pull this item from consent for discussion.
To protect the City’s interests and ensure enforceability, staff should be directed to amend the contract to
unambiguously define:
(a) the City’s PFAS requirements for the full turf system, and
(b) the consequences if those requirements are not met.
At minimum, please clarify the following with staff:
1. PFAS standards must be clearly defined and expert-informed
PFAS requirements should be developed with input from environmental and water quality experts.
2. “No intentionally added PFAS” is not sufficient
This phrase is increasingly used but is not protective. PFAS contamination—intentional or not—poses
the same risk to our watershed. If tests of a quarantined sample of the product from the manufacturer
demonstrate it can shed PFAS, the cause is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the cause is supply chain
contamination, processing agents, or some other source the manufacturer has failed to address. The
manufacturer’s intent doesn’t matter. What matters is whether PFAS can shed from the product.
3. The entire turf system must be covered
Testing and compliance must apply to all components, including carpet fibers, carpet backing,
shockpads (new and reused), infill, adhesives used in system construction, nailer boards (new and
reused), and geotextiles. Other agencies have found PFAS in multiple components.
Examples:
Carpet fibers: The El Camino Park contract proposes Fieldturf’s Vertex product. This product has been
shown to shed detectable levels of PFAS. Independent, unpaid, expert testimony has been provided
regarding testing results and can be accessed via the citations on page 3 of this letter from the nonprofit
Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cm52dn1g9ssgi7b9f10qc/2026-03-
11-SHPFI-to-Carlsbad-BOE.pdf?rlkey=hlpatoxc3bzrado0dco1czjb3&st=uh99evhn&raw=1
Nailer boards: FieldTurf advertises that it recycles used synthetic turf carpets into new nailer boards.
However, because PFAS are persistent, that means that if used carpets had PFAS in them, PFAS could
also be present in the new nailer boards.
Shockpad: Test results show the Portsmouth, NH shockpad had 61 ppm:
https://nontoxicdovernh.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/tests-detect-dangerous-pfas-chemicals-in-
portsmouths-new-synthetic-turf-field/ El Camino Park’s proposed system will retain the existing
Brock shockpad. Brock says their products don’t contain PFAS :
https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/PFAS%2520Letter%2520Brock%2520USA.pdf
However, independent testing found 26 ppm in Brock’s shockpad, as reported on page 5 of this 2024
document published by University of Massachusetts:
https://www.uml.edu/docs/PFAS%20in%20Artificial%20Turf%20-
%20Academic%20Municipal%20%26%20Other%20Tests%20Aug%202024_tcm18-386957.pdf
Adhesives: That U. Mass document also states that PFAS were found in the adhesives used to construct
the turf system.
At Council’s 1/12/26 meeting, the turf Ad Hoc committee members reassured the public that the artificial turf the
city would be procuring for El Camino Park would be PFAS-free:
Mayor Veenker said (at timestamp 3:09:06) “We'll contract for turf that doesn't contain PFAS and can do
the testing to confirm that.”
Councilmember Burt said (at timestamp 3:18:25) “We're going to have not only materials that the supplier is
asserting will be PFAS-free but that we are going to do testing on.”
However, recent experience suggests caution continues to be warranted. FieldTurf previously asserted, in a letter to
the City (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RfesQmGBRyP8VaqnnRgHCLRowfcoXVn0/view?usp=drivesdk), that
its product for the Mayfield Complex project was “PFAS-free”. Yet the City’s own consultant concluded that claim
was unsubstantiated (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/at36n55s9udf67vbuzxzm/2025-05-02-Palo-Alto-has-Field-
Turf-PFAS-test-data-evaluated-by-independent-expert.pdf?
rlkey=400ui4l5pjrby365mi3klhruo&st=37xg154h&raw=1). Despite that the City had the consultant’s input a month
prior to finalizing a FieldTurf contract for the Mayfield renovation, the version of the contract in the June 9, 2025
Council agenda Item 9 appears to include no clearly defined PFAS
requirements: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/staff-report-contracts/open-
space-parks-and-golf/field-turf-usa/field-turf-usa-inc-c25193640.pdf
What lessons were learned from Mayfield? Have PFAS test results been received? If so, what do they show?
If Mayfield testing shows PFAS can shed from the turf system, the City may find itself in a weak position. The
City’s ability to enforce its expectations may be limited. Vendors may argue that “PFAS-free” was not
contractually defined, no term was violated, and the City interpreted the phrase “PFAS-free” differently than the
vendor intended. This is not hypothetical. A nearly identical situation occurred in Portsmouth, NH:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/our-community-has-been-deceived-turf-wars-mount-over-pfas/
I shared that cautionary tale with you before the Mayfield vote and asked that the contract be pulled from consent
for discussion. You opted not to do so.
I urge you not to repeat that mistake. Please pull the El Camino contract from consent and address this now.
Please ensure the El Camino contract clearly defines PFAS requirements and establishes enforceable remedies if
standards are not met.
If no vendor can meet these requirements, the City should evaluate alternatives or, at minimum, select the product
with the lowest verified PFAS levels.
PFAS already contaminate our water, our environment, and our bodies. This is an opportunity to avoid adding to
that burden.
Thank you,
Cynthia Fan
From:Mark C Lawrence
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Avenue Crossing
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 11:39:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Closing this crossing is, to put it bluntly, a really terrible idea. It would disrupt the lives of tens
of thousands of people for the next ten years, and is not likely to prevent any suicides. If
someone wants to jump in front of a train, the tracks are accessible at the stations at University
Avenue and California Avenue, and the grade crossings at Palo Alto Avenue, Meadow Drive,
and Charleston Road. None of these is as close to Palo Alto High School — but are we saying
that Paly is driving its students to suicide? If so, the problem is not the railroad crossing!
A closure would affect many more than the thousands who currently use Churchill; all those
cars will then take Oregon Expressway or Embarcadero Road, both already heavily used.
Much of this traffic will go through nearby residential neighborhoods. What about the students
who use that crossing to get to school, they will take longer (and possibly more dangerous)
routes. Emergency response by fire and police will be delayed, and this can have fatal
consequences. Closure is more likely to cost lives than to save any.
The closure plan appears to be driven more by emotion than reason. I don’t mean to belittle
the emotional impacts of the recent tragedy — I know. personally, how it feels to lose a
daughter. But creating a massive community disruption for years to come seems like a
perverse memorial.
Mark C. Lawrence
Palo Alto, CA
650 725 4867 office
650 269 1713 mobile
mark.lawrence@stanford.edu
From:Brittany McLaren
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Railroad Crossing - neighborhood input
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 11:01:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing regarding the proposal to close the local rail crossing in response to the tragic
history of teen suicides in our community. I was born and raised in Palo Alto, attended Paly,
and have lived off/on in the Southgate neighborhood for over 40 years.
First, I want to acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and the importance of taking action
to protect our children. I also recognize that restricting access to specific locations can reduce
harm in some cases. However, I am concerned that closing the crossing is really only
addressing the location of these tragedies rather than their underlying causes. I am old enough
to remember the 2009-2010 school year, with a cluster for suicides that took place at the East
Meadow crossing. And was affected when one of my own classmates took his life a few years
after graduation (also not at the Churchill crossing.)
Suicide is a deep, complex issue that has plagued our community for years now. It feels like
more attention is being placed on the tracks than our community looking inward and shifting
the cultural narrative here. Without addressing the root factors—the intense academic pressure
that pervades here, mental health challenges, and feelings of isolation—we may simply shift
the risk elsewhere rather than meaningfully reduce it. At the same time, closing the crossing
would have significant unintended consequences, including increased traffic congestion,
potential impacts on emergency response times, and disruption to daily life for residents. I
suspect that people that do not live near this area don't realize HOW much traffic pours
through Churchill everyday, and how greatly this will affect the residents who live nearby and
commute through here daily. The Embarcadero Tunnel is already overloaded as is; at peak
hours it is going to become a frustrating and dangerous bottleneck.
I respectfully urge the Council to consider a more comprehensive, balanced approach that
includes:
Continuing the targeted safety improvements at the crossing (such as the barriers,
detection systems, and recent addition of increased monitoring) rather than full
closure. We have only recently implemented many of the new safety features,
including 24/7 security service. Also stop the train horns by the high school
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Increased investment in school-based mental health resources, including counselors
and on-campus support. We need to work more on early intervention than crisis
control
Community education for parents and caregivers, such as workshops to recognize and
address warning signs, provide emotional support, and reduce academic pressure
Efforts to address the culture of extreme academic pressure and promote healthier,
more balanced definitions of success. This may include celebrating non-academic
paths and trying to de-emphasize our fixation on class rank and competition
Expanded peer support programs and more accessible crisis resources for students.
This might include earlier screenings for depression, anxiety, and burnout at a
younger age, and normalizing regular mental health check-ins as opposed to just crisis
response.
If resources are available for infrastructure changes, I hope the City will consider directing
equal urgency and funding toward prevention and early intervention efforts that can support
students before they reach a crisis point. This is an opportunity for our community to lead with
a thoughtful, multi-layered response—one that improves safety while also addressing the
deeper challenges our young people face.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany
From:jfpetrilla@gmail.com
To:Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Planning Commission; Cain, Robert
Subject:Comment for San Antonio Road Area Plan Study Session
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 10:38:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
April 5, 2026
To:
Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov
City.Council@paloalto.gov
Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov
Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov
From: John Petrilla
777 San Antonio Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: San Antonio Road Area Plan
Dear Mayor Ed Lauing, City Council members, Planning and Transportation Commission members
and Mr. Robert Cain
Please find below comments for your consideration at the April 6, 2026, Palo Alto City Council study
session for the San Antonio Road Area Plan. I’ll limit these comments to the project goal, “IMPROVE
MOBILITY AND SAFETY: Enhance streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit connections for easier and
safer travel for all users” as it applies to the section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield Rd and E.
Charleston Rd in the Central San Antonio sub-area.
Currently the section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield Rd and E. Charleston Rd provides, in
each direction, two lanes of traffic, one lane of which is a shared bicycle lane, a parking lane which is
also used as a right turn lane and loading zone, a median strip which is also used as a left turn lane,
and a sidewalk and parking strip. This all fits within a 76.5’ curb-to-curb and an overall 100.5’ ROW.
There are three alternatives presented, two of which drop both parking lanes and the other drops
one parking lane. Alternative MSA-3 is the only option that offers the preferred Two Way Bikeway
Both Sides bicycle solution and it requires increasing the ROW from 100.5’ to 105.5’.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
At present there is no explicit goal regarding mitigation of the existing heavy traffic in this triangle of
San Antonio Rd, Middlefield Rd and E. Charleston Rd. If an objective of “First, do no harm.” is applied
here, just removing the parking lanes would disqualify all three alternatives in that current residents
of the area that depend on that parking would suffer a loss and right turn lanes and loading zones
and perhaps double left turns lanes would disappear which would degrade the traffic flow. Future
transit options would be limited by lack of space for bus or shuttle stops on San Antonio Rd. Please
keep in mind that there are four projects queued up that may bring an additional 550+ residential
units to this section of San Antonio Rd. Further, the priority of comfortable, accessible, and inviting
streets that encourage walking is compromised as who enjoys a walk alongside a traffic jam. Finally,
parking would just overflow into the adjoining neighborhoods, and one would expect that the
addition of 550+ residential units would increase the demand for additional on-street parking.
It’s apparent that too many features are being attempted for the available space. Since it’s unlikely
that the San Antonio Rd ROW will be increased, consider moving the objective of Two Way Bikeways,
at least partly, to a different space, e.g., Montrose Ave. On one end Montrose terminates at a
Middlefield Rd intersection with a traffic signal across from a Cubberly parking lot. On the other end
it terminates at an E. Charleston Rd intersection with a traffic signal a short distance from the Fabian
Way intersection. Crossing Middlefield Rd at Montrose should be much less stressful than crossing
Middlefield at San Antonio Rd and crossing E. Charleston Rd at Montrose and/or Fabian Way should
be much less stressful than crossing E. Charleston at San Antonio Rd. In addition, the connection at
Fabian Way offers a good path to the bay lands bridge over US 101.
A problem with diverting bike traffic around this section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and
E. Charleston is how to accommodate the residents, patrons and staff of this section of San Antonio
Rd.
Perhaps a Two Way Bikeway feature isn’t necessary on the west side of San Antonio Rd between
Middlefield and E. Charleston. The Greenhouse sites are the only residential sites on the west side
of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and E. Charleston and cyclists and pedestrians from the
Greenhouses already use their entry at Sutherland Drive to connect to Montrose Ave and Charleston
Rd or access Cubberley, etc. Other than the Greenhouses, there may be only two parcels (795 and
801 San Antonio Rd) between the Greenhouses and Fabian Way to address. Perhaps the scope of
the upgrade of the Charleston Rd – Fabian Way – San Antonio complex could be expanded to cover
this issue. This leaves only the residents in the new buildings proposed for the east side of San
Antonio Rd to consider for a Two Way Bikeway.
Consider installing a Two Way Bikeway for the east side of San Antonio Rd and leaving the west side
as is. For the existing west side lanes from the median to and including the sidewalk there would be
5’ sidewalk, a 7’ buffer strip, an 8’ parking lane and two 12’ travel lanes, one of which could be a
shared bike lane. This requires 44’. For the new east side lanes there would be 6’ sidewalk, a 3’
buffer strip, a 10’ two-way bikeway, a 3’ buffer strip, and two 11’ travel lanes requiring 44’. The
Leghorn Street – San Antonio Rd intersection with a signal light and in the middle of the proposed
new residential buildings can be used as a San Antonio Rd crossover. Resident cyclists and
pedestrians of this section of San Antonio Rd will have options for getting to the train, to Cubberley,
Gunn, Mitchel Park, Bay Lands etc. Transiting cyclists and pedestrians have options for diverting
around this section. And, some of the valuable on-street parking is preserved.
Thank you for your attention to this message.
Respectfully,
John Petrilla
From:Claire E
To:Council, City; Robustelli, Sarah
Subject:Re: April 6th Consent calendar Item 5. Approval of Construction Contract No. C26196846 with FieldTurf USA, Inc.
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:49:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and Ms. Robustelli,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed contract with FieldTurf USA. The
document appears to contain significant omissions and conflicting information that require
clarification:
- PFAS Content: There is no explicit requirement that the turf materials be PFAS-free. Council
members have stated that the new installation would be tested to be PFAS free, so it would be
a shame if the materials are found to contain PFAS after installation, similar to the situation at
Mayfield. For reference, please see the turf study's Appendix E analysis here.
(https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/el-camino-park-turf-
study/appendix-e-supplemental-articles-reports-and-resources.pdf.)
- Recycling Protocols: The contract provides insufficient and conflicting information
regarding the recycling of existing turf and infill. The bid specifies reuse of the infill from El
Camino, but as it is mostly melted and malformed, it is unlikely there is a home for it as turf
infill.
-The bid is very confusing as it references an earlier bid by another contractor (Verde Design)
and says the pricing is based on the Verde Design plans. However, FieldTurf states their price
does not include any drainage repairs though Verde Design's bid outlined multiple steps to
ensure drainage was working properly. Is this no longer considered a priority?
I urge you to address these points before finalizing the contract.
Best regards,
Claire Elliott
From:Andrea Wald
To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Agenda item #5 on consent calendar - request to pull from consent calendar (see details in my email)
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:22:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenkar, Vice Mayor Stone and Council members,
I'm writing as follow up to the email I sent on Thursday, 4/2. I just saw some additional
material posted on the web site regarding Monday night's city council meeting and the vote
council is supposed to make to approve Field Turf construction contract C2196846.
Material available regarding the contract, which I referenced, called out GMAX testing only at
years 2, 4, 6, and 6 months prior to the completion of the 8 year warranty period. I had big
concerns with this - as pointed out in my original email on the 2nd.
I now see a different version of the contract - same reference number - which does not show
GMAX testing as part of the contract at all.
On page 4 - Analysis of " mini-packet_City Council Regular Meeting_20260406034603394"
under the Staff report portion section it says ANNUAL GMAX testing. See clipped portion
below:
Risk mitigation measures previously discussed with Council have been incorporated into this
project. Stormwater inlet filtration has been installed onsite with 13 inlet hat filters and three
(3) exterior sock filters, continued annual GMAX testing to monitor surface hardness,
manufacturer material verification and documentation, and enhanced maintenance practices.
Why is there nothing about GMAX testing in the current contract you are supposed to
approve?
This is something that needs to be clarified before the contract is approved. I am urging it
be pulled from the consent calendar until this can be resolved. I am also requesting that
the contract call for GMAX testing be at least once a year - if not more often since the field
is expected to be used quite heavily.
Andrea Wald
From:Isabella Chau
To:Council, City; d.Lauing@paloalto.gov
Subject:Student-Led Mental Health Initiative (Request for City Support)
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:13:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Ed Lauing and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Isabella, and I am a high school student in the Palo Alto / Bay Area community
and founder of a youth-led mental health initiative called Mind Matters Global.
I am currently developing a platform (not yet published) designed to help young people better
understand their mental health through a guided, survey-based experience. Based on their
responses, users are connected to personalized resources and next steps for support, making it
easier for teens to find help in a way that feels accessible and relevant.
In addition, I am building a peer mentorship program that trains students to support others in
safe, non-clinical ways. The program focuses on:
Understanding mental health challenges and crises
Recognizing warning signs
Responding through listening, validation, and support
Knowing when and how to escalate to professionals
Providing appropriate referral resources
Youth mental health is an increasingly important issue in our community, and my goal is to
create a resource that supports students both locally and beyond. I have also been working
with local and national mental health organizations to ensure this initiative is responsible and
aligned with best practices.
As a student from the Palo Alto community, I would be incredibly honored to have your
support for this initiative. I respectfully wanted to ask if your office would be open to
providing a brief letter of support or acknowledgment recognizing this work and its potential
impact on youth mental health.
I would also welcome the opportunity to share more about the initiative if helpful.
Thank you very much for your time and for your continued dedication to supporting the well-
being of our community.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Warmly,
Isabella
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments for SARAP Study Session --Item 3, Monday, April 6 CC Meeting
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 7:26:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here are my draft SARAP Comments for April 6 CC Meeting.
Thank you for all you do.
Penny Ellson
Good evening, I’m Penny Ellson, a member of SARAP Community Advisory Group (CAG)
and a Greenmeadow resident. I’m speaking as an individual.
Aggregated development potential of 3,800-7,400 units was revealed only recently. CAG
members were surprised by the scale--a 13-25% increase in existing citywide dwelling
units to this one area of the city. 7,400 units (the upper range of development potential
this plan envisions) exceeds the total state mandate of 6,086 units for all of Palo Alto by
almost 1,000 units and exceeds the Housing Element allotment for this area by 5,200
units. I understand this is a 25-year plan, but it’s massive change to an area that has no
existing infrastructure to support it. How/when will new infrastructure be funded?
Are other parts of the city being studied for similar heights, levels of density in the same
timeframe? Which parts? What is the timeline for their process? If a SARAP plan is
adopted before 2031, will its recommendations supersede the existing Housing
Element/Comp Plan limits? Will it open the gates early for development proposals and
land purchases? The Maxar site (a large parcel inside PAUSD enrollment boundaries)
just went on the market.
Re: Bikes-- At a recent PABAC budget discussion, I asked staff to please add the
proposed San Antonio bike lanes to their list of CIP priorities for the coming 5-years so
that bike lanes will be in place when new San Antonio Road residents move in. Building
bike lanes after travel habits are established will make mode shift much harder to achieve.
Staff’s replied, “Would you be okay with paint?” That may be a little better than nothing for
the short term.
We need the traffic study.— This truck route arterial connects Mountain View, Los Altos,
Palo Alto, Stanford and the research park to the 101, Foothill Expressway, El Camino Real,
Alma, and regional jobs. Combined proposed growth in Mountain View and Palo Alto is
likely to aggravate already serious congestion on a route that carries goods and people,
impacting quality of life and economic vitality. What’s the plan to maintain operations and
safety for many thousands of new and existing residents, regional commuters and trucks?
An impacted San Antonio Road will encourage diversion of traffic onto neighborhood bike
boulevard and school commute routes—which the Comp Plan prohibits. I see nothing in the
current transportation concepts for Greenmeadow and Greendell neighborhoods that would
address these safety impacts. Please direct staff to address this.
SARAP bike ped/facilities extend to Alma, but existing bike/ped facilities into the Caltrain
station to/from Alma are narrow and lack capacity to handle greatly increased bike/ped traffic.
This will be a limiting factor for mode shift if it is not addressed. This task requires
collaboration of Caltrain, Mountain View and Palo Alto. Please direct staff to provide clarity
on solutions, and get beyond, “We are collaborating with partners.”
The uncertain renovation/redevelopment of Cubberley is an important piece to this
puzzle. We need a functional, Cubberley Community Center that is well-connected by all
modes to SARAP areas and existing Palo Alto neighborhoods. SARAP planning should
actively incorporate Cubberley, Charleston Shopping Center and the Mitchell Park
super block as essential community hubs in its design. The average Palo Alto citizen does
not understand the scale of housing growth that is coming. Include projections for growth in
citywide population and demand for community services in Cubberley ballot measure
language.
The budget shows a deficit and money earmarked for SARAP mitigations. How will all
of this be funded?
Regarding retail--There was PTC discussion about not requiring retail along San Antonio
Road. This could undermine ground level vibrancy that is essential for walkable environments
of this urban scale. Also, certain services need to be immediately available to people as they
commute to and from work, school, and other daily trips on foot and on bikes. Why is the city
contemplating upzoning Summerwinds, the only decent garden store in the city? This will
create incentive for the landowner to sell. Please don’t.
Regarding office space and jobs-- I’m not opposed to office space, but I want to know that
the amount and type of office space is not projected to increase the current number of jobs in
the SARAP area, exacerbating the city’s jobs:housing imbalance. Please direct staff to
provide jobs numbers related to office spaces and types being planned.
Please require provision of mitigations using legally binding tools, such as a Nexus Study,
particularly for parks, traffic impacts, bike/ped facilities, and transit. Please cap heights at
60’-85’, and allow these heights only in locations where higher density can be well-supported
by infrastructure.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Hamilton Hitchings
To:Council, City
Subject:I support James Reifschneider for Palo Alto Police Chief
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 4:10:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I support promoting James Reifschneider to be Palo Alto’s next Police Chief.
My support is based on years of direct experience with Palo Alto police leadership, police
policy, and community oversight. That includes helping author the Safety Element of our
city’s Comprehensive Plan, including discussions about body-worn cameras and
accountability. In addition, completing Stanford’s Citizen’s Police Academy, and serving for
five years on Chief Jonsen’s Citizen Advisory Group.
Over those years, Assistant Chief Andrew Binder brought major department reforms to our
committee for presentation and feedback following the murder of George Floyd. Those
reforms were then implemented and continued when he became chief. Based on that
experience, it was clear to me that the department’s leadership was aligned in moving Palo
Alto toward a more transparent, accountable, and community-centered culture. I believe
Acting Chief Reifschneider will continue that work.
I have also worked with Acting Chief Reifschneider on adoption of some of the
department’s more complex technologies. I found him to have an in-depth, on-point and
clear-headed understanding of the issues. The processes he helped put in place were
more careful and more thorough than those in many neighboring agencies, and that helped
Palo Alto avoid some of the public missteps other cities have faced.
One of the things I respected about Chief Binder was his willingness to spend real time with
community members, including his strongest critics. Acting Chief Reifschneider has that
same spirit. He is personable, responsive, and willing to listen. I believe he will continue a
culture where the community is heard and its concerns are taken seriously.
I also speak from the perspective of having served on the Police Chief interview committee.
In my professional life as a former tech executive, I interviewed hundreds of candidates and
wrote performance evaluations for many managers and directors. Our committee
interviewed the top four external candidates, along with Assistant Chief Binder, before
selecting him.
If Acting Chief Reifschneider had been the internal candidate at that time, my
recommendation would have been the same.
Palo Alto does not need to start over. We already have an outstanding leader serving as
Acting Chief.
James Reifschneider is earnest, hardworking, highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and
extremely capable. He is a strong communicator, and I believe he will carry forward the
best of the culture and practices Chief Binder put in place.
For those reasons, I strongly support the City Manager’s recommendation to appoint James
Reifschneider as Palo Alto’s next Police Chief.
Hamilton Hitchings
From:Karen Lawrence
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill closure
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 12:42:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Closing Churchill will impact not just the local neighbors but will ripple traffic congestion to other arterials like
Embracadero Road and Oregon Expressway. And it is unlikely to prevent suicide attempts as there are many other
ways to access the tracks.
The planned grade separation will eliminate this track access point track. But do not create many years of traffic
disruption (and no real benefit for suicide prevention) in the meantime.
Karen Lawrence
Sent from my iPhone
From:Betty
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Ah Yun, Mahealani
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Haims@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone,
Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Invitation to Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy 60th Anniversary & Cupertino Academy 25th Anniversary
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 12:01:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Pola Alto City Clerk, Mahealani Ah Yun,
Warm greetings. My name is Betty Lu, and I am with Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy Cupertino.
We recently sent invitations to all Milpitas City Council members for our 25th Anniversary
Celebration, one of the commemorative events of the 60th Anniversary of Tai Ji Men Qigong
Academy.
We have sent invitations to all five council members individually and would be honored to
have all of them attend. We would also like to extend this invitation to you, Ms. Mahealani Ah
Yun, as a valued member of the city leadership.
This year is especially significant, as our Grandmaster, Dr. Hong, will be present, an extra
special occasion since he frequently travels internationally for cultural and peace-promoting
events. Tai Ji Men is also actively engaged internationally as part of FOWPAL (Federation of
World Peace and Love). Earlier this year, we visited the Caribbean, hosting cultural and
peace-promoting events attended by Governors-General, mayors, and government officials
from several countries, highlighting the global impact of our initiatives.
Event Details:
Date: Sunday, April 19, 2026
Time:
12:30–1:00 PM – Welcoming & Registration
1:00–2:00 PM – Cultural Exhibits: A Blissful Life of Health and Wisdom
2:00–3:00 PM – Main Program (including a Light-Up Ceremony)
3:00–4:00 PM – Refreshments
Location: Quinlan Community Center
10185 N Stelling Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014
We especially recommend attending during the main program from 2:00–3:00 PM, or even
between 2:10–2:40 PM for the Light-Up Ceremony. If schedules do not permit in-person
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
attendance, we would sincerely appreciate receiving a certificate of recognition and/or a brief
congratulatory video message.
Please kindly RSVP or contact me directly at (408)674-7307 or BettyLuTJM@gmail.com.
Thank you very much for your attention and support. We sincerely hope to see you all at the
event!
With sincere appreciation,
Betty Lu
Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy Cupertino
From:Cortney Jansen
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Request regarding report on artificial turf
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 11:46:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Resending with the correct email address. Please see below.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cortney Jansen <cjbassoon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 11:41 AM
Subject: Request regarding report on artificial turf
To: <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>,
<Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>,
<Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>, <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>,
<citycouncil@paloalto.gov>
Dear Palo Alto, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
My name is Cortney Jansen, and I am a resident of Sunnyvale. I am also a parent of two young
boys who each play on a competitive soccer team.
As you may know, Sunnyvale is also working on its own report regarding artificial turf. I have
been closely watching the development and reception of the Palo Alto report on artificial turf,
because I expect that the Sunnyvale report will likely use the Palo Alto report as a reference.
With that in mind, I have a request - would you please agendize and adopt a formal resolution
that, in its current condition, the Palo Alto report and its findings should not be used as a
reference or guide by Palo Alto or other cities?
No one benefits from the spread and/or citation of inaccurate information. While the Palo Alto
report covers a broad breadth of material, it is incomplete with regard to citations and accurate
figures. I know that you've heard others make similar claims, so I just want to highlight just
two challenges with the report:
First, the report states that artificial turf fields can sustain "approximately 3 to 4 times more
use" than grass. This number is wrong. In the report, the consultant claims that native-soil
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
grass can only sustain 400-600 hours of play annually. However, the same report notes that 12
of Palo Alto's native-soil grass fields are used over 1,000 hours annually. So, given that Palo
Alto has a proven record of over 1,000 hours of use annually on grass, why does the report use
only 600 hours of use annually on grass in its math?
Second, the report notes that the 20-year life cycle cost is $3.5M for artificial turf and $1.8M
for native-soil grass. I will skip over the accuracy of these numbers, and instead point out that,
because the hours of use calculated in the report are wrong (as noted above), the claims that
artificial turf provides "the lowest cost per playable hour" are also wrong.
I appreciate the time and effort that staff and Council are putting into this project. Palo Alto is
clearly concerned with doing the right thing and objectively evaluating the right thing. I am
also extremely excited that you will be piloting sustainable grass fields - and I look forward to
seeing that pilot progress over the next several months. It's important the City publicly
acknowledge the inaccuracies in this report and actively take steps to prevent these
inaccuracies from being used in future decision making. Please pass a resolution that the
report is incomplete and should not be used as a reference or decision making tool by Palo
Alto or other cities - at least not until the report has been corrected and revised.
Thank you for your support of our youth athletes and your interest in supporting and
maintaining safe, natural grass fields for them to play on.
Cheers,
Cortney Jansen
Sunnyvale
From:pol1@rosenblums.us
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Agenda of April 13, 2026, Item 10
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 8:17:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers:
I wholeheartedly support the intent of the Colleagues Memo on Mitigating Impacts of Property
Aggregation in Residential Districts at the April 13 Council meeting. My neighborhood in Old Palo
Alto has been severely impacted by continuous construction over many years at one of these sites,
with all the attendant negative consequences cited in the memo. I would be happy to see an
increase in my property taxes to fund such an effort to control this billionaire land grab.
Sincerely ,
Stephen Rosenblum
Old Palo Alto
From:Sylvia Fung
To:Council, City
Cc:S FUNG; cubberleyballroom@gmail.com
Subject:Request Cubberley Pavilion as Multiuser
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 6:13:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Team,
On behalf of Cubberley Ballroom Users, we request City of Palo Alto to not convert
Cubberley Pavilion to just Theatre.
The current Pavilion on 4000 Middlefield Rd. had served over 30 yrs for Hundred of
Ballroom Dancers and is loved by all. We enjoyed dance performances fron Stanford
& Local Artists and dance every Friday which open to public.
We urge the Councils to keep this venue unchange, thanks for your time in this
matter!!
Sincerely,
Ken & Sylvia Fung
3701 Starr King Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-384-5856
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Brent Barker
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 5:46:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The Guards are very useful and should not have been removed! I think the opportunity for
personal interaction with a Guard is very helpful to vulnerable people; more so that just
forcing the vulnerable person to find another railroad crossing.
Thanks,
Jane Radford-Barker
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere
To:Council, City
Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; Lo, Ria; Safe Routes
Subject:2026.04.15 Council mtg RE Temporary Closure of Churchill
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 2:03:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable Council Members,
Dedicated Transportation Staff,
Thank you as always for your conscientious service to the Palo Alto community. I'm writing
in regards to your upcoming April 15th meeting regarding a potential temporary closure of the
Churchill crossing of the Caltrain right of way, recently proposed in response to the recent
tragic suicides at that location. I'm sharing my perspective by email as I won't be able to join
your meeting.
I believe the restoration of human monitors is a helpful step.
In case you decide that a "temporary" closure is the best path forward, I would like to remind
you that it was Council intent that new bike/ped railroad undercrossings in the vicinities of
Grade Separations be completed BEFORE these larger works commence so as to enable and
encourage these active transportation modes while existing RR crossings are disrupted during
construction. Without them being in place, people will switch to driving to deal with long
detours around the closures and safety issues with the existing alternatives. Thus if a
"temporary" closure at Churchill is directed, then the proposed undercrossing at Peers Park
should be decoupled from the Churchill Grade Separation project and it's implementation
should be accelerated to ideally be completed before the closure, or ASAP after.
I put "temporary" in quotes because realistically it will be politically difficult to reopen as the
danger of suicide and accidents will still exist until a permanent solution is implemented.
(Viaduct anyone? Still IMHO the best solution...)
I'm sure others will comment on the issues with the existing alternatives to the crossing at
Churchill: the Embarcadero and Cal Ave undercrossings. Both of these are already heavily
used with concerns of bike / ped conflicts and ADA inaccessibility. Both however have the
benefit of crossing Alma as well, and the proposed crossing at Peers Park must do the same for
greatest safety and efficiency of all modes of travel.
Embarcadero in particular is problematic due to the lack of bike lanes, two lanes of high speed
traffic in each direction, innumerable driveways, and poor sightlines at most intersections.
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
Dropping to one lane in each direction with a continuous dedicated left turn lane down the
center, and buffered-by-striping bike lanes in each direction might be an appropriate and long-
overdue solution for Embarcadero, but obviously this would require study, including the
addition of spillover traffic from Churchill.
In the meantime or in addition, prioritizing a new undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain at Peers
Park would help address many of the issues we face with the existing crossings in this area,
whether or not Churchill is "temporarily" closed.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Cedric de La Beaujardiere
Palo Alto resident and bicyclist
From:Adobe Animal Hospital
To:Robert Marinaro
Cc:Christine Schremp; Chris Schremp; McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Margaret Abe-
Koga
Subject:Re: Ties to the Community
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 12:25:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Melissa and Robert,
I believe Adobe Animal Hospital may have been included in this email thread by mistake. We
do not appear to be the intended recipient for this discussion regarding "Ties to the
Community" and oversized vehicles.
Best regards,
Adobe Animal Hospital
Need to get advice or schedule an appointment?
Live Chat with an Adobe Staff Member
Wait less, be comfortable, get great help!
www.adobe-animal.com
Adobe Animal Hospital
4470 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA 94022
P: 650-948-9661
F: 650-948-1465
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
Adobe Animal Hospital | South Bay & Marketplace
15965 Los Gatos Blvd, #100
Los Gatos, CA 95032
P: 408-357-8000
F: 408-356-7071
Adobe Animal Hospital
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 12:33 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Melissa,
I would like to chime in on this ’Ties to the Community” discussion also.
I am in the process of talking with and organizing as many businesses as I can on East
Meadow Circle (EMC). One of the things I learned from one of the businesses, that has
numerous facilities on EMC, is that (1) children play on the property in front of his facilities
and as a result he has had to install bollards to protect his property, and (2) school buses stop
in front of his property to pick-up and drop off children who reside in the OSVs. I have not
determined if the school buses are PAUSD school buses, but I’m going to try and find out.
I have talked with numerous family members, neighbors, and friends about these three
definitions of ’Ties to the Community,’ and frankly no one, 100%, do not agree with
them. This sounds like more Palo Alto being ‘accommodating’ to the OSV dwellers at the
expense of the tax-paying residents and businesses of the community.
I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto who can no longer afford to live here. Why
should they be forced to live elsewhere in a brick and mortar structure just because they
choose not to live in an OSV?
And, regarding, the PASUD proof of residency, I sure hope none of these OSV dwellers are
attending PAUSD schools. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to us residents.
Additionally, I would be very interested to know more about the details of the screening
process that the City does when assessing each of the OSVs. This process needs to be more
transparent.
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
On Apr 1, 2026, at 10:30 AM, Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>
wrote:
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to
Palo Alto in 2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof
of residency. Once we had a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll
our children in the public schools. Has this requirement changed? As a city
employee, I gather you are aware of these requirements/ standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp
<chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the
ongoing dialogue, I must take exception to several points regarding
the City’s current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these
vehicles would not be eligible for private RV parks due to their
condition. To a tax-paying resident, this confirms the problem
rather than excusing it. If a professional, regulated facility deems
these vehicles unfit or unsafe for their property, it is illogical for the
City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public streets and bike lanes are
the appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the
private market rejects should not fall on the local taxpayers and the
safety of our neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential
lawsuits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. Furthermore, the
City has already demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North
Palo Alto has implemented bans, and El Camino has utilized
physical barriers in bike lanes to prevent OSV parking. Why is this
same level of urgency and protection not being applied to our
neighborhood? Addressing "complex situations" and "operational
constraints" is exactly what we expect from our elected officials
and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the
City’s broad definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic
and financial commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that
individuals living in OSVs—who are not paying local
property taxes—are enrolled in our school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these
claims. How many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle
have a verified history of residency in Palo Alto versus those
who own property elsewhere in the state? My observations
suggest the latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I
recently received notice of yet another increase in our utility costs.
It is increasingly difficult to reconcile the City’s demand for more
financial contribution from homeowners with its admission that it
lacks the 'operational capacity' to keep our streets clear and safe.
The 'burden' of this situation is being borne entirely by the residents
—both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—
while those violating our parking laws face little to no
accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction
over the safety and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you
requested, but the burden of tracking this should not fall on tax
paying citizens, rather I expect the City to move past
"documentation" and toward the same concrete solutions seen in
other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you
saw the sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow
Drive. If you see an oversized vehicle actively blocking the
sidewalk or bike lane, please continue to call PAPD so it can be
addressed in real time. For recurring issues in the same location,
this also helps us with documentation so we can track patterns
and coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please let us
know the closest cross-street/address and the approximate times
you observed the blockages on East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks
and pricing, and I have shared your list with our outreach
partners as possible leads for individual households. That said, I
want to be candid about a key practical
limitation. Typically, parks have screening requirements (e.g.,
vehicle age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the City
cannot require a private park to accept a tenant or hold space.
Many of the vehicles we’re seeing would not be eligible or would
face long wait times. This is part of why the City’s approach has
been to enforce existing rules where there are clear violations and
safety hazards, while also continuing work on managed, legally
viable alternatives (safe parking, services, and a permit-based
framework), rather than assuming the private RV market can/will
absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to
City parking laws. Council has looked at other solutions
besides broad restrictions and effective bans found in some other
Bay Area cities; in part because they have generated lawsuits and
the City should anticipate significant, expensive legal challenges
if Palo Alto pursued a comprehensive ban approach. In addition,
staff have noted real operational constraints (e.g., limited towing
capacity and the lack of available land for additional safe parking
lots) which affect what can be implemented quickly and
sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”.
This means an individual or household has an affiliation
with Palo Alto---such as employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD
enrollment, or a history of residency prior to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have
on the East Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to
report active obstructions to PAPD. Thank you again
for staying engaged in this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
<image001.png>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
<image002.png>
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Cain, Robert; Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:my thoughts on Area Plan recommendations
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 10:51:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hi Mayor Veenker and council members,
1) please clarify to the public that new housing of any substantial amount is 4 or more
years away.
We have 4 proposals with more than 150 units and of these only 788 has given a timeline of
at best late 2030.
2) following up on this please ask staff what mobility improvements can be made on San
Antonio in the near and medium term
As part of this ask staff to evaluate plans for and timing of a zipcar location nearby
3) Re height limits
I support the 90 foot alternative in the central San Antonio area at least on the south side,
in the CTI area and in the south Fabian Way area where we have
recent proposals and developer (for example, PBV) interest
Perhaps lower height limits might be appropriate in other parts of the area though we have
no applications to evaluate what is feasible
4) I support proceeding on the 1,500 unit goal for the RHNA permit period, recognizing that
building will come after permits have been applied for
But I am skeptical of the demand for or need for 4-7.000 units over the longer term and
prefer we support more housing in the north we I live and where housing would be close to
jobs, shopping, services including medical and near public and Stanford shuttle availability.
The same is true for portions of the area around Cal Ave.
Re office
I know this historically has been contentious but I support what I remember commissioner
Akin said about considering office in the CTI area where PBV has made previous suggestions
I also support trying to regain the office jobs we have lost since the peak as they provide
both tax revenues and customers for local businesses. I do not think there is any immediate
danger of exceeding our previous peak except if SRP gets hot again and to me that would
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
be a positive not a negative.
Thank you for your positive decisions recently re housing and I look forward to Monday's
meeting.
Steve
From:Leah Russin
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Closure
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 10:13:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To City Council:
To me, closing the Churchill Crossing is an easy choice, even if we don’t know for sure how much it will help. Our
children are dying. They are asking us, the adults in the room, to help. They have even identified a measure they
believe will help. Our own adult-led efforts have failed. How can we ignore them??? Our indecision and analysis-
paralysis has cost too many lives over the past decades. We must show our children that their lives matter. That act,
of listening and acting, may be more meaningful than the closure itself.
Yes of course there are better solutions out there, but none are immediately actionable. We’d all love a buried
tunnel without any construction or costs, and we’d all love for the culture of our schools to magically change. But
we live in the real world where children are dying at our train crossings. Let’s make them safer. Planning for
slightly longer drive times is worth it.
The only arguments against closure amount to convenience. A life is worth that inconvenience. I have not seen
evidence that closure would result in a longer 911 response time or have some other safety impact. We can make
the Homer and California bike crossings easier for bike trailers and cargo bikes. We can adjust light times on Alma
to allow more cars through. We cannot bring back a dead child.
Let’s tell our community’s children we love them, and we support them, and we see them. Let’s close Churchill.
Thank you.
Leah Russin
Parent and voter.
From:Kathleen Reed
To:Council, City
Subject:Concerns about the proposed conversion of Cubberley Pavilion to a theatre
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 9:51:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
I am distressed at the idea of converting Cubberley Pavilion to a theatre, as it is one of the remaining spaces for
ballroom dancing in our local area. Since I moved here from another state in 2012 I have seen several dance venues
close and would hate now to lose Cubberley Pavilion.
The Friday night dance is usually attended by well over 100 people each week and we enjoy this large space with a
wood floor, which is now hard to find. In addition, the gym is used by many other groups for other uses. Since we
have two theatre venues in the area—Lucie Stern and the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, it’s hard
to understand why this gym/dance venue would be converted to a theatre, ending it as a dance option.
The Friday night dance immediately offered me a friend group when I moved here in 2012 and I am there nearly
every week.
Please don’t let Cubberley be added to the list of lost dance venues.
Kathleen Reed
Mountain View
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Bundle - April 4, 2026
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 7:40:48 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Re Urgent Concern and Request for Action Removal of Vegetation at Jerry Bowden Park.msg
RE Why can"t I finish the survey for Fabian Way I could not get past the 2nd page..msg
FW Request review of Redwood trees being removed from 751 Waverley St..msg
FW Please respond.msg
FW Urgent Concern Loss of Privacy and Habitat at Jerry Bowden Park.msg
FW Fw IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND
ENCAMPMENTS.msg
RE El Camino Softball Field.msg
RE Unable to access survey.msg
Re Request for Habitat Restoration and Ecological Diversity at Jerry Bowden Park.msg
FW fire inspection bill $488 for a retired senior 91 years old living in a 4plex.msg
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in
the Council inbox through April 4, 2026.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Shannon Rose
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Crossing
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 10:42:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please do not close the Churchill Caltrain crossing. It is already difficult to move from east to west in Palo Alto. By
closing Churchill drivers would need more time to move across the city. That means time wasted, frustrated drivers,
and MORE DANGEROUS EMISSIONS. The residents of Southgate would be almost locked in and terribly
inconvenienced. This is all much too high a price to pay for a problem it won’t solve.
Palo Alto would be much wiser to provide therapy, counseling and better resources to students and to the teachers
and others who support our teens. What programs for parents can we provide in order to teach them how to
recognize when their children are having psychological programs and then, how they can best assist and find help
for their children?
Closing Churchill will not solve the problem of teen anguish and suicide. It will create a big inconvenience for the
students, teachers and staff who use Churchill to get to Paly almost every day, not to mention the many drivers who
are on their way to Stanford or other parts of town.
Sincerely,
Shannon McEntee
410 Sheridan Avenue
Palo Alto
From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo
To:Council, City
Subject:We Already Had a Bipartisan Path Forward
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 9:30:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City,
We had a bipartisan path forward to pay TSA,
Coast Guard, FEMA, and other law-abiding
DHS personnel—approved by the Senate and
its Republican leadership. Speaker Mike
Johnson refused to bring it to a vote in the
House, likely because it would have passed
with broad bipartisan support. That Senate bill
mirrors legislation I cosponsored a month ago,
and until more Republicans can agree to
reforms to ICE and CBP, it’s our most viable
option.
This week, Speaker Johnson backtracked and
said he’d bring the Senate bill for a vote—so,
this exercise in defiance senselessly extended
the suffering of families of civilian employees
of FEMA and the Coast Guard. Despite this,
there are no signs of returning to Washington
early to end this shutdown. This fight isn’t
over, but the end is in sight—more to come.
Protecting the Moffett Field
Commissary
Thousands of military families rely on the
Moffett Field commissary for affordable
groceries, but the aging facility has an
uncertain future. We secured a short-term
extension to keep the doors open for two
years, but that’s not enough. Our
servicemembers and their families deserve
stability—and access to the resources they
rely on.
Last week, I went before the House
Appropriations Committee to push for federal
funding and take the first step toward a long-
term solution. You can watch my full testimony
here:
Video
Coastside Survey
Attention Coastside Neighbors: We have
identified strengthening Coastside
infrastructure as one of our two top priorities
for the district, and we’re working with our
local leaders to move critical projects forward.
Please take a moment and fill out this survey
that will help us hone in on where to focus our
time and federal resources.
Onward!
Sam
U.S. Representative for California's 16th
Congressional District
Get Future Updates from Washington
Unsubscribe from future messages.
From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo
To:Council, City
Subject:We Already Had a Bipartisan Path Forward
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 9:30:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,,
We had a bipartisan path forward to pay TSA,
Coast Guard, FEMA, and other law-abiding
DHS personnel—approved by the Senate and
its Republican leadership. Speaker Mike
Johnson refused to bring it to a vote in the
House, likely because it would have passed
with broad bipartisan support. That Senate bill
mirrors legislation I cosponsored a month ago,
and until more Republicans can agree to
reforms to ICE and CBP, it’s our most viable
option.
This week, Speaker Johnson backtracked and
said he’d bring the Senate bill for a vote—so,
this exercise in defiance senselessly extended
the suffering of families of civilian employees
of FEMA and the Coast Guard. Despite this,
there are no signs of returning to Washington
early to end this shutdown. This fight isn’t
over, but the end is in sight—more to come.
Protecting the Moffett Field
Commissary
Thousands of military families rely on the
Moffett Field commissary for affordable
groceries, but the aging facility has an
uncertain future. We secured a short-term
extension to keep the doors open for two
years, but that’s not enough. Our
servicemembers and their families deserve
stability—and access to the resources they
rely on.
Last week, I went before the House
Appropriations Committee to push for federal
funding and take the first step toward a long-
term solution. You can watch my full testimony
here:
Video
Coastside Survey
Attention Coastside Neighbors: We have
identified strengthening Coastside
infrastructure as one of our two top priorities
for the district, and we’re working with our
local leaders to move critical projects forward.
Please take a moment and fill out this survey
that will help us hone in on where to focus our
time and federal resources.
Onward!
Sam
U.S. Representative for California's 16th
Congressional District
Get Future Updates from Washington
Unsubscribe from future messages.
From:William Damon
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill closure
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 8:48:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
I respectively request that you decline the proposal to close Churchill Avenue, even for a brief
period of time. Of course the thought of young people hurting themselves is awful, and very
serious steps must be taken to prevent this. But it is highly speculative that closing this one
particular crossing would do anything to prevent this problem. What is not speculative is that
residents along the passageway will experience the need for emergency services on many
occasions. If the crossing is closed, it will only be a matter of time until someone dies from a
heart attack or a stroke because the ambulance couldn't reach them in time. Does the City
want to take responsibility for such unnecessary health disasters?
Keeping the crossing guards on-site and active seems like a safer and more realistic way to
address the safety needs of troubled young people. We all want to do anything that actually
works to prevent harm to young people. There is no need to put neighborhood residents at
grave risk in order to accomplish this important mission.
Sincerely,
William Damon
Palo Alto resident
From:Chris Schremp
To:Christine Schremp
Cc:McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; district5@bos.sccgov.org;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Recent emails re: Oversized Vehicles
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 5:10:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Melissa - the vehicle we reported last night remains in the same spot, with a parking violation
notice on the windshield. We called and reported it again to Police. Not only is it parked
illegally from an OSV standpoint, it's also blocking visibility to the stop sign which again
almost caused an accident today and we were almost hit by a car trying to cross the
intersection. Photos attached.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 7:24 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa,
I am reporting another dangerous OSV obstruction, this time involving a known repeat
offender.
This vehicle was previously reported on Aspen Way on March 21 (see attached photos of
the tow warning). Despite that warning, the vehicle has simply moved to the Ross Road
and Mayview intersection, where the situation has escalated from a nuisance to a life-
safety hazard.
Key Issues:
Safety Near-Miss: The vehicle is currently blocking the line of sight for the stop sign.
This evening, it nearly caused a collision between a vehicle and a cyclist.
Economic Reality vs. "Community Ties": As the attached photos show, the
occupant is operating a late-model, high-end Infiniti QX80 SUV (approx. $60k+
value). This is not a case of displacement or "homelessness"—it is a choice to bypass
local regulations and residential parking standards.
Enforcement Gap: A tow warning was issued on March 21, yet the vehicle remains
on our streets creating hazardous conditions. I request that the City run the license
plate to verify the official residency of the owner.
Documentation without consequence is clearly not working. When a cyclist is nearly hit due
to a documented repeat offender, "outreach" is no longer the appropriate response
—immediate removal for public safety is.
Chris
On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 10:47 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa - per your request, sharing another example of an OSV parked on East Meadow
Drive in front of Ramos park, blocking the bike line. My wife has called the police, but
please note that she witnessed cyclists being forced to swerve around our into the main
road area to get past this vehicle.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 10:30 AM Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> wrote:
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to Palo Alto
in 2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof of residency.
Once we had a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll our children in the
public schools. Has this requirement changed? As a city employee, I gather you are
aware of these requirements/ standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp
<chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing
dialogue, I must take exception to several points regarding the City’s
current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these vehicles
would not be eligible for private RV parks due to their condition. To a tax-
paying resident, this confirms the problem rather than excusing it. If a
professional, regulated facility deems these vehicles unfit or unsafe for their
property, it is illogical for the City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public
streets and bike lanes are the appropriate alternative. The burden of
absorbing what the private market rejects should not fall on the local
taxpayers and the safety of our neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential lawsuits
is not a sufficient reason to delay action. Furthermore, the City has already
demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North Palo Alto has
implemented bans, and El Camino has utilized physical barriers in bike
lanes to prevent OSV parking. Why is this same level of urgency and
protection not being applied to our neighborhood? Addressing "complex
situations" and "operational constraints" is exactly what we expect from our
elected officials and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the City’s
broad definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic and
financial commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that individuals
living in OSVs—who are not paying local property taxes—are
enrolled in our school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these claims.
How many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle have a verified
history of residency in Palo Alto versus those who own property
elsewhere in the state? My observations suggest the latter is far more
common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I recently
received notice of yet another increase in our utility costs. It is increasingly
difficult to reconcile the City’s demand for more financial contribution from
homeowners with its admission that it lacks the 'operational capacity' to
keep our streets clear and safe. The 'burden' of this situation is being borne
entirely by the residents—both through higher costs and a diminished
quality of life—while those violating our parking laws face little to no
accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over the
safety and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you requested, but
the burden of tracking this should not fall on tax paying citizens, rather I
expect the City to move past "documentation" and toward the same concrete
solutions seen in other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you saw the
sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If you see an
oversized vehicle actively blocking the sidewalk or bike lane, please
continue to call PAPD so it can be addressed in real time. For recurring
issues in the same location, this also helps us with documentation so we
can track patterns and coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please
let us know the closest cross-street/address and the approximate times
you observed the blockages on East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and
pricing, and I have shared your list with our outreach partners as possible
leads for individual households. That said, I want to be candid about a key
practical limitation. Typically, parks have screening requirements (e.g.,
vehicle age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the City
cannot require a private park to accept a tenant or hold space. Many of the
vehicles we’re seeing would not be eligible or would face long wait times.
This is part of why the City’s approach has been to enforce existing rules
where there are clear violations and safety hazards, while also continuing
work on managed, legally viable alternatives (safe parking, services, and
a permit-based framework), rather than assuming the private RV market
can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City
parking laws. Council has looked at other solutions besides broad
restrictions and effective bans found in some other Bay Area cities; in
part because they have generated lawsuits and the City
should anticipate significant, expensive legal challenges if Palo Alto
pursued a comprehensive ban approach. In addition, staff have noted real
operational constraints (e.g., limited towing capacity and the lack of
available land for additional safe parking lots) which affect what can be
implemented quickly and sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”. This
means an individual or household has an affiliation with Palo Alto---such
as employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD enrollment, or a history of residency
prior to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have on the
East Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to
report active obstructions to PAPD. Thank you again for staying engaged
in this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
Melissa Mc
Assistant to the City Manager
pronouns: she/her
650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile)
Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
<image002.png>
From:Margaret Kim
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Closure of Churchill Rail Crossing
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 4:24:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am against the closing of the Churchill Ave. crossing, temporary or permanent.
1. We already have a solution in place right now. Each crossing has a human attendant, which has proven to be
effective. They should be made permanent. They are a proven "barrier”. Closing Churchill will not stop suicides at
rail crossings, unless you are willing to close East Meadow and Charleston too.
2. The traffic on Embarcadero is not a future inconvenience, it is impassible right now. Especially where
Embarcadero, the Paly High parking lot egress, and the Town & Country egress come together. (There is also an
unsafe pedestrian crossing.) The issues with that intersection are exacerbated by the intersection of El Camino and
Embarcadero backing up. (Will Caltrans and Palo Alto ever be able to figure this out?)
And the only way for traffic on Alma to get to Paly, Town & Country, El Camino, and Stanford from Embarcadero
is through residential streets, creating an extremely unsafe situation for an entire neighborhood.
Our block on High Street is already a drop-off and pick-up point for parents and Ubers providing transportation for
Paly High students avoiding the nightmare traffic on Embarcadero.
3. We have plans for a bike & pedestrian underpass at Seale Ave. This should be done right away. We don't have to
solve grade separation issues at every crossing to build this underpass. Do it now!
Building a bike & pedestrian underpass should not replace human attendants. Let’s budget for them instead wasting
money on more studies, when we already know that 8,500-10,000 cars will be diverted into adjacent neighborhoods
if the Churchill crossing is closed.
4. The Embarcadero underpass is too narrow and unsafe to accommodate increased pedestrian & bicycle traffic.
If you want to test something that works and maximizes safety—to see if it could be a permanent solution—keep the
human crossing attendants and build the Seale Ave. pedestrian/bicycle underpass. It just might work.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kim
1111 High Street, Palo Alto
From:Amy Christel
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Churchill Av Closure
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 4:23:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
While it is a tragedy that any life is lost at any rail crossing, the proposed closure of Churchill
Ave at the tracks would be foolish.
1. The closure of one crossing would not eliminate access to the train tracks for a person intent
upon ending their life. The 24 hour guards are far more effective.
2. The closure would snarl east west traffic in Palo Alto, at a time when Embarcadero and
Oregon Expressway are already ridiculously busy at rush times. Forcing student bike traffic to
alternate routes would be adding transit time and create more vehicle/bike accidents. Turns
onto Alma are perilous and Middlefield is a nightmare, and the closure would result in many
more such turns.
3. The closure would divert vehicle and bike traffic to less controlled routes through
residential neighborhoods that are not designed for such traffic and are not safer for bikes.
4. The closure would increase emergency response vehicle times, which could result far more
tragedy and loss of life City wide.
Please, do not revisit decisions already made about this crossing following the last protracted
and comprehensive community discussion. The rail crossing is not the most direct way to
address the problem of suicide in this city.
Thank you for your service on Council.
SIncerely,
Amy Christel
Resident of Midtown
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 3, More Housing and Multi-Mobility Options in the San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 3:56:09 PM
Attachments:2026.4.3 Public Comment Agenda Item 3 City Council San Antonio Road Area Plan.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached public comment on behalf of Palo Alto Forward regarding agenda item
3, the San Antonio Area Plan. Since our prior letter to PTC, we've updated our asks to:
Allow at least 8 stories and 90 feet of height in the area
Allow at least replacement office to encourage redevelopment of existing office sites
with housing
Support MSA-3 with Class IV bikeways to maximize road safety and accessibility
Our letter includes more details. I'm happy to discuss further with any member of council--you
can set up a call with me at calendly.com/paloaltoforward or let me know times that work
better for you.
Have a lovely weekend,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127
April 3, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 3, San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation
Alternatives
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto Forward exists to support additional housing and multi-mobility options in our city. To
that end, we have supported efforts by the city to plan for additional homes and additional street
features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
The San Antonio Area Plan provides a unique opportunity to realize the goals of Palo Alto’s
housing element, which anticipates the majority of future housing development will occur on
sites near the corridor. Several projects have already been proposed on sites on which housing
is planned for in the city's housing element (all of which have been 6-8 story multi-family
housing, not townhomes–suggesting that multi-family housing is substantially more financially
feasible than the staff report indicates).
In order to promote the most holistically affordable, walkable future neighborhoods, please
support the following features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan:
● Allow at least 8 stories and 90 feet of height in all zones. Flexibility will bring the
most new homes to Palo Alto at a range of levels of affordability. Feasibility analyses by
the city suggest 8-story development is most feasible in the current market (though
proposals currently in the city pipeline like the 17-story Mollie Stone’s project illustrate
how height can promote more homes–while also maximizing the number of low-income
homes and preserving community-serving uses like grocery stores). Palo Alto Forward
supports the option proposed by staff to allow as much as 250 feet in the Area Plan,
particularly on large sites like the Maxar site that provide once-in-a-generation
opportunities to create walkable communities. However, we recognize 8 stories may
better reflect community preferences while still delivering meaningful housing
opportunities.
● Allow replacement office development on sites with existing office buildings.
Owners of office property will be more likely to redevelop their sites if they have a
guarantee that they can at least replace the existing office. Walkable communities blend
housing, commercial, and office development to create complete neighborhoods. In
other cities, such as Redwood City, new office developments have brought investments
in affordable housing; in San Mateo, the Hillsdale redevelopment project has combined
over 1,800 homes with office and retail to envision a new walkable community. San
Antonio has many parcels that could accommodate a mix of uses, reflecting the city’s
intent to create holistic neighborhoods while overall promoting housing affordability.
● Support Alt MSA-3 with Class IV bikeways on either side to promote maximum
safety for bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. Since San Antonio is a trucking corridor,
it’s particularly important that bikers have curb-protected lanes in order to ensure the
thousands of new residents in the area have safe multi-modal transportation options.
Combining walkability with completely curb- and landscaping-separated infrastructure
will help accommodate future growth and further the city’s climate goals by enabling
car-lite lifestyles in the neighborhood.
Combined, these approaches will best support the strongest neighborhoods and help meet Palo
Alto’s housing goals.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
From:chapin Chet
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill and other rail crossing closure
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 1:27:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I strongly oppose proposed "temporary" closure of rail crossings as a response to suicide-by-train events. My
resistance to the Churchill and other suicide-impacted rail crossings suggested closure is not about "convenience".
This issue is about the everyday safety of all of our neighbors and our children on our impacted residential streets.
With all due respect to those who have lost their lives to suicide by train, and their loved ones they have left behind,
the closing of the Churchill crossing and other nearby rail crossings is neither a guaranteed necessary, nor a
guaranteed sufficient, way to assure amelioration or prevention of more suicide by train tragedies in our community
in the future.
Risk to the community: Closure of even one crossing (Churchill) will almost certainly lead to more automobile-
bicycle and -pedestrian accidents, due to the additional 8,500-10,000 more cars per day that are diverted into the
nearby residential neighborhoods (traffic-increase numbers based on models prepared for and examined by the City
and the School District previously).
This safety impact was estimated to be due to the closure of just one rail crossing where suicide-by-train has
occurred in our corridor area (Churchill); closure of all crossings with suicides in our area (2 or more) would
multiply that negative safety impact due to increased-residential-traffic danger.
4 Key Points:
1) Closing Churchill has been suggested previously, and extensively modeled, and it was found that closure would
funnel thousands (8,500-10,000) of cars per day onto residential streets where children and adults ride bicycles and
walk across streets with vehicular traffic, many street corner crossings that do not have stop signs.
2) Suicide by train has occurred repeatedly at other nearby crossings besides Churchill, such as Meadow crossing, so
we must consider these 2 questions:
Question1: would those 2 rail crossings and even other rail crossings need to be considered to be closed before or at
the same time if the same rationale as for just Churchill was used? Question2: Would suicide by train event clusters
always just move to the next open crossings?
3) Crossing Guards (which have recently been re-deployed at multiple crossings) being present at rail crossings have
been shown in years past to be coincident with effectively dampening suicide-by-train cluster numbers, even after
the deployment of the crossing guards was discontinued/removed from the crossings later. Deploying Crossing
Guards works. This current Crossing Guard deployment gives us the needed time to consider all community-offered
solutions that can actually work for the entire community, including those at risk of suicide by train at these
crossings.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
4) The triggering of survivor students on Palo Alto High School campus by train horns can and should be remedied
by cooperation with CalTrain, especially at the disused Stanford train stop near the high school campus.
For those suggesting we try closure “temporarily” and “see if it works”, Question3: can anyone provide an example
from anywhere in the entire state of California where a “temporary” train crossing closure was later reopened?
If not, it is disingenuous to pretend that any closure will be temporary, and these suggestions ignore the other
crossings in the area that have had suicides occur at them, and ignores the large negative impact on the safety of the
entire community that would result due to diverted traffic into residential neighborhoods.
Let's continue to use the proven method of Cross Guard deployments as we improve bike and pedestrian traffic
management and separation from automobile, while keeping traffic out of our neighborhood streets that were never
designed or intended to have the influx of thousands of extra impatient drivers every day.
Thank you for your attention to these viewpoints.
Carl Dowds
Palo Alto
From:Irene Beardsley
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill crossing
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 12:05:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I would be impacted whenever I to/go from home in Barron Park to the
University area. I would hope that full time monitoring would
work.with other suicide prevention methods.
Irene Beardsley
irene.beardsley@gmail.com
(650) 493-8383
(307) 733-2039
From:Chris Flores
To:transportation; Council, City
Subject:Traffic light at Escondido Road and Stanford Avenue
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 12:00:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I hope you are doing well! I'm a resident of Palo Alto, and I commute to Stanford by bike via
Stanford Ave and Escondido Road. It appears that the light to turn left or right from Escondido
Road is operated by a sensor, and it will not turn green if you're on a bike, even when the light
for traffic is red on Stanford Ave. Is there any way you could take a look at this?
Best,
Chris Flores
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Adoption of Proposed LAFCO Budget for FY 2027 & Notice of June 3, 2026 LAFCO Public Hearing
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 11:43:42 AM
Attachments:Notice - Adoption of Proposed LAFCO Budget & Notice of Public Hearing.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 memo regarding Adoption of Proposed LAFCO Budget for FY 2027, and a Notice
of Public Hearing to Adopt the Final LAFCO Budget for FY 2027.
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
April 2, 2026 TO: County Executive, Santa Clara County City Managers, Cities in Santa Clara County District Managers, Special Districts in Santa Clara County FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 &
NOTICE OF JUNE 3, 2026 LAFCO PUBLIC HEARING At its public hearing on April 1, 2026, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) adopted a Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2027, as recommended in the attached staff report. The attached report reviews the status of LAFCO’s current year work plan and budget; and sets forth the proposed work plan and budget for Fiscal Year 2027. LAFCO is scheduled to consider adoption of its Final FY 2027 Budget and Workplan at a public hearing on Wednesday, June 3, 2026 at 1:15 PM in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center. The County Auditor will apportion LAFCO costs and invoice the cities, independent special districts and the County based on the Final Budget adopted by LAFCO. The meeting agenda, staff reports and related meeting material will be available on the LAFCO website by May 29, 2026. All interested persons may attend the meeting as provided for on the agenda. Written public comments may be submitted by email to LAFCO@ceo.sccgov.org prior to the date of the hearing. Attachment: Staff Report on the Proposed Work Plan and Budget for FY 2027 (April 1, 2026) cc: Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County City Council Members, Cities in Santa Clara County Board of Directors, Special Districts in Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Special Districts Association
From:Scott O"Neil
To:Council, City
Subject:April 6, Action 15: Meeting Procedures
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 11:22:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am writing on the topic of the changes to meeting procedures being considered on April 6.
First, a note on geography. While Palo Alto is a uniformly rich city, it does have a noticeable
wealth gradient. City Hall is located near the far North end of the city, surrounded by the
most expensive land and the wealthiest families, including some actual billionaires.
Meanwhile, the city is most aggressively planning for more economically diverse multifamily
development at the far South end the city.
You rarely see me in chambers, because I live on the southernmost fringe of the city. My
household has one car, which is mostly reserved for my wife's use. On those occasions when
you have seen me in chambers, I have generally rode my bike uptown to be there. If I lived
where Mark Zuckerberg lives, you would see much more of me. I live in multifamily housing. I
live where the city is considering planning for residential highrises.
As you are considering dumping public comment from me -and people like me- for items not
on the agenda to the very end of the meeting, when everyone has left and many
Councilmembers are sure to be sleepily scrolling on their phones, I ask you to keep all of that
in mind. I'm not going to pretend I used that public comment window much when it was
available to me, but I wouldn't consider reopening it at the end of the meeting to be
reopening it at all.
I am aware of the hate bombing problem, and I am sympathetic to it. If it were not for the
geography, I would see no tension between what I hope are shared values and the action
contemplated.
Which is to say that it seems to me that this issue reveals our built environment to itself be a
moral problem. How strange it is that Palo Alto has a centrally located downtown, and yet
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
were it so inclined. I'm not going to pretend City Hall would be moved over one this issue.
But if we're considering how a city should be laid out that reflects our values, and
contemplating what sorts of investments we might need to make in the coming decades --
doesn't this seem like something we should be looking for an opportunity to fix?
-Scott O'Neil
From:Chris Schremp
To:Christine Schremp
Cc:McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; district5@bos.sccgov.org;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Recent emails re: Oversized Vehicles
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 7:28:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Melissa,
I am reporting another dangerous OSV obstruction, this time involving a known repeat
offender.
This vehicle was previously reported on Aspen Way on March 21 (see attached photos of the
tow warning). Despite that warning, the vehicle has simply moved to the Ross Road and
Mayview intersection, where the situation has escalated from a nuisance to a life-safety
hazard.
Key Issues:
Safety Near-Miss: The vehicle is currently blocking the line of sight for the stop sign.
This evening, it nearly caused a collision between a vehicle and a cyclist.
Economic Reality vs. "Community Ties": As the attached photos show, the occupant
is operating a late-model, high-end Infiniti QX80 SUV (approx. $60k+ value). This is
not a case of displacement or "homelessness"—it is a choice to bypass local regulations
and residential parking standards.
Enforcement Gap: A tow warning was issued on March 21, yet the vehicle remains on
our streets creating hazardous conditions. I request that the City run the license plate to
verify the official residency of the owner.
Documentation without consequence is clearly not working. When a cyclist is nearly hit due to
a documented repeat offender, "outreach" is no longer the appropriate response—immediate
removal for public safety is.
Chris
On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 10:47 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa - per your request, sharing another example of an OSV parked on East Meadow
Drive in front of Ramos park, blocking the bike line. My wife has called the police, but
please note that she witnessed cyclists being forced to swerve around our into the main road
area to get past this vehicle.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 10:30 AM Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> wrote:
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to Palo Alto
in 2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof of residency. Once
we had a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll our children in the public
schools. Has this requirement changed? As a city employee, I gather you are aware of
these requirements/ standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com>
wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue,
I must take exception to several points regarding the City’s current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these vehicles would
not be eligible for private RV parks due to their condition. To a tax-paying
resident, this confirms the problem rather than excusing it. If a professional,
regulated facility deems these vehicles unfit or unsafe for their property, it is
illogical for the City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public streets and bike lanes
are the appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the private
market rejects should not fall on the local taxpayers and the safety of our
neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential lawsuits
is not a sufficient reason to delay action. Furthermore, the City has already
demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North Palo Alto has implemented
bans, and El Camino has utilized physical barriers in bike lanes to prevent
OSV parking. Why is this same level of urgency and protection not being
applied to our neighborhood? Addressing "complex situations" and
"operational constraints" is exactly what we expect from our elected officials
and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the City’s broad
definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic and
financial commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that individuals living
in OSVs—who are not paying local property taxes—are enrolled in our
school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these claims. How
many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle have a verified history
of residency in Palo Alto versus those who own property elsewhere in
the state? My observations suggest the latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I recently
received notice of yet another increase in our utility costs. It is increasingly
difficult to reconcile the City’s demand for more financial contribution from
homeowners with its admission that it lacks the 'operational capacity' to keep
our streets clear and safe. The 'burden' of this situation is being borne entirely
by the residents—both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—
while those violating our parking laws face little to no accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over the
safety and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you requested, but the
burden of tracking this should not fall on tax paying citizens, rather I expect
the City to move past "documentation" and toward the same concrete
solutions seen in other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you saw the
sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If you see an
oversized vehicle actively blocking the sidewalk or bike lane, please
continue to call PAPD so it can be addressed in real time. For recurring
issues in the same location, this also helps us with documentation so we can
track patterns and coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please let us
know the closest cross-street/address and the approximate times
you observed the blockages on East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and pricing,
and I have shared your list with our outreach partners as possible leads for
individual households. That said, I want to be candid about a key practical
limitation. Typically, parks have screening requirements (e.g., vehicle
age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the City cannot require a
private park to accept a tenant or hold space. Many of the
vehicles we’re seeing would not be eligible or would face long wait times.
This is part of why the City’s approach has been to enforce existing rules
where there are clear violations and safety hazards, while also continuing
work on managed, legally viable alternatives (safe parking, services, and a
permit-based framework), rather than assuming the private RV market
can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City parking
laws. Council has looked at other solutions besides broad restrictions and
effective bans found in some other Bay Area cities; in part because
they have generated lawsuits and the City should anticipate significant,
expensive legal challenges if Palo Alto pursued a comprehensive ban
approach. In addition, staff have noted real operational constraints (e.g.,
limited towing capacity and the lack of available land for additional safe
parking lots) which affect what can be implemented quickly and
sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”. This
means an individual or household has an affiliation with Palo Alto---such as
employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD enrollment, or a history of residency
prior to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have on the
East Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to
report active obstructions to PAPD. Thank you again for staying engaged in
this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
<image001.png>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:Andrea Wald
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Agenda item #5 - April 6th City Council meeting
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:42:08 PM
Attachments:image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mistyped the general email first time around!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrea Wald <waldmba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 8:35 PM
Subject: Agenda item #5 - April 6th City Council meeting
To: <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>,
<Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>,
<Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>, <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>
Cc: <citycouncil@paloalto.gov>
Dear Mayor Veenkar, Vice Mayor Stone and Council members,
I am writing regarding agenda item #5 on the consent calendar for the upcoming city council
meeting on Mon. April 6th. I am concerned about the GMAX testing requirements that are
spelled out in the Construction Contract C26196846 - Page 197: 3.05 Maintenance (see
below).
Why is it that the contract is only calling for GMAX testing every 2 years when industry
standard is every year?
Please see what my google search has come up with as well testing guidelines on Sports Field
Management's web site:
https://www.sportsfieldmanagement.org/natural-grass-athletic-fields/
"Gmax should be tested at various locations across synthetic fields, with special attention
being paid to inlays, painted areas, seams, and high-use areas. Testing should occur at least
annually, with more frequent testing suggested on heavily-used fields."
What is suggested time line for gmax testing on artificial turf fields:
AI Overview
Based on industry standards and safety guidelines, the suggested timeline for Gmax testing on
artificial turf fields is at minimum once per year. Sportworks Design +1
However, the frequency depends largely on the age of the field and the level of usage. Below
is the recommended schedule for Gmax testing:
Recommended Gmax Testing Schedule
Immediately After Installation: A baseline test is recommended upon completion of a
new field to verify it meets safety standards before first use.
Annually (Minimum): The Synthetic Turf Council and other industry experts
recommend annual testing to monitor compaction and ensure the field is safe to use.
Heavily Used Fields: Fields with high traffic should be tested more frequently, such as
once before the fall season and again mid-year, or even 2–6 times during peak seasons
to manage increased compaction.
Older Fields: As artificial turf ages, it often gets harder and requires more frequent
monitoring. Sports Turf Care, LLC +4
I strongly urge that the contract not be accepted as is and that additional gmax
testing be included. This is critical for the safety of the users - especially since
everyone is claiming the fields are HEAVILY used!
Andrea Wald
Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces
From:John Melnychuk
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;
Reckdahl, Keith
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lo, Ria; Bhatia, Ripon
Subject:Quiet Zones - Palo Alto, Senator Becker supports
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:20:45 PM
Attachments:3.16.26 CPUC CalTrain Quiet Zone.docx
3.16.26 CalTrain Quiet Zone.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilors Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl,
Thank you for your work to improve rail safety in our city.
Attached are letters of support for expedited installation from Senator Becker to the California Public Utilities
Commission, and the Federal Railway Administration.
We look forward to establishment of Quiet Zones at the earliest possible opportunity.
With respect,
John Melnychuk
John Melnychuk
Fairmeadow, Palo Alto
QuietZonesPaloAlto@gmail.com
March 6, 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 application to establish Railroad Quiet
Zones along the Caltrain corridor. This proposal has the potential to significantly improve
community well-being while maintaining and enhancing safety at local rail crossings.
The planned safety upgrades—including quad-gate installations, enhanced pavement
markings, and improved signage—are designed to strengthen protections for drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists at multiple crossings. These improvements will allow train horns to
be minimized while ensuring that the crossings continue to meet rigorous federal safety
standards.
Quiet Zones are a federally authorized solution that can help address persistent community
concerns such as noise-related stress and sleep disruption. The City of Palo Alto has
demonstrated both readiness and strong community support for this initiative, and the City
Council has committed $4 million to implement the required safety measures.
For these reasons, I request the California Public Utilities Commission approve the City of
Palo Alto’s Quiet Zone request. Prompt approval will support both the safety and quality of
life of residents while advancing improvements to rail crossing infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Hon. Josh Becker
California State Senate, 13th District
March 16, 2026
Federal Railroad Administration
RE: Support for the City of Palo Alto’s Railroad Quiet Zone Application
Dear FRA:
I am writing in support of the City of Palo Alto’s application to establish Railroad Quiet
Zones along the Caltrain corridor. This proposal has the potential to significantly improve
community well-being while maintaining and enhancing safety at local rail crossings.
The planned safety upgrades—including quad-gate installations, enhanced pavement
markings, and improved signage—are designed to strengthen protections for drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists at multiple crossings. These improvements will allow train horns to
be minimized while ensuring that the crossings continue to meet rigorous federal safety
standards.
Quiet Zones are a federally authorized solution that can help address persistent community
concerns such as noise-related stress and sleep disruption. The City of Palo Alto has
demonstrated both readiness and strong community support for this initiative, and the City
Council has committed $4 million to implement the required safety measures.
For these reasons, I request the California Public Utilities Commission approve the City of
Palo Alto’s Quiet Zone request. Prompt approval will support both the safety and quality of
life of residents while advancing improvements to rail crossing infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Hon. Josh Becker
California State Senate, 13th District
From:Meri Gruber
To:Council, City
Subject:SARAP - How was the scale of the alternatives set?
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 1:44:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I supported the housing element's vision for the SARAP corridor of roughly 1,400–2,000
units.
According to the packet and minutes of the October 6, 2025 City Council study session, staff
described 1,559 units as the baseline, with mid- and high-growth scenarios to follow.
However, the alternatives presented to the Planning Commission on March 25, 2026 start at
3,800 units. These alternatives start at more than double the baseline, and reach 7,400 units at
the high end. 7,400 units exceed Palo Alto's entire citywide housing obligation and undermine
the required fair distribution of housing.
Can you help me understand what criteria or process was used to establish 3,800 units as the
floor for the alternatives and why the high-end exceeds the entire housing obligation? Where
is that decision documented in the public record?
I ask because I want SARAP to succeed as a genuine new neighborhood — well-connected,
well-served, and built at a scale the corridor can realistically support. I realize SARAP has a
long planning horizon but the alternatives selected now will drive how well or how
poorly this area is developed.
Thank you for your service to the community.
Best regards,
Meri Gruber
Palo Alto
From:Chris Schremp
To:Christine Schremp
Cc:McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; district5@bos.sccgov.org;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Recent emails re: Oversized Vehicles
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 1:01:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Melissa - per your request, sharing another example of an OSV parked on East Meadow Drive
in front of Ramos park, blocking the bike line. My wife has called the police, but please note
that she witnessed cyclists being forced to swerve around our into the main road area to get
past this vehicle.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 10:30 AM Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> wrote:
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to Palo Alto in
2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof of residency. Once we
had a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll our children in the public schools.
Has this requirement changed? As a city employee, I gather you are aware of these
requirements/ standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com>
wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I
must take exception to several points regarding the City’s current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these vehicles would
not be eligible for private RV parks due to their condition. To a tax-paying
resident, this confirms the problem rather than excusing it. If a professional,
regulated facility deems these vehicles unfit or unsafe for their property, it is
illogical for the City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public streets and bike lanes
are the appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the private market
rejects should not fall on the local taxpayers and the safety of our
neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential lawsuits is
demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North Palo Alto has implemented
bans, and El Camino has utilized physical barriers in bike lanes to prevent OSV
parking. Why is this same level of urgency and protection not being applied to
our neighborhood? Addressing "complex situations" and "operational
constraints" is exactly what we expect from our elected officials and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the City’s broad
definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic and
financial commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that individuals living in
OSVs—who are not paying local property taxes—are enrolled in our
school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these claims. How
many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle have a verified history of
residency in Palo Alto versus those who own property elsewhere in the
state? My observations suggest the latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I recently received
notice of yet another increase in our utility costs. It is increasingly difficult to
reconcile the City’s demand for more financial contribution from homeowners
with its admission that it lacks the 'operational capacity' to keep our streets clear
and safe. The 'burden' of this situation is being borne entirely by the residents—
both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—while those
violating our parking laws face little to no accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over the safety
and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you requested, but the
burden of tracking this should not fall on tax paying citizens, rather I expect the
City to move past "documentation" and toward the same concrete solutions seen
in other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you saw the
sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If you see an
oversized vehicle actively blocking the sidewalk or bike lane, please continue
to call PAPD so it can be addressed in real time. For recurring issues in the
same location, this also helps us with documentation so we can track patterns
and coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please let us know
the closest cross-street/address and the approximate times you observed the
blockages on East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and pricing,
and I have shared your list with our outreach partners as possible leads for
individual households. That said, I want to be candid about a key practical
limitation. Typically, parks have screening requirements (e.g., vehicle
age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the City cannot require a
private park to accept a tenant or hold space. Many of the
vehicles we’re seeing would not be eligible or would face long wait times.
This is part of why the City’s approach has been to enforce existing rules
where there are clear violations and safety hazards, while also continuing
work on managed, legally viable alternatives (safe parking, services, and a
permit-based framework), rather than assuming the private RV market
can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City parking
laws. Council has looked at other solutions besides broad restrictions and
effective bans found in some other Bay Area cities; in part because they have
generated lawsuits and the City should anticipate significant, expensive
legal challenges if Palo Alto pursued a comprehensive ban approach. In
addition, staff have noted real operational constraints (e.g., limited towing
capacity and the lack of available land for additional safe parking lots) which
affect what can be implemented quickly and sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”. This means
an individual or household has an affiliation with Palo Alto---such as
employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD enrollment, or a history of residency prior
to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have on the East
Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to report active obstructions
to PAPD. Thank you again for staying engaged in this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
<image001.png>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
<image002.png>
From:Leigh Rowe
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 April 6 Agenda
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:09:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Wow, these buildings are way too tall. Six stories max!
From:Grace Pariante
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 on the April 6 Agenda - San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 11:38:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am writing
to express my opposition to rezoning both North Fabian and CTI areas to residential
before addressing the current traffic along the San Antonio Road corridor, especially
at the intersections of Middlefield, Charleston, and Highway 101.
I have attended workshops, filled in surveys, and read documents about the San
Antonio Road Area Plan. At the meetings, many attendees have tried to raise the
issue of traffic. The organizers, on two different occasions, have asked people to
stop, explaining it would be addressed at the end of the meeting. In both cases, after
everyone's energy has dissipated and 25% of the people have gone home, they
present a plan for pedestrians and bike lanes and are asked for opinions on 3 or 4
plans. It shifts the conversation away from cars, traffic, even intersections which are
not discussed at all, even for bikes and pedestrians!
Bike lanes and pedestrian walkways DO NOT nearly adequately address the VERY
BAD traffic that already exists along this corridor. Car and truck traffic is never
discussed. I believe deferring the issue over and again degrades the trust in the
workshop organizers and my city officials.
I challenge you to travel along 101 north at 5:00 PM, exit on Middlefield, and try to
turn left on San Antonio Road. You cannot. It doesn't matter how many lights you
wait. The only option is to continue straight along Middlefield, turn left on Charleston,
and then backtrack. On any weekday, the road and intersections are a mess. The
best bike lanes in the world could not rectify this situation. Now add 3900 to 7000
homes.
To add even half the number of housing units that is being proposed, the 101 and
San Antonio Road intersection needs a cloverleaf that addresses traffic coming from
and going to 101 in north and south directions. Minimally another lane needs to be
added to San Antonio Road, and a parking lot added to the train station. If you do not,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
you will destroy my neighborhood, that will take the brunt of the cut through traffic.
How would you feel if you lived here? We have small children, a swimming pool,
soccer fields, a pre-school, and a community center. So many children who could be
struck by a frustrated commuter.
Prove me wrong. Show me the traffic studies that have been completed that show
how traffic will be improved by adding thousands more housing units and a bike lane.
Housing is important, but all in one place without first solving the traffic problem will
be disastrous.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Grace Pariante
4013 Ben Lomond Drive
From:Sandra Bergquist
To:Council, City
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over Development 60ft Max
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 11:30:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am a South Palo Alto resident and I strongly oppose building heights above 60ft in the San Antonio
Road Area Plan. The proposed density of up ton 7,400 units will overwhelm infrastructure, worsen traffic
on an already dangerous corridor, and permanently destroy our neighborhood's character. I urge Council
to cap heights at 60ft, require parking, and distribute growth equitably across all of Palo Alto.
S Bergquist
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
Subject:April 11 in Palo Alto: Protecing Our Community from ICE
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 10:54:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
We invite you to a special community forum called: “Protecting Our Community from ICE.” The
event, hosted by Indivisible Palo Alto Plus, is on April 11, 3:30-5:30 PM, at the First Presbyterian
Church in Palo Alto. This event will focus on best practices arising from Minneapolis and how they
can be applied in the Bay Area.
What This Event Will Offer
In this forum, experts and leaders in the immigration field will share best practices for
safeguarding our communities, preventing widespread ICE surveillance, and providing mutual aid,
as well as other community organizing strategies. Topics include
• Demonstration, observation, and documentation rights
• Neighborhood organizing models
• Community mutual aid
• Rapid Response Networks
• Creating safe spaces in local businesses
• Mass surveillance and digital security, including use of automatic license plate readers
(ALPRs)
• Opposing local detention centers
We would greatly appreciate it if you could share this forum with your social media networks and
email lists. Our mobilize and social media ads are linked here.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Cara Silver
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus
Immigration Team Co-Lead
Event info: https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/event/925332/
Instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DWklfJ3Es4X/
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Schnedler
To:Council, City
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Crossing
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 10:52:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I am astonished that City Council is even giving serious consideration to closing the Churchill crossing. To do so
would have disastrous consequences for thousands of people and defects attention to the root causes of teen suicides
in Palo Alto.
A reasonable short term remedy is exactly what Palo Alto is presently doing — stationing a crossing guard at the
crossing, and while this may seem expensive and wasteful to some, I can actually remember back to the 1950’s,
before automatic railroad crossing were invented, where there was a tower and a crossing guard on duty at all times
to lower the crossing guards whenever a train approached. Compared to the massive impact the city and the region
by closing this crossing, a single person is entirely reasonable.
Longer term I would like to suggest that perhaps the children who are killing themselves are canaries in the coal
mine, and rather than focusing on the canaries we need to examine the coal mine and not the canaries. As you well
know, across the United States there are hundreds of schools next to railroad crossings where suicides are unheard
of, and likewise there are high performance schools where suicides are not only uncommon but unheard of.*
The root causes of these teen suicides are many and I will not hypothesize on them, but I would suggest that by
addressing these root causes we will not only reducing these suicides but dramatically improving the lives of ALL of
the children in our community.
Now is the time for city council to commission an urgent and proactive assessment of how to make Palo Alto a
better place to raise children while keeping the Churchill Crossing opening and the crossing guards in place.
Best Regards,
Dave Schnedler
p.s. I have lived in Southgate from 1988 until present, but from 2007 to 2012 we moved back to my home town for
our daughter’s education because we did not what we saw in the Palo Alto school system. The per capita incomes in
Ladue Missouri and Clayton Missouri are roughly the same as Palo Alto, and they have two excellent public school
systems well as two of the best private schools in the region: MICDS and John Burroughs School (JBS), which our
daughter attended 7-12th grade.
When we moved there I inquired about teen suicides, and everyone looked at me as if I was crazy. No one could
remember there ever having been there, nor were there any during the seven years we lived there.
In his farewell address the nation’s departing surgeon general talked about the level of unhappiness in the nation,
and the remedy he prescribed was three fold: fellowship, service and purpose. I can tell you how these were
realized at JBS:
1) Every freshman was assigned a senior “buddy” to introduce them to the school and look after them
2) Each week students were randomly assigned seating at the lunch room so they met new students and make new
friends
3) Participation in an after school sports program was mandatory as a way of getting exercise and making friends
4) The school had multiple clubs and volunteer activities.
5) Every class participated in a service project every year for the community
6) “Purpose” was addressed by asking the question “how are you going to use this education to make the world a
better place?"
From:Jane Stocklin
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill crossing
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 10:16:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
We are very opposed to the Churchill train crossing closing to car traffic. It would cause such disarray for the entire
community…..thousands of people daily. There will have to be a pedestrian way to cross the tracks anyway? The option to use the train
tracks for nefarious reasons will still be there regardless of how much effort is put into trying to restrict accessibility.
We are saddened by the deaths of high school students. Those who choose to take their life often have made the decision and they find a
way to make that happen. The train tracks will always be there.
Help needs to come much earlier for these vulnerable young people to identify whatever is causing such unrest in the first place.
Counseling, academic assistance, education for parents, students and teachers around the topic could be instituted. Needs must be
addressed in a personal way, early and with professional guidance. In reading about these young people, signs were there. More
aggressive action needs to be taken to intervene early.
The Palo Alto Community Fund has just funded alcove Palo Alto with a $100,000 grant. An integrated,
youth-centered model designed with, by and for youths a welcoming space where young people can
access mental, physical and social support on their own terms. These are the kinds of solutions that will
really make a difference.
Thank you for requesting input before this enormous decision is made.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Theo Nissim
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not close Churchill crossing
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 7:34:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to not close the Churchill rail crossing.
Each suicide is an unspeakable tragedy, that
should be prevented by understanding and addressing its root causes. Closing the Churchill rail crossing does not
address that need, and is an emotional reaction during a very raw time for our community.
People who intend to commit suicide can find train track access a few hundred feet in each direction from the
Churchill crossing, at the Caltrain Stations at University and California.
Closing Churchill will unleash chaos in our town, with all the neighborhoods in North Palo Alto facing delays in
emergency vehicle access, and in getting to the medical facilities at Stanford etc.
Virtually all Palo Alto residents and people visiting our town for business or recreation will face havoc. Just imagine
how Embarcadero and Oregon, already beyond the point of saturation will look after a potential Churchill closure,
with thousands of additional vehicles, bikes and pedestrians added to traffic.
Understanding and addressing the root causes for these tragedies is key, as is what PAUSD was and is doing to
prevent suicides in its student population. This is IMO the most important issue and the one that should be the focus
for our community discussion.
Closing Churchill will not address and solve that.
I urge you to keep Churchill open and focus on finding and addressing the core issues mentioned above.
Thank you,
- Theo Nissim
Theo.nissim@nissimspace.com
+16507407851
From:John Melnychuk
To:publiccomment@caltrain.com
Cc:Melinda McGee; Adrian Brandt; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Lu, George; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed
Subject:April 2nd , Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Meeting Caltrain
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 1:32:33 AM
Attachments:Caltrain_Executive_Summary_Final_v6_fixed.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Dear PCJP Board,
Thank you for working to improve public transportation and Caltrain operations.
Caltrain remains an essential resource for the traveling public, but it’s in trouble because
ridership now can’t sustain the operational costs; Caltrain is overbuilt now and it is expecting
a rescue from taxpayers. That rescue should be very limited and subject to improvements in
defined and measurable operational improvements for safety and much lower subsidies than it
currently is demanding. PCJB can’t devise a plan based on the reality of 2018, ridership won’t
return to those levels without better safety and connectivity. The strategy to pursue frequency
and to not elevate safety to a top priority doesn’t deserve public support.
Perhaps a 5 year tax increase will be more suitable and allow for accountability regarding
Board and Caltrain Performance. The present plan should be rejected; the Board hasn’t
organized any benchmarks to perform to, and it hasn’t properly prioritized safety, fiscal
prudence, or operational improvements as to connectivity.
I attach an analysis and plan for action below. It will take 60 seconds to grasp.
With respect,
John
John Melnychuk
3707 Lindero Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 906-5656
jdmelnychuk@icloud.com
Powered by Mimecast
Caltrain Funding: Executive Summary
$10 Fare ® ~$30 Cost ® ~$20 Taxpayer Subsidy (~70%)
If taxpayers fund 70% of each ride, they deserve 100% accountability.
Why Challenge the Board’s Proposal
Caltrain remains vital, but its current model is not sustainable. Ridership has not recovered to the pre-COVID growth assumptions that
supported major capital plans. The system now operates with roughly 70% subsidy per rider, after a period of expensive capital
programs, delays, disputes, and weak integration with other transit providers. The Board’s 14-year tax proposal should be replaced
with a 5-year funding measure tied to measurable improvements in safety, fiscal performance, and regional connectivity.
Risk Context: Everyday Vehicles vs. Caltrain
System Weight Speed Controls
Cars / Trucks 3,000–5,000 lbs 20 mph in school zones Traffic signals, roadway rules, enforcement
Caltrain ~1,000,000 lbs Up to 79 mph Incomplete systemwide physical protection
Safety Must Be Proactive, Not Reactive
Safety improvements have too often followed tragedies instead of preventing them. A corridor operating roughly 104 trains per day
through cities needs a Board-led, corridor-wide safety agenda—not piecemeal responses after deaths or collisions.
Conditions for a 5-Year Ballot Measure
Category Required measurable commitment
Funding compromise Replace a 14-year tax increase with a 5-year ballot measure. Renewal should depend on published
performance results.
Safety by FY2031 Upgrade all level crossings with quad gates and related protections by the close of FY2031. Start with the
locations associated with the most deaths; prioritize remaining crossings by collision history.
Quiet Zones Implement Quiet Zones and other enhanced protections first in the highest-risk locations, including
communities affected by repeated tragic teen suicides.
Fiscal target Improve fiscal performance so riders are subsidized at roughly 40%, not 70%, through better ridership
capture, operating discipline, and stronger connections to other systems.
Integration Publish measurable targets for easier transfers with BART, SamTrans, VTA, ACE, and Muni, plus a clear
plan for simple airport access and employer partnerships.
Board accountability Require annual public reporting. Missing agreed targets should trigger formal Board review, leadership
evaluation, and suspension of executive performance bonuses tied to unmet goals.
Bottom Line: Don’t grant a 14-year blank check. Approve a 5-year measure with measurable safety, integration, and fiscal targets—and hold the
Board accountable for delivering them.
From:Christine Schremp
To:Chris Schremp
Cc:McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; district5@bos.sccgov.org;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Recent emails re: Oversized Vehicles
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:55:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to Palo Alto in
2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof of residency. Once we had
a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll our children in the public schools. Has this
requirement changed? As a city employee, I gather you are aware of these requirements/
standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com>
wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I
must take exception to several points regarding the City’s current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these vehicles would not
be eligible for private RV parks due to their condition. To a tax-paying resident,
this confirms the problem rather than excusing it. If a professional, regulated
facility deems these vehicles unfit or unsafe for their property, it is illogical for
the City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public streets and bike lanes are the
appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the private market rejects
should not fall on the local taxpayers and the safety of our neighborhoods.
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
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential lawsuits is not
a sufficient reason to delay action. Furthermore, the City has already
demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North Palo Alto has implemented
bans, and El Camino has utilized physical barriers in bike lanes to prevent OSV
parking. Why is this same level of urgency and protection not being applied to our
neighborhood? Addressing "complex situations" and "operational constraints" is
exactly what we expect from our elected officials and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the City’s broad
definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic and financial
commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that individuals living in
OSVs—who are not paying local property taxes—are enrolled in our school
system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these claims. How
many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle have a verified history of
residency in Palo Alto versus those who own property elsewhere in the
state? My observations suggest the latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I recently received
notice of yet another increase in our utility costs. It is increasingly difficult to
reconcile the City’s demand for more financial contribution from homeowners
with its admission that it lacks the 'operational capacity' to keep our streets clear
and safe. The 'burden' of this situation is being borne entirely by the residents—
both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—while those violating
our parking laws face little to no accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over the safety
and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you requested, but the
burden of tracking this should not fall on tax paying citizens, rather I expect the
City to move past "documentation" and toward the same concrete solutions seen
in other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you saw the
sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If you see an oversized
vehicle actively blocking the sidewalk or bike lane, please continue to call
PAPD so it can be addressed in real time. For recurring issues in the same
location, this also helps us with documentation so we can track patterns and
coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please let us know the closest
cross-street/address and the approximate times you observed the blockages on
East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and pricing, and
I have shared your list with our outreach partners as possible leads for
individual households. That said, I want to be candid about a key practical
limitation. Typically, parks have screening requirements (e.g., vehicle
age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the City cannot require a private
park to accept a tenant or hold space. Many of the vehicles we’re seeing would
not be eligible or would face long wait times. This is part of why the City’s
approach has been to enforce existing rules where there are clear violations and
safety hazards, while also continuing work on managed, legally viable
alternatives (safe parking, services, and a permit-based framework), rather than
assuming the private RV market can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City parking
laws. Council has looked at other solutions besides broad restrictions and
effective bans found in some other Bay Area cities; in part because they have
generated lawsuits and the City should anticipate significant, expensive
legal challenges if Palo Alto pursued a comprehensive ban approach. In
addition, staff have noted real operational constraints (e.g., limited towing
capacity and the lack of available land for additional safe parking lots) which
affect what can be implemented quickly and sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”. This means an
individual or household has an affiliation with Palo Alto---such as employment
in Palo Alto, PAUSD enrollment, or a history of residency prior to
displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have on the East
Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to report active obstructions to
PAPD. Thank you again for staying engaged in this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
<image001.png>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
<image002.png>
From:Brigid Barton
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill closure
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 8:27:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello—I am a resident in Old Palo Alto with a husband in the Sequoias Residential Living, and I visit him at least
four times a week. He is wheelchair bound and needs a caregiver with him in the apartment, so I live here instead. I
am 82 and drive, but my commute would be really horrific if Churchill is closed. Please, please do not take this step!
The 24 hour guards should be enough. Respectfully, Brigid Barton
Sent from my iPad
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item 3 for the April 6 City Council meeting
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 6:14:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
I write to provide citizen feedback on the San Antonio Road Area Plan packet provided for
the April 6 City Council meeting. I attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
on March 24 and zoomed into the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on
March 25 to learn as much as I could to supplement what I learned at the SARAP
Community Workshop on March 5. I find the 163 page staff report with two attachments
embedded rather hard to navigate, but I have read it. My comments fall into four categories:
density of housing
I am in favor of developing more housing, especially affordable housing, in Palo Alto.
However, adding up to 7,400 new units to one small section of the southernmost part of
Palo Alto would not be advantageous to the CIty as a whole and would be devastating for
those of us who live near the SARAP. The impact on our schools and on traffic would be
unmanageable. Most of the high-quality resources for Palo Alto residents are in the
northern parts of the city. Since Cubberley has still not been renovated, the southern parts
of the city are sorely underresourced. New housing should be distributed thoughtfully
throughout the city and near resources already available. To manage the density, it will be
important to limit heights to 60 feet in most of the sections of the SARAP, with possible
higher apartment buildings in the CTI sections since it is close to Mountain View's taller
existing and new housing projects. But don't go for maximum housing!
traffic
Traffic on San Antonio, Charleston, and Middlefield is already a big problem. I have read
that these streets are the most dangerous ones in Palo Alto. Adding up to 7,400 new units
and moving all access to Highway 101 to the San Antonio interchange likely will result in
gridlock. If the new units are limited to 3,800, bus routes are added, and pedestrian and
bicycle mobility is made safer, then the lovely land use and mobility alternatives and
strategies described in the report can benefit the whole city. Palo Alto has to factor in the
effects of new and proposed housing developments in Mountain View when thinking about
the traffic implications of development in the SARAP.
Cubberley
Renovating Cubberley will be essential to the success of the SARAP. The new housing should
have its own new retail and other resources, as is the case in Mountain View's dense housing
along San Antonio Road. But Cubberley should be easily and safely accessible to the new
neighbors and it needs to be renovated to provide services comparable to those offered in north
Palo Alto. Taxes levied via a ballot measure are not the best way to raise funds to purchase the
land from the school district. Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation COPs have funded
measure. Relying on citizen approval of an increase in our sales tax tells me Palo Alto
leaders are not committed to purchasing the land and making the improvements residents
need now and will need more as the new housing is built.
mobility alternatives and strategies
Palo Alto must fund and implement elements of the SARAP that Palo Alto has control over
as soon as possible. I don't see evidence of that in the City budget. I do see signs of
building projects already in motion in locations that lack safe options for driving, biking, and
walking. I would like to see evidence that Palo Alto is ready to fund renovation of Cubberley
and implement strategies for mobility and safety beginning this year. Our current students
and all the new ones who will have homes in south Palo Alto need safe routes to school.
Phyllis Brown
From:Esther Lucas
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 on April 6th Meeting Agenda - San Antonio Road Plan
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:30:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
I watched the session (I believe it was the planning commission) wheretwo of
my neighbors spoke during the comments period. Their comments reflected my
thoughts. I would like to see the emphasis on housing, lower building heights,
some retail but not office space, and larger parks.
The one thing that I would like to see addressed that I think is overlooked (or,
maybe I just missed it) has to do with the absence of public transit options. I
value the emphasis on walking and biking which I believe is addressed pretty
well. However, with so much new housing I expect there will be families with
children. How will the children be assigned to Palo Alto public schools and how
will they get there? Biking and walking may not be options, especially for
younger students if, as has happened in the past, the closest schools are full. Is
the City working on this in cooperation with the school district? And what
about seniors, people with mobility issues or without cars or reliable
transportation who are not able to walk or bike to reasonably priced grocery
shopping options (and particularly carrying purchases home)? Perhaps this is
not the concern of the planners, however I am mentioning it because I think it
should at least be brought to their attention.
I know it may be late in the process to be commenting, but I would appreciate it
if the concerns expressed here could be added to the conversation.
Sincerely,
Esther Lucas
495 El Capitan Place
estherlucas67@gmail.com
--
Esther Lucas
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Christine Schremp
Cc:Chris Schremp; McDonough, Melissa; City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Margaret Abe-Koga;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Ties to the Community
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:40:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Melissa,
I would like to chime in on this ’Ties to the Community” discussion also.
I am in the process of talking with and organizing as many businesses as I can on East
Meadow Circle (EMC). One of the things I learned from one of the businesses, that has
numerous facilities on EMC, is that (1) children play on the property in front of his facilities
and as a result he has had to install bollards to protect his property, and (2) school buses stop
in front of his property to pick-up and drop off children who reside in the OSVs. I have not
determined if the school buses are PAUSD school buses, but I’m going to try and find out.
I have talked with numerous family members, neighbors, and friends about these three
definitions of ’Ties to the Community,’ and frankly no one, 100%, do not agree with them.
This sounds like more Palo Alto being ‘accommodating’ to the OSV dwellers at the expense
of the tax-paying residents and businesses of the community.
I know many people who grew up in Palo Alto who can no longer afford to live here. Why
should they be forced to live elsewhere in a brick and mortar structure just because they
choose not to live in an OSV?
And, regarding, the PASUD proof of residency, I sure hope none of these OSV dwellers are
attending PAUSD schools. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to us residents.
Additionally, I would be very interested to know more about the details of the screening
process that the City does when assessing each of the OSVs. This process needs to be more
transparent.
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
On Apr 1, 2026, at 10:30 AM, Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>
wrote:
Melisa,
In order to enroll in PAUSD we had to prove proof of residency. We moved to
Palo Alto in 2014 from Boston and had to provide the school district with proof
of residency. Once we had a signed lease in Palo Alto, we THEN could enroll our
children in the public schools. Has this requirement changed? As a city
employee, I gather you are aware of these requirements/ standards …?
Please advice.
Christine Schremp
Please excuse typos
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2026, at 9:37 AM, Chris Schremp
<chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing
dialogue, I must take exception to several points regarding the City’s
current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these
vehicles would not be eligible for private RV parks due to their
condition. To a tax-paying resident, this confirms the problem rather
than excusing it. If a professional, regulated facility deems these
vehicles unfit or unsafe for their property, it is illogical for the City to
conclude that Palo Alto’s public streets and bike lanes are the
appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the private
market rejects should not fall on the local taxpayers and the safety of
our neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential
lawsuits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. Furthermore, the
City has already demonstrated that restrictions are possible; North
Palo Alto has implemented bans, and El Camino has utilized physical
barriers in bike lanes to prevent OSV parking. Why is this same level
of urgency and protection not being applied to our neighborhood?
Addressing "complex situations" and "operational constraints" is
exactly what we expect from our elected officials and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the
City’s broad definition of community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic
and financial commitment of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that
individuals living in OSVs—who are not paying local property
taxes—are enrolled in our school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these
claims. How many of the individuals on East Meadow Circle
have a verified history of residency in Palo Alto versus those
who own property elsewhere in the state? My observations
suggest the latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I
recently received notice of yet another increase in our utility costs. It
is increasingly difficult to reconcile the City’s demand for more
financial contribution from homeowners with its admission that it
lacks the 'operational capacity' to keep our streets clear and safe. The
'burden' of this situation is being borne entirely by the residents—
both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—while
those violating our parking laws face little to no accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over
the safety and accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you
requested, but the burden of tracking this should not fall on tax
paying citizens, rather I expect the City to move past
"documentation" and toward the same concrete solutions seen in
other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you
saw the sidewalk and bike lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If
you see an oversized vehicle actively blocking the sidewalk or bike
lane, please continue to call PAPD so it can be addressed in real
time. For recurring issues in the same location, this also helps us
with documentation so we can track patterns and coordinate follow-
up. If you’re able/willing, please let us know the closest cross-
street/address and the approximate times you observed the
blockages on East Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and
pricing, and I have shared your list with our outreach partners as
possible leads for individual households. That said, I want to be
candid about a key practical limitation. Typically, parks have
screening requirements (e.g., vehicle age/condition) and limited
space/waitlists, and the City cannot require a private park to accept
a tenant or hold space. Many of the vehicles we’re seeing would
not be eligible or would face long wait times. This is part of why
the City’s approach has been to enforce existing rules where there
are clear violations and safety hazards, while also continuing work
on managed, legally viable alternatives (safe parking, services, and
a permit-based framework), rather than assuming the private RV
market can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City
parking laws. Council has looked at other solutions besides broad
restrictions and effective bans found in some other Bay Area cities;
in part because they have generated lawsuits and the City should
anticipate significant, expensive legal challenges if Palo Alto
pursued a comprehensive ban approach. In addition, staff have
noted real operational constraints (e.g., limited towing capacity and
the lack of available land for additional safe parking lots) which
affect what can be implemented quickly and sustainably.
Finally, you asked what staff meant by “ties to our community”.
This means an individual or household has an affiliation with Palo
Alto---such as employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD enrollment, or a
history of residency prior to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have
on the East Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to
report active obstructions to PAPD. Thank you again for staying
engaged in this.
Sincerely,
Melissa
<image001.png>Melissa McDonough, MPP
Assistant to the City Manager
pronouns: she/her
650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile)
Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov
From:Barbara Platt
To:Council, City
Cc:Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over Development -60 ft max
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:35:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello
I live in South Palo Alto and strongly oppose building height over 60 feet regarding the San
Antonio Road area plan
The Proposed density of 7400 units will overwhelm current infrastructure, create worsening
traffic on an already very dangerous corner and will permanently destroy the character our
neighborhood
I strongly urge the Council to cap height at 60 feet or less and require minimum parking as
well as distributed growth equitably across all of Palo Alto
Thank you for your kind attention
Barbara Platt
490 El Capitan place
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:Anne Colby
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THE CHURCHILL TRAIN CROSSING
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:20:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members:
Like everyone involved in the decision about whether to close the Churchill rail crossing, I know
that the worst tragedy a family can face is the death by suicide of one of their children. I agree
that the city should take steps to help prevent these tragedies. I walk frequently across the
Churchill crossing and am pleased to see the attentive guards there to protect troubled young
people. I don't know how long the proposed temporary closing is expected to last. But it would
seem to me that guards could be kept in place for at least that period of time, if not longer.
Continuing to use guards at the closing would be greatly preferable to closing the rail crossing
to foot and auto traffic. I live in the Southgate neighborhood, which is accessible only via
Churchill. To close access between Southgate and areas to the east on Churchill would
radically change our neighborhood, as well as causing serious problems for the already highly
congested traffic flow between El Camino and 101 via other routes. I'm not understanding how
it can even be legal to change our neighborhood so radically without our consent.
Emergency access is an urgent consideration for me and others in my neighborhood. A few
years ago, a large man broke into my bedroom while I was asleep. Even after I screamed and
screamed, he would not leave and kept coming toward me. My husband was in another part of
the house and called the police. Fortunately, the police came quickly. The large, threatening
man refused to leave our home; he left only when the police arrived. An extra 5-10 minutes
could have made a horrifying difference in that event. I'm also concerned about fires and other
emergencies. A few years ago, I suffered a very serious medical emergency. The ambulance
arrived very quickly and got me right into Stanford Hospital. Again, I hate to think what would
have happened if that ambulance had been delayed. Like others in my neighborhood, my
husband and I bought our house in Southgate largely because of the location — the
neighborhood's convenient access to everywhere we wanted to go on foot and by car. I can't
see how it would be justified or even legal to remove significant value from our homes by
enacting a unilateral decision, not supported by the Southgate residents who are so severely
affected by it.
PLEASE BE CREATIVE IN FINDING OTHER WAYS TO PROTECT OUR YOUTH. It strikes me
that it's a short walk from the Paly campus to the University Ave railroad crossing and also to
the one at California Avenue. If a troubled young person is intent on suicide, she/he will find a
way. It would not be difficult. So much better to have guards and also to try to change the
culture of intense pressure on these students. We must find ways to help these deeply
unhappy children to feel good about their lives and have hope for the future. To accomplish
this, the families and schools must work together to address the students' mental health.
Closing Churchill Ave will do nothing to address these mental health issues. A closure would
cause great harm to the larger surrounding community without addressing the heart of the
matter in any meaningful way.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Anne Colby
Southgate home-owner
From:McAndrew, Craig
To:Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject:C-SPAN StudentCam 2026 Competition - Congratulatory Message for Winning Students from Palo Alto?
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:19:17 PM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi all -
I'm emailing about two groups of students from Palo Alto High School who won top prizes in C-
SPAN's 22nd annual student documentary competition, StudentCam
(https://www.studentcam.org). StudentCam is C-SPAN's national video documentary
competition that encourages students to think critically about issues that affect our
communities and our nation. In this semi-quincentennial year celebrating the 250th
anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we asked students in grades 6-12 to create a
short (5:00-6:00 minute) video documentary on either a historical or contemporary topic that
related to the competition theme, “America’s 250th Anniversary” Exploring the American Story
through the Declaration of Independence.
I'm writing to ask if Mayor Veenker and/or the City Council would consider sharing a
short general congratulatory video message for the group, or letters/certificates that
we can feature on the StudentCam website, and share with the students, the school, and their
families?
We don’t have a specific deadline, but we are airing the top winners all this month and I'd be
pleased to add anything you may send to their web pages on the StudentCam site whenever
may work with your schedule.
Information about the students winners, their topics, and links to their short (~6-minute)
documentaries are below:
2nd PRIZE WINNERS – HIGH SCHOOL WESTERN DIVISION
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Jonah Sandel & Benjamin Sandel
11th & 10th Grades
Claiming our Consent: Reengaging the Youth Vote
Palo Alto Senior High School
Palo Alto, CA
Teacher Adviser: Caitlin Drewes
3rd PRIZE WINNERS – HIGH SCHOOL WESTERN DIVISION
Ian Jiang, Carolina Madeira, & Yaby Ketema
10th Grade
The Invisible War of America's Veterans, about veterans’ mental health
awareness
Palo Alto Senior High School
Palo Alto, CA
Teacher Adviser: Ken Tinsley
If easiest for you, you can upload any files to our Dropbox account here:
https://www.dropbox.com/request/igF4CzXGKepCbeUhL3Ms this link will allow you
to upload files directly from your computer, tablet or phone). If sending a written congratulatory
note or certificate, we would love to receive those as digital PDF files so that we can feature
them on their pages on the StudentCam site too.
If looking for inspiration for a video message, below are some examples from others who have
helped us to recognize their state's winners:
Congratulatory Message Examples:
California Governor Gavin Newsom
Lt. Governor of Kentucky Jacqueline Coleman
Montana Senator Steve Daines
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
California Congresswoman Sara Jacobs
New York Times White House Correspondent Michael Shear
Duke's Fuqua School of Business Assistant Dean of MQM Jeremy Petranka
Emmy award winning documentary & news producer Angad Singh
Thank you for reading this far and I appreciate you considering this request!
Craig McAndrew
Director, Education Relations
C-SPAN Television Networks
400 N. Capitol St. NW | Suite 155 | Washington, DC 20001
202-626-6131 | CMcAndrew@c-span.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not
disseminate or copy it.
From:Stepheny McGraw
To:Council, City
Subject:No on RR Crossing Closures!
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:43:26 AM
As one of many who frequently uses the Churchill RR Crossing to get from El Camino to Alma and vis versa, I ask,
please don’t close this crossing. There will always be those who are sick and/or tired of this world and need to
escape. Don’t punish the rest of us for their unhappiness.
Stepheny McGraw
3303 Thomas Drive 94303
From:Mr. Shore
To:Council, City; Cha, Kelly
Cc:Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan; Yang, Albert
Subject:Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance - April 6, 2026 - Agenda Item 13
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:10:14 AM
Attachments:Bird_Friendly_Design_Ordinance-2nd_Reading-01Apr2026.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 Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (18.40.280).
Best regards,
Jeffrey Shore
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
April 1, 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: April 6, 2026 Agenda Item 13 — Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (PAMC § 18.40.280)
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
This letter is intended to bring to your attention certain ambiguities and internal
inconsistencies arising from the addition of new provisions in the Bird-Friendly Design
Ordinance that reference films, decals and similar markers approved by the American Bird
Conservancy (the “ABC”).
Subject to Director Approval
For its Second Reading, Section 18.40.280(b)(2)(B) has been amended to read as follows:
(B) Patterned Treatment, Limited. Films, decals, or other similar markers approved by the
American Bird Conservancy or its equivalent, subject to Director approval, may be
used only for residential development or the residential portion of mixed-use
development, or the portions of a nonresidential elevation under 35 feet. These
Limited Patterned Treatments shall have the same visual cues or patterns as
Permanent Patterned Treatment under 18.40.280(b)(2)(A) and be applied to the outer
surface to the extent as possible.
By adding the limiting clause “subject to Director approval,” while retaining the permissive
language that films, decals, or other similar markers “may be used” for specified
developments, the amended provision raises the question: what is subject to Director
approval? The amended provision can be read to mean that ABC-approved Limited Patterned
Treatments require Director approval before use. On the other hand, the amended provision
can be read to mean that only films, decals, or other similar markers approved by an
organization equivalent to the ABC — as opposed to the ABC itself — would be subject to
Director approval. This ambiguity is compounded by a parallel provision added elsewhere in
the ordinance, which points in a diderent direction.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 2 of 3
Section 18.40.280(d)(3)(A) has been added for the Second Reading of the ordinance, as follows
(in its hierarchal context):
(3) Nonresidential and the nonresidential portion of mixed-use development. In
addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of
any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(A) Any portions of an elevation under 35 feet may be allowed to use films,
decals, or other products approved by the American Bird Conservancy or its
equivalent, subject to Director approval.
Section 18.40.280(d)(3)(A) adds to the uncertainty as to what is “subject to Director approval”
in Section 18.40.280(b)(2)(B). Due to the position of the limiting clause “subject to Director
approval” following the phrase “may be allowed” in Section 18.40.280(d)(3)(A), it is reasonable
to conclude that the use of any ABC-approved products in the nonresidential context would be
conditional on Director approval. By comparison, the position of the clause “subject to
Director approval” in Section 18.40.280(b)(2)(B) more likely permits the inference that the
Director’s approval is only required to qualify an organization as an ABC-equivalent in both
residential and nonresidential development.
ABC-Approved Products Do Not Uniformly Conform to Palo Alto’s Prescriptive Dimensions
Section 18.40.280(b)(2)(B) requires that ABC-approved films, decals and similar markers
conform to the ordinance’s prescriptive size and spacing requirements — specifically, the 2x2
standard. Not all ABC-approved products do.
There are two groups of ABC-approved films, decals, and similar markers that would not
conform to Palo Alto’s prescriptive size and spacing requirements. First, ABC still approves
products under its legacy 2×4 standard, allowing vertical spacing up to 4 inches—most notably
WindowAlert decals—and assigning those approved products a passing “Threat Factor” of 25.
Second, UV-only films and decals, such as Bird Divert UV Film, and similar products are
categorically incompatible with Palo Alto's prescriptive framework because their markers are
transparent to the human eye and therefore have no measurable diameter or line width that a
building inspector could verify against the ordinance's dimensional standards.1 In addition, the
ABC-approved product database is not a static published list. It is a web database that is
updated over time, and the full current list of every approved product with precise dimensional
specifications is not publicly available in a single downloadable document.2 For these
reasons, incorporating the evolving ABC-approved product database by reference could
1 See Summary of ABC Rating System, updated November 17, 2025 < https://abcbirds.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/12/the prescriptive rating option 11 17 2025.pdf>, accessed March 29, 2026.
2 See ABC-approved product database, < https://abcbirds.org/products/? paged=5>, accessed March 29,
2026.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 1, 2026
Page 3 of 3
become a frustrating compliance and enforcement challenge for property owners and Planning
stad.
A related inconsistency arises from the fact that Section 18.40.280(d)(3)(A), unlike Section
18.40.280(b)(2)(B), does not require that ABC-approved films, decals or other products
conform to the prescriptive size and spacing requirements of Section 18.40.280(b)(2)(A) for
portions of an elevation of nonresidential development under 35 feet.
Typographical Errors
A few typographical errors in Sections 18.40.280(b)(2)(A) and 18.40.280(h) in the Second
Reading version of the ordinance are highlighted below:
(A) Patterned Treatment, Permanent. Glazing shall be permanently translucent or
obscured, or include patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or
otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material.
(h) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. All applicable windows, doors, or
other features must comply with the requirements of this section, in addition to the
California Building Code, including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in
California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen), Fire Code, and applicable
state or federal laws. Within In the event that the provisions of this section
necessarily conflict with the aforementioned codes or state or federal laws, the
standards in the applicable state or federals federal laws and codes shall prevail.
Respectfully,
Jedrey Shore
cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services
Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney
From:Jim Poppy
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill closure impact on neighborhood
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:43:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello,
When considering the closure of Churchill, please bear in mind that the neighborhood along Alma and several
blocks inward will become a new parking lot for the school. This must be avoided with the addition of resident-only
parking permits. Even this measure would have a limited effect unless it is strictly enforced, which is not currently
the case with many restricted parking areas throughout the city.
Regards,
Jim Poppy
Melville Avenue
From:Chris Schremp
To:McDonough, Melissa
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; district5@bos.sccgov.org; Christine Schremp;
adobeinfo@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Recent emails re: Oversized Vehicles
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:37:27 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Melissa,
Thank you for the detailed response. While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I must take
exception to several points regarding the City’s current posture.
1. Private Market Ineligibility You noted that many of these vehicles would not be eligible
for private RV parks due to their condition. To a tax-paying resident, this confirms the
problem rather than excusing it. If a professional, regulated facility deems these vehicles unfit
or unsafe for their property, it is illogical for the City to conclude that Palo Alto’s public
streets and bike lanes are the appropriate alternative. The burden of absorbing what the private
market rejects should not fall on the local taxpayers and the safety of our neighborhoods.
2. Legal Fears and Operational Constraints The fear of potential lawsuits is not a sufficient
reason to delay action. Furthermore, the City has already demonstrated that restrictions are
possible; North Palo Alto has implemented bans, and El Camino has utilized physical barriers
in bike lanes to prevent OSV parking. Why is this same level of urgency and protection not
being applied to our neighborhood? Addressing "complex situations" and "operational
constraints" is exactly what we expect from our elected officials and City staff.
3. "Ties to the Community" I fundamentally disagree with the City’s broad definition of
community ties.
Employment: Working in a city does not equate to the civic and financial commitment
of a resident.
PAUSD Enrollment: It is concerning to suggest that individuals living in OSVs—who
are not paying local property taxes—are enrolled in our school system.
Verification: I would like to see the data supporting these claims. How many of the
individuals on East Meadow Circle have a verified history of residency in Palo Alto
versus those who own property elsewhere in the state? My observations suggest the
latter is far more common.
4. Increasing Costs vs. Decreasing Services: As a resident, I recently received notice of yet
another increase in our utility costs. It is increasingly difficult to reconcile the City’s demand
for more financial contribution from homeowners with its admission that it lacks the
'operational capacity' to keep our streets clear and safe. The 'burden' of this situation is being
borne entirely by the residents—both through higher costs and a diminished quality of life—
while those violating our parking laws face little to no accountability.
The current approach appears to prioritize avoiding legal friction over the safety and
accessibility of our streets.
I will continue to provide the timestamps and locations you requested, but the burden of
tracking this should not fall on tax paying citizens, rather I expect the City to move past
"documentation" and toward the same concrete solutions seen in other parts of Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Chris
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 8:14 AM McDonough, Melissa
<Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Schremp,
Thank you for the follow-up and for calling the police when you saw the sidewalk and bike
lane blocked on East Meadow Drive. If you see an oversized vehicle actively blocking the
sidewalk or bike lane, please continue to call PAPD so it can be addressed in real time. For
recurring issues in the same location, this also helps us with documentation so we can track
patterns and coordinate follow-up. If you’re able/willing, please let us know the closest
cross-street/address and the approximate times you observed the blockages on East
Meadow.
I appreciate that you took the time to research nearby RV parks and pricing, and
I have shared your list with our outreach partners as possible leads for individual
households. That said, I want to be candid about a key practical limitation. Typically, parks
have screening requirements (e.g., vehicle age/condition) and limited space/waitlists, and the
City cannot require a private park to accept a tenant or hold space. Many of the
vehicles we’re seeing would not be eligible or would face long wait times. This is part of
why the City’s approach has been to enforce existing rules where there are clear violations
and safety hazards, while also continuing work on managed, legally viable alternatives (safe
parking, services, and a permit-based framework), rather than assuming the private RV
market can/will absorb the demand.
I also want to respond to your request to accelerate changes to City parking laws. Council
has looked at other solutions besides broad restrictions and effective bans found in
some other Bay Area cities; in part because they have generated lawsuits and the City
should anticipate significant, expensive legal challenges if Palo Alto pursued a
comprehensive ban approach. In addition, staff have noted real operational constraints (e.g.,
limited towing capacity and the lack of available land for additional safe parking lots) which
affect what can be implemented quickly and sustainably.
or household has an affiliation with Palo Alto---such as employment in Palo Alto, PAUSD
enrollment, or a history of residency prior to displacement.
As I mentioned earlier, please do send any specific info you have on the East
Meadow obstructions you observed and continue to report active obstructions to
PAPD. Thank you again for staying engaged in this.
Sincerely,
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:Chacon, Mary
To:Council, City
Cc:Mary Chacon
Subject:Potential Churchill Crossing Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:14:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
Dear City of Palo Alto Officials,
My name is Mary Chacon, and I live at 1148 High Street, at the corner of Embarcadero Road
and the northbound slip road to Alma Street. I am writing to express serious safety concerns
regarding the proposal to close Churchill Avenue and the likely impacts this would have on
surrounding arterial and residential streets.
Even under current conditions, with Churchill Avenue open, traffic exiting Embarcadero
onto the Alma slip road is already fast-moving and dangerous. This intersection is a
well‑known conflict point and a major route for Palo Alto High School students, cyclists,
and nearby residents. Over the years, there have been numerous bicycle and vehicle
accidents at this location.
The City has taken steps to improve safety by installing flashing lights and large Botts’ dots
prior to the crosswalk. While these measures appear to have reduced some incidents, they do
not address the fundamental issue of vehicle speed as cars come off the Embarcadero
exit. Speeds remain excessive and hazardous, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.
We are deeply concerned that closing Churchill Avenue will significantly worsen
conditions on Embarcadero Road and the Alma slip road. The northbound merge onto
Alma Street is already extremely dangerous. Alma traffic routinely travels above the posted
speed limit, and the tight curvature of the slip road creates a high‑risk merge. This location
has experienced multiple collisions, and the fire hydrant at this corner has been struck
two or three times, underscoring how unsafe this geometry already is.
If Churchill Avenue is closed, a critical question remains unanswered: Where will this traffic
go?
We live just one block from Lincoln Avenue, which is already heavily used as a cut‑through
by drivers traveling north and south to avoid Alma Street. That intersection is also unsafe,
especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Closing Churchill will inevitably divert more vehicles
into residential neighborhoods that are not designed to carry arterial‑level traffic,
increasing congestion, speeding, and the likelihood of serious accidents.
Rather than improving safety, closing Churchill risks shifting existing hazards to other
locations, including residential streets and school routes. In my view, this approach increases
the potential for severe injuries—or worse—elsewhere in the city without meaningfully
addressing the root safety issues.
For these reasons, I strongly believe that closing Churchill Avenue is not the right
solution. I urge the City to reconsider this proposal and instead pursue alternatives such as:
A comprehensive traffic and safety impact study of Embarcadero, Alma, and nearby
residential streets
Speed management and enforcement along Alma Street
Design improvements to the slip road and merge area
Any changes being fully evaluated before implementation, rather than after harm occurs
Thank you for considering the perspective of residents who experience these conditions daily. I
appreciate your attention to public safety and hope the City will take a cautious and
data‑driven approach before making changes that could have long‑lasting consequences.
Sincerely,
Mary Chacon
1148 High Street
Palo Alto, CA
(650) 862‑9972
From:Bill McLane
To:Robert Marinaro; Lupita McLane
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; Dave Stellman; Steve
Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon
Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan
McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris;
Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; 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; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson
Subject:Re: Palo Altans for OSV-Free Streets - - Bob’s OSV Count (3/29/26)
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:54:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Robert,
We can't thank you enough for all the hard work that you put into this, and you are not even an elected
official. Speaking on behalf of all the business owners that are affected by this, we thank you.
Now, let's see if the city of Palo Alto can do something with all this information you have gathered (at no
cost to them).
Bill McLane
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-7000
www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 7:23 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
I just returned from vacation and almost spent two weeks not thinking about the OSVs that
adorn many of our streets. I commend you for making progress but we still have a long way
to go. Here is an OSV count update and some observations that I would like to share.
Looking at the City as a whole - - the number of OSVs have come down by 20 from my last
count on 3/11/26 and have come down from 220 on 10/21/25 to 131 on 3/19/26. That is
progress and we will take it!
The Best News - - The primary stretch of Fabian Way (between E. Meadow Dr. & E.
Charleston) is now OSV free!!! Zero! Zippo! Yeah!!! I can even ride my bike down the bike
lane and not have to ride in the traffic. The way it is supposed to be!
The flip side that is that there are more OSVs (from 9 to 12) on the segment of Fabian Way
that intersects with San Antonio Road. This is, I’m sure, much to the chagrin of Chris who
owns a carpet business here and needs the street parking to park his trucks.
East Meadow Circle, the bane of Palo Alto, has 43 OSVs and 33% of all OSVs on Palo Alto
streets
South of San Antonio Road Commercial District (San Antonio Rd, Transport St, Commercial
St, & Industrial Ave.) - - still has 21 OSVs in this district which in part relies on street parking
for their customers. Just ask the folks at Palo Alto Glass and they will tell you! The number
has come down from 38 when I first started counting on 10/21/25, but 21 is still 21 too
many.
Acacia Avenue - - Had a nice conversation with the sales manager of the Acacia
Condominiums that are in the process of being leased on Acacia Ave. where an Uber driver
sleeps in his RV right across from the sales office and where Bad Actor #1 parks several of
his vehicles and trailers. I understand that this property has also sent numerous
communications to the City Council and is in dire need of action.
· Possible Future Strategy: How about we take action on the several ‘Bad Actors’ that really
typify the worst of what we see on our streets. This action would significantly improve the
situation with less energy expended and set an example for others.
o Bad Actor #1 - - The guy who has about 10 vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, etc.
strewn across three streets (Ash St, Portage Ave, & Acacia Ave.)
o Bad Actor #2 (Mr. Raider) - - the guy, who has Oakland Raider signs all over his
RV, and has had an RV parked on Transport St. forever and used to have about
five auxiliary vehicles on either side of his RV. He likes to park in spots where
business parking is needed and has been known to get belligerent with businesses
in the area.
o Bad Actor #3 - - The funky wood-sided school bus that never made it to
Woodstock, but found a home on Commercial St. or Transport St. (as of
3/29/26). As soon as this guy drives that vehicle a foot it should be permanently
impounded because it cannot be legal.
I am also attaching a write-up of a conversation I had with a non-resident RV dweller on East
Meadow Circle several weeks ago. This is a testament to many who choose to live on our streets
only because the City allows them to live on our streets without consequences. Lets weed these
folks out because they do not need our tax-funded services. I would hope that the City is
maintaining a database of these non-resident RV dwellers to catalog their circumstances and
ensure that new RV dwellers don’t add to the mix. As I heard on a YouTube video a RV dweller
moved from Lake Tahoe to Sacramento only to hear that Palo Alto was ”accommodating” so he
then moved to Palo Alto. Great!
In closing I would like to thank the City for making progress on reducing the number of OSVs and I,
and we – the concerned tax-paying residents and businesses of Palo Alto, strongly encourage you
to continue this progress.
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
East Meadow Circle - - If only it was true!
Waste Removal Van - - The service person told me that they generally remove waste twice a month
(because they are cheap) and the RV dwellers pay for the service
Waste Removal Van
Fabian Way (between E. Meadow Drive and & E. Charleston Road - - The way it is supposed to look!
Bad Actors #2 and #3 on Transport Street
Bad Actor #3 in living color!
Corner of Transport St. & Industrial Ave.
Faber Place - - Mr. Hummer has been here for the long haul and obviously does not need tax-funded city
services
Amarillo Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - I’m fairly sure this guy sleeps in his vehicle. He is usually
parked on Faber Pl. next to Anderson Honda but it looks like he has taken up a new residence next to
Greer Park!
So not cool!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park
A new camper on Matadero Ave. - - Also not cool!
And, last, but lot least - - Bad Actor #1 on Ash St. near Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Acacia Ave.
The Uber driver who squats on Acacia Ave.
From:Yang
To:Council, City; San Antonio Area Plan
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over-development — 60 ft Max
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:25:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council
My name is Yang from Greenmeadows, my family has lived here for 5 years.
As a deeply concerned resident, I am writing to voice my grave opposition to the
current scope of the San Antonio Road Area Plan. While I fully recognize the need
for additional housing, the proposed density and height levels represent an
unsustainable 19x increase over existing homes that will permanently alter the
character and safety of our community.
I urge the Council to adopt the following protections for our neighborhood:
Strict Height Limits: I strongly oppose any proposal above 60 feet (5
stories). We must reject the 95-foot allowance under SB 79 and ensure new
developments are consistent with the existing San Antonio Village.
Infrastructure Before Occupancy: Our streets, transit systems, parks, and
schools are already strained. No building permits should be issued until the
necessary infrastructure to support this 26% population surge is fully funded
and built.
Parking Requirements: To prevent overflow into surrounding residential
neighborhoods, the City must mandate a minimum of one parking space per
unit. I have already witnessed the parking issue around the Mitchell Park
Place housing complex. It's hard to imagine how dire the situation would be
for the San Antonio plan, which is >100x in scale.
Safety and Traffic Concerns: The San Antonio corridor has seen 143 crashes
and 2 fatalities in the last decade. Adding up to 7,400 units will overwhelm
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Equitable Distribution: South Palo Alto cannot be expected to absorb 100%
of the city’s growth while Downtown and North Palo Alto see minimum
residential growth. It is unfair that this burden is so unequitably distributed.
Binding Community Benefits: We cannot rely on "promises." Community
benefits, including affordable housing ratios, must be made legal conditions of
approval that cannot be cut after the project is greenlit.
The scale of this plan—concentrating 26% of the city's population growth onto just
1.7% of its land—is unprecedented and irresponsible. I ask that these comments be
entered into the public record for the study session on April 6th.
Sincerely,
From:Mashru6
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:17:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council Members,
We live within 5 blocks of the crossing. We use it regularly. However, for all the reasons
already mentioned by numerous members and city officials, we support the temporary closure
of Churchill Crossing. Every human life is invaluable, and if we can even save one by the
temporary inconvenience of closing for 8,000 motorists, it's worth it.
I also urge the city to pick a permanent solution. We have debated options for a dozen years.
All options have benefits and costs. The city council’s job is to select the best, considering all
the factors. Every delay in that decision kills lives. So, please pick a permanent solution
without further delay.
We elected you to make decisions and take a position. Time is now.
Raj Mashruwala
Matra Majmundar
Melville Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sky Posse Post
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George;
Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael
Subject:Major Safety ruling for SFO Arrivals
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:14:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers Lauing, Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl; City
Manager and City Attorney
Below please find our update on today's news about the FAA safety ruling for SFO Arrivals.
Thank you
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sky Posse Palo Alto <skypossepost-gmail.com@shared1.ccsend.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Major FAA safety ruling for SFO Arrivals
To: <skypossepost@gmail.com>
Sky Posse Palo Alto
Dear Friends,
We very much welcome the news that the FAA has issued a safety ruling on
SFO Arrivals that reduces the number of hourly flight arrivals. While much of the
press frames this news as an “increase in flight delays,” the FAA decision is a major
safety development and of course positive for us given our concerns about SFO
expansion plans. Also, please note that while the FAA decision is being announced
along with a temporary reduction in operations due to runway repavement, the FAA
restrictions on arrivals are permanent.
FAA slashes SFO's max hourly flight arrivals, nearly doubling delays
“After reviewing policies and procedures for side-by-side approaches at San
Francisco International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration announced
Tuesday that it was restricting the number of hourly flight arrivals.”
FAA reduces SFO arrivals, setting up delays amid runway work and safety concerns
“FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said officials decided that SFO’s longstanding
practice of landing two planes at the same time on closely spaced parallel
runways that are just 750 feet (228.60 meters) apart — along with congested
airspace — was too dangerous. He could not say why the practice had been
allowed.”
Expect flight delays in San Francisco as FAA limits arrivals
“The 13th-busiest U.S. airport will experience delays due to a runway repaving
project and the agency's decision to prohibit flights from making side-by-side
approaches to San Francisco's parallel east-west runways in clear weather, the
FAA said…The two measures will reduce maximum rates from 54 flights per
hour to 36, the FAA said, adding it does not plan to lift the restrictions once the
runway repaving is completed.”
Last May when SFO announced an expansion plan, we alerted City Council that the
CEQA process should include a safety review:: “A safety analysis for SFO traffic
should include a review of how SFO has been reducing the distance between
runways (less safe); an analysis of go-arounds over time; the number and historical
tracking of airspace procedures that the FAA manages for SFO; a comprehensive
review of all the “letters of agreement” between SFO and FAA; a list of operating
procedures, and an overview of any and all known airport safety criteria.”
It appears that the FAA has conducted this critical and long overdue analysis. This
said, per SF Gate, “SFO is working with the FAA on ways to improve the arrival rate
at SFO." These efforts likely involve SFO’s ongoing GBAS project which raise many
noise concerns for us, as well as the lack of attention to the urgent need to establish a
program to eliminate night time noise for Palo Alto and the MidPeninsula.
One final update: We have asked Mayor Vicki Venkeer and Vice Mayor Greer Stone
for communications on why the City declined to appeal the SF Board of Supervisors
approval of SFO’s FEIR, in Superior Court. Understanding why our elected officials
make these choices helps inform advocacy, and it is also important for transparency
reasons. We will keep following up and relay any news as it comes up.
SPREAD THE WORD
Ask neighbors to JOIN OUR CALLS TO ACTION and to get updates by sending "SUBSCRIBE" to
info@skypossepaloalto.org
MOST IMPORTANT
Report intrusive jet noise!
The number of reporters matters (enlist neighbors who are
bothered by intrusive jet noise to report!)
Use any of these methods:
The APP stop.jetnoise.net
OR
EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com
SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290.
ONLINE:
SFO traffic: click here for the link
SJC traffic: click her for the link
Other airports: click here for more info
From:Karen Ambrose Hickey
To:Council, City
Subject:I oppose the closing of Churchill Road
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 8:05:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello City Council,
I live on Newell Road. For 23 years, I have watched the bike and foot traffic to Walter Hays, Greene and Paly. My
kids were part of those bikers and walkers. When we moved here we knew it was a busier street, but I love watching
the kids going by every day.
Now, is a different story. Our neighborhood, particularly Newell, is a cut-through-short-cut for parents, commuters,
landscapers, construction trucks, etc. that want to avoid the Middlefield light. Embarcadero can be backed up past
Newell most mornings around 8:30 am. When I volunteer at Paly or Stanford, I am often late due to the traffic. I see
kids jumping out of cars just to get to school on time.
Separately, drivers RACE down our street and around the kids. I get honked at for trying to pull out of my own
driveway. Or I can't pull out because the traffic from the light is backed up; or mostly the volume and speed of cars
does not stop. I had someone so angry that they drove in the opposite lane. Within this week, there was a 2-car
collision during the afternoon school traffic at Embarcadero/Newell.
My kids went to Paly and still talk about the stress. It's terrible and needs to be addressed. But closing Churchill is
not the root of the problem and will cause a detrimental ripple effect. I think we all share the goal of preventing
further tragedies at Churchill, and the emotional toll on our community is undeniable. However, I’m concerned that
closing the crossing is a reactionary measure that shifts the danger rather than eliminating it. By forcing that heavy
traffic onto Embarcadero, which is already at the limit, we are introducing high-stress congestion into areas with
more pedestrians and cyclists, potentially trading one tragedy for another.
We need a solution that addresses the mental health crisis without inadvertently increasing the likelihood of traffic
fatalities on our city streets.
I am here for the long term and want to look out what's best for the broader community.
Thank you,
Karen Hickey
Newell Road
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; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson
Subject:Palo Altans for OSV-Free Streets - - Bob’s OSV Count (3/29/26)
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 7:27:24 PM
Attachments:RV Inventory_29Mar26.xlsx
EMC Discussion with Resident_Mar 2026.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
I just returned from vacation and almost spent two weeks not thinking about the OSVs that adorn many of our streets. I commend you for making progress but we still have a long way to go. Here
is an OSV count update and some observations that I would like to share.
Looking at the City as a whole - - the number of OSVs have come down by 20 from my last count on 3/11/26 and have come down from 220 on 10/21/25 to 131 on 3/19/26. That is progress and we will
take it!
The Best News - - The primary stretch of Fabian Way (between E. Meadow Dr. & E. Charleston) is now OSV free!!! Zero! Zippo! Yeah!!! I can even ride my bike down the bike lane and not have to ride in
the traffic. The way it is supposed to be!
The flip side that is that there are more OSVs (from 9 to 12) on the segment of Fabian Way that intersects with San Antonio Road. This is, I’m sure, much to the chagrin of Chris who owns a carpet business
here and needs the street parking to park his trucks.
East Meadow Circle, the bane of Palo Alto, has 43 OSVs and 33% of all OSVs on Palo Alto streets
South of San Antonio Road Commercial District (San Antonio Rd, Transport St, Commercial St, & Industrial Ave.) - - still has 21 OSVs in this district which in part relies on street parking for their
customers. Just ask the folks at Palo Alto Glass and they will tell you! The number has come down from 38 when I first started counting on 10/21/25, but 21 is still 21 too many.
Acacia Avenue - - Had a nice conversation with the sales manager of the Acacia Condominiums that are in the process of being leased on Acacia Ave. where an Uber driver sleeps in his RV right across from
the sales office and where Bad Actor #1 parks several of his vehicles and trailers. I understand that this property has also sent numerous communications to the City Council and is in dire need of action.
· Possible Future Strategy: How about we take action on the several ‘Bad Actors’ that really typify the worst of what we see on our streets. This action would significantly improve the situation with less
energy expended and set an example for others.
o Bad Actor #1 - - The guy who has about 10 vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, etc. strewn across three streets (Ash St, Portage Ave, & Acacia Ave.)
o Bad Actor #2 (Mr. Raider) - - the guy, who has Oakland Raider signs all over his RV, and has had an RV parked on Transport St. forever and used to have about five auxiliary vehicles on either side of
his RV. He likes to park in spots where business parking is needed and has been known to get belligerent with businesses in the area.
o Bad Actor #3 - - The funky wood-sided school bus that never made it to Woodstock, but found a home on Commercial St. or Transport St. (as of 3/29/26). As soon as this guy drives that vehicle a
foot it should be permanently impounded because it cannot be legal.
I am also attaching a write-up of a conversation I had with a non-resident RV dweller on East Meadow Circle several weeks ago. This is a testament to many who choose to live on our streets only because the
City allows them to live on our streets without consequences. Lets weed these folks out because they do not need our tax-funded services. I would hope that the City is maintaining a database of these non-
resident RV dwellers to catalog their circumstances and ensure that new RV dwellers don’t add to the mix. As I heard on a YouTube video a RV dweller moved from Lake Tahoe to Sacramento only to hear that
Palo Alto was ”accommodating” so he then moved to Palo Alto. Great!
In closing I would like to thank the City for making progress on reducing the number of OSVs and I, and we – the concerned tax-paying residents and businesses of Palo Alto, strongly encourage you to continue
this progress.
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
East Meadow Circle - - If only it was true!
Waste Removal Van - - The service person told me that they generally remove waste twice a month (because they are cheap) and the RV dwellers pay for the service
Waste Removal Van
Fabian Way (between E. Meadow Drive and & E. Charleston Road - - The way it is supposed to look!
Bad Actors #2 and #3 on Transport Street
Bad Actor #3 in living color!
Corner of Transport St. & Industrial Ave.
Faber Place - - Mr. Hummer has been here for the long haul and obviously does not need tax-funded city services
Amarillo Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - I’m fairly sure this guy sleeps in his vehicle. He is usually parked on Faber Pl. next to Anderson Honda but it looks like he has taken up a new residence next to Greer Park!
So not cool!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park
A new camper on Matadero Ave. - - Also not cool!
And, last, but lot least - - Bad Actor #1 on Ash St. near Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Portage Ave.
Bad Actor #1 on Acacia Ave.
The Uber driver who squats on Acacia Ave.
Palo Alto On Street OSV Count
Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs DT OSVs DT OSVs DT
#########11/2/2025 #################12/3/2025 #########1/14/2026 1/28/2026 ############################
& 10/22/25 & 11/3 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29
4 4 0
2 2 0
9 5 5
1 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 3
0 1 1
0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
3 4 2 2 0 4 1 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
200 193 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 24 21 14
19 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
(2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
3 2 0 4 0 4 0
20 18 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 0 1 0
Delta:-9 -3 9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 -31 2 -20
Days since first count: ########12 20 29 43 60 85 99 115 129 141 149
Months since first count: ########0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.9
Yellow OSVs on New Street
Green Utility Construction
Detached Trailor DT = Detached Trailers as a Subset of the Total Count
RV Inventory_29Mar26 4/6/2026 12:45 PM
East Meadow Circle (EMC) Discussion with RV Dweller (Non-Resident)
3/14/26 11:43 AM
Conversation with RV Dweller on EMC - - 3/14 @11:00am
Situation - - I walked around EMC taking taking photos of all the RVs. I was questioned by a security
guard at Lanteris Space Systems, and by this RV dweller who was curious and wanted to make sure I
wasn’t casing the place to steal something
• RV Dweller - - He asked me what I was doing - - I said I was working on a special project for the
property owners
• RV Dweller - - Is not interested in renting and can’t afford to buy. Even lower cost
neighborhoods are still expensive.
• RV Dweller - - Many of these RV dwellers are janitors or like service workers
• RV Dweller - - Renting? - - I don’t want my money going to some investor (landlord)
• Me - - I asked if there was a low cost housing option would you be interested?
• RV Dweller - - Probably not. I like not paying for utilities and living in my RV. I bought some
land in the Santa Cruz Mountains and my plan is to build there when I can save more.
• RV Dweller - - I pay taxes.
• Me - - What kind of taxes?
• RV Dweller - - Employment taxes
• Me - - Those are employment taxes you pay to the federal government (social security &
medicare). They are not taxes to the City via property taxes. (long pause)
• Me - - Have you thought about moving to safe parking lot like in Mountain View.
• RV Dweller - - He said their comings and goings are restricted. I told him I have visited both of
MV’s safe parking lots and I did not see any restrictions.
• Me - - I encouraged him to go on Mountain View’s web site to research. Frankly, I don’t think he
is interested as long as he can squat on Palo Alto streets without any consequences.
• Me - - Since we were in view of the Echelon Townhouse Condos I asked him what he thought
about the folks living there and if you lived there would you want to look out your window and
see a street full of RVs.
• RV Dweller - - I’m paraphrasing here, but he said if those folks can afford to live in those condos
they can put up with a little blight out their window.
• At one point he said if I could double my salary to $200k I might consider renting, but I’m not
sure if he actually meant that figure or if he was just using those numbers as a figure of speech,
but it gave me pause.
• RV Dweller - - He also told me to go over and talk to the meth-heads on Fabian Way.
• Me - - I said why do you call them meth-heads?
• RV Dweller - - Because they came over here and stole one of our generators. We have it on
camera. Because it was under $1k the police didn’t do anything about it.
From:edna jamati
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of Churchill RR crossing
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 4:11:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Members of PA City Council,
I would just like to express that as someone who uses that crossing frequently and who has a child at Palo Alto
high with three siblings to follow it would be very inconvenient for our family.
I appreciate you wanting to improve the safety at that intersection … perhaps a bridge might be feasible ?
I feel the inconvenience to not only our family but the hundreds of my neighbors and their families must be high on
your priority list when considering this.
With appreciation and hope for the best outcome,
Sincerely,
Edna Jamati
Waverley St
Sent from my iPhone
From:Julie Nolan
To:Council, City
Subject:Don"t close Churchill -- elevate the tracks
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:55:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I just sent this letter to the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly:
I see that there is considerable pressure now to close Churchill. When my daughter was at
Paly in 2000, she came home and told us that one of the boys in her German class had
committed suicide on the tracks. There were other Paly suicides around that time, but it
wasn't very long before Gunn also had a cluster. If the intention of closing Churchill is to
prevent suicides, then Meadow and Charleston would also have to be closed. I see that there
are guards at all three intersections in acknowledgment of the concern. There is another long-
term solution: move the tracks. How?? Elevate them through Palo Alto. It would be costly
and take time, but it would make suicides unlikely and would keep cross-Palo Alto traffic open
rather than dividing the city. It's time for Palo Alto to "think outside the box" and choose a long-
term solution that will benefit the city.
Julie Nolan
2935 Waverley St., Palo Alto
650-269-5089
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Tom Martin
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:45:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council men and ladies,
I have been a tax paying resident of Palo Alto since 1980. We live in old Palo Alto
and use Churchill as a primary road to get across the tracks from east to west and
vice versa. I can't imagine going to University or to Oregon and creating more
traffic at those crossings in order to go to Stanford, Paly, the hills, friends houses,
etc.
I understand the feelings of those who are trying to save one or more lives. But
anyone wanting to die can easily find another way without greatly
inconveniencing every PA resident and Paly student. The proposed closing of
Churchill has to be the craziest consideration ever.
Tom Martin
--
Tom Martin
Palo Alto, Ca
Home phone 650-324-7489
From:Radhika Shah
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Input on Churchill crossing temporary closure decision from 2 long time Palo Alto residents
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:22:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker, Palo Alto City Council members,
I am a very long time (about 3 decades) resident of Palo Alto from the Barron Park area. I saw a note
being passed around that the city is welcoming input from citizens on the temporary Churchill crossing
closure from Palo Alto residents.
My opinion on this issue is that the life of our vulnerable youth matters significantly more than traffic
inconvenience or increased commute times. Considering the significant rise in the number of youth
deaths (suicides) in our city on the tracks in the past couple of years, and the proximity of Palo Alto High
School being right next to the Churchhill crossing, in our opinion it is critical to close the crossing as soon
as possible and for as long as possible until a safe solution can be found. Clearly having people watching
the crossing has not been effective in preventing the suicides. Teenagers can move very fast (faster than
adults) so I am not convinced that just having someone watch the crossing is going to be an effective
enough solution. Each young life lost matters and we can easily save them if we stop that crossing. In this
age of ubiquitous social media access for youth including when in Pausd schools and the copycat nature
of youth suicides, my husband Ashit Patel (cc'd) and I personally want to cast our vote for saving young
lives to the degree you are taking input from Palo Alto residents. I know that many of my friends from the
local Stanford alumni community who are also long time Palo Alto residents feel the same way on this
matter. Considering the very high prevalence of acute depression in so many youth in our city, so many
parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, siblings in our small city live every day in fear that their young
family member might not come back home alive as the tracks have become an easy way for a young
person to quickly end their life in a moment of acute distress.
My understanding is that key National Government agencies are studying our city right now/or have very
recently as there has been almost an epidemic level of rise in youth suicides.
You might want to speak with the Stanford Psychology Departments program that helps suicidal teens
with holistic treatment. They have a lot of data on the risks as their program works hard to save many of
these fragile lives including in Palo Alto.
I would also encourage getting PAUSD to take enforcing social media bans in schools for young kids
more seriously (especially middle schools). My understanding and my own experience is that this is being
very poorly done in our school district. Some Pausd school leadership give grand talks about the harms of
social media on TV etc., however even when parents request removing Tiktok etc. from mentally fragile
and depressed children's school laptops there is apathy in the best case and resistance (not from IT but
from top school leadership at times, even when the children's doctors give a note asking to remove social
media from school laptops).
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Happy to provide further input if need be.
warm regards
Radhika Shah
From:mickie winkler
To:Council, City
Subject:do not close churchill street crossing
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:18:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear city council members,
Please do not close the crossing at Churchill.
Given the declining enrollment, think instead about moving the school.
· Alma street, which is by any standards, is a narrow street, is not capable of handling the
traffic intensity that closing the Churchill St crossing would cause.
· The teachers, as well as parents and students, would need significantly more time to get
to work.
· Ambulance times on both Alma and ECR will be negatively affected.
· Students, including those on bikes would not be able to cross—and if they could suicides
will not be discouraged.
· Middlefield is already deadlocked during the morning school traffic.
· The left-hand turn time from ECR to Alma street to Palo Alto avenue, is always long, and
the left hand turn lane is already full.
Raising the tracks from Churchill to Ravenswood is also a good alternative and can be done more
economically and with less disruption than believed but is beyond the capability of our local
governments to achieve.
Thanks for your consideration.
Mickie Winkler
Mickie Winkler
650-324-7444 office
650-335-5540 cell
MickieWinkler.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sharleen Fiddaman
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:57:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Do NOT close Churchill. It is a needed route between Alma and El Camino!! This would impact Embarcadero
traffic worse, esp with condo construction & T&C.
Old Palo Alto and Southgate use it regularly.
Sharleen Fiddaman
2255 Webster Street.
From:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission
Subject:Cubberley Master Plan - Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:52:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members, Planning & Transportation Commissioners, Park & RecreationalCommissioners, and City Staff:
I have grave and significant concerns regarding both the project and the adequacy of
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
1. Inadequate Use of an MND for a Long-Term, Phased Project2. Failure to Analyze the Whole of the Project3. Insufficient Detail to Support Aesthetic Impact Conclusions4. Lack of Alternatives Analysis5. Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts, Including Traffic and Circulation6. Direct Impacts to Adjacent Residential Properties
1. Inadequate Use of an MND for a Long-Term, Phased Project
The City's reliance on an MND for a long-term, multi-phased master plan is not
supported by substantial evidence. The project contemplates phased redevelopment
over an extended and uncertain time horizon, with evolving, adaptable design,uncertain funding, and undefined operational intensity. As reflected in publicmeetings and project materials, the City has indicated that the site will be activatedthrough current and future programmatic partnerships, including identified partnersand additional, as-yet undisclosed users. These anticipated uses introduce furtheruncertainty regarding the scale, frequency, and intensity of site activity, includingpotential overlapping events and peak demand conditions.
Under these conditions, the IS/MND does not demonstrate that all impacts will be
less than significant. Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project
may result in significant impacts, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) isrequired.
These comments are based on the project description, technical studies, andstatements made in pubic meetings, all of which constitute substantial evidence inthe record.
2. Failure to Analyze the Whole of the Project
The IS/MND does not adequately evaluate full buildout conditions and instead relies
in part on future design development and additional study. CEQA requires analysis ofthe whole of the project and does not permit deferral of impact analysis or relianceon future discretionary actions. In particular, the level of activity at full buildout --including peak demand, overlapping uses, and event-driven intensity -- is not clearlydefined and appears to depend on future programming decisions and partnerships.The IS/MND relies on generalized assumptions regarding project use and tripgeneration despite this uncertainty. This raises concerns regarding improper
segmentation and piecemealing, as well as the adequacy of the impact analysis.
3. Insufficient Detail to Support Aesthetic Impact Conclusions
The IS/MND concludes that aesthetic impacts would be less than significant;
however, the level of detail provided is insufficient to support that conclusion. While
the project includes a conceptual site plan and general building locations, keyelements that drive aesthetic and compatibility impacts -- including building massing,height articulation, architectural treatment, lighting design, and the intensity ofadjacent uses -- remain undefined or subject to change. This lack of specificity isparticularly important at the interface with adjacent residential properties, where
visual character, lighting, and activity levels are highly sensitive to final design. The
introduction of circulation areas, structured parking, and elevated active uses in close
proximity to homes further underscores the need for a more detailed analysis.
CEQA requires that environmental impacts be evaluated based on a sufficientlydetailed and stable project description. Where critical design features remainunresolved, the City cannot support a conclusion, based on substantial evidence, thataesthetic and compatibility impacts will be less than significant.
4. Lack of Alternatives Analysis
The IS/MND fails to consider any reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.
Although a MND is not required to include a full alternatives analysis, CEQA requires
preparation of an EIR where substantial evidence supports a fair argument that aproject may result in significant impacts. Here, such evidence exists, particularly withrespect to traffic, circulation, and neighborhood compatibility.
Feasible alternatives are readily apparent and would substantially reduce theseimpacts, including a less intensive buildout, reduced parking and circulationinfrastructure, or a site design that prioritizes open space and buffers adjacent
residential areas. The absence of any evaluation of these alternatives further
underscores that a MND is not the appropriate level of review for this project.
5. Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts, Including Traffic andCirculationThe IS/MND fails to adequately analyze cumulative transportation impacts. Theproject is located within a rapidly developing area, with substantial planned andforeseeable growth in Palo Alto and adjacent jurisdictions. While the documentincludes a cumulative analysis, it does not demonstrate that cumulative traffic
conditions at full buildout -- including overlapping peak uses, event-driven activities,
and nearby projects -- have been evaluated in a manner that reflects reasonably
foreseeable site activity.
The transportation analysis appears to rely primarily on a limited set of approved orpending projects and generalized assumptions regarding trip generation and projectuse. However, the project is estimated to generate approximately 2,800 daily trips,and, as reflected in project materials and public statements, future programming andpartnerships are expected to influence site activity levels. This introduces uncertaintyregarding peak demand and traffic distribution that is not clearly addressed in the
analysis.
In addition, the IS/MND does not clearly demonstrate that cumulative conditionsreflect reasonably foreseeable growth in the immediate vicinity, including planningefforts currently underway such as the San Antonio Road Area Plan. That plan, whichcovers a large area near the project site and is intended to guide increased housing,mobility changes, and redevelopment, represents a substantial potential source offuture trips and circulation demand. Even if not yet adopted, such planning efforts
constitute reasonably foreseeable growth that should be considered in a cumulative
analysis.
The project also proposes substantial changes to site access, internal circulation, andparking, including new and expanded driveways, drop-off and pick-up areas, and astructured parking facility. These features, by their nature and configuration arereasonably expected to concentrate vehicle activity at specific locations and times,particularly during peak periods. The IS/MND does not clearly evaluate operational
conditions such as queuing, access to the parking structure, localized congestion, cut-
through traffic, or conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists near residential
edges. Nor does it demonstrate how cumulative traffic conditions will interact with
these site-specific circulation features.
Therefore, without a detailed and realistic assessment of cumulative traffic,circulation, and parking operations at full buildout -- including reasonably foreseeablegrowth in the surrounding area -- the City cannot support a conclusion, based onsubstantial evidence, that transportation impacts will be less than significant.
6. Direct Impacts to Adjacent Residential Properties
I am gravely concerned about direct impacts to neighboring properties. The plan
introduces a new roadway with pick-up/drop-off activity and a parking structuretopped with active recreational uses (tennis courts) in close proximity to existinghomes. These features, by their nature and proximity, are reasonably expected toresult in traffic, noise (including elevated recreational noise), lighting, and privacyimpacts.
The IS/MND does not analyze these localized impacts with sufficient specificity to
support a finding of less than significant impact.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City prepare a full EIR thatevaluates the project at full buildout, analyze cumulative impacts, considersreasonable alternatives, and fully discloses and mitigates impacts to adjacentresidents.
Kind regards,Lydia --------
Lydia Kou (顧錦珍)https://www.linkedin.com/in/lydiakou
(650) 996-0028 | Lydiakou@gmail.com
From:Reid Kleckner
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on temporary Churchill closure
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:09:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable city council members,
Regarding the temporary Churchill closure, I encourage you to run the experiment of closing
Churchill temporarily. This is an opportunity to gather real data on traffic flows from actual
city streets instead of expensive inaccurate consultant traffic flow models. I encourage you to
add a project phase where Churchill is open to bike/ped traffic for at least one week. This will
allow us to separate the impact of closing Churchill to car traffic from closing it to active
transportation.
I believe that the proposed grade crossing designs for Churchill are overly complicated and
expensive. I urge the city to consider harder choices, such as eliminating car access on this
route. The grade separation proposals I've seen so far force bikes and pedestrians through a
long switchback, which I consider undignified and inconvenient. Streets are for people, not
cars, and we should prioritize direct access to the school for students on foot and bike.
I believe indefinitely closing Churchill to bikes and pedestrians isn't feasible, but I'd rather run
the experiment so we know for sure one way or the other.
In general, I think if we want more from our city—if we want to see city staff accomplish
more—we need to be more open to running experiments that risk creating backlash and
opposition. Attempting and abandoning experiments is a sign of vitality and state capacity. It's
easy for me to say this from my position, but I'd rather see our city get caught trying to create
change than to stick with the business-as-usual of endless feedback-gathering exercises.
Thank you for your service,
Reid
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Greene
To:Council, City
Cc:Jane David
Subject:Churchill Crossing Closure Decision
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:08:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
With due respect for the seriousness of the teen suicide problem the City faces, and
with due respect for the challenges of decision-making when two powerful political
forces collide, my wife and I urge you NOT to close the Churchill Crossing.
We live in Channing House, on Webster St between Homer and Channing. We
travel frequently across town. So, yes, we are older residents and more focussed on
the traffic and daily life implications than on the teen suicide implications. But that
is not the basis of our argument.
Instead it comes from our both having had careers in public policy implementation
research, and our consequent dispositions to appreciate the problems of
implementing broad changes, and, mainly, to look at solutions from the perspective
of the appropriateness of the proposed solution to the problem.
The Churchill Crossing is implicated as the physical location attractive/tempting to
those perhaps impulsively inclined to suicide. At a minimum, it merits a significant
investment in fencing off physical access to the tracks and around-the-clock security
guards. But if those measures are not sufficient, what is the marginal increment of
the wholesale closure?
What evidence is there to support the appropriateness of the wholesale closure
strategy? There are so many pieces of the larger problem of teen suicide that this
solution does NOT address. This specific strategy is overkill in large proportion to
the marginal increment it may make in reducing teen suicide.
In contrast, the evidence is powerful that closing the crossing will exacerbate
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
problems already known throughout the city.
We hope you will frame the decision in these terms.
Sincerely,
David Greene and Jane L. David
From:personaldave@sbcglobal.net
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Churchill Closing
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:05:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I graduated from Cubberley HS, then Stanford. I practiced law
from my office on El Camino Real in Palo Alto for forty years.
I still live here.
The idea of closing the Churchill crossing is monumentally bad.
There is no actual danger from this crossing. In all the time I've
lived here there has never been a car--train collision at this
crossing.
If the notion is that it's dangerous because people can throw
themselves in front of a train, they can throw themselves in front
of a train anywhere.
Closing this one rail crossing will just make a dedicated person
in front of a train at any one of three or four other locations just in
Palo Alto alone not to mention the many other ways that people
can commit suicide.
The effect of such a closing on traffic will be horrendous.
How can any person with even a tiny fragment of common
sense think closing the crossing is a good idea?
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
--David Alexander
From:Yang, Albert
To:Penny Brennan
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:RE: Legal Grounds for Opposing 3606 El Camino Building Project
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:40:32 PM
Dear Penny Brennan,
I apologize for the delay in response to your email. In short, the potential safety hazards you
describe in your email do not constitute a basis for the City to deny or seek alteration of the
proposed project at 3606 El Camino Real. Recent state laws and court decisions have
significantly curtailed local authority over housing development projects; this is especially true
for projects qualifying under the “Builder’s Remedy.”
With respect to a housing development project’s impacts on public health and safety, the City
can only act on the basis of “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” that
cannot be mitigated or avoided. In this context, “specific, adverse impact” means “a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written
public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed” at the time of the
project application.
In your email, you raise two primary concerns: 1) danger to bicyclists and pedestrians because
the vehicle entrance/exit to the project is placed on Matadero Avenue, and 2) danger
associated with catastrophic earthquake and fire events.
In the case of earthquake and fire safety, the project is subject to several objective, written
public health and safety standards in the form of the California Building Code and the
California Fire Code. The project meets the requirements of these health and safety standards.
Under state law, the City cannot act on the basis of other concerns that are not founded in
similar objective, written health and safety standards.
In the case of the hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians, the City’s Office of Transportation has
not identified any objective, written public health or safety standards that the project violates.
In the absence of an objective, written public health and safety standard about, for example,
the number of vehicles that can be on a street of a given width, the potential impacts you
identify do not rise to the level of “specific, adverse impacts” as defined and required by state
law.
Nonetheless, project applicants are often willing to improve their projects and City staff will
continue to work with the applicant to discuss community concerns about multi-modal safety.
Please also note that the project is providing a 10-foot public access easement along the
project frontage on Matadero Avenue and is installing a sidewalk where none currently exists.
The project is also providing an 8-foot public access easement along Kendall Avenue, where
the other entrance and exit from the garage is located, and is also installing a sidewalk where
none currently exists there.
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@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: Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 5:33 PM
To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Legal Grounds for Opposing 3606 El Camino Building Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Attorney Yang, I am writing to ask whether the City of Palo Alto can legally oppose, or seek alteration of, a proposed Builder's Remedy project on grounds of the serious safety hazards it poses to Palo Alto residents. The proposed 7-story, 321 unit building at 3606
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Dear City Attorney Yang,
I am writing to ask whether the City of Palo Alto can legally oppose, or seek alteration of, a
proposed Builder's Remedy project on grounds of the serious safety hazards it poses to Palo
Alto residents.
The proposed 7-story, 321 unit building at 3606 El Camino Real, which was passed on to
City Council for approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARC) on December 4, 2025,
poses serious safety hazards to Palo Alto residents who live nearby in the Barron Park and
Ventura neighborhoods. The site of the proposed project spans the length of El Camino
between Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue. Both of these are narrow, 2-lane roads. The
Powered by Mimecast
proposed project sits diagonally on the busy, 4-lane intersection of El Camino Real and
Matadero-Margarita Avenues.
The new dedicated bike lanes along El Camino Real prevent placement of the building's
main entry/exit on El Camino Real. The building's designers have sited its main entry/exit
on Matadero Avenue, close to the intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-Margarita
Avenues. The renderings shown by the designers during the December 4 ARC meeting
suggest that Matadero Avenue is a boulevard of the same size and dimensions of El Camino
Real. It is not. It is a narrow, 2-lane road, with no sidewalks, and little parking, along its
length stretching from El Camino Real to Bol Park.
At the December 4 ARC meeting there was no discussion among ARC members of safety
hazards posed by the placement of the main entry/exit of this 7-story, 321 unit building on
Matadero Avenue, proximal to the busy intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-
Margarita Avenues. Every one of the building residents' 300 + cars, and those of their
visitors, as well as delivery trucks, service providers, Ubers/Lyfts, building maintenance,
and other vehicles will have to enter and exit the building through this Matadero main
entry/exit. ARC did not discuss how pedestrians can safely negotiate through/past this
busy, vehicle-heavy entry/exit.
Note that the new Creekside Inn housing development will be sited across the street from
3606 El Camino's Matadero main entry/exit. The Creekside Inn development cannot
site its main entry on El Camino Real due to the new El Camino Real dedicated bike lanes.
Is it the plan to also site the Creekside Inn project's main entry/exit on Matadero Avenue,
so that it will be directly across the street from 3606 El Camino's main entry/exit?
The intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero-Margarita Avenues is going to become an
extremely hazardous traffic nightmare. There will be a back up of the many vehicles that
need to access the 3606 El Camino building's Matadero Avenue building entrance via the
southbound lane of El Camino Real, and many of their drivers will disregard the rule that
prohibits occupation of/right turns on red over the dedicated bike lane there. This will pose
ongoing danger to bicyclists traveling southbound along El Camino Real. It is not clear how
these vehicles, or northbound vehicles making lefts off El Camino on to Matadero, can
make their next left, into the Matadero main entry/exit, without blocking the considerable
traffic headed up Matadero toward El Camino Real to exit the Barron Park neighborhood.
Note that, if you miss your left turn into the Matadero main exit/entry, there are no good U-
turn opportunities later down Matadero to correct your course. The Barron Park region of
Palo Alto is semi-rural in road structure, featuring narrow, often winding, roads without
sidewalks. Drivers will seek U-turn opportunities by driving further down the narrow
Matadero road toward Bol Park, or into the narrow Barron Park neighborhood streets, to
use residents' driveways to make their U-turns back toward the 3606 El Camino building.
Speeding cars on Barron Park streets are already hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Incursion of more vehicles, whose drivers seek U-turns back to 3606 El Camino, will only
increase this danger.
My biggest concern is for the safety of bicyclists, most of them children, who must cross the
El Camino Real - Matadero/Margarita intersection to travel down narrow Matadero, then
other narrow, winding Barron Park streets, to reach their destinations of Barron Park
Elementary, Fletcher Middle, and Gunn High schools. This intersection is already
harrowing, and biking through Barron Park roads is already dangerous for the children who
commute to the Barron Park Elementary, Fletcher Middle, and Gunn High schools, as well
as for adults bicycling to Stanford and adjacent Industrial Park companies. The increased
volume of vehicles on these roads, and traffic problems caused by the siting of the 3606 El
Camino building main entry/exit on Matadero Avenue, are going to significantly increase
this danger.
I have one other concern regarding safety of the proposed 7-story, 321 unit building at 3606
El Camino. I am very concerned about earthquake and fire safety related to construction of
such a tall, high density building at this location. To what extent might neighboring and
nearby residents in 1-2 story homes be put at risk of physical harm by catastrophic
earthquake and fire events in the proposed 7-story, 321 unit building? How might fire
fighting, evacuation, rescue, and other emergency service efforts be hampered by the
height, density, poor egress, and narrow streets surrounding the proposed building? In the
event of earthquake and fire emergencies, does Palo Alto have sufficient emergency services
resources to respond adequately to emergency needs of the 600-1300 residents in this
building, plus the needs of the several hundred residents of the adjacent Creekside Inn
building(s), in addition to the needs of the existing residents, living in 1-2 story homes, in
the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods? I am concerned that the very tall, high
density 3606 El Camino project endangers the lives and safety of its neighbors by placing
excessive burden on existing emergency service resources available in this region of the city
of Palo Alto.
I have been told that because 3606 El Camino is a Builder's Remedy project it is a fast-
tracked, "done deal" that can be expected to be rubber-stamped for approval by Palo Alto
City Council this February or March 2026. I hope this is not true. I would like to know
whether there are legal grounds upon which the City of Palo Alto can protect its citizens by
preventing the implementation of, or seeking alteration of, a Builder's Remedy project that
endangers the lives and safety of Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Penny Brennan, PhD
Ventura Neighborhood
From:Maureen McNally
To:Council, City; Cain, Robert; sanantonioareaplan@paloalto.cov
Cc:Maureen McNally
Subject:San Antonio Rd Development
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:37:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
First, thank you for your attention.
There are a number of areas I wish to comment on. These are not in necessary order of importance. And not
necessarily complete. This is not my area of expertise, however I have lived in the Greenmeadow area for
over 30 years, and plan to live here for another 30 years. It is a beautiful area. I don’t t wish it to be
degraded or spoiled.
1. I understand we need more housing, but not as much as proposed. The proposals just seem way too
much for this area. As you already know, with any additional housing, additional parking must be included
to match.
2. We don’t really need any more office space. I’m not necessarily opposed to some office space in the area
(some exists today), but I want to make sure that the amount of proposed office space is not projected to
increase the number of jobs currently provided in the SARAP area. The purpose of developing housing on
this scale is to rectify the city’s jobs:housing imbalance in response to a State housing mandate. I suspect
that Stanford Research Park (which counts toward Palo Alto’s jobs quota) will be developing more office
space, so I’m thinking about how much office space should be allowed here in the short term.
3. We need a better transportation / traffic plan that can include walking and biking and safety as a
priority. As I said, this is not my expertise, I am not the person to create it. I Understand that cars need to
park somewhere. But try to condense the impact and have parking not on San Antonio Rd itself, and not
overflow parking in the residential neighborhoods.
4. Parks and green space are so very important. I am vehemently opposed to reducing or converting any
current green space. I favor a large park area that can be a multi use area.
5. Schools and services will need to be increased.
6. A vibrant destination area that is also pedestrian friendly, walkable, bike-able with cafes, restaurants
and some retail. Not more office space. See above.
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
7. I am definitely opposed to the higher maximum hight limit. I do realize and acknowledge the
economics of higher density building.
8. I would also like to see a more equitable distribution of additional housing throughout Palo Alto.
9. I recognize this is a complex plan. Thanx for considering all of this.
Regards,
Maureen McNally
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not close Churchill
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:16:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Leaders,
Please don't close the Churchill railroad crossing in a misguided attempt to stop teen
suicide when you should be focusing on meaningful change at Paly to stop bullying
where and when it occurs.
Closing Churchill misses the point that the average age of PA suicide is 44 --
DECADES older than high school students -- with majority occurring among the
elderly, those in their 60s and 70s.
Closing Churchill is not only unproductive but it's dangerous -- slowing emergency
vehicles forced to detour and sending traffic onto already gridlocked Embarcadero
where vehicles are CURRENTLY sitting through 3 or more GREEN LIGHTS to
TRY to get to El Camino, a situation that will only get worse as the population and
development keeps growing.
Palo Alto is supposed to be an educated logical community, not one that reflexively
throws the baby out with the bath water instead of solving real problems.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
Palo Alto CA 94301
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
From:Deborah Bennett
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Closure of Churchill rail crossing
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:58:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Members of the Council:
I am a homeowner in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood. I live on Emerson St near Seale Av. I ask that you do NOT
close the Churchill rail crossing at this time.
The CalTrain grade separation project has been examining this crossing, and what the impact of a permanent closure
of this crossing would be. I ask that you respect and consult the project data as part of your decision. Instead, I see a
“knee jerk” reaction of closing the crossing without considering mitigating the effects of the closure.
The temporary closing of this crossing you are considering seems to be motivated by a recent student suicide. The
suicide of a student is tragic. Citizens want to do SOMETHING in response. Unfortunately, I believe a temporary
closure of the Churchill rail crossing is unlikely to prevent future student suicides, and will have many negative
effects.
The proposed closure would cause a large impact on my street and neighborhood. It will cause greater traffic
congestion on Alma and Churchill streets. When Alma becomes congested, many motorists use Emerson St as a
throughway. Cars exceed the speed limit and run the stop signs. Emerson is not designed for this kind of traffic load.
Congestion on Churchill also impacts my neighborhood, as drivers get frustrated with waiting in line and seek other
routes through the neighborhood. Many drivers will use Embarcadero as their alternate route, increasing the already
heavy congestion near Town and Country.
The Churchill crossing is used by a huge number of students on bicycles and on foot on their school commute.
Those students would be forced to use alternate routes like Embarcadero or California Ave. Riding a bicycle on
Embarcadero is very dangerous, and will be more dangerous with the increased number of drivers diverted from
Churchill. Impatient students are less likely to commute via California Ave since it takes longer. Finally, many
parents will decide that driving their students to school is safer. These cars will also increase congestion on
Embarcadero and in the PALY parking lot. I see the convergence of all this traffic as a disaster waiting to happen.
In conclusion, I believe that the temporary closure of the Churchill would have too many negative effects to be
approved. It is being rushed through the council without due deliberation.
Thank You.
Deborah Bennett, 1800 block Emerson St.
From:Jonathan T. Sunderland
To:Council, City
Subject:El Camino Softball Field
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:09:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi there, I'm wondering if you can help me..
The best Girls' softball field in the City on El Camino, across from the Stanford Shopping
Center. It is also the only Girls's softball field with lights. The problem is, despite being a
softball field for girls, the boys in little league are given reservation priority to book it. And
because it costs basically nothing for them to book it, they reserve it every day for the
entire season, from morning to evening. The only opening is after 8:30pm... The added rub is,
the boys only use the field for a couple of hours per week. The rest of the time goes unused.
We are a local girls softball team that cannot get space to practice, despite this amazing field
just sitting there, unused. I spoke to the people in charge of reserving the field, and they said
that I can have it after 8:30pm. We are a Girls' softball team. These kids are in bed by 9:00pm.
It is an absolute travesty that they girls are treated like second class athletes on their own field.
I'm sure you will agree that this is not only unfair, it is also immoral. You cannot give the boys
priority over the girls on their own softball field, and leave them with no practice
opportunities. Please help us.
It is an awful situation. Please fix it.
Thank you!
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jim McFall
To:Council, City
Cc:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Bike Path on Cal Ave
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 8:20:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
This letter is written regarding the discussion at the Council’s Economic
Development Committee meeting on March 18 about a possible bike path on
California Avenue.
We live near Cal Ave (great tagline, BTW) and have patronized retail businesses
and restaurants in the area for over 40 years. With the street now (partially) closed,
we currently walk on Cal Ave several times a week, both during the day and
evening, and have experienced the impact of bikes on the now car-less area.
Depending on the time of day, there can be numerous bike riders on the street,
some moving slowly, but many at high speed. We have significant concerns about
the creation of a delineated bike path as it would only serve to encourage and
increase the number of cyclists and the likelihood of collision with pedestrians. Every
visit we now see bikes, oftentimes at high speed, cruising and swerving closely past
pedestrians and children playing in the street. The proliferation of E-bikes and
motorized scooters further increases the possibility of an accident. One should not
have to worry about being hit by a bike on a pedestrian boulevard.
It is ironic that the city would go to the extent of removing cars from Cal Ave in
order to create a pedestrian environment and then consider creating a 14 foot
wide street for bikes.
We support the idea of rerouting cyclists to Cambridge Avenue and encourage
Council to move forward with this plan.
Let’s maintain the focus on creating the great pedestrian experience on Cal Ave
and keep people safe.
Gail and Jim McFall
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jeff Hoel
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 02-02-26 Council meeting -- Item 7 -- Review of Workplans
Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 8:21:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
Here's a TRANSCRIPT of Item 7 of your 02-02-26 meeting, which was a review of the workplans of ARB,
HRB, PTC, and UAC. I have also provided my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with "### ").
02-02-26 Council meeting -- agenda
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19132
Video
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-2-02-26/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s05xOX0vG9s&t=326s
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
========================================================================
TRANSCRIPT
2:03:32
Mayor Veenker: All right. We are back. And we will move on to our single action item of the night.
approval of FY 2026 ARB, HRB, PTC, and UAC workplans. All right.
2:03:49
City Manager Shikada: And I hope the public's able to follow our our acronyms there.
2:03:53:
Mayor Veenker: [laughs]
2:03:05:
City Manager Shikada: But it will, I think, be explanatory in a moment. So, our thought, in terms of
working through this item -- again, the Council knows this, but for public awareness. This has previously
been scheduled as a consent item prior to the end of the calendar year.
### 09-29-25
Given that the the agendas were pretty packed at the time, we've subsequently -- or, this was pulled.
### By Burt, Reckdahl, and Lu.
And, as such, we've have it scheduled for action. Our thought on the staff presentation is to go through
all of the commissions and then allow the Council, as you please, to then turn to questions on individual
commissions. So with that, let me ask our staff leads for all four commissions to proceed, leading with
Assistant Director Armer from our Planning and Development Services Department.
2:04:46:
Assistant Director Armer. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. Jennifer Armer,
Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services. And I am going to present to you three of the
workplans that we have for your discussion this evening. Two of those are also on behalf of Steven
Switzer, our Senior Historic Planner, who's the Staff Liaison for the Architectural Review Board and the
Historic Resources Board. We have asked the Chairs of each of these boards and commissions to join
us. Some are available in person. I think we've got one or two who might be joining us remotely because
you're so ahead of schedule. So thank you. Next slide.
2:05:35
Mayor Veenker:
We want them to be done early, too.
2:05:37
[laugher]
2:05:39
AD Armer: So, first we have the Architectural Review Board. First -- or, next slide.
2:05:44
As provided in the accomplishments section of the workplan that was presented in your staff report
packet, the ARB continues to be very busy. They reviewed at least 20 projects over the year, and
including -- we've got a couple of examples here where you've got the before and the after. The changes
to the looks of those projects provided -- They provided input on numerous standards, guidelines,
ordinances, and plans. And they selected six winners out of over a 100 potential projects for the 2025
design awards. The winning projects are pictured at the bottom of this slide. Next slide.
2:06:29
For the workplan that was approved last July, the Architectural Review Board listed out the items that
they spend their most time on and the things that they think are important for the coming year. First, of
course, is the review of planning applications. But also providing feedback to staff and Council on the
creation of new guidelines, ordinances, streetscapes, and assisting the City in consideration of
modifications to standards. In addition, reviewing and discussing and providing feedback on area plans
and streetscape improvements, and working to improve coordination between the Architectural Review
Board and the other boards, commissions, and councils.
2:07:17
We will continue on now to the next slide with the Historic Resources Board. Next slide.
2:07:25:
So for the accomplishments for the previous year, again, very busy year, and they had 21 new properties
that were added to the historic inventory. Five projects considered and recommended for upgrades on
that inventory. Category upgrades. Five development proposals, including this example shown on the
screen at 1023 Forest Avenue, which was a rehabilitation. You can see the original photo from the early
1900s before it was damaged in the earthquake, and in the center there, the image of what is proposed to
restore that. In addition, they also have now established a local historic preservation award program that
we do anticipate holding early this year. Next slide.
2:08:22
So, the workplan as listed by the HRB and recommended last July, included five items. One,
consideration of some modifications to the code in -- to clarify the HRB's role. Two, education and other
resources online. Also preparing an update to local inventory resources, resource list, additional
preservation incentives, consideration and recommendation, and establishing that historic preservation
award program. The HRB members have already started research into many of these workplan items.
Though they understand that additional Council direction would be required to allocate staff time to these
efforts. Next slide.
2:09:16
And so then, the third item that I am presenting tonight, before we move on to Utilities, is the Planning &
Transportation Commission. The accomplishments listed in your packet are very extensive. They did a
lot of work over that year. I can't list them all. It was hard to try and summarize and provide you
examples, but they provided input on nine different transportation efforts. They worked on at least nine
different comprehensive plan housing element implementation and Council priority tasks. And they
reviewed the components of six different development projects. Some examples listed here include the
Palo Alto Link, the safety action plan, the El Camino Real Retail Node Map, and a 100% affordable
housing project at 3265 El Camino Real. Next slide.
2:10:18
For the upcoming year -- or the year that we're in the middle of now -- they have prepared a list of nine
items. Some of these are carryover from previous years. But, also, some are added to the end to
recognize the expansive work that the Planning & Transportation Commission does. So work on the
retail ordinance update, area planning, housing element program implementation, state law
implementation, parking programs, bike and ped transportation plan update, comprehensive plan policy
implementation, zoning code updates and project review.
2:10:59
With that, that concludes my presentation on the Planning & Transportation Commission. And so I will
pass it on to Director Kurotori, to present the Utilities Advisory Commission workplan.
2:11:14
UAC Director Kurotori: Good evening. Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities. Thank you very much for this
brief introduction. Next slide, please.
2:11:24
So, the Utility Advisory Commission also had a very busy year as well. So, they review all of the utility
rates. So, our revenues are $470 million a year. So, it's a significant level of effort for our commission. I
did want to mention that they also included a look at voluntary electric or residential time of use rates as
well, and made some recommendations on that implementation, which will be coming to and open to the
Administration hydro electricity base resource contract. So, that is a 30-year agreement. It's executed
every 5 years, and that represents about 40% of our carbon-free energy supply for the City. And this
brings us tying into our integrated resource plan, which gets us to our 60% by 2030 goal. So, it really ties
in that all together. Next slide, please.
2:12:28
So, the main issue for the Utility Advisory Commission is -- they are our key commission that looks at our
utilities, wildfire mitigation plan, but also our grid modernization. I'm going to hit the utilities wildfire
mitigation plan first, because that's a picture of one of our staff removing some of the poles. So, this
mitigation plan is updated annually. And this year we're talking to the commission about updating our
PSPS notification process. So, how we communicate to the public, both in text and notifications. We
really took a look at what the other agencies around us are doing, to make sure that we were consistent
with that process, and that we brought that to the commission. Also wanted to highlight the grid
modernization program as well as part of the accomplishments. We gave them an update. This is an
annual update that we provide. It's a major multi-year effort for the utility. And also looking at our
construction of our fiber system. And then, had a very good and robust discussion on the need and
recommendation for a second transmission corridor. As the Council may recall that we were successful
working with the CAISO. So, you know, kind of spoiler alert, that project is moving forward along existing
PG&E transmission, and we are very hopeful to move that project forward into the 2030 timeline. Next
slide.
2:13:51:
So, this is the annual workplan. It's a relatively long list. I want to provide just a just a very high level
upgrade -- highlight of the annual look at. So, the utility rates are key for us, in terms of affordability to our
customers. So, one of the key initiatives that the UAC is bringing forward is actually charging credit card
fees to our residents and businesses, so that there is not a additional cost to our ratepayers. So, that's a
part of our cost recovery. We have brought forward that to the UAC. We anticipate that will save
approximately $1.2 million a year in additional revenues to make sure that we keep our low rates. And
then, they have provided feedback especially for our utility rates on our water supply. Uh one of the items
we're bringing forth to the commission is data center competitiveness. So, data centers -- As you know,
AI -- looking at bringing more of those customers to Palo Alto as part of our mix. So, that is coming to the
the commission in February. And then, our capital projects. And our grid modernization. So, we have
taken a hard look at the grid modernization project, in terms of a phasing incorporating the second
transmission line
### It's a fourth transmission line. It's in a second transmission line corridor.
and looking to make sure that we're bringing forth this -- the projects, especially for our receiving stations.
We are -- understand some of the issues in regards to supply chain. It takes about four years to get
transformers now. So, we have a multi-year project now where we've taken into account those projects
and looking at how we can integrate them affordably for our customers.
2:15:33
A major initiative is fiber to the premises. Very detailed discussions on the amount of take rate, how we
going to outreach to our customers and customers satisfaction, what we call cost per passing, how much
it takes to get to each customer, and then our cash flow projections. This will be an ongoing effort, as I
know the community is very interested in moving that forward.
2:15:57
And then, of course, the long-term strategy for our natural gas utility. There was a gas transmission --
excuse me -- gas transition plan that was brought forth not only to the UAC but to S/CAP. So, our next
phases there is looking at our engineering modeling. So, what will that look like, as customers move and
it affordable and serving our customers. So that's a highlight of the workplan. And here to answer any
questions. I did want to mention, Chair Greg Scharff is here as well, so feel free to ask him the difficult
questions as well. Thank you.
2:16:40
Mayor Veenker: Thank you. Anything further from staff?
2:16:45:
City Manager Shikada: That's it.
2:16:45:
Mayor Veenker: OK, so it looks like we have two chairs here, and a couple others online. Terrific. Let's
take public comment first.
2:16:57
** clerk: No request to speak and no hands are raised in Zoom.
2:16:59:
Mayer Veenker: OK, great. All right, colleagues. Questions, comments, Vice Mayor Stone.
2:17:09
Vice Mayor Stone: Well, first, no real concerns. Love that the HRB is doing that historical preservation
award. That sounds great. I'm excited to learn more about that and hopefully be able to participate as an
observer at whenever that happens. So hopefully staff can keep us updated on that.
2:17:28:
My my only question -- potential concern -- regarding the ARB. When will the ARB be getting to
reviewing and recommending aesthetic standards for wireless communication facilities? I was just a bit
concerned that on goal two it says that work is lower priority. And so, I'm not sure what the implications
are on it being a lower priority for when that work will be completed.
2:17:53:
AD Armer: Thank you for that question. And we may have more to add. But at a high level, because we
have so many housing projects coming through and other priority applications, it is part of workplan
balancing. We do have that on our list of tasks, but it isn't something we've been able to develop and
bring forward just yet.
2:18:14:
Vice Mayor Stone: OK. What are you thinking -- This calendar year at least?
2:18:18:
AD Armer: We do hope to.
2:18:19
Vice Chair Stone: OK. But maybe second half? First half?
2:18:22:
AD Armer: Correct.
2:18:23:
Vice Mayor Stone: OK. Second half.
2:18:23
City Manager Shikada: I suspect it will be part of your discussion on February 23rd when we bring the
objectives back for Council discussion.
2:18:31
Vice Mayor Stone: Great. And then, just, is staff waiting on that guidance from -- I mean, I know we'll be
discussing it, but ultimately is that -- that's going to require ARB review?
2:18:43
City Manager Shikada: I think, as as currently scoped, it would involve both ARB as well as staff work and
I'm sure City Attorney's office work. And so, I know staff is looking at a more streamlined way to proceed.
And would expect to make that part of your discussion.
2:18:59
Vice Mayor Stone: All right. And we're currently operating under the current standards until those new
ones are adopted. Yeah. Thank you. That's it for me.
2:19:08
Mayor Veenker: Council Member Lu.
2:19:11
Council Member Lu: Thank you. I just had a few questions and comments, but I'll just start with an
expression of gratitude for all of our commission and board members. And I hope that the chairs here
can take that message to their committees, because it is a serious amount of work, as we've
seen, and I have seen, through every commission, that commission and board members really go above
and beyond. And that when they are appointed, maybe they are an enthusiast, or a sort of
casual sort of community voice on a topic, but then they become serious experts, and become really
invested in the work. So, I'm just so grateful that we have these good plans to pour over.
2:19:54:
I had a couple of questions about the ARB to start. So, I know we've been thinking about working on the
SOFA objective standards, both part of the -- well, it's part of the housing element. I think it's been on the
queue for a little bit. SB79, I think, would cover most if not all of the SOFA area. And so are we
rethinking? Or, are we able to pivot and make sure that the objective standards are focused on around
an SB79 implementation? And do we have the right hooks so that, depending on what the SB79 ad hoc
decides, that the objective standards are appropriate for the densities that are decided there.
2:20:41
AD Armer: Thank you for that question. For the implementation of the housing element, there is a
program that is targeted at the SOFA guidelines and making those into objective standards. A
that SB79 will affect that component of that. However, creating objective standards based on the SOFA
guidelines is something that is still part of our proposed workplan, in terms of implementing the housing
element. So, that is still something that's anticipated to move forward.
2:21:21
Council Member Lu: Right. But I think in the context of SB79 -- and I -- this is very approximate. I could
definitely be getting things wrong. It's that local standards that make that level of housing intensity and
height impossible are -- can de facto be ignored. So if our objective standards are focused on the kind of
structures or density or housing that may not actually get proposed, we could be missing a chance to
create objective standards that are more suitable for the projects that might happen.
2:22:01
AD Armer: Thank you. That that is correct. That as we go through and review the current non-objective
standards, the guidelines that are included in SOFA, and convert those into objective standards, we
would be working to make sure they're consistent with state law as well, specifically SB79.
2:22:18
Council Member Lu: OK. OK. It sounds like we are tracking this, and I don't need any other positive
reassurance that the work will be sequenced appropriately, such that it won't be made redundant, and
that it'll be integrated with the ad hoc's work. OK.
2:22:33:
Another point was that I see on the streetscape improvement section and the area plan section that
California Ave is considered, University Ave is considered, but Ramona is not considered. Is that right?
Could we both take Ramona and California Ave together? And, of course, depending on bandwidth, and
what staff finds. in terms of feasibility of University Ave, plans that that should potentially be -- or
probably be -- de-prioritized.
2:23:15:
AD Armer: I would say that since Ramona is not listed here, that does not mean that they would not
review it, if it was ready to move forward.
2:23:23:
Council Member Lu: OK. I think one lesson we should generally take from -- my interpretation of what's
happened in the retail committee is that Ramona and Cal Ave generally -- that the principles are generally
similar, that the kinds of structures allowed are generally similar. And so, there should be some flexibility.
OK.
2:23:54:
OK. On HRB, I like that we're thinking more about education. I hope that -- you know, I always had this
thought in the back of my mind that we should have a signage program similar to a lot of East Coast cities
where we literally put a sign in the ground and say this is where something historically significant
happened. Because there's a lot of that in Palo Alto. That's a total aside. The only thing I did have on
HRB is that I think prioritizing zoning incentives is useful and maybe the most effective way to preserve
history, given zoning and state law.
2:24:41:
I am over time. I had much briefer notes on PTC and UAC, so maybe I'll come back to that later. But
2:24:50
Mayor Veenker: Council Member Burt.
2:24:52
Council Member Burt: Thank you. So, I have comments on three of the boards, and then some overview
comments on the process. So, what I don't get to, hopefully, I'll get in a second round.
2:25:06:
First, on the ARB, on -- this is page -- packet page, I think, 97 -- no -- excuse me --94 -- project goal 2,
which is on the creation of new guidelines, ordinances, and streetscape, it says that ARB would have
unique feedback basically on the aesthetic environment. And the staff report referenced, under the
mission statement, four sections of the zoning code that really pertain to ARB's role. And it got me to go
back and read this. Because we've had this issue of at times where the ARB has really been wading in
on a number of urban design related aspects of projects. And there was a question whether they're kind
of stepping outside their lane. And when I read it's -- it is chapter 18.76.020,
### City Charter, Section 18.76.20 -- Architectural Review
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-81678#JD_Chapter18.76
it's really interesting, because they give five purposes to the ARB. And one's the aesthetic, and the other
four really relate to urban design. And so I had underappreciated just how much their mandate really
does relate to urban design. It's not just the parcel, and it's not just the aesthetics, it's how it really works
in the whole fabric. Which goes to a longtime issue which is, well, wait a minute, that crosses over to
some of what the Planning & Transportation Commission does. And this has always been kind of a
tension, and rubbing elbows, and we've never really sat down and said, well, what are those respective
roles? If both have a role, then how do we more efficiently address that? Should they be doing that
together? Should be they be informed by each other's opinions that way? So, I don't know the answer.
But I would like to see that added to the workplan to address that issue.
2:27:19:
And then second, the issue of the SOFA development that Council Member Lu mentioned is an important
one. When we established the SB79 ad hoc, we definitely said, well, we -- one of the purposes there is to
understand whether to fold the downtown housing plan into that, continue struggle with that. But it should
actually be the downtown housing plan and the SOFA plan. And figure out how we reconcile that. But
once -- related to that is, what's the PTC -- and, for that matter, the ARB role, as we try to quickly struggle
through the momentous impacts of SB79. And I don't want us on the ad hoc committee to be attempting
to come up with those solutions along with staff in the absence of the input -- and real thoughtful input --
from ARB and and PTC. Because this is really going to be significant to the community.
2:28:35:
And then, I saw a note that they had in there on proposing that the objective standards for townhomes on
multi-family be extended to objective standards for multi-story projects. And that seems like a really good
recommendation. And their own recommendation that there there be work to figure out how to streamline
and coordinate between -- maybe this was more the PTC -- PTC and HRB. And so, on in several themes
here as we're looking at streamlining our processes, not only do we look at reducing the time and the
expense involved, but how do we better integrate the insights of these boards and commissions, rather
than we just have alternately -- here's the insight of one commission, here's of another, and we get here
and we referee or -- But they aren't getting informed of each other often. Sometimes they are, but not
necessarily. And not in an environment where they can actually have discourse, and understand why are
they proposing something that's different on ARB from the from that? Or just feeding off of each other? I
the quality at the same time.
2:30:04:
OK. So, I will defer to the next round for the rest.
2:30:09
Mayor Veenker: Council Member Reckdahl.
2:30:11
Council Member Reckdahl: OK. Thank you. First, just an overall comment. Both PTC and ARB quite
often send representatives when they've reviewed a project to Council, and they usually sit there, and we
never ask them anything. And it really would be nice to make that just a standard process, that we
always ask them for their opinions. Because they've worked really hard on this. They have some insight
that may save us a lot of time.
2:30:36
Also, yeah, thank you for the -- we re- -- the COSA report. UAC did a lot of work on that. Saved us a lot
of time. And we appreciate that.
2:30:45:
We just, in retail, reviewed the zoning changes. And PTC did a LOT of work on that, and saved us. So, I
agree with Council Member Lu. These commissions work really hard and do really good work, and save
us a lot of time, and and really help the community. So, thank you.
2:31:03:
OK. So, yeah, communications for the PTC and ARB to Council. But also with each other. One of the
commissioners had proposed joint meetings between ARB and PTC. And I'm not sure if that would work.
The advantage is is that sometimes the project goes to one and you get one advice, and you go to the
next commission and it they change the advice. And so you kind of feel jerked around if you're the
applicant. And having a joint meeting would give them one set of advice. And if the two commissions
didn't agree, they could discuss it there. And I think it would be a much more direct route. It would be
much more complicated. So I'm not just saying it would work, but I think it would be worthwhile to at least
consider the pros and cons of that. I think, also, communicating between the ARB and the PTC -- maybe
having monthly or bimonthly meetings of the chairs and vice chairs, both have -- four of them together --
and talk about process, and talk about projects that are coming forward. That, I think, would be useful.
And maybe between the Mayor and the Vice Mayor and the Chair and Vice Chair of PTC -- that -- have
some communication going on. I feel quite often the only communication we get is staff reports. Right?
We don't really interact. And having flow both ways would be a good thing. When I was on Parks and
Rec, having liaison was very useful. I'm not sure if that would work here. But I think it's worthwhile to
think about how can we communicate better between PTC and ARB, and also between those
commissions and Council?
2:32:40
OK. Yeah. I'll echo Council Member Burt about -- you know, urban design is an important part of ARB.
And I agree with that. Aesthetic standards for wireless -- I agree that's an important priority, although not
as high as housing. So, I understand. We only have so much workforce, so much bandwidth. PTC,
when you're talking about the project goals, which is the new neighborhood -- number 2 -- it doesn't talk
much about transportation, particularly bike transportation. And that's going to be a critical part down San
Antonio. And then, later on, you talk about bike plans, but you don't talk about in new neighborhoods.
neighborhoods, we plan cars, we don't plan bikes. And having those linked explicitly in the workplan, I
think, would be a really good thing.
2:33:29
We also have the Retail Committee and the Planning & Transportation [Commission] that has some
overlap. Having some communication between that, I think, might be useful. And, again, I don't know if
joint meetings -- or if it's just the chairs get together and talk. But I think we have to improve our
communication.
2:33:48
For the UAC, we have AMI, which I just think is a wonderful source of data. And are we doing everything
we can to exploit all that data. We have this time of use pricing and can we scrub that and understand
what is the use profile when we're forming the time of use options. What options should we give? What
people -- What's the demand out there? And we have that demand through the AMI. But also for leak
detection for water. AMI is great for that. And are we exploiting that? Maybe we are. I don't know. But
data is wonderful, and AMI is going to give us so much data we don't know what to do with it.
2:34:28:
For grid mod, I think we need reliability goals and set specific reliability goals. Especially as we electrify,
we need electrification reliability. And -- but also a path forward. We can pick, you know,
99 percent, or whatever.
### 99 percent uptime corresponds more than 3 days of outage per year, which is terrible reliability. Palo
Alto's FY 2026 Operating Budget (page 476)
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy-2026-city-
budget/adopted/fy-2026-adopted-operating-budget_final.pdf
predicts a reliability (SAIDI = System Average Interruption Duration Index) of 60 minutes per year, which
corresponds to an uptime of 99.9886 percent.
### Fort Collins' municipal electric utility had a SAIDI of 8.07 minutes per year in Q4 2025.
https://fortcollins.clearpointstrategy.com/economic-health/electric-system-average-interruption-duration-
index-saidi-in-minutes/
Their long-term goal was 20.84 minutes per year.
And that doesn't mean anything unless we think, well, if we upgrade this product, that will reduce so many
outages and and have some realistic path forward for that. And, oh, also, mentioned about the data
centers. That's a real source of electricity.
### Data centers are big SINK of electricity.
But also it's going to be a big source of water
### Data centers are a big SINK of water, at least potentially.
and are we considering purple pipe water for those data centers at all? Because some of these data
centers use so much water. And ChatGPT is like a half gallon per search or something.
### Much exaggerated, I think. But UAC should be watching how much water data centers in Palo Alto
are proposing to use.
It's amazing how much water they use. And can we use purple pipe water? That would be a really good
way of -- Because we have so much purple pipe water. It'd be good to use that instead of having fresh
water.
### It's a thought. But purple pipes are expensive.
The plan also has -- talks about gray water.
### (Not for data centers)
I'm not sure what our plans are for gray water. Uh, I'm curious what we're going to be doing -- why that's
in the plan. If we can do it, it'd be wonderful, but I I don't know what the plan is right now. And also, just
in general, purple pipe water. Do we have plans for that or is that something that's kind of gone the way
of the dinosaur? I'm not sure.
2:35:58:
And finally, HRB, I want to echo Council Member Lu's comment about historic markers. I think that'd be a
really good use for HRB is to have more historic markers. OK. That's all. Thank you.
2:36:09:
Mayer Veenker: Council Member Lauing.
2:36:13
Council Member Lauing: Our commissions are extremely high quality and hardworking. I see that
reflected in all these workplans. And I think that, you know, unless they're missing something that we've
asked them to do, we probably don't want to get too deep in telling them what to do. They should be
telling us what to do in some cases. To get out ahead of things. So, I appreciate those efforts. And as
you all know, I've spent a lot of years on those commissions, so I know what the day-to-day and month-
to-month is.
2:36:43
I want to chime in on this thing that keeps coming up and has for years and we're talking about it multiple
comments tonight -- on overlaps between commissions, or communications between commissions. Last
year as Mayor, and with the Vice Mayor, we met with the boards and commissions, chairs and vices, to
be listening posts more than anything else.
### Meetings like this don't violate the Brown Act. But they do keep a lot of people -- other
commissioners, other Council members, and the public -- in the dark.
And I thought it was productive. I hope it was for the commissioners. But we have to, I think, you know,
take that input, somehow package it, and take some action. There's -- for example, in the ARB -- I'm
sorry -- in the -- now I've lost it -- packet page 98 -- yeah, on packet page 98 of the ARB proposal, they're
essentially making a proposal to us, that ARB has little formal interaction with City Council, etc. And
they've got a four bullet point thing about all kinds of get-togethers including, at the end, HRB, PTC, and
Council liaison to the ARB -- facilitate open communications. I don't think we can just sort of debate that
tonight and say yes or no, because effectively it's it's an action item. But I think it deserves some study
and a response. Whatever we think the best sort of channel for doing that is. It could it could be, you
know, the Mayor meeting with them. It could be a referral to P&S, which might take a little bit longer. But
this is essentially a proposal within their workplan that that we ought to respond to, you know, not only --
not not just out of respect, but because there's some ideas here that we we want to kind of chew and and
decide on. And so, I'm not sure we can come up with an answer tonight, but that that that's that's a
concern that I have.
2:38:35:
And then, another thing I want to talk about is, UAC has also suggested -- where I'm the liaison -- that
represent them sometimes. And I think those can be really valuable. And it's incumbent upon the
commissioner to not be redundant of everything that's been in the in the staff report, but for us to be more
than just -- have this person on standby. At least have them -- you know, give an opinion on what's
happening.
2:39:12:
And the last thing I want to talk about is sort of a process issue. And I know this might sound funny. But
my question is, are are we meeting often enough in the commissions for all the work that we're trying to
get done? I mean, I've watched in UAC the last two years particularly. It's getting more and more and
more and more work, and they're trying to get that all done in one meeting a month. So, something's
going to change there. It's either going to be less work or more meetings.
2:39:41:
And similarly, PTC has a load. On the other hand, I noticed in the report a couple weeks ago that there
have been a lot of canceled meetings on commissions this year. So that can happen because, you know,
staff isn't ready. But it's sort of the other side of getting the work done, is, we've got these meetings
scheduled, and then we don't even do them. So, I don't know what to do about that. I just want to point
out that that's a factor in our work right now. And I feel, for example, on retail like we've been looking for -
- at Council for a proposal on other retail-like uses and zoning in retail areas for quite a long time. And,
you know, we still don't have it. So, I don't know if that's because staff isn't ready, or the consultant's not
done, or we're missing meetings. And the same thing with retail nodes. We've talked about briefly here.
And I think both of these are still coming, but it just seems like it's taking a while to get here. And then,
we're just kind of losing time with our our retail vibrancy and and economic development. So, I think
these workplans are quite productive, but they're requiring some response, and we need to find out the
mechanism to do that. Thank you.
2:40:53
Mayor Veenker: All right. Thank you. And I really echo my colleagues, but particularly Council Member
Lu, about the amount of work that this represents. It's truly extraordinary. And it reflects our
extraordinary community and the people who will step up to do it. So, just a lot of gratitude for that. I
want to echo Former Mayor Lauing -- because it was when you were Mayor, and the two of us met with
the commission Chairs and Vice Chairs. And the ARB/PTC connection came up, and we talked a little
about that. And I think we kind of supported exploring whether there should be more interaction. And I
don't know, Chair, if you want to say anything -- or anybody -- about that. Um, yeah. Please go ahead if
you have some comment on that, if there's any follow-up or --
2:41:48:
**: Thank you, Mayor. Yes. As some of you know, Commissioner Hirsch and I have been working on
this, off and on, over the past year. And we do have, a structure that we think would be appropriate. And
not only how it might be organized, but what topics might be covered as a part of that. And we hope to
arrange some kind of staff mediated long-term process for implementing that.
2:42:19
Mayor Veenker: Well, that's good news. So, even if it's not expressly on your workplan, it is something
that you're pursuing right now.
2:42:26
**: I was excited to see that the ARB mentioned it explicitly.
2:42:31:
Mayor Veenker: Oh, OK. I missed that.
2:42:33:
**: So, in in that sense, we didn't need to,
2:42:35
Mayor Veenker: [laughs]
2:42:35
**: But yes, it's important that it was stated.
2:42:38
Mayor Veenker: Great. OK. Well, I think you heard some support for it tonight. So, thank you.
2:42:42:
**: Thank you.
2:42:42:
Mayor Veenker: And, yes, Council Member Reckdahl had mentioned about getting information flowing
both ways. And I agree with that. And I believe there's a proposal coming from P&S soon that we dealt
with a couple meetings ago that was talking about BCC interactions with Council and whether or not each
of them can have the option to come before Council once a year, with either their workplans or a specific
issue, or -- Anyway, we can, I think, have a more full conversation about that. Because it should be an
agendaized item. And the City Manager is nodding. So, I think I've got that right. So, we'll have an
opportunity to explore that further. As we will the grid mod reliability goals. I think on March 2nd, when
the RRSP comes here. People's thoughts about that can be brought up.
2:43:39:
So, data centers. I think many of you know, that's one of my favorite topics. So, I'm excited that UAC is
going to be taking a deep look at that. I am curious kind of how that came to be, and what the output will
be, and where it will go. So. maybe Mr. -- Director Kurotori, do you want to --
2:43:59:
Director Kurotori: Yeah, let me give a little update to that. So, the UAC really looked at data center
competitiveness, in terms of, you know, what data centers would come to Palo Alto, what opportunities
would there be, is the utility prepared to accommodate that, and what are the impacts to to ratepayers, in
terms of that. So we did a very deep dive. in terms of that. So we have a series of questions we'll be
bringing back to the commissions. And then, on a policy level what the those systems look like. So, kind
of the state-of-the-art of what the data centers are like. You know, they do not use a lot of potable water
anymore. They have closed loop systems. They they like to use recycled water, especially given the
corporate awareness here.
### It would be a mistake to rely of voluntary "corporate awareness."
So we have opportunities there. So, there's a lot of places where you can tick and tie and kind of discuss
that level of detail. And then, the UAC would bring some thoughts back to the City Council for their
consideration on a policy level.
Mayor Veenker: That's great. I really appreciate that, because there are a lot of complex things to to
balance and weigh, and it starts with, you know, the utilities' ability -- The capacity, as you said. Whether
there's impact on ratepayers. There's a lot of disagreement about what that would be. And, you know,
what the demands are. But then, there are, you know, contra- -- potentially countervailing considerations
with respect to water use. But even beyond the utilities. You know, just the look of the thing, traffic
things, various considerations. So, I'm glad --very, very glad -- that you all are taking that on. Because I
think it's something we really need to have a direct conversation about. And more and more people are.
So, it's a little hard in some ways to see around corners, as to where the technology is going to go, as
well as the demand. And there's so many variables about this. But we we got to do our best. So, I
appreciate that you're taking that on.
2:45:54
I am just out of time, so I will stop there, and we'll see if we can wrap this up with the next round. Council
Member Lu.
2:46:04
Council Member Lu: Thank you. I'll just make some quick notes. Uh, I agree with Council Member
Lauing, uh, that the ARB's sort of requested objectives are pretty thoughtful and reasonable, and
especially some of the process things do deserve a response. I like that they ask for a California Ave
area plan. I think, you know, it's something we -- I think we all want, pending the resources. And so, it's
good to -- I don't know -- aim high. Just, you know, try to realize your dreams. And I also have
heartburns that we don't have a Cal Ave -- or, that we we're not really talking about a Cal Ave plan. I
don't know if there's some way to squeeze that in, potentially in the context of the SB79 committee and
the ARB. But would be interested if possible.
2:47:11:
On the PTC workplan, the one thing that stood out to me is that there's an item for the bike and
pedestrian plan updates, but there's not clear priorities about actually realizing specific projects and
design, or trying to get some quick build projects through the pipeline. And this segues into a thought
also about PTC and Council dynamics, and communication. I'm thinking about a specific traffic calming
project in Crescent Park that has been in PTC for a pretty decent amount of time, and is coming to
Council, I believe, in the coming month or two. So, I think that there was a -- some kind of missing
dynamic, where if something is really stuck in PTC, it could have come to Council sooner, or that there
could be some kind of two-way communication so we can get issues agendized from the Transportation
Department, or from PTC, on a more flexible basis. Because we WILL need to do a lot of traffic calming.
And we'll need be able to do this smoothly and quickly.
2:48:27
Y.eah. And uh I don't have too much else to add about the UAC. But I've always really appreciated its
insights about rates and the commercial side, especially around fiber to the premises. And I think maybe
not this year but next year there is going to be actually enough data to draw some conclusions about the
pilot. And I think that's an exciting opportunity for the UAC. I hope we can get SOME feedback from the
UAC about that this year. If not, soon the year after. So, thank you.
2:49:05:
Mayor Veenker: Council Member Burt.
2:49:07
Council Member Burt: Yeah. First, I support the oral reports by the Council liaisons that they be given
and and unless somebody asks them a question, they may be chomping at the bit to say something, and
they they don't even get the chance.
2:49:30:
And then, I think that specifically their workplan
Whose workplan?
should include a reference to SB79, even though we don't know yet what their role will be. But we know
it's a big deal and they should have some role. Sorry I see --
2:49:45:
AD Armer: If I may, just quickly, I'm sure it will be part of the workplan for next year. Last July when we
were adopting that we did not know.
2:49:53
Council Member Burt: Well, that goes to some of my process question - comments at the end.
2:49:57:
And then, similarly, we have a need -- But the retail committee just reviewed the retail recommendations
from PTC, which were really thoughtful and extensive. But we had feedback back. But it goes, OK, if we
read their notes or get their report, or if they see ours, but there's no discourse that's there that could
speed up this whole process. And if we add an occasional joint meeting -- whether it's the PTC and the
retail, or whatever that ad hoc committee may be in the future.
Similarly, on the UAC and the S/CAP.
2:50:40:
And that goes to my next issue. Is that, ever since we created the S/CAP, we've struggled with what
should be the UAC role. And, as an interim, we, as part of our community -- or our Advisory Committee,
we included a UAC member -- the Vice Chair currently. But that doesn't really function to have that real
two-way dialogue, and to sort through what are the respective roles of those two entities. And so, we just
are kind of proceeding in parallel, and in somewhat opaque understandings of what each other are
doing. We'll get reports, but it's just not clear, and we're -- we haven't struggled to figure out what should
be the respective roles. I don't know the answers, but I think we need to get it down on the workplan to
address it. And that includes on the S/CAP workplan this year, and that's probably where some of that
work should be done.
2:51:49
One specific issue is that I would like to see the UAC make recommendations on electric reliability, that
are quantitative. What's the reliability that we should -- when and how perhaps get to our former
reliability, which is just a bit down. We're just a bit down from it. But what reliability should we aim for, or
really put a clear goal on, if we're looking for the community to switch to electric?
### What should these quantitative reliability metrics be based on? What UAC thinks customers would
like to have? Or what's possible technologically, given what peer utilities have been able to achieve?
### This 2023 document from the American Public Power Association
https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Test%20Utility%20-
%202023%20Annual%20Reliability%20Benchmarking%20Report.pdf
says that the top quartile of participating municipal electric utilities were able to report a SAIDI of 18.18
less, if "major events" are not counted.
And we hear, time and again, legitimate concerns that, oh, you want me to give up my gas, but my lights
went out. And how do we address that adequately? What is adequate? We don't have yet those specific
goals. And I think we need to figure out what they should be, and set them, and if they then need to be
evolved over time, like everything else, we can do that. But I think it's a real critical importance in our
entire electrification program, is to figure out how good should should our electric reliability be if we want
people to go electric.
2:53:06:
And then -- um -- oh, I just noticed that under the accomplishments for UAC, it was a little different. It was
more focused on what are really utility department accomplishments. And that's different from how it was
treated by the other boards and commissions. I think it's in -- it was intended to focus on what the
commission did, as opposed to the department. And just an aside comment on that. And that those
accomplishments would align with their mission. I when I read the mission, I said, oh, yeah, yeah. I'm
sure they could really address that.
2:53:46:
Lastly, on the process, these were largely completed in June, or very early July. And when we get back
from vacation, August and September are typically light Council schedules. And then, October through
December heat up -- or early December. And, as a result, I assume that's part of why it came to us as a
consent item. And I think we should put a clear schedule, says here's the date that the boards and
commissions need to have their workplans done by. And then we will schedule them for August and
September, to come to the Council when we have a real opportunity, and they're timely. So, we're in
February. These were completed in July. Composed in May and June. And they're almost a year
outdated by the time we're getting them. Now, some of it still carries forward, but some of it isn't. And we
have to figure out how to solve that problem.
2:54:45:
And that goes to what process we should have. This -- I think this discussion tonight is real valuable. We
broke it into -- half of the boards. Gives us -- you know, and rather than try and do it all in one evening.
We used to have periodic joint sessions with certain of the key boards and commissions. And that was
really tough to manage and schedule.
### I think having periodic (say, annual) joint meetings between certain commissions (e.g., UAC) and
Council was a great idea. Workplans are NOT a substitute.
And so then this process came forward of, well, the workplans. And it's really this deliberate way in which
the boards and commissions have a clear set of goals, including things that they're recommending that
they do on a proactive basis, and they need the Council's consent for that to enter their workplan. And
that's what this process is endorsing in many ways. But then we skipped from having a discussion,
where we could have discourse on this, to -- it showed up on consent. And I think, at a minimum, we
need to have this kind of meeting built into our procedures, because it's of real value.
2:55:53:
So, think that covers -- Yep, that's everything I have to say. Thank you.
2:56:00
Mayor Veenker: Thank you. I want to go back to a couple things, but, first, I just wanted -- When I asked
about the data centers, there's been a lot of stuff on utilities, and we're lucky we have our Utilities Director
here, but we also have our UAC Chair. Is there anything you want to add to anything that's been said?
would invite you to do that now.
2:56:25:
UAC Chair Greg Scharff:
I think I would just say thank you for the opportunity to address you. And the data center thing I think is
really interesting. And we're supposed to go that next Wednesday. And I think our look at it was, how
how does this affect rates, in terms of, is this good for the ratepayer.
### What rates? Electric? Water?
I think that's the thought. And that's -- it is a very complicated process to understand that. And so, that's
what we're trying to do. We're trying to be able to tell you, you know, definitively, if we get a data center
of, you know, X megawatts, is that good? How big is too big? Where does that slip -- you know, slip over
to not be useful for the ratepayer? So, that's really what we're doing there.
2:57:03:
I also think -- maybe you haven't gotten this much -- I think we're a little skeptical on fiber to the premises,
and we're hoping the pilot gives us real information, before the City spends too much money on that
process. I think that's that's something we're looking at.
### Given that UAC has not yet voted its advice to Council regarding FTTP, it's premature to opine about
how commissioners as a commission think about it.
2:57:21:
And then in terms of Grid Mod, which is obviously the big thing, I think we're very much in favor of the
utility's approach, which is to do what makes sense in terms of phasing -- phasing it as opposed to going
out and rebuilding stuff before it's needed to be rebuilt, given the costs. So, I think that's really the
thoughts. I don't know if you guys have any other questions, but that was really where we are.
2:57:44
Mayor Veenker:
Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I'm -- I guess the other thing is, do you have any thoughts on interaction
between the UAC and the S/CAP committee? You know, I think when that same Council item comes
forward from P&S about what's the relationship between Council and BCC's, we'll -- we can discuss it
more fully then. But if there's anything you'd like to share tonight about how we sort out those roles and
any places you've seen a need to revise or do something.
2:58:15:
UAC Chair Greg Scharff:
Yeah, I definitely think -- I've been thinking about that, like Council Member Burt said, what's the right
approach on this? And right now I think it's completely parallel. I think the S/CAP is -- committee has a
much more narrow focus. At least, that's my opinion of it. I don't really -- I could be wrong. I mean, I
don't spend enough time watching the S/CAP and doing that. But my sense is their their charter, in their
mind, is how do we meet, you know, the S/CAP goals? Whereas we have a broader charter, which is,
how do we make sure that we go ahead and try and meet the Council's S/CAP goals, while keeping rates
low, while making sure the utility functions properly, to make sure that, you know, money isn't spent in a
way that the utility can't afford those kind of things. And I think that's a broader charter. And, you know, I
think that's the better charter if I have to say it.
2:59:08:
So, I -- And I don't know how you integrate that as a Council. I've been wondering about that. And
maybe just having two parallel bodies that talk about this, and could make very different
recommendations, depending on -- and that allows you two different thought processes. But, remember,
we have the larger charter and when we think about it more holistically.
2:59:29
Mayor Veenker: Yeah. I mean, I would characterize it as like a Venn diagram and overlapping charters,
because S/CAP is broader in other ways. But I take your point. And I think that this is something Council
Member Burt mentioned we could also address in the S/CAP workplan and think about it further. But I
was just curious your thoughts. So, uh thank you for that.
2:59:48
UAC Chair Greg Scharff: Sure thing.
2:59:50:
Mayor Veenker: I did want to mention that when we switched to this sort of appoint half the boards and
commissions, you know, at one point in the year and six months later do the other half, I believe that led
to the -- then they do their workplans after they're appointed. And that's why we're doing half at a time.
It's not so much -- I think that there's there's a staggered preparation. So I agree with you that they are
stale by now and we we should address that. But I think the the the reason we do half at a time is that
they're prepared sort of -- one group. Is that correct? One group, and then the other group?
3:00:23
City Manager Shikada:
That is correct. And I know we've had some parallel discussions on whether it's actually helpful or not
relative to the new commissioners. I think it also reflected the recognition that if we brought all the
commission workplans to you at at once, that would also be bit of a load on your agenda.
3:00:44
Mayor Veenker: Yeah. Exactly. OK. So I see no further lights. And we need to figure out -- we need to
take action on these workplans. They are seeking approval. So, if there are -- it could be a MOTION to
that effect. If there are amendments that people want to propose to them. But I would entertain that at
this point. Council Member Burt.
3:01:13
Council Member Burt: Yeah. So, first, I'll recommend the proposed workplans, with a few amendments
that I can go through. Under PTC, to add a reference to SB79 as a project. Under the UAC, to add a that
they propose -- review -- they and staff propose specific goals for reliability as a project. And I think --
Oh. Similarly, under ARB, that SB79 be included as a project, that we endorse their recommendation to
expand the objective standards on residential to larger multi-family objective standards. And that we
endorse their efforts to coordinate and streamline what they do with HRB and ARB.
3:02:56
Council Member Reckdahl: SECOND.
3:02:57
Council Member Burt: OK. I'll just say briefly that those last ones I think their workplan was asking for our
support for that. So it's not writing it anew, just affirming that, yes, we agree and support it.
3:03:15
Mayor Veenker: Council Member Reckdahl, do you want to speak to your second? No. Council member
Lu, do you have comment?
3:03:23
Council Member Lu:
I think the ARB recommendation was not to apply objective standards to more larger multi-family but to
actually apply it to townhomes. So, in that recommendation, it says that some of our current standards
focus more on larger multi-family --
3:03:44:
Council Member Burt: Where is that?
03-03-46:
Council Member Lu: On packet page 97, objective standard refinements number one.
3:03:50
Council Member Burt: Oh yeah.
3:03:51:
Council Member Lu: So, I think, just for clarity, it's -- it should be -- I fully support the concept and the
motion, but I think it should be for townhomes. Or, if I'm not wrong -- Or, if I'm not right, it's also just a
little bit ambiguous. So, clarification could be good.
3:04:09
Mayor Veenker: Perhaps the Chair could clarify. Or, did you -- go ahead.
3:04:13
AD Armer: Thank you. I can I can step in and clarify. That is correct, Commissioner -- or, Council
Member Lu, that that was intended to identify the fact that we have objective standards for larger multi-
family but that they don't always apply well to townhomes. And the ARB has actually had some
discussions on that topic previously. And they were interested in trying something forward.
3:04:40:
Council Member Burt: Sorry. I had forgotten that from when I read it this afternoon. I'd like to change that
amendment to reflect -- let's see -- that the -- endorse their recommendation to expand the objective
standards to townhomes.
3:05:09
Mayor Veenker: OK. So, now, does that read?
3:05:14:
Council Member Burt: Yep.
3:05:14:
Mayor Veenker: OK. That reads how you'd like it. OK. Can I just ask -- I'd like to ask, I think, the Utilities
Director about the specific goals for reliability as a project. What are your thoughts on that?
3:05:32
Utilities Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I think what we can bring back and talk to the UAC about is looking
at our reliability metrics in terms of outages, response times, how that ties into the projects and our
operational goals. For example, we've modified one of our staff members, in terms of them staying later
in the evening. So, we have a troubleman available from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. And that means we'll have
someone on site. And we anticipate that will be helpful, in terms of response times. Because they'll be
on prem. So -- And that will help us cover, kind of, in that larger way. So we can bring some of those
operational -- some of the project-related investments, and how what we're seeing. You know, for
example, AMI. You know, we get information on -- When we have outages, it goes to our control
operators. So, as we implement these new technologies, we'll get some efficiencies. And we'll get some
kind of throughput, and what that looks like. So, we can bring some of those things back and have those
discussions with the UAC.
3:06:31:
Mayor Veenker: So that's -- sounds like things that could enhance -- I mean, specific things that could
enhance reliability. But if -- I think what's sought here is goals for -- you know, what those reliability
standards should be. And when we talk about the KPIs and -- whenever it is we do that -- in a month or
so -- are those reliability goals kind of baked in, or not? Is that a separate conversation?
3:07:01
Utilities Director Kurotori: Yes. So the reliability goals -- we we call them the the CAIDI, SAIFI, and
CAIDI.
### SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index),
SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index), and
CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index)
So, they are basically how long do we have outages? How often do we have them? We can rank them
against other agencies around us with similar type of of systems. You know, frankly, Palo Alto is about --
in terms of its reliability metrics -- is about twice as good as PG&E, in terms of our response time.
### That is, in terms of CAIDI?
So, that doesn't mean it can't be better. And it doesn't mean that there are
### not
other things that we are planning to do. So, you know, we can put -- bring some of those those goals
back and incorporate that and have a discussion with the UAC.
3:07:38
City Manager Shikada: If I could add. I think, Mayor, what you were referring to is that the Council will be
receiving and discussing and taking action on the Reliability and Resiliency Strategic Plan as a part of
your climate action goals. So, one, I think the question here is whether it would be best at this time to
make this a referral to the UAC, or perhaps when you're considering that strategic plan, where there -- it
want to refer to the UAC. So, I think with the Director's response -- We could certainly do it now, but you
may have a better context for that referral at the time that you're considering the overall Reliability and
Resiliency.
3:08:33
Mayor Veenker: Yeah. Thank you. That's certainly part of it. I guess what I was trying to figure out is --
so, the KPIs tell us WHAT our reliability is, but not what our GOALS are necessarily. And so, I think again
what is sought is, you know, should we set specific goals so that we can achieve our electrification
goals? And so, it's sort of a means to an end. And what I was trying to figure out is, is that something
that -- whether or not that's something that is kind of in the works, or whether it's something that would be
framed up for us in this future conversation, or whether it's something we should just do now. That's what
I was trying to sort out.
3:09:13
Utilities Director Kurotori: I think it'd be better informed as part of the Resiliency and Reliability Strategic
Plan. Get that a little more information. And you can probably provide a little more direction in that
regard. There are some nuances, just by the nature of the work. If we reinvest into our system and
replace aging infrastructure, that will increase reliability. If we make some changes to the system and
have ** ties in our 12kV systems, that reduces downtime. If we invest in, you know, smart systems and
and repairable systems, that also does it as well. So there's there's a lot of kind of overlapping projects,
and we just need to fold that in. But. you know. maybe that larger discussion, that will go to Council in
March. And then we could, you know, work with the S/CAP team. We work very closely with them in that
development as well. So that might be the best way at this point.
3:10:07:
Mayor Veenker: 'Cause I really support what Council Member Burt is saying, in terms of -- and his goal of
making sure that we can enable the things we want to enable. And that this certainly seems like one way.
But I feel like you're going to bring to us this more of a landscape, as to what -- whether it's reliability but
also resiliency and capacity and all the various things and the various projects you have underway, when
we hear the RRSP and the KPIs and all that. But I wanted -- But if not, I want to do it now. I guess that's
my question.
3:10:37:
Utilities Director Kurotori: We certainly can do some of that now, if that's the Council's prerogative.
### It IS the Council's prerogative. The question is whether it's the Council's preference.
I will mention, we do -- you know, some of these capital projects, you know, will enhance reliability,
resiliency and capacity. Right? So, the capacity -- and be able to serve on the electrification is also kind
of that third leg of that stool.
3:10:54
Mayor Veenker: Yeah, I'm going to go to Council Member Burt to clarify. But I guess what I was trying to
say is -- is it better as a one-off because it WON'T be coming, or would it be better to have it as part of the
others? But let me -- I think Council Member Burt has something more to say.
3:11:07
Council Member Burt: Yeah. So, this is not saying to immediately go set those goals. It's simply saying,
plan for it for this year's workplan. And, yes, we are anticipating that we'll have a deeper discussion as
Council when we have the S/CAP, and be able to go into that. But all we're doing is saying, it just goes in
or any such thing. Just that we should set goals. And one of the things I should have pointed out before,
as the Director made the point, we already are doing a whole series of major projects that will improve our
reliability. The Grid Mod. Much of that is replacing not only equipment that's not sized right, and creating
-- or contributing to reliability issues, but outdated equipment with smarter new equipment, better
technology. We have the AMI and then we have the new major power line eventually. So all -- those and
other things. We're already on a path. But we just need to set numbers. And that's why I said, just get it
in the workplan, and then we'll have the deeper discussion at S/CAP.
3:12:26
Mayor Veenker: That's fine. I just -- I'm aware of all those projects. I just -- It seems like pulling one thing
out of a whole suite of things we're doing. And I wasn't sure if perhaps we already had the goals. So,
that's what I was trying to elicit is whether we needed to do this as a one-off thing. But I have no
objection to it if the if the Director doesn't.
3:12:46:
Utilities Director Kurotori: We do have in our KPIs kind of being in the top quartile of the entities of similar
size -- and -- not only in California but in the nation. But we can also bring that back as a workplan item if
you would like to.
3:12:58
Mayor Veenker: OK. And I think what he's trying to get at is to tie it to the electrification goal. So it's not
just an excellence goal for the service -- which is good, too, and necessary for our community -- but also
to make sure it achieves the the electrification.
3:13:12
Council Member Burt: I note that the comparison to other utilities is true and accurate. Where we are on
the percentile, where we are in relation to PG&E. And we should be marketing that more to our
customers, and get them to appreciate it. None of them are fully electrified or anywhere near as far along
as we are. The past is not prologue. We are looking at an electrified system, where we're eliminating
gas -- or declining gas use. That's why we need new and stronger reliability than we or others have had
historically. So, looking backward is not the solution to this problem.
3:13:56:
Mayor Veenker: (unamplified) Council member, (amplified) Council Member Lauing - and Liaison to the
UAC.
3:14:01
Council Member Lauing:
### Was the previous amendment decided? If not, then Lauing is out of order.
Yeah, I was just going to suggest that to incorporate the comments that I mentioned earlier on this packet
page 98, the request from -- well, it's really the request from PTC and ARB that we should add PTC to the
third bullet point here in the motion, to coordinate streamline work, which also includes exchange of
information to get there. So, I think in the last bullet point, you should list HRB, architectural review
board, and PTC.
3:14:35
Council Member Burt: That sounds good. Yes.
3:14:41:
Council Member Lauing: That's all.
3:14:42:
Mayor Veenker:
Any further discussion? Going once, going twice. We have an exhausted Council. I think it's time to vote.
3:14:57:
** clerk:
Council Member Lauing,
3:14:59:
Council Member Lauing: Yes.
3:14:59:
** clerk: Council member Lou.
3:15:00:
Council Member Lu: Yes.
3:15:00:
** clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
3:15:01:
Council member Lythcott-Haims: Yes.
3:15:02:
** clerk: Council Member Burt.
3:15:03:
Council Member Burt: Yes.
3:15:03:
** clerk: Council Member Reckdahl.
3:15:04:
Council Member Reckdahl: Yes.
3:15:05:
** clerk: Vice Mayor Stone.
Vice Mayor Stone: Yes.
3:15:06:
** clerk: Mayor Veenker.
3:15:07: Mayor Veenker: Yes.
3:15:08:
** clerk: Motion carries unanimously.
3:15:10
Mayor Veenker: OK. And with that, because we are not doing our last action item tonight, we are to our
adjournment time. And I would like to adjourn tonight in memory of Phil Bobel, who was with the City of
Palo Alto for more than 30 years, including as Assistant Director of Public Works, and was a real
champion of environmental leadership by the City. And spent years at EPA Region 9. And I know the
City will be looking for other ways to note his accomplishments and service to the City. But as for tonight,
we adjourn in his memory. We are adjourned. Good night.
3:15:59:
END
From:Amanda Brown-Stevens, Greenbelt Alliance
To:Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Nominate City of Palo Alto"s Staff for the 2026 Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt Awards
Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 1:21:05 PM
Attachments:GreenbeltAlliance-hidden-heroes-logo.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Vicki Veenker and Councilmembers,
As the Executive Director of Greenbelt Alliance, an organization that has
been fighting for decades for a more sustainable and resilient Bay Area,
I’m excited to announce that the nominations for our sixth annual Hidden
Heroes of the Greenbelt Awards are open!
I invite you to nominate staff from the City of Palo Alto or another
public agency in your jurisdiction that has been instrumental in
building climate resilience in the region. CLICK HERE TO
NOMINATE
Why is this important? As environmental and climate protections
continue to be rolled back at the national level, local leaders are our most
important line of defense. Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt is our annual
celebration honoring the extraordinary local government staff whose work
on land use, housing, and climate resilience is protecting our region and
inspiring change beyond it.
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Now in its sixth year, this award reminds us that even amid national
uncertainty, progress is being made at the local level—by people whose
dedication offers a model worth replicating. These individuals navigate
complex bureaucracies, forge critical partnerships, and implement
forward-thinking policies that protect our communities and landscapes.
Nominating is simple: Nominees should be San Francisco Bay Area local
government staff (city/county/agency), non-elected, working at the
intersection of land use and climate change within the following
categories:
Nature-based Adaptation: working on policies and projects that
lead with nature to build climate resilience.
Planning for Resilience: planning and community engagement
that implements equitable, climate resilience strategies.
Abundant Smart Housing: building more homes in the Bay Area,
close to jobs and transit and away from fire hazards, that are
affordable for all, is one of the most impactful actions we can take
to reduce climate impacts.
Nominations should be submitted via the Google Form by May 3,
2026.
Three winners will be honored and featured at our annual benefit, Hidden
Heroes of the Greenbelt, at the end of summer in Oakland.
Hidden Heroes is a festive day when residents, nonprofits, government,
and businesses come together and celebrate our collective commitment to
this work. Learn more about our previous Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt
awardees.
Thank you for helping us uplift inspiring leaders from your region. Feel free
to reach out if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Amanda Brown-Stevens
Executive Director
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Switzer, Steven; Raybould, Claire; Cain, Robert
Subject:What we know about the 7th cycle RHNA process
Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 1:01:55 PM
Attachments:mendocino-cog-final-determination-letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hi all,
HCD has begun to send 7th cycle RHNAs to several non metropolitan area counties. These
include a regional RHNA and also the HCD allocation to sub county jurisdictions.
I am attaching the RHNA letter and accompanying documentation for Mendocino County.
While the new Bay Area RHNA is still a couple of years from HCD development, we know a
few things from the HCD expert panel meetings in 2023 and the 7th cycle RHNAs already
published.
1) As in the 6th cycle, HCD uses DOF population and household projections as the growth
determinants. The latest DOF projections show slowing population growth statewide and in
the Bay Area BUT were developed before the impact of administration deportation and
immigration policies were known. I expect future DOF projections will be lower still
reflecting declining birth rates and falling immigration levels.
HCD can incorporate a regional jobs-housing adjustment but the Bay Area ratio is not out of
line with state and national ratios.
2) I note 3 methodology changes in the 7th cycle, one of which will push RHNA numbers
much higher.
a) At the expert panel recommendation, HCD is now using a cost-burden adjustment for
existing HH as well as in the 6th cycle for new HH.
In Nevada County this adjustment accounts for nearly 50% of the 7th cycle RHNA and in
Mendocino County more than 50% of the projected 7th cycle RHNA.
b) providing housing for homeless residents is now part of the RHNA determination though
it is a relatively small number.
c) HCD now uses 2% as the normal vacancy rate for ownership units and 6% for rental
units.
The cost burden, vacancy rate, overcrowding and homeless adjustments account for most of
the Mendocino 7th cycle RHNA.
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
I expect the 7th cycle Bay Area RHNA will be primarily about providing housing for existing
residents and not about growth.
At the sub county level, HCD does use jobs-housing balance as one of 3 metrics to allocate
the regional total to jurisdictions.
I will continue to monitor the HCD site and believe San Diego County (SANDAG) will be the
first large metro area projected.
Steve
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Ste. 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 15, 2025 ***CORRECTED***
Nephele Barrett, Executive Director
Mendocino Council of Governments
525 South Main Street, Suite B
Ukiah CA 95482
Dear Nephele Barrett:
RE: Final Regional Housing Need Determination
This letter provides Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) its final Regional
Housing Need Determination. Pursuant to state housing element law
(Government Code, § 65584 et seq.), the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) is required to provide the determination of the
region’s existing and projected housing need.
In assessing MCOG’s regional housing need, HCD and MCOG staff completed a
consultation process from June 2025 through August 2025 covering the
methodology, data sources, and timeline for HCD’s determination of the Regional
Housing Need. To inform this process, HCD also consulted Walter Schwarm and
Jim Miller of the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research
Unit.
Attachment 1 displays the minimum regional housing need determination of 6,456
total units among six income categories for MCOG to distribute among the
region’s local governments. Attachment 2 explains the methodology applied
pursuant to Government Code section 65584.01. In determining the region’s
housing need, HCD considered all the information specified in state housing law
(Gov. Code, § 65584.01(c)).
MCOG is responsible for adopting a methodology for RHNA allocation and RHNA
Plan for the projection period beginning June 30, 2027, and ending August 15, 2035.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65584(d), the methodology to prepare
MCOG’s RHNA plan must further the following objectives:
(1) Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability
(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting
environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient
development patterns
(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing
(4) Balancing disproportionate household income distributions
(5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing
Nephele Barrett, Executive Director
Page 2
Pursuant to Government Code section 65584.04(e), to the extent data is available,
MCOG shall consider including the factors listed in Government Code section
65584.04(e) to develop its RHNA plan. Also, pursuant to Government Code section
65584.04(f), MCOG must explain in writing how each of these factors was incorporated
into the RHNA plan methodology and how the methodology furthers the statutory
objectives described above.
Government Code section 65588(e)(6) specifies the RHNA projection period begins
December 31 or June 30, whichever date most closely preceded the previous
projection period end date. The RHNA projection period end date is set to align with
the planning period end date. MCOG’s local governments are responsible for
updating their housing elements for the planning period beginning August 15, 2027,
and ending August 15, 2035, to accommodate their share of new housing need for
each income category. Please note, a jurisdiction authorized to permit residential
development may take RHNA credit for new units approved, permitted, and/or built
since the start date of the RHNA projection period (June 30, 2027).
As specified in Government Code section 65584.01(c), a COG may, within 30 days
from the date of this letter, file an objection to HCD’s determination of the region’s
existing and projected housing need.
HCD encourages all of MCOG’s local governments to consider the many
affordable housing and community development resources available to local
governments. HCD’s programs can be found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-
funding/nofas.shtml.
HCD commends MCOG’s leadership in fulfilling their important role in advancing the
state’s housing, transportation, and environmental goals. HCD looks forward to
continued partnership with the region and in assisting in planning efforts to
accommodate the region’s share of housing need.
If HCD can provide any additional assistance, or if you, or your staff, have any
questions, please contact Thomas Nguyen, Senior Data Specialist, at
thomas.nguyen@hcd.ca.gov, or Taylor Price, Specialist, at
taylor.price@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Marisa Prasse
Fair Housing Section Chief
Nephele Barrett, Executive Director
Page 3
Enclosures
cc: Lisa Davey-Bates, Planning Principal, Mendocino Council of Governments
Loretta Ellard, Deputy Planner, Mendocino Council of Governments
Jaclyn Christian, Associate Planner, Mendocino Council of Governments
James Sookne, Program Manager, Mendocino Council of Governments
Hector Ortega, Regional Project Analyst, Mendocino Council of Governments
ATTACHMENT 1
HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION
Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG):
JUNE 30, 2027, through AUGUST 15, 2035
Acutely Low 8.3% 533
Extremely Low 13.8% 891
Very Low 10.5% 677
Low 17.8% 1,151
Moderate 10.0% 648
Above Moderate 39.6% 2,556
Total 100.0% 6,456
Notes:
Income Distribution:
Income categories are prescribed by California Health and Safety Code
(section 50063.5, et. seq.). Percentages are derived based on Census/ACS
reported household income brackets and county median income as
determined by HCD.
ATTACHMENT 2
HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION:
Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG):
JUNE 30, 2027, through AUGUST 15, 2035
Methodology
JUNE 30, 2027 - AUGUST 15, 2035 (8 years)
Reference
Steps Taken to Calculate Regional Housing Need Amount
1. Population: June 30, 2035 (DOF June 30, 2035, projection
adjusted + 1.5 months to August 15, 2035) 89,696
2. - Group Quarters Population: -1,628
Household (HH) Population
Projected Households 38,239
10. +587
14. Occupied Units (HHs) estimated projected June 30, 2027
(from DOF data) -37,029
15.
Preliminary Regional Housing Need (Not including Replacement Adjustment Seasonal, Recreational, and
5,869
16. + Feasible Jobs/Housing Balance Adjustment +0
Detailed background data for this chart is available upon request.
Explanation and Data Sources
1-4. Population, Group Quarters, Household Population, & Projected Households:
Pursuant to Government Code section 65584.01, projections were extrapolated
from Department of Finance (DOF) projections persons. Population reflects total
persons. Group Quarter Population reflects persons in a dormitory, group home,
institution, military, etc. that do not require residential housing. Household
Population reflects persons requiring residential housing. Projected Households
reflect the propensity of persons, by age-groups, to form households at different
rates based on Census trends.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2
5. Vacancy Adjustment: HCD applies a vacancy adjustment based on the region’s
current vacancy percentage to promote healthy market vacancies that facilitate
housing availability and resident mobility. Healthy vacancy rates are 2% owner
and 6% renter for non-MPO regions (7% for MPO regions). There are two
methodologies utilized to calculate this adjustment. The first methodology is to
calculate the vacancy adjustment for existing households. The adjustment for
existing households is the difference between standard 2% and 6% vacancy rates
and region’s current vacancy rates based on the 2019-2023 5-year American
Community Survey (ACS) data. That difference is then multiplied by the number of
existing households by tenure (existing households multiplied by current rates of
renter and owner). For MCOG, the existing household owner vacancy rate
(0.88%) is below the healthy standard, resulting in a 1.12% adjustment. The
existing household renter vacancy rate (3.22%) is also below the healthy
standard, resulting in a 2.78% adjustment. The second methodology is to
calculate the vacancy adjustment for projected households. The projected
household vacancy adjustment is obtained by applying the standard 2% and 6%
vacancy rates to the projected owner and renter households. The healthy vacancy
rates (2% and 6%) are then multiplied by the number of projected households by
tenure (projected households multiplied by current rates of renter and owner).
Data is from 2019-2023 5-year ACS and DOF.
6. Overcrowding Adjustment: Pursuant to Government Code section
65584.01(b)(1)(C), HCD uses ACS data to consider the percentage of households
that are overcrowded in the region compared to the United States national
average of households that are overcrowded. In regions where the overcrowding
rate is greater than the U.S. national average overcrowding rate (3.40%), HCD
applies an adjustment based on the amount the region's overcrowding rate
exceeds the U.S. overcrowding rate. For MCOG, the region’s overcrowding rate
(5.58%) is higher than the national average (3.40%), resulting in a 2.18%
adjustment. Data is from 2019-2023 5-year ACS.
7. Cost Burden Adjustment: Pursuant to Government Code section
65584.01(b)(1)(H), HCD uses ACS data to consider the percentage of households
that are cost burdened in the region compared to the United States national
average of households that are cost burdened. In regions where the cost
burdened rate is greater than the U.S. national average rate (31.68%), HCD
applies an adjustment based on the amount the region’s cost burden rate
exceeds the U.S. cost burden rate. For MCOG, the region’s cost burdened rate
(40.03%) is higher than the national average (31.68%), resulting in a 8.36%
adjustment. Data is from 2019-2023 5-year ACS.
8. Overcrowding and Cost Burden Adjustment: To minimize double counting the
housing needs of households that are both overcrowded and cost burdened, HCD
has implemented additional overcrowding and cost burden adjustment. For
regions with an adjustment for both overcrowding and cost burden, a downward
adjustment is applied based on the number of households that are estimated to
be both overcrowded and cost burdened according to an analysis of 2023 ACS
Public Use Microdata Sample File data (PUMS) provided by DOF. If the DOF data
for this adjustment exceeds the individual adjustments for overcrowding or cost
burden, then this adjustment is limited to the lesser of the two. This double
counting consideration resulted in a 397-unit reduction.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3
9. Replacement Adjustment: HCD applies a replacement adjustment between 0.1%
to 5% to the total housing stock based on the current 10-year average percent of
demolitions in the region's local government annual reports to DOF. Units lost
during a state of emergency declaration are not included. For MCOG, the ten-year
average was 0.07% so the minimum adjustment of 0.1% is applied to the
projected occupied households.
10. Replacement Adjustment (Seasonal, Recreational, and Occasional Use Housing
Units): In addition to the demolition replacement adjustment, HCD also applies a
replacement adjustment to account for housing units that are not available for
permanent year-round occupancy. This adjustment is calculated based on the
change in the percentage of housing units that are for seasonal, recreational, and
occasional use per ACS data. There are two methodologies utilized to calculate
this adjustment, depending on changes in the housing stock over the period of
analysis. If both the total number of seasonal, recreational, and occasional use
housing units and the overall housing stock increased over the relevant 8-year
period, HCD calculates the adjustment based on the proportion of newly added
housing units used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional purposes during that
time frame. This proportion is then applied as a percentage increase to the
preliminary housing need assessment. If, however, either the total number of
seasonal, recreational, and occasional use housing units or the overall housing
stock decreased, HCD instead compares the change in the share of seasonal,
recreational, occasional use housing units to total housing units. For MCOG, the
total number of recreational housing and total housing units increased from 2015
to 2023, therefore HCD used this option. The total number of recreational housing
units increased faster than the total housing units from 2015 to 2023, resulting in
an adjustment of 212.66%. This rapid increase in seasonal, occasional, and
recreational housing units appeared to be an outlier. HCD felt that a more realistic
adjustment would be much lower, and as a result, HCD capped this adjustment at
10.00%. Therefore, the 10.00% rate is applied to the preliminary RHND of 5,869
units, resulting in a 587-unit adjustment. Data is 2015 and 2023 ACS 5-year
estimates.
11. Jobs Housing Relationship Adjustment: HCD applies an adjustment based on the
number of in-commuters to a region. The adjustment is calculated by dividing the
number of in-commuters to the region by HCD's jobs/housing standard of 1.5.
This adjustment does not include commuters entering from or leaving to states
other than California. In MCOG, the number of employed residents exceeded the
number of people employed in the region, resulting in no adjustment. Data is from
the US Census Bureau LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2022 and
2019-2023 5-year ACS.
12. Homelessness Adjustment: HCD applies an adjustment based on the housing
needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness. For non-COG
regions and COGs that do not provide their own data, by default HCD uses the
most recent Point-in-Time counts from the County's Continuum of Care and DOF
household formation rates. An adjustment of 369 units was applied to MCOG
using data from the Mendocino County Continuum of Care 2024 Point-in-Time
Count and DOF household formation rates.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4
13.State of Emergency Adjustment: HCD used data provided by the California
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) pursuant to Government
Code section 65584.01(b)(1)(I) to adjust for units lost due to a declared state of
emergency during the previous planning period (since 2019). Data is from 2025.
To estimate the percentage of units lost that were originally occupied, HCD uses
2019-2023 ACS data to calculate the percentage of units in the region that are
temporarily occupied by persons with a usual residence elsewhere. HCD then
multiplies the occupancy rate by the units lost due to a state of emergency,
resulting in an adjustment of 61-unit increase to the RHNA. HCD uses the
California Franchise Tax Board and CalOES list of disasters and emergency
proclamations data to ensure that only units destroyed by a Governor-declared
State of Emergency are utilized when calculating this adjustment.
14.Occupied Units: Reflects DOF's projected occupied units at the start of the
projection period (June 30, 2027).
15.Preliminary Regional Housing Need Determination: Housing need calculated after
applying factors described in Government Code section 65584.01(b). This
preliminary Regional Housing Need Determination is used to evaluate feasible
balance between jobs and housing and the Replacement Adjustment (Seasonal,
Recreational, and Occasional Use).
16.Feasible Jobs/Housing Balance Adjustment: According to statute, the “region’s
existing and projected housing need shall reflect the achievement of a feasible
balance between jobs and housing within the region using the regional employment
projections in the applicable regional transportation plan” (Gov. Code, §
65584.01(c)(1)). After applying the adjustments noted above, HCD compared the
7th cycle RHNA determination and the region’s total occupied housing units to the
Caltrans employment projections for MCOG to determine whether a feasible
balance was achieved. This analysis resulted in a jobs housing balance of 0.80
(1.20 housing units for every projected job). Because this is below the health rate of
1.5, no additional adjustment is needed. Data is from the 2019-2023 5-Year ACS
data, US Census Bureau LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2022,
and Caltrans, Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County, 2023.