HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-20 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: 4/20/2026
Document dates: 4/13/2026 - 4/20/2026
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Brian O"Neill
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Lait,
Jonathan; Prior, Christine; Asher Orion
Subject:Agenda Item 11 - 531 Stanford
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 12:04:23 PM
Attachments:2026.04.20 Appeal Brief.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council:
Please see the attached response to the Staff Report submitted on behalf of the Appellant for Agenda
Item 11 on tonight’s agenda regarding the Demolition Order for 531 Stanford. The Exhibits are too large
to submit via email, and can be accessed here: https://pattersononeill.egnyte.com/fl/dWtdKVrdhVCj
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Brian O’Neill
Patterson & O’Neill, PC
Office: (415) 907-9110
Direct: (415) 907-7702
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
brian@pattersononeill.com
www.pattersononeill.com
This email may contain privileged or confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Review
or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
original sender and delete all copies. Nothing in this email or any attachments should be regarded as tax
advice unless expressly stated.
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
VIA EMAIL
Palo Alto City Council
Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Appeal of Notice and Order to Demolish/Deconstruct and Remove Buildings
531 Stanford Avenue
Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers:
This letter is to provide additional information in support of the Owners’ appeal of the City
Building Official’s Notice and Order to Demolish/Deconstruct and Remove Buildings
(“Demolition Order”) for the existing buildings at 531 Stanford Avenue, site of the Stanford
Terrace Inn.
The existing buildings do not meet the criteria to support a demolition order under City’s
Municipal Code, and the City lacks substantial evidence to support ordering the demolition of
structurally sound buildings. The Demolition Order also demands deconstruction, which cannot
be legal required. Regardless, the Owners are nonetheless already in the process of seeking the
approval of a housing development project on the site that would ultimately result in the removal
of the buildings and construction of 21+ units of new housing (Planning Application No. 26PLN-
00011). In fact, the Owners have been attempting to pursue redevelopment since 2023 – prior to
the City’s first Notice of Violation issued in 2024 – but these efforts have been stymied time and
time again.
The Demolition Order is yet another example of the City’s attempt to take the Owners’ property
without just compensation and prevent any economically beneficial use of a privately owned
property. The Owners have promptly responded to all the City’s demands to address any issues
with property, including securing the site, addressing violations, removing debris, ensuring
hazardous materials were removed, and maintaining landscaping. Rather than prematurely order
demolition, the Council should grant the appeal, modify the Demolition Order, and direct City
staff to focus on the approval of desperately needed housing that will accomplish the same goal.
The Buildings Do Not Meet the Criteria For Demolition
The Palo Alto Municipal Code only provides a City Building Official with the authority to order
the demolition of a dangerous building in two limited circumstances. Specifically, a City
Building Official can only require demolition if 1) a dangerous building is fifty percent damaged,
decayed or deteriorated from its replacement value or structure or where a building cannot be
repaired so that it will no longer violate the City code; or 2) where a dangerous building is a fire
hazard existing or erected in violation of the City Code. (PAMC 16.40.050(c).)
The Demolition Order cites this provision but fails to provide any findings to support the
Demolition Order. This is unsurprising, because the buildings at 531 Stanford do not meet the
requirements that would permit the City to order demolition of a private building.
First, the buildings have not sustained damage, decay or deterioration in an amount equal to 50%
of their replacement value. The Owners had the buildings inspected by a structural engineer, who
confirmed that the buildings are structurally sound and remain in good condition. The City has
not provided any assessment of the value, nor documented the cost of repairs, let alone
documented that such damage equates to an amount equal to 50% of the replacement value.
Courts have found that an arbitrary determination that a building should be demolished rather
than repaired is invalid. (Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 697.)
The City lacks any evidence at all that buildings meet this criteria. Nowhere in the 250+ page
staff report, published just days before the hearing, does the City even attempt to place a value
on the buildings. The City cannot possibly make findings that the buildings are fifty percent
damaged from their replacement value when no value has been identified.
Second, the buildings do not pose any fire hazards and were erected in compliance with City
Code in effect at the time of construction. The Demolition Order repeats many of the same
conclusory findings of purported violations that were issued in a prior Notice of Violation. The
complete lack of specificity and evidence in the Demolition Order makes it impossible for the
Owners to address with particularity the City’s findings. This itself is an issue of due process, as
the City Code requires a Demolition Order to include a “finding that repair or rehabilitation is
impracticable, with a brief statement of the facts upon which such finding is based.” (PAMC
16.40.060(b)(2).) Here, the Demolition Order contained no such findings or facts, preventing the
Owners from having a meaningful opportunity to respond. Courts have explained that a
property owner has an “elementary . . . clear constitutional right” to due process regarding
“whether in fact and law” a property is a nuisance that requires demolition. (Leppo v. City of
Petaluma (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 711)
The City has now published a 250+ staff report just days before the hearing, finally elaborating
on these purported violations, which demonstrate that many of them are inaccurate, immaterial,
or grossly overstated, while many others have already abated by the Owners. Even now after ther
250+ pages have been published, many of the “violations” lack any specificity or evidence, often
with no citation to any specific code. A vague statement that a particular issue violates the
entirety of the PAMC does not provide the Owner’s with the ability to respond.
For example, one of the major claims is that the buildings fire sprinklers have not been inspected
and are not functional. This is false. The Owners completed the 5-Year internal sprinkler checks
and hydrostatic testing required by Title 19 in 2020, with testing again in 2023, which confirmed
that the sprinklers were functional and passed all required tests prior to the 2024 Notice of
Violation. (See Exhibit A). While the declarations of City officials state visual observations
“indicates” that the sprinklers could fail – actual testing of the system contradicts this claim. The
City officials also suggest, without actually stating, that a lack of sprinklers on the upper floors is
a code violation. This is unsurprising that the City officials do not state that this is a code
violation, because it is not, as the officials are likely quite aware that existing buildings are only
required to be equipped with sprinklers for A-2 (assembly for food/beverage) and I-2 uses
(buildings for 24-hour medical care of five or more persons).
The City also claims various other violations that are simply not true. The City states that the
pool was installed without a permit. While installation of the pool long pre-dates the Owner’s
involvement with the property, the Owners have pool installation plans provided by the prior
owners dating from 1998 that state a permit had been issued. (See Exhibit B.)
Other examples include a purported unpermitted gazebo even though detached accessory
structures less than 120 square feet are exempt from permit requirements. The City claim the
Owners violated City code by referring to the building as 520 Oxford because this address “was
never formally assigned,” yet admit that the “property is also referenced in various records as
520 Oxford Avenue.” Other inconsistencies include claiming that the elevators “were not in
service,” while earlier claiming the elevators were operating without proper certifications.
Other purported violations are simply conjecture without evidence, such as the claim that it
“appears” that the second-floor balcony had been shored “indicating awareness” of a structural
deficiency. The City uses this “appearance” of work to infer the subjective determination of an
unknown third party to come to a “potential” conclusion of a structural deficiency. This, of
course, is nonsensical. If the Owners did indeed complete unpermitted shoring work, this work
would have fixed any structural issues. The City’s declarations do not state that the balcony is
displaying any lagging, splaying, fracturing, or any other visible sign of damage. Furthermore,
these posts were installed as landscaping features for climbing vines. As the City is aware, these
posts were removed after the City claimed they were unpermitted – without any impact on the
second-floor balcony.
Many of the cited violations could be easily corrected, such as fixing signage, labeling electric
panels, removing pillow and bedding storage, and ensuring that accessways and egress remains
clear – and many of these violations were addressed in the immediate aftermath of the first
Notice of Violation. Then after the Owners had complied with some of the City’s demands, such
as removing lighting and signage, the City then issued a violation for missing signage.
Other violations are for purported unpermitted work (which the Owners do not concede are all
true) that could be remedied simply with the submittal and approval of a permit. However, as
explained, the Owners have been seeking to redevelop the property. It simply does not make
sense to pursue approval of permits to legalize any work at this point. But regardless, none of
these violations rise to level of ordering structurally sound, privately owned buildings
demolished.
Finally, some of the violations are merely about habitability and occupancy. The City very well
knows that the building was ordered to be vacated. The City has ordered that the buildings be
locked, and the Owners themselves do not even have permission to enter their own buildings for
over a year. A vacant building cannot possibly be in violation of use and occupancy
requirements.
The City has failed to make the findings and present facts to require demolition of the buildings
because the buildings do not meet the criteria for demolition. As such, the Demolition Order
cannot be upheld. At a minimum, the City must provide the findings and facts to the Owners to
provide the Owners with a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The City Lacks the Authority to Require Deconstruction
The Demolition Order cites to PAMC § 5.24 in support of the City’s demand for deconstruction.
The City Code requiring deconstruction clearly states the following:
5.24.080 Exclusions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
(a) Dangerous Structures. Any building or structure that has been determined to
be dangerous, structurally unsafe or otherwise hazardous to human life, and is
required to be abated by demolition.
Even if the City upholds the Demolition Order, the City’s requirements for deconstruction in
PAMC § 5.24 clearly would not apply. We are unaware of any other code basis that would
authorize the City to require deconstruction and the City’s demand for deconstruction is not
authorized by law.
The Owners Have Already Submitted and Completed a Hazmat Closure Permit and
Submitted a Demolition Permit
The Demolition Order demands that the applicant take immediate steps to submit two
applications, including a demolition permit and hazardous material closure permit.
The Owners first submitted a demolition application in October 2024. The City had this
application for over a year and never identified any deficiencies. The City refused to even
consider a demolition application until September 2025, first stating that demolition could not be
completed until a redevelopment plan was approved. The Owners submitted this application
again in October 2025. (See Exhibit C, Declaration of Isaac Winer).
In addition, the Owners already submitted a Hazmat Closure Permit (Permit No. 24HZM-
00040). The Hazmat Closure plan was approved by Palo Alto Fire Department, and the Owners
completed all steps necessary to complete the plan. The Owners’ representatives did a final
walk-through with Mike Espeland of Palo Alto Fire Department in May 2024 to confirm all steps
had been completed. (See Exhibit D, Declaration of Isaac Winer).
It is unclear why the Demolition Order continues to list violations that have long been abated and
demand applications that have already been submitted. This appears to be aimed at creating a
false impression that the Owners have been dilatory and negligent in responding to City staff.
Nothing could be further from the truth. (See generally Declaration of Isaac Winer.)
In fact, as explained in more detail below, the Owners have made multiple attempts to ensure the
property is well maintained and provide reasonable investment-backed expectations. The reason
why the property is currently fenced off with vacant buildings is solely due to the City’s actions.
And not the City has used this vacancy to its advantage, claiming that this has led to deterioration
to support its Demolition Order. The City itself has prevented the Owners have from accessing
their own property to keep it maintained.
The City Has Systematically Taken Steps to Prevent Any Use of the Property
History of Non-Transient Residential Use
The current Owners first become involved in the property 531 Stanford Avenue in 2010, when
the property was purchased by Fortune Sun, Inc. (“Fortune”). This entity took over operations of
the existing Stanford Terrace Inn, a well-known hotel that had operated for decades prior to
Fortune’s ownership. The hotel had a long history of hosting many guests for long-term stays,
including faculty members and students who used the Stanford Terrace Inn as their residence, as
well as short-term transient guests. In 2018, the buildings were sold to Aurora Rising, Inc.
(“Aurora”), who continued to operate the Stanford Terrace Inn in the same manner.
In the Spring of 2020, as a result of COVID, the Stanford Terrace Inn rapidly lost its transient
customer base, began to operate at a loss, and was forced to lay off most of its staff. The few
customers who remained were the non-transient users, specifically Stanford faculty members and
students who continued to reside at the property for stays longer than 30 days. On the advice of
former counsel, the Owners increased the number of long-term guests upon the belief that this
use was not only lawful, but a benefit to the community. Contrary to the staff report’s claims, the
Owners continued to register the hotel as a business and kept up with City permit requirements.
(See Exhibit E.)
On or about June 18, 2021, the City of Palo Alto sent a letter to the ownership of Stanford
Terrace Inn, expressing preliminary interest in purchasing the subject property for possible
inclusion in the State’s Project HomeKey program to provide housing for unhoused residents.
The City sent similar inquiries in 2022. At this time the Owners informed the City that they were
in discussions with a hotel operator to renovate the property into a four-star, high-end hotel.
In other words, just four years ago the City believed the Stanford Terrace Inn was not only
suitable for residential uses, but desired to purchase the buildings that it now seeks to order
demolished.
The City Prevents Continued Historical Use of the Property
On February 28, 2024, the City sent a “courtesy notice” of the City’s intention to inspect the
buildings for an enforcement “investigation” based on a determination that the property appeared
to be used for long term stays – even though the Stanford Terrace Inn had long been used for
such purposes and the City had been aware of this well-established use for years.
The City took the position that because the number of transient guests had dwindled, the hotel
use had been abandoned. Because the property was zoned RM-30, the City made clear that its
preference was for the property to be redeveloped for high density housing. The Owners believe
this particular property had been singled out by the City for disparate treatment. While many
other hotels in the City also regularly allow long term stays, the Owners know of no other
investigations or similar actions being taken against other properties.
The City Prevents Any Continued Use of the Property
Three days after the Planning Department met with the property management’s legal
representative to discuss redevelopment options now that the City took the position that the hotel
use had been abandoned, the City issued a formal Notice of Violation.
The City then embarked on an aggressive enforcement campaign, sending more than ten officials
to investigate the property, including code enforcement, building, and fire officials. Many
officials arrived in uniform with badges, conducted an aggressive and comprehensive search, and
photographed and documented technical code violations throughout the premises.
The Notice of Violation cited numerous purported violations without citing to any specific code
provisions. Some of the violations were related to residential code standards that would only
apply if the hotel had been abandoned. The Notice required immediate fire-watch services by
March 22, complete evacuation of upper floors, and numerous corrective actions by March 25,
2024. The Notice also warned of possible declarations of substandard conditions, fines, or
abatement orders if compliance was not achieved.
The Owners complied, including by providing fire watch services and taking remedial actions
such as providing smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms, removing deadbolts from doors,
and ensuring all exits were cleared. Ultimately, ownership was forced by the City to cease long
term guest stays and clear the building.
The City Strips the Owners of Builder’s Remedy Vesting Rights
Following the Notice of Violation, Owners sought to redevelop the property for high-density
housing. The Owners submitted a preliminary application for 36 units of new housing, including
six below-market-rate units, utilizing the “builder’s remedy” provision of the Housing
Accountability Act on April 10, 2024. (Application No. 24APP-01150.) The Owners submitted a
formal application on September 16, 2024 – within 180 days of the preliminary application
submittal to maintain vesting rights in the builder’s remedy.
City staff, however, took the position that the formal application would not be considered
“submitted” until the applicant scheduled an intake appointment, the City’s system issued an
invoice, and application fees were paid. The City denied payment and unlawfully removed the
application from the City’s system.
The Department of Housing and Community Development, the state agency tasked with
enforcing state housing law, has advised local governments that fee invoices must be provided
concurrently with submittal and any delay in providing fee invoices is inconsistent with the
Permit Streamlining Act.1 HCD has also confirmed that requiring “intake” meetings before an
application is considered “submitted” is inconsistent with the requirements of the Permit
Streamlining Act and a constraint on the development of housing.2 Because the City unlawfully
prevented the Owners from submitting a formal application and the City had subsequently come
into compliance with the Housing Element Law, the Owners lost the ability to pursue the
builder’s remedy project. (See Exhibit F.)
But this is not the only application that the Owners submitted. The Owners submitted multiple
different plans for projects of various sizes over several months. Each time an application was
submitted, it was removed from the City’s system or otherwise blocked by City staff. (See
Exhibit G.) To suggest that the Owners have done nothing over the 18 months is simply not true.
The Owners have consistently attempted to pursue demolition and redevelopment over the last
three years without success.
The Owners Are Pursing a New Housing Project and the City Continues to Delay
The Owners have since filed a new preliminary application for a 21-unit housing project on
August 19, 2025. (Application No. 25PLN-00209). Our office submitted the preliminary
application with a request that the City issue a CEQA exemption consistent with the newly
enacted AB 130 exemption. The City appeared to cooperate and began AB 130’s tribal
consultation process.
The owner’s representative met with City officials on September 11, 2025. The parties all
seemed aligned to cooperate moving forward, keep open dialogue, and move toward the goal of
demolishing the existing building and redeveloping the property. (See Declaration of Isaac
Winer.)
Several months went by and our office requested issuance of the CEQA exemption on December
4, 2025. The City responded by arguing the Project did not qualify for the exemption and that the
1 See HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to Los Gatos, available here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/losgatos-hau891-
ta-08302024.pdf
2 See HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley, available here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/berkeley-ta-
hau331-120723.pdf
City had conducted the tribal scoping “in error.” While we disagree, it is inexplicable why this
was never communicated to the Owners. The City simply made this determination in secret and
waited for three months for Owner’s attorney to follow-up. (See Exhibit H.)
Further, while delaying approval of the Project, the City unilaterally sent the Demolition Order
(to a vacant, fenced building) with an unreasonable timeline, without any attempt to contact the
Owners or their representatives, and threatening fines and jail time for noncompliance. And this
was merely a few weeks after meeting face to face to discuss cooperation and open
communication.
The formal application was subsequently submitted on January 16, 2026 and the Owners have
continued to pursue the current iteration of the project, yet the City has continued to stonewall
the application most recently by issuing Notice of Incompleteness/Corrections that fails to
comply with state law. Further, the Owners have been unable to focus its efforts on the planning
process while having a looming Demolition Order an appeal clouding the property.
The City’s Actions Demonstrate a Pattern of Regulatory Overreach and Arbitrary Action that
Prevents Beneficial Use of the Owners’ Property
The City’s actions described above have cost the Owners enormously both financially and
emotionally. We believe the Owners’ decision not to sell the property to the City or repurpose it
in accordance with the City’s preferred high-density housing agenda has provoked a systematic
campaign of retaliation to prevent any beneficial economic use of their private property – first
wrongfully finding that a historical nonconforming use had been abandoned; pursuing an
aggressive and heavy-handed enforcement action; unlawfully preventing a housing project
aligned with the Owners’ goal; and finally resulting in a Demolition Order that lacks the required
findings and evidence.
The City has insisted on treating the removal of the current buildings separately from the
proposed project, demanding that the Owners agree to a demolition timeline without providing
any assurances that the Project will be timely approved. This is unacceptable. First, separating
demolition from the redevelopment of the property will significantly increase construction costs
and impact the financial feasibility of the Project. This would require removing the buildings,
securing grading permits, backfilling the site, and removing all construction equipment – only to
begin construction again in the near future and excavate the site that was just filled. This demand
to demolish first is simply another attempt to prevent any redevelopment.
Second, there is an existing T-Mobile tower on the hotel building that needs to be relocated, and
the proposed redevelopment is necessary to ensure uninterrupted service. Owners believe that
this T-Mobile tower is critical to ensure adequate service for the City, including for emergency
personnel. Third, the Owners are concerned that a vacant property with no active use will be a
magnet for nuisance activities, trespassing, and other activities that will create a liability. The
Demolition Order will
Appeal Request
Despite these prior challenges, the Owners have continued to engage in discussions with City
personnel in an effort to redevelop the property – a goal shared by the Owners, the City, and the
Community. The Demolition Order is not only legally deficient, it hinders that shared goal and
does not demonstrate that the City is operating in good faith toward an amicable resolution. The
Owners would have no reason to trust that the City will process the current pending application
and may have no choice but to seek legal action to protect their property rights. This is not an
outcome that any party desires.
As explained above, the Owners have been proactive in responding to the City’s concerns and
are diligently pursuing a pending housing development project application that would result in
removal of the buildings. While the buildings do not meet the criteria for demolition, the Owners
only object to the unreasonable timeframe to complete the demolition and the “decoupling” of
the demolition from the approval of the pending application and relocation of the T-Mobile
tower. Based on the City’s prior actions, the Owners have grave concerns that the City will
continue to stonewall the Owner’s desired redevelopment plans.
Pursuant to City Code, the Council has the authority to affirm, reverse, modify or set aside any
order or action of the building official. (PAMC § 16.40.080(e).) To that end, Owners request that
the Council modify the building official’s order to require demolition only upon the approval of
Application No. 25PLN-00209 and associated building and demolition permits.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
_______________________________
Brian O’Neill
From:Brian O"Neill
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Prior, Christine
Subject:Agenda Item 11 Procedures
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 11:36:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
Can you please let me know how much time the appellant will have to address the Council for Item
Number 11 on tonight’s agenda regarding 531 Stanford Avenue?
Thank you,
Brian
Brian O’Neill
Patterson & O’Neill, PC
Office: (415) 907-9110
Direct: (415) 907-7702
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
brian@pattersononeill.com
www.pattersononeill.com
This email may contain privileged or confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Review
or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
original sender and delete all copies. Nothing in this email or any attachments should be regarded as tax
advice unless expressly stated.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Marit Parten
To:Council, City
Subject:Local Resource for Palo Alto Teens
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 11:23:31 AM
Attachments:003_sm_fb_a1669113-305d-4ecf-bbc8-c006dd7ddaf7.png
003_sm_in_610e655e-a302-4d87-ae26-377ce3e93934.png
003_sm_twitter_ac632f2d-acfa-45dc-872a-d62866a18eee.png
003_sm_y2_e868968d-ddeb-43d2-9d96-466d86bfd691.png
003_sm_insta_f5d67e1c-f986-446b-a9ce-327354141ccb.png
emailsignatureapril2025_608710c2-f54e-4605-bec1-d7adeffffb01.png
CaminarTeenFamilyWellness (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello City Council Members,
I'm Marit — I work with the Caminar Teen and Family Wellness Center in Palo Alto, connecting
families to confidential therapy support for teens ages 12–17 on a private-pay basis.
Unsure how often any of you are in the position of looking to refer a teen for mental health support
(personally or professionally), but I want to make you aware that we have opened our doors and
would love to be a resource for your families. As a parent of three, I know how hard it can be to find a
local therapist for my kids - running into closed waitlists. If able, I'd love to set aside a few minutes
to introduce what we offer at one of your meetings, so you have a reliable local option when families
need one.
Please reach out if we can connect.
Thank you for all the incredible work you do for the families in our community.
Warm regards,
Marit Parten
mparten@caminar.org
Caminar Teen & Family Wellness Center
375 Cambridge Avenue, Palo Alto
415.786.8959
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Marit Parten | Business Development Consultant
Caminar |
MParten@Caminar.org | www.caminar.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged and confidential information
subject to such privacy regulations as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). This information is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail
or any of its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sending
individual or entity by e-mail and permanently delete the original e-mail and attachment(s) from your computer system. Thank you for
your cooperation.
From:Justine Burt
To:Council, City
Cc:Lo, Ria; Star-Lack, Sylvia
Subject:Palo Alto TMA"s three combined reports to City Council
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 11:01:09 AM
Attachments:PATMA 2025 Combined Reports and Budget Request FY2027.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
The Palo Alto TMA is pleased to share with you three documents: our 2025 Annual Report,
Three-Year Strategic Plan, and 2025 Commute Survey results. Attached is a combined pdf
written with dozens of graphs and subheaders to allow the reader to quickly glean highlights.
As always, our non-profit and board appreciate the opportunity to serve the City by reducing
traffic congestion, demand for parking, and greenhouse gas emissions, while supporting local
business and their workers.
Sincerely,
Justine Burt
Executive Director
Palo Alto TMA
justine@paloaltotma.org
From:Anne Woodhouse
To:Council, City
Subject:Cubberley renovation plans
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 7:34:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council,
The Cubberley Pavilion is an amazing venue for ballroom dancing as well as basketball. It
seems to me a mistake to convert the Pavilion into a theater when Lucie Stern's theater has
recently been upgraded and is a delightful space to view Theatreworks's plays. Please move to
keep the status quo and save a great deal of money.
Anne Woodhouse
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Eileen Kim, PharmD
To:City Mgr; Public Works Public Services
Cc:Council, City; district5@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Addendum to URGENT: Public Health Hazard & Emergency Sanitation Request – 241 Addison Ave
Date:Monday, April 20, 2026 12:16:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mr. Shikada and Public Works Leadership,
I am writing to formally escalate a critical public health and sanitation hazard occurring
on Ramona Street adjacent to my property at 241 Addison Ave, Palo Alto, CA, 94301 (at
Addison x Ramona intersection)
For the past four weeks, a Sprinter van being used as a residence was parked at this
location without moving. Despite this being a high-traffic downtown area with competitive
street parking, the City failed to post "No Parking during street cleaning" signs or enforce
turnover, and it took nearly a week of reporting before the City finally responded to move the
vehicle.
Because cars are parked back-to-back on Ramona Street, and because the City has failed to
perform necessary street cleaning during this time for approximately 4 weeks along Ramona
and Addison (due to parked cars), a severe biohazard has developed. Even my private
gardeners, whom I pay $300 a month, have been physically unable to reach the curb to remove
the accumulation of City tree leaves and debris due to parked cars on Ramona & Addison.
As a result, I have discovered a severe, active infestation of cockroaches and significant
amounts of rodent feces in the public right-of-way on Ramona (where the Sprinter van
was parked near my driveway entrance). I have documented nocturnal roach activity across
all life stages, indicating an established breeding colony in the gutters and leaf litter.
I want to be unequivocal: In the years I have resided at this address, I have never observed live
roaches or rodent droppings on the street or sidewalk adjacent to my property. This infestation
appeared only after the aforementioned vehicle was parked here for nearly a month. Now, I
cannot step outside at night without encountering roaches underfoot.
It is unacceptable that a lack of street-level enforcement and maintenance has allowed
this environment to become a breeding ground for vectors that now threaten the safety
of my home and my children. I am calling upon the City of Palo Alto Public Works to
perform an emergency cleaning and sanitization of the Ramona Street and Addison
Avenue gutters and sidewalk frontage to remove the biological waste and debris
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
I look forward to your immediate confirmation of a cleanup schedule and an inspection by the
City.
Sincerely,
Dr. E. Kim, PharmD, BSc. Pharm, Hon. BSc. Microbiology
Eileen Kim, PharmD
eileen.rph@gmail.com
IMG_3434.MOV
IMG_3440.MOV
On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 12:50 PM Eileen Kim, PharmD <eileen.rph@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Public Works Department and City Manager,
I am writing to report a public health hazard on the north side of Ramona Street, near the
driveway at 241 Addison Avenue, and to request immediate city response.
A silver Sprinter van was parked in this location for nearly a month. After more than a week
of effort to have it relocated, the vehicle has now moved - revealing a serious sanitation and
pest problem in its wake.
The hellstrip (the grass area between the sidewalk and curb) where the van was parked is
heavily contaminated with rodent droppings. Given that this strip is routinely accessed by
neighborhood dogs and local wildlife, residents face a meaningful risk of exposure to
Hantavirus and other rodent-borne pathogens being tracked into homes.
Separately, while placing recycling bins out this morning, I discovered a live cockroach
infestation harbored within a substantial accumulation of leaves and debris that built up
beneath and around the stationary van. Together, the rodent contamination and active
cockroach infestation represent an urgent, compounding public health hazard at the
street level.
Compounding these issues further, street sweeping parking notices requiring cars to
clear the street have NOT been posted on Ramona Street or Addison Avenue for close
to a month. The combination of suspended sweeping service and prolonged obstruction
by the van has allowed a concentrated biological and pest hazard to develop in the
public right-of-way.
I am formally requesting an immediate inspection of this area, followed by thorough
cleaning and sanitization. A standard dry sweep will not be adequate given the
biological waste and live infestation present.
Please advise on a timeline for remediation at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Dr. E. Kim, PharmD, BSc Pharmacy, Hon. BSc. Microbiology
Eileen Kim, PharmD
eileen.rph@gmail.com
From:CHERIE ZASLAWSKY
To:Council, City
Subject:Preserve Cubberley Pavilion!
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:12:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I urge you to preserve the Cubberley Pavilion gymnasium for ballroom dancing.
As a ballroom dancer, I've enjoyed dancing at the Pavilion for over 25 years and can assure you it is a treasure to the
community.
It is a perfect venue, ideal location, plenty of adjacent parking, very large dance floor, convenient kitchen area,
restrooms, and a generous entry area where people can socialize and enjoy refreshments.
Periodically, when the dance floor needs refinishing, Friday Night Dancing moves to another building on the
Cubberley campus.
It never goes well. Deeper into the campus means further from the convenient parking lot along Middlefield. It
means no restroom in the room. It means less space.
But even if a new gymnasium would be as spacious and well-appointed as the Cubberley Pavilion, there would be
ongoing construction that would deprive the ballroom dance community of our only local ballroom dance venue for
many months—enough to jeopardize the continuation of our dance community in Palo. Alto.
It ain’t broke! Please don’t “fix” it!
I’ve also read the reason for this idea is that TheatreWorks wants a new big theatre there. But there’s already a
theatre a stone’s throw away, and TheatreWorks has the Lucie Stern Theatre and uses the Mountain View
Performing Arts Center. Why couldn’t they renovate the Cubberley theatre that’s there already and leave the
Pavilion alone?
In addition, it’s an odd and unpropitious time for Theatreworks to be wanting to dramatically expand, when inflation
is high and people are cutting back on attending live performances. Even my beloved Peninsula Lively Arts is
closing this year! And TheatreWorks pricing has increased to the point where fewer people can easily afford to
attend their shows.
Why let them kick the ballroom dance community out of our venue so they can have a large new theatre, raise their
prices in their fancy new hall, and then predictably struggle to fill their auditorium seats?
Council members, in the Cubberley Pavilion gymnasium you have something that has worked well for decades,
continues to work well, and that the community loves and uses for ballroom dancing every week. Please preserve it!
Sincerely,
Cherie Zaslawsky
From:Sarah Levine
To:Council, City
Subject:yes to housing at 910 Webster St.
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2026 9:39:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
I hope you are doing well. I want to register my support to rezone the property at 910 Webster
and build 70 (or more) residential units.
I live one block over from 910 Webster. I want more housing in Palo Alto, including in my
neighborhood.
Best
Sarah Levine
(she, her)
From:Sasha Mervyn
To:Council, City
Subject:Please don"t close Churchill
Date:Sunday, April 19, 2026 4:39:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I am a resident on the north side of the Churchill crossing, and I am deeply concerned
about the proposed closure. I am also horrified by the suicides that have shaken our
community, and I support meaningful action to prevent them. It is critical, however, that we
not let emotion drive policy. The research on crossing closures as a suicide prevention tool
is far from conclusive, and a measure that puts the safety and wellbeing of thousands of
daily users at risk deserves a much higher bar of evidence than we have seen presented.
Here is what the evidence and lived experience of residents actually shows:
The Embarcadero alternative is not safe
The City has pointed to Embarcadero as the logical detour, but anyone who uses that
corridor regularly knows it cannot absorb what Churchill currently carries:
I walk that route often and have had enough frightening experiences that I now avoid
it entirely. Cyclists have come within inches of clipping me and my dogs' leashes.
For anyone who is noise sensitive, the sensory environment along that corridor is
genuinely overwhelming.
The Safe Routes to School program already flags this route as unsuitable due to
high-speed vehicle slip lanes.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Spend a morning at Churchill and Emerson during school commute hours and you
will see bikes blow through that intersection nine times out of ten, regardless of cars
or pedestrians. I stopped walking there at commute time because of it. That behavior
will not disappear when students are rerouted; it will spread across multiple new
intersections.
The suicide prevention rationale does not hold up
Suicide clusters have emerged along the Caltrain corridor multiple times, affecting
both Paly and Gunn. Closing one crossing has not been shown to resolve the
underlying crisis.
Most suicides in our community involve adults, and occur at other crossings and by
other means, including firearms and medications. Churchill's closure targets a narrow
slice of a much broader problem.
Closing this crossing does nothing to address the mental health root causes, while
simultaneously creating new physical dangers for thousands of daily users.
In-person safety monitors were deployed quickly and have shown real results. They
deserve more time and sustained funding before any permanent infrastructure
decision is made.
Existing planning commitments have gone unanswered
Residents have asked for years about a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle tunnel at
this heavily used crossing. Where did that plan go, while the City continues to
advance grade separation projects elsewhere?
The closure has already been studied extensively through design meetings and
XCAP hearings, producing a detailed list of mitigations requiring long-term
coordination. That work is not done. We should not be closing the crossing before it
is.
Emergency response times will suffer
Embarcadero is already one of the most congested corridors in the city. Adding
Churchill's volume will increase emissions, extend commute times, and push cut-
through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods.
Police, fire, and ambulance response times will increase due to both added distance
and predictable bottlenecks on the few remaining east-west routes.
"Temporary" is not a plan
Once infrastructure closes, it rarely reopens. The Council owes residents a clear
definition: specific criteria, enforceable commitments, and a firm timeline. Without
those, "temporary" means nothing.
Residents across Palo Alto should pay attention: how this Council handles Churchill
will signal how future crossing decisions get made citywide.
This closure divides us
Churchill is not just a crossing. It connects the north and south sides of our city, and closing
it isolates Southgate while working directly against the goals of the Connecting Palo Alto
initiative.
Instead, I ask Council to:
Complete the mitigation work already recommended through the XCAP process
Advance the pedestrian tunnel study that has been discussed for years
Sustain and properly fund the safety monitors that are already working
Invest in the school-based mental health resources our students genuinely need
Our community deserves solutions that protect everyone. I urge Council to pause before
taking an action that may prove impossible to reverse.
Respectfully,
Sasha Mervyn, Old Palo Alto
From:jennifer.rihn@att.net
To:Council, City
Subject:Please don"t turn Cubberley Pavilion into a theater
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2026 1:41:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi City Council Members,
I first start ballroom dancing at the Cubberley Pavilion in the 1990s. It’s a terrific place to
dance and there is nothing at all like it elsewhere in our area.
I’ve heard about the proposal to turn the Cubberley Pavilion into a theater for TheatreWorks.
Please, please don’t do that. TheatreWorks already has two venues – Lucie Stern and the
theater in Mt. View – that it can and does use.
A few weeks ago, the Friday Night Dance was held in another, smaller gym at Cubberley. It
was terrible. The acoustics were so bad, it was impossible to hear the instructor during the
dance lesson. It was too small. Even the air flow wasn’t adequate.
Please keep the Cubberly Pavilion as a gym and a space for our dances.
Jennifer Rihn
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Webster prescreen
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2026 12:06:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
When you consider this development, please recognize two important reasons for more
housing DTN.
1) DTN housing reduces car use and makes many trips available for walking or biking. That
is the experience of families where I live on Forest and many others. DTN housing is an
environmental plus
2) Building on point 1, I favor more housing DTN to take pressure off the San Antonio and
south PA area. I do support more housing there but am hopeful with projects like this and
SB79 there will be more housing incentivized in the north PA where I live. This includes the
332 Forest proposal less than 100 yards from where I live.
Steve
I also support the consent item authorizing Director Lait to update the HE site inventory.
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:paiwf@aol.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill RR crossing
Date:Saturday, April 18, 2026 11:27:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The deaths at the Churchill RR crossing are a matter of grave concern. Everyone istrying to fix the situation resulting in a large number of potential solutions that together
are hoped to eliminate the possibility of another casualty there. Each is very costlyand time consuming. Why not take the bull by the horns and put all that expensetoward an encompassing solution – underground the railroad thru all the crossings ofconcern and make a bike corridor along the surface space created. Costly, yes. Butdeduct the cost of all the other patch work efforts for the realistic expense – not tomention the lives more effectively saved. European countries’ public transportationputs us to shame. It can be done, and this is exactly the wrong place to pinchpennies on a patchwork. Residents must recognize that as well and a tax will need to
be borne. How many lives is such an expense worth? Is that even a worthyquestion.
S Murphy
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Marion Odell
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill closure
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 7:24:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I definitely oppose the closure of Churchill. I prefer hiring a guard for every train crossing.
Marion Odell, Palo Alto resident
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:August 20, 2026 City Council Meeting , Agenda Item #AA1: Embarcadero Road Improvement Project, Phase I
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 5:25:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
AUGUST 20, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #AA1: EMBARCADERO ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 1
I urge you to remove this item from the meeting's ConsentCalendar, and to direct staff to either (a) include the projectin your budget deliberations that will occur shortly for thefiscal year starting July 1, 2026, or (b) if starting beforeJuly 1, 2026 is justified, then include the proposed projectand staff report in the agenda packet for the next City Councilregular meeting.
This item was added to the meeting's agenda after thepublishing deadline for the public notice advertisements of themeeting's agenda.
The staff report for this agenda item will not be availableuntil the meeting.
The project has been pending for several years.
No harm will occur if you wait until the public and the presshave had an adequate time to review the staff report before youare asked to act, instead of you acting on an item that was notincluded in the public notice of meeting's agenda, and actingon a staff report that will not be available until the meetingoccurs.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:August 20, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda item #6: Housing Element Site Inventory Modifications
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 4:59:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
AUGUST 20, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #6: HOUSING ELEMENT SITE INVENTORY MODIFICATIONS
I urge you to remove this item from the meeting's ConsentCalendar, and to direct staff to refer to the Planning andTransportation Commission all proposed modifications to theHousing Element Site Inventory so that the Commission can holda public hearing on the subject and make a recommendation tothe City Council which would then hold a public hearing on thesubject before making a decision.
The only reason there might be an urgency to justify the CityCouncil giving the Director of Planning and DevelopmentServices the right to make such modifications is if theDirector is aware of a specific project or projects that wouldbenefit from the modifications and would need the Director toact quickly.
If there are any such projects, then the request to modify theHousing Element Site Inventory should come from theapplicant(s) who would benefit from the modifications insteadof from the Director.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
Cc: Planning and Transportation Commission
From:Zvika Guz
To:Council, City
Subject:Ineffective enforcement of RV parking on East Meadow
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 4:19:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
As an East Meadow Drive resident, I am writing to express my frustration with the continuous
parking of RVs and mobile homes in our neighborhood, specifically on East Meadow Circle.
Although the City passed an oversized vehicle policy late last year, the current enforcement
seems ineffective. Some vehicles occasionally move for temporary notices, but they
immediately return to the same spots. This "revolving door" approach is not solving the
problem.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
1. Lack of Aggressive Enforcement: Why is there no persistent, sustained enforcement of
the 72-hour limit and vanlording ordinances specifically on East Meadow Circle?
2. Signage Delays: What is the timeline for installing the street signage required by state
law to allow for towing and strict enforcement in this corridor?
3. Preventing the "Revolving Door": How does the city plan to stop these vehicles from
temporarily leaving only to immediately return?
Our neighborhood needs a permanent enforcement strategy, not temporary displacement. I
look forward to hearing your inputs.
Sincerely,
--Zvika Guz
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Brown, Gregory G CIV USARMY CESPN (USA)
To:Hamilton Hitchings
Cc:Council, City; DWRSearsville@water.ca.gov; CESPN-GR-submittal@usace.army.mil; stev.rothert@water.ca.gov;
jhamilton@esassoc.com; Searsville@stanford.edu
Subject:RE: [Non-DoD Source] Searsville Dam Project Input
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 4:03:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mr. Hitchings,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has received your comments.
Thank you for your input in the Searsville Watershed Restoration Project EIS process.
Greg Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District, Regulatory Division
450 Golden Gate Ave., 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3404
415-503-6791
From: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:43 PM
To: DWRSearsville@water.ca.gov; Brown, Gregory G CIV USARMY CESPN (USA)
<Gregory.G.Brown@usace.army.mil>; CESPN-GR-submittal@usace.army.mil;
stev.rothert@water.ca.gov; jhamilton@esassoc.com; Searsville@stanford.edu
Cc: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Searsville Dam Project Input
Friday April 10th, 2026
Dear Mr. Brown, Mr. Rothert, Ms. Hamilton, and Searsville Project Review Team,
My name is Hamilton Hitchings. I am a long-time Palo Alto resident and homeowner.
To protect Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, I urge Stanford, the Army Corps, and the CEQA
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
lead agency to select the 900,000-cubic-yard Off-Haul alternative, which would remove
sediment from behind Searsville Dam before tunnel installation instead of risking
downstream sediment deposition and added flood danger.
The key point is simple: downstream flooding from project-driven sediment
accumulation is not an existing condition. It is a project impact, and it must be fully
studied and fully mitigated. Just as important, the current Notice of Intent does not
expressly identify downstream flooding from project-caused sediment deposition
and reduced channel capacity as a project impact, even though it acknowledges a risk
of downstream sand deposition from flushed sediment and potential indirect effects along
the full 12-mile reach of San Francisquito Creek. That omission should be corrected in the
EIR/EIS.
Today, the dam traps sediment. The proposed project would instead create a gated tunnel
and a multi-year flushing phase designed to move trapped sediment downstream during
storm events. Stanford cannot treat any resulting loss of channel capacity or increase in
downstream flood risk as merely a background condition when the project itself would
newly mobilize and route that sediment downstream by design. CEQA and NEPA require
that impact to be expressly identified, analyzed, and mitigated.
The EIR/EIS should therefore quantify where sediment would deposit, how much channel
capacity would be lost, how much flood elevations would rise in downstream communities,
and how much sediment the proposed downstream detention basin would actually capture.
The current project materials do not provide that detention-basin capture number.
The agencies should also require gate operations from day one that reduce peak flows to
Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, rather than delaying stronger flood-protective operations
during the initial multi-year flushing period. Stanford’s own materials say the gate and
tunnel are intended to attenuate peak flows downstream. That flood-protection function
should be an enforceable operating requirement.
The 1998 flood showed exactly what is at stake: more than 400 homes in Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto flooded above floor level. Families were displaced for at least nine months,
and homes required major repairs before they were habitable again. A restoration project
must not increase flood danger for downstream families.
Hamilton Hitchings
Palo Alto, CA
From:Lee Taubeneck
To:Council, City
Subject:Cubberley Campus Concerns
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 2:25:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, and Mayor Veenker:
I write to express objections to the proposed conversion of the Cubberley gymnasium to a theater. Ballroom and
latin dance instruction and socials have been taking place at the gymnasium for over 30 years. The
proposed changes to the existing campus would place a theater on the site of the current Pavillion, and shift the
gymnasium to another portion of the campus.
As details of the new gymnasium are incomplete, in an era of cost-cutting it is unlikely that a new facility could
match the quality and size of the existing Pavilion. Even if it did, it would have to compete with other gymnasium
users. Such is not the case at the existing Pavilion.
There are plenty of existing theaters in Palo Alto and Mountain View. Lucie Stern and the Mountain View Center
for Performing Arts are two examples. The Eagle and the Bus Barn Theaters in Los Altos are others. Others include
Bing Theater, the Stanford Studio, and Frost Amphitheater - all on the Stanford campus. My point is that with such
an array of facilities to choose from for theater, and such a dearth of good dancing locations, it is appropriate to
retain the Pavilion as is.
Capital and operating costs should also be a consideration. Keeping the Pavilion gymnasium would cost nearly
nothing, including the maintenance. I encourage you to retain the Pavilion as part of the campus reconfiguration to
allow for the continuation of the social dancing there.
Sincerely,
Lee Taubeneck, MS, PE
3156 Middlefield Rd
Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3043
650-518-6747
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Thomas Seay
To:news@padailypost.com; letters@padailypost.com; editor@almanacnews.com; Council, City;
assignmentdesk@kqed.org; kcbsnewsdesk@audacy.com; news@kalw.org
Cc:ianirwin800@gmail.com; Carol Kiparsky; Yiran Mao; hennerfelt@gmail.com
Subject:Press Release: Community Seeks Full Review Before Removal of Protected Redwoods
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 2:07:02 PM
Attachments:Redwood Tree Press Release April 2026 (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am sending the attached press release regarding a city meeting on April 23, 2026
involving the proposed removal of protected coast redwoods at Saint Thomas
Aquinas Church in Palo Alto.
This issue has generated neighborhood interest and community petition efforts.
Please let me know if you would like photographs, poster images, or additional
information.
Thank you,
Thomas Seay
entheogens@yahoo.com
(650) 666-7426
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Community Members Urge Full Review Before
Removal of Protected Redwood Trees
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Community members are urging the City of Palo Alto to fully evaluate all reasonable alternatives before
removing several protected coast redwood trees at Saint Thomas Aquinas Church near Homer Avenue
and Waverley Street.
A city meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2026 from 3:00–4:00 PM regarding the proposed removal of the
trees. Residents are asking that the City require complete investigation and documentation before any
irreversible action is taken.
Supporters of preserving the trees point to their environmental, visual, and neighborhood value, as well
as the role mature redwoods play in providing shade, wildlife habitat, and community character.
Residents are not arguing that the trees should remain at all costs. Rather, they are asking that the City
require direct verification of root-foundation interaction and a documented review of possible
engineering and mitigation alternatives before protected trees are removed.
Community members have also begun circulating petitions and informational leaflets in the
neighborhood.
City meeting: April 23, 2026, 3:00–4:00 PM Location: Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, California
Contact: Thomas Seay entheogens@yahoo.com (650) 666-7426
1
From:Frances Perry
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing crossing due to suicides
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 1:12:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I would suggest you vote against closing the Churchill crossing unless you intend to close all four crossings (i.e.
Churchill, Palo Alto Ave., Meadow, and Charleston) since there have been suicides at some of them and and
suicides can occur at all of them. About 35 years ago, the cluster of suicides happened at Meadow and Charleston.
Another reason to vote against it is that not all suicides happen on the railroad tracks. Are the bridges across 101
suicide-proof or have we just been lucky?
Personally, I wish for more pedestrian tunnels and bridges.
Frances H. Perry
826 Richardson Court
Palo Alto
From:Star Teachout
To:Switzer, Steven; ria.hutabaratlo@paloalto.gov; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural
Review Board; bpa-board@googlegroups.com; BPA-issues@googlegroups.com; ptc@caritempleton.com;
brynachangPTC@gmail.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com
Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; gblack@hextrans.com; Ellson, Penny; Yang, Albert
Subject:Traffic analysis request for 3606 el Camino Real
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 12:56:34 PM
Hello Steven, Transportation, Planning, City Council, ARB, and PTC, (with a cc to Mr. Black
from Hexagon Transportation),
Naturally, I am disappointed that our process for evaluating the 3606 El Camino Real application
did not focus on the safety aspects of its driveway placement as soon as it was submitted in 2024.
This requires not only looking at the “parcel,” but also the context of where that parcel is and it’s
potential impacts. I would have gotten involved far sooner had I known the direction this process
has taken. Thankfully, many development projects do not pose the same potential threat to
pedestrians and cyclists, but this one does. I hope I’m wrong about some of my safety assumptions
and traffic fears.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety for current and future residents should always be one of our top
priorities in evaluating development projects, and not something on which we compromise in the
applicant-planner relationship. We have high standards for employees—they are qualified,
conscientious, and dedicated people--and our process should be up to the same standard. Many of
you live in typical rectilinear neighborhoods, with lots of stop signs and multiple choices for
egress. When you step out onto your sidewalks, you probably don’t have to worry about a
speeding or distracted driver. As well as facing constrained safety routes, if you lived in the
shadow of this project, and your children or grandchildren were traveling under these conditions,
you might feel the worry many of us in Barron Park feel. There is no 100% safety guarantee in
life, but you can demonstrate your commitment to those you represent by giving it the attention it
deserves. Our PTC did, and for that our Barron Park Association and neighborhood is extremely
grateful.
There are many existing less-than optimal conditions to consider as you conduct your traffic
analysis for a project of this size, resulting in unknown but consequential car trips into Barron
Park: Matadero is a bicycle/auto “sharrow,” has streets without sidewalks, has a unitary path for
cars traveling from Matadero to Arastradero/Foothill/280, has school children and pedestrians
traveling on this path feeding 6 schools, and now has an approved plan with driveways nearby el
Camino, a major transportation corridor. Not only does it feel as if Barron Park safety concerns
are being dismissed, the process is also going against current design practices (against traffic
infiltration) and increasing the risk of lawsuits against our city. There has been a 26% increase in
pedestrian fatalities in California between 2014-2018 and we are in the top 3 states for bicycle
traffic fatalities and legal action related to those. Between Jan-Feb 2026 3 pedestrians were struck
and killed in Palo Alto. If you know this design is dangerous prior to building, it increases
liability.
Towards preventing serious injury to both humans and our city budget, please consider--if not
already--including the following in the traffic analysis for 3606 ECR:
• Determine the sightline needed and stopping distance required on Matadero (and Kendall) for a
bicycles traveling straight at 10-15 mph when reacting to a turning car crossing its path*. This
applies to both directions of travel on Matadero (and Kendall)—from ECR (westbound), and
bicycles traveling towards ECR (eastbound). I am not a transportation engineer, so perhaps my
ballpark calculations (see below) or interpretation of Fed DOT Road Design laws are incorrect,
but mine suggest NO cars waiting for a green light on Matadero could be in the first 188 - 233 ft
from ECR (depending on 10 pmh vs 15 mph cyclist speed assumption). If everyone drove a 24”
high Fiat Panda cars could fill the street without impairing sight triangles. [Sight triangles should
remain clear between 2.3-ft and 7-ft measured above the ground surface to account for the wide
range of bicyclist eye heights and recumbent bicyclists as well as to ensure the visibility of child
bicyclists to approaching motorists.]
• Because there is ONE route out of Barron Park to Arastradero, and this route serves 6 schools,
peak-hour traffic counts must be done before the 3606 and 3781 developments and (minimally)
include Coulombe x Maybell, Los Robles x LaDonna, Barron x Josina, Kendall x Whitsell, and
Whitsell x Matadero. These should provide the information needed to assess the increase in traffic
to Barron Park Playschool, Barron Park Elementary, Juana Briones Elementary, Fletcher Middle
School, Bowman School, and Gunn High School. It would also be very infomrative to conduct
this traffic count after 3 months of occupation by its residents.
Below are some resources should you find them helpful, and also my comments for the 4/13/26
meeting, including Palo Alto Municipal Code, 21.28.250 Other improvements. I would appreciate
a confirmation or clarification on my Traffic Analysis requests, and of course any errors!
Thank you,
Star Teachout
PS: Kendall is equally problematic, but I’m focusing on this heavy use intersection.
=================================
Ch 18 Bicycle Facilities
On March 11, 2010, U.S. DOT signed a federal policy statement on
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Regulations and Recommendations
This policy statement emphasized that, “every transportation agency, including a state DOT, has the responsibility to improve
conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling.” The statement encourages transportation agencies “to go beyond
minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes” on all transportation projects.
18.1.4.3 National Statutes Under 23 USC 217(g)(1) it states, “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be
considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except
where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted.”
18.3.5.1 Bicycle Stopping Sight Distance
Adequate motor vehicle stopping sight distance is important for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists who must cross roadways.
See Section 4.11.4 Intersection Sight Distance for procedures for determining motor vehicle stopping sight distances. Bicycle
stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distance needed to bring a bicycle to a fully controlled stop. It is a function of the user’s
perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed, the coefficient of friction between the wheels and the pavement, the braking
ability of the user’s equipment, and the grade. The coefficient of friction for the typical skidding bicyclist is 0.32 for dry conditions
and 0.16 for wet conditions. A perception and brake reaction time of 2.5 seconds should often be used, though 1.5 seconds may be
used where braking or stopping is more expected, such when approaching intersections where scanning for conflicts is anticipated.
Stopping sight distance can also be calculated using the formula shown in Figure 18-7. Figure 18-7 shows the minimum stopping
sight distance for a typical adult bicyclist under wet conditions at various design speeds and grades based on a total perception and
brake reaction time of 2.5 seconds
Box Junctions [“Keep Clear” zones] Calculations using Pythagorean theorem
Eastbound Bicycle on Matadero, approaching el Camino Real:
*58 - 157 ft stopping distance @ 0% grade, cyclist traveling at 10-20 mph. This implies a large “Keep Clear” zone on the west side
of the driveway (towards Whitsell).
Ballpark calculation: assumes ~20 ft from middle of Northside lane to curb (b)
Distance from crosswalk to edge of Matadero driveway: 108 ft + 25 ft = 133 ft to western corner of the driveway
Stopping distance at 10 mph (58 ft) and 15 mph (102 ft) (hypotenuse c)
“Keep Clear” zones of 55 feet (10 mph cyclist) or 100 ft (15 mph cyclist) back from the edge of the driveway corner (furthest
from ECR). (a)
Westbound Bicycle travelling to Matadero Creek Trail (Laguna/Varian bike path): If left turns are allowed out of the Matadero
driveway
I could be wrong about this, but wouldn’t this also apply to a bicycle crossing onto Matadero from el Camino Real? This means the
“Keep Clear” zone to the east of the driveway (towards ECR) must also provide 55 ft of “Keep Clear” zone? If the distance from
the driveway corner to the crosswalk is roughly 108 ft, then only 53 ft of space exists for cars waiting for a green light. Assuming
25 ft/car—15 ft car + 10 ft space—this implies only 2 cars can be in that zone. For a 100 ft Box Junction (15 mph cyclist) no
queued cars could be between the leading driveway edge and ECR.
Applying the sight triangle requirements provided in Section 4.11.4 will generally result in sufficient sight distance for bicyclists
when operating on bicycle facilities located within the street, such as shared lanes, bike lanes, and separated bike lanes. Sight
triangles should remain clear between 2.3-ft and 7-ft measured above the ground surface to account for the wide range of bicyclist
eye heights and recumbent bicyclists as well as to ensure the visibility of child bicyclists to approaching motorists.
18.3.5.3.1 Turning Motorist Yields to (or Stops For) Through Bicyclists
This scenario occurs when a through moving bicyclist arrives or will arrive at the crossing prior to a turning motorist, who must
stop or yield to the bicyclist who is likely to be within the intersection at the time the motorist turns. This is shown visually in the
top portion of
Figure 18-8
. Vertical elements near the intersection to separate bicyclists, including on-street parking, should be set back sufficiently for the
motorist to see the approaching bicyclist providing the motorist sufficient time to slow or stop before the conflict point.
=================
Comments from 4/13/26 Palo Alto City Council meeting on item 8: 3606 El Camino Real development
Good evening,
I am speaking on behalf of our Barron Park Association and many in the neighborhood,
I want to remind the council that a request to move the 3606 driveway onto its el Camino address is not asking you to deny the project nor makes it
financially infeasible. We are asking you to be sure it is safe. And that is a victory for housing advocates and its residents!
From what I’ve read, the council doesn’t need to defend a requested plan change. 7 of the major Builder’s Remedy laws—including SB 9, SB 330, AB 1893,
and the Density Bonus Law-- include a statement about a “specific, adverse impact” that would allow you to deny it. It must be based on objective,
identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions. This driveway placement results in a problematic structural condition--it is too
close to el Camino.
It only takes a few cars to block sight lines to and from the housing driveway, with bikes rolling through that new “intersection” just prior to vehicles
turning. With the height of some vehicles surpassing 10 ft, any person on a bicycle is in danger of being struck during a turn, or even a child running across
the driveway.
A driveway onto el Camino provides a long sight line, it pressures drivers to find alternate modes and it promotes more cycling on the new bike paths. It also
provides more controls—eg, signal coordination and dedicated "on-ramp” lights. When a Transportation Analyst is chosen by the city--not the applicant—I
hope it is obvious the Matadero driveway placement is challenging. This analysis must also include the traffic impacts on the primary paths to our 6 schools:
Matadero, Whitsell, Kendall, Barron, LaDonna, Los Robles, Amaranta, Maybell, and Coulombe.
========
Our Transportation Department supports SRTS, our 2025 Palo Alto Safety Action Plan, Complete Streets, a VisionZero fatality Safe Streets for All (SS4A)
plan, our BPTP, our BPAC, our 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and probably the California Transportation Plan 2050. There is no lack of effort to protectcyclists within our government. Let’s back them up.
Is Palo Alto Municipal Code, 21.28. IMPROVEMENTS—which is still on the books—an objective standard or safety policy? Section 250 allows cities to
require improvements in subdivisions for the general health, safety and welfare.
Palo Alto Municipal Code,
21.28.250 Other
improvements.
Other improvements necessary or convenient to insure conformity to or implementation of the comprehensive plan or other
local ordinances and to insure the public health, safety and welfare, shall be required. In addition, improvements outside of
the subdivision may be required where such improvements are required for the general health, safety and welfare, and
where conditions necessitating such improvements are caused or aggravated by the subdivision.
Note: The removal or merging of lot lines to create a larger parcel(s) is also a subdivision and is regulated by the SMA, State Subdivision Map Act SMA.
California Government Code Section 66410-66499, which provides general regulations and procedures that local governments must follow.
Secondly, as a Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) the State Highway Design Manual states that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that Matadero
is suitable as shared route and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. For Class III guidance, see Index 1003.3.
Matadero is getting far less currently than what it deserves and needs. The addition of a new driveway is a new type of “intersection” and will not make
things better.
We should be talking about improving bicycle and pedestrian safety on Matadero between Whitsell and el camino, not making a situation worse. The only
reason there have not been more injuries is because the traffic flows are not too great.
Regards,
Star Teachout
From:Sam Junkins
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep Cubberley Pavilion a Gym
Date:Friday, April 17, 2026 10:11:16 AM
Dear Members of the City Council,
For 30 years I have attend the Friday night dance at Cubberley Pavilion and it is the center of
my social life. This facility is unique in the region for the size and quality of its floor.
Athletic groups using the Pavilion would certainly say the same.
I encourage the Council to keep the Pavilion as a gymnasium. It makes no sense to convert
the Pavilion to a theater at considerable cost when there are several theaters in the community
(including one right next the Pavilion). Doing so would leave dancers and athletes less well
off with no comparable alternatives.
Thank you,
Sam Junkins
453 Victory Ave
Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 254-0551
From:Sarah Levine
To:Adam Schwartz
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: YES to new homes at 910 Webster (April 20 Agenda #4)
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 7:05:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Oh GOOD WORK!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2026, at 5:46 PM, Adam Schwartz <adamdschwartz@yahoo.com>
wrote:
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I write in strong support of building 70 new homes (including 12
affordable homes) at 910 Webster Street. When you meet on
April 20 for prescreening (Agenda Item #4), I hope you will do
everything possible to encourage the construction of these new
homes.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?
meetingTemplateId=18703
My front door is one-tenth of one mile from these proposed
homes, and my townhouse development is across the street. My
message is simple: yes in my back yard.
I am grateful that the city council and city staff have been
working hard to plan new homes on El Camino Real and San
Antonio Road. It is important that we build new homes in other
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
parts of our city, too. That includes right here in University
South, where we’ve got lots of jobs and amenities. That’s how
we affirmatively further fair housing.
So many kinds of people could become our new neighbors at
910 Webster Street. Teachers and students who walk down the
block to Addison Elementary. Service staff who work at the cafes
a half mile north on University Avenue. Tech workers who bike a
few miles to the Stanford research park. Our parents and
children who want to move nearby us. Refugees from foreign
countries. Fellow Americans fleeing intolerant laws.
Today, there's 24 rental homes on this property. These
incumbent neighbors will be entitled to relocation payments from
the developer, under city ordinance. The new building will have
70 homes, for a net gain of 46 homes. Twelve of these new
homes will be affordable: three for people with very low
incomes, five with low incomes, and four with moderate
incomes. The remaining 58 new homes will be market-rate.
Study after study shows that building such homes will relieve
pressure on our current housing stock, leading to reduced or at
least stabilized rents for existing homes at all price points.
Parking won’t be a problem. Everyone in my townhome
development has a garage with two spots, and it’s easy to park
my two cars on the street. The plan for the new building is 130
parking spots for 70 homes, which is ample. There’s also parking
for 119 bikes.
The height won’t be out of place. Across the street is Channing
House, and three blocks away is The Marc. As I walk about my
neighborhood, I like looking at these tall buildings, and I enjoy
their shade.
In sum, please allow new homes for new neighbors in my back
yard.
Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
University South
From:Gabe Molitor
To:Council, City
Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email
message is because if the Churchill crossing gets closed all of the students of Palo Alto high school will just have
to ride there bikes on Alama...
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 7:03:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Adam Schwartz
To:Council, City
Subject:YES to new homes at 910 Webster (April 20 Agenda #4)
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 5:46:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I write in strong support of building 70 new homes (including 12 affordable
homes) at 910 Webster Street. When you meet on April 20 for
prescreening (Agenda Item #4), I hope you will do everything possible to
encourage the construction of these new homes.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?
meetingTemplateId=18703
My front door is one-tenth of one mile from these proposed homes, and
my townhouse development is across the street. My message is simple:
yes in my back yard.
I am grateful that the city council and city staff have been working hard to
plan new homes on El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. It is important
that we build new homes in other parts of our city, too. That includes right
here in University South, where we’ve got lots of jobs and amenities.
That’s how we affirmatively further fair housing.
So many kinds of people could become our new neighbors at 910 Webster
Street. Teachers and students who walk down the block to Addison
Elementary. Service staff who work at the cafes a half mile north on
University Avenue. Tech workers who bike a few miles to the Stanford
research park. Our parents and children who want to move nearby us.
Refugees from foreign countries. Fellow Americans fleeing intolerant laws.
Today, there's 24 rental homes on this property. These incumbent
neighbors will be entitled to relocation payments from the developer,
under city ordinance. The new building will have 70 homes, for a net gain
of 46 homes. Twelve of these new homes will be affordable: three for
people with very low incomes, five with low incomes, and four with
moderate incomes. The remaining 58 new homes will be market-rate.
Study after study shows that building such homes will relieve pressure on
our current housing stock, leading to reduced or at least stabilized rents
for existing homes at all price points.
Parking won’t be a problem. Everyone in my townhome development has a
garage with two spots, and it’s easy to park my two cars on the street.
The plan for the new building is 130 parking spots for 70 homes, which is
ample. There’s also parking for 119 bikes.
The height won’t be out of place. Across the street is Channing House, and
three blocks away is The Marc. As I walk about my neighborhood, I like
looking at these tall buildings, and I enjoy their shade.
In sum, please allow new homes for new neighbors in my back yard.
Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
University South
From:Nancy Clark
To:Council, City
Subject:No closure of Churchill
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 2:09:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I write to ask you to not close Churchill as to do so will result in further traffic congestion at
Embarcadero and other intersections. I think the delay to first responders is compelling -
Churchill should not be closed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nancy Clark
225 Addison Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Steve Levy
Subject:A Bit of Good Job News for California
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 1:50:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I am resending as there was a problem for some readers yesterday. I apologize if you get
both emails.
Here is the link to the new Numbers in the News
https://www.ccsce.com/preview/PDF/Numbers-Apr2026
California and most regions and counties added more jobs than previously reported in 2024
and early 2025. This is in sharp contrast to the nearly 900,000 downward revision for the
nation during this period.
The largest upward revision was in the Bay Area and there were upward revisions in
Southern California and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions.
Job Growth Dec 24--Dec
25
Original Revised Change
Calif -11,200 56,600 67,800
So Cal -8,500 6,600 15,100
Bay Area -20,000 27,900 47,900
San Diego 4,700 2,800 -1,900
Sac Region -3,300 10,800 14,100
SJ Valley 5,100 20,400 15,300
Source:
EDD
The state and regions outperformed the nation between January 2025 and 2025 with a
0.7% job gain compared to 0.2% for the nation. All regions outperformed the nation led by
the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento regions.
See additional tables in the report
There are two cautions to this data. The actual data's last complete count was in March
2025 and the estimates after then will be revised and could be lower reflecting tariff and
deportation policies.
In addition the labor force declined in California and most regions after January 2025
reflecting retirements and, probably, deportations.
Still, this is a bit of good news about the California economy as the state and nation face
Steve
650-814-8553
From:Nicole Cherok
To:Council, City
Subject:Converting Cubberly Pavilion gym
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:48:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I have been dancing for decades at Cubberly Pavilion, and am adamantly opposed to converting the gym to a
Theater.
Until this new gym is built and we can try it out, we won't know whether it will work as well as the Pavilion for our
Ballroom dances.
The City's share of this conversion is likely to be millions of dollars. TheatreWorks already provides great shows at
Lucie Stern and the City of Mountain View. Moving these shows to the Pavilion is unlikely to improve the
experience of the people who currently attend TheatreWorks productions.
For zero dollars, the City could keep the Pavilion as a gym. All Cubberley gyms, including the Pavilion and the
new gyms in the proposed recreation center, would continue to be heavily used by sports groups.
Regards,
Dr. Nicole Cherok
Cherok Chiropractic
48 Eastwood Dr.
San Mateo, CA 94403
Office: 650 348-4262
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:LAFCO Environmental Justice Workshop (Special Meeting) Now Available - 4/20/26
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:42:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The agenda for the April 20, 2026 LAFCO Environmental Justice Workshop (Special Meeting) is now
available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/lafco-environmental-justice-
workshop-special-meeting-2026-04-20-093000.
Best regards,
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
From:Sauls, Garrett
To:Council, City
Subject:910 Webster Street - 4/20 Council Prescreening Public Comments
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 11:09:47 AM
Attachments:To Planning Palo Alto.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image008.png
Feedback - 910 Webster New Construction Proposal.pdf
Project at 910 Webster Street (Application No. 26PLN-00026).pdf
Attachment D Neighbor Comments.pdf
Proposed Development at Channing & Webster.pdf
image009.png
Hello,
I received additional public comments after the City Council report was published. Please see attached.
Garrett Sauls
Principal Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Cc:Architectural Review Board; City Mgr
Subject:Architecture vs Urban Design
Date:Thursday, April 16, 2026 10:35:28 AM
I just watched the ARB meeting where Car Free Cal Ave design was discussed. Bruce Fukuji gave one of the best
city staff presentations I have ever watched. Bruce is a master of his craft. Car Free Cal Ave is poised to become a
gem, not just in Palo Alto, but on the entire peninsula. This is in no small part to the fact that we have the right man
for the job.
That said, after Bruce's presentation, I listened to all the comments from the members of the ARB. The people who
have been appointed to the ARB all seem to be there because they have expertise in archectural design. Architecture
and street/urban design/planning are NOT the same. They have to coordinate, but the skill sets/training in
architecture and urban design do NOT overlap. Worse, most of the members of that board don't seem to understand
that.
I have respect for the work the city council does in so many ways, but if I had my way, the responsibility for making
appointments to committies, boards and commisions would be taken off the councils plate and turned over the the
city manager. Since we all know I pretty much never get my way, next time you make an appointment to the ARB,
please see to it that persons experience is predominatly that of urban planning and street/traffic design. The Palo
Alto resident who fits the bill in this case is Amie Ashton. I hope she applies.
Thank you for considering - Deb G., 94306
From:Veronica Saleh
To:Council, City
Subject:Access Restriction to Train Tracks on Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 7:04:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council:
I am writing as a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Palo Alto resident, and parent to
strongly advocate for the closure or restriction of access to the train tracks on
Churchill Avenue. This intervention is urgently needed as an evidence-based suicide
prevention measure, particularly given the proximity of these tracks to Palo Alto High
School and the well-documented suicide cluster that has affected our community.
Means restriction is a proven suicide prevention strategy. Restricting access to
lethal means is one of the most robustly supported suicide prevention strategies in
the medical literature. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently
demonstrated that barriers at suicide hotspots, including railway stations and tracks,
significantly reduce suicide deaths at those sites. A Cochrane systematic review
found that means restriction interventions reduced suicides at intervention sites by
91% (incidence rate ratio 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.27). Critically, recent evidence shows
that restricting access at frequently used suicide locations does not lead to
displacement of suicides to other sites, and actually reduces overall suicides by the
same method.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable. Adolescent suicide attempts are often
impulsive, with studies showing that 24% of adolescents who survived near-lethal
suicide attempts reported less than 5 minutes elapsed between deciding to end their
life and attempting suicide. This impulsivity makes access to highly lethal means
particularly dangerous. Railway suicides have an extremely high case fatality rate,
leaving no opportunity for regret or intervention once initiated. When lethal means are
not immediately accessible during acute crisis periods, individuals often survive
beyond the period of acute risk.
The Palo Alto context demands action. Our community has experienced a
devastating suicide cluster among adolescents, with several deaths occurring on train
tracks near schools. The proximity of the Churchill Avenue tracks to Palo Alto High
School creates a situation where students in acute distress have immediate access to
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
a highly lethal means during the school day and after-school hours. This combination
of factors such as a known suicide method, proximity to a high school, and a
documented cluster effect creates an urgent public health imperative.
Based on the evidence, I recommend the following interventions at the Churchill
Avenue crossing. These interventions have been successfully implemented at suicide
hotspots worldwide, including bridges, cliffs, and railway stations, with documented
reductions in suicide deaths.
1. Physical barriers (fencing) to prevent access to the tracks
2. Closure of pedestrian access at this crossing, with alternative safe crossings
provided
3. Installation of crisis intervention signage and emergency phones
4. Enhanced surveillance (CCTV) to enable rapid intervention
5. Coordination with media to ensure responsible reporting that does not perpetuate
contagion
As a physician who has dedicated my career to the mental health of children and
adolescents and as a resident and parent who cares deeply about keeping this
community safe, I urge you to prioritize this life-saving intervention. The evidence is
clear: restricting access to lethal means saves lives. We have both the
scientific knowledge and the moral obligation to act.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and to provide additional
evidence or consultation as needed. Our community has suffered too much loss. We
must take every evidence-based action available to prevent further tragedies.
Sincerely,
Veronica Saleh, MD
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
51 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 170
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: 650-223-4555
Fax: 408-370-6196
(You may make this letter public)
From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Churchill
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 6:41:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please note: this proposal would allow students to continue to cross at Churchill until the Seale
underpass was complete.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 6:39 PM Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> wrote:
With the understanding that this is a very difficult issue, I am offering these comments and
suggestions as a way forward.
Key ideas:
Closing the crossing now has its own risks to student well-being
The main challenge in closing Churchill is that there are limited alternatives bike and ped
routes - and these modes are more sensitive to detours than automobiles. Fewer
students will bike to school and many who do will use less safe routes. Biking and
walking to school are known to be good for mental and physical health and limiting
students ability to do so has its own risks.
As a thought experiment, if we had to close East Meadow, we would have similar issues
and we should take measures to address this vulnerability in our biking networks.
Proposal
We need to test the impact of a future closure and see what mitigations would be
required or if mitigation is an acceptable solution.
1.
We should restrict all turn movements at Churchill, while maintaining track safety
personnel - this would be less than a closure but still be an alteration (akin to
Castro).
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
2.
We should make targeted improvements at the Oregon Expressway intersection to
facilitate safer turns onto Alma and work with Town & Country to shift most entries
and exits onto El Camino to improve traffic flow on Embarcardero.
3.
We should pursue expedited approval of a quiet zone at Churchill. The safety of the
road would be improved with limited turn movements.
4.
We should accelerate efforts to build pedestrian underpasses at Seale, Loma
Verde area and potentially Charleston (on the north side). Grade separations are
exempt from CEQA and should be exempt from NEPA if there is limited property
acquisition required.
5.
When the underpasses are complete and assuming we have worked to sufficiently
mitigate traffic, pursue closure.
Regards,
Elizabeth Alexis
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 6:40:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
With the understanding that this is a very difficult issue, I am offering these comments and
suggestions as a way forward.
Key ideas:
Closing the crossing now has its own risks to student well-being
The main challenge in closing Churchill is that there are limited alternatives bike and ped
routes - and these modes are more sensitive to detours than automobiles. Fewer students
will bike to school and many who do will use less safe routes. Biking and walking to school
are known to be good for mental and physical health and limiting students ability to do so
has its own risks.
As a thought experiment, if we had to close East Meadow, we would have similar issues
and we should take measures to address this vulnerability in our biking networks.
Proposal
We need to test the impact of a future closure and see what mitigations would be required
or if mitigation is an acceptable solution.
1.
We should restrict all turn movements at Churchill, while maintaining track safety
personnel - this would be less than a closure but still be an alteration (akin to
Castro).
2.
We should make targeted improvements at the Oregon Expressway intersection to
facilitate safer turns onto Alma and work with Town & Country to shift most entries
and exits onto El Camino to improve traffic flow on Embarcardero.
3.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
road would be improved with limited turn movements.
4.
We should accelerate efforts to build pedestrian underpasses at Seale, Loma Verde
area and potentially Charleston (on the north side). Grade separations are exempt
from CEQA and should be exempt from NEPA if there is limited property acquisition
required.
5.
When the underpasses are complete and assuming we have worked to sufficiently
mitigate traffic, pursue closure.
Regards,
Elizabeth Alexis
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Tom Shannon
To:Council, City
Subject:Don"t close Churchill
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 4:59:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good evening City Council members,
I live on Kellogg Ave. which parallels Churchill Ave. I am in total agreement that our first priority is
protecting the students. However, I use Churchill every day for walking, biking and for my crossing of
choice on my bike or in a car to get to the El Camino. Churchill traffic cannot be funneled to
Embarcadero, which is already at "Level of Service F" defined as Failure.
I would propose full time crossing guards 24/7 at each crossing until such time as the railroad is
reconstructed. How do we fund these guards? Possibly with a temporary city wide parcel tax that would
sunset when the railroad reconstruction is completed.
What's the best way to protect students from the railroad? Go with the Viaduct option with lots of
landscaping and make it completely unreachable except at the train station. That eliminates all crossing
issues, it's very quiet (i.e. no RR horns) AND would allow the city to develop a city wide bike/pedestrian
pathway from San Antonio Road to Menlo Park. It would also eliminate the complications at the
Alma/Palo Alto Avenue crossing in terms of not disturbing the creek bed.
Thanks for your time and attention trying to resolve this very unfortunate circumstance in our community.
Tom Shannon
Kellogg Ave.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 4:44:30 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 and Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to not shut down the Churchill train crossing to pedestrians, cyclists and cars.
I have two relatives who ended their lives in middle age which triggered my examination as to why people commit
self murder. Sometimes they have illnesses that are incurable or in the case of a cousin a broken heart.
Suicide is tragic in all cases especially amongst youth. You all need to take a cold fish eye look at the ‘culture’ of
Palo Alto High School where bullying, pressuring and demanding parents, neglect and the expectation that students
always be exceptional must be addressed. Closing Churchill will only add more stress to young people trying to get
to and from school.
When you look at Burlingame High School they do not have suicides. The school like Palo Alto High is adjacent to
the railroad tracks. There was one tragic accident where a thirteen-year-old child tried to race across the tracks and
was killed. Her death was not intentional.
Again, they do not have suicides amongst youth at this high school in San Mateo County.
The harm to our community will be enormous should Churchill’s shuttering be imposed on Palo Altans and others.
EMS, fire and police will be thwarted in serving the residents. You can’t do a wait and see approach by closing the
crossing temporarily. It would have to be a permanent closure according to Federal law.
I see lawsuits coming to the city should the closure of this critical east west corridor be authorized. Students and
drivers of vehicles will be forced to access arteries and other streets which would result in accidents. With SB79 and
Builders Remedy we are going to have more and more traffic. We can avoid accidents by keeping Churchill open.
The city sees itself as exceptional. Now is the time for reflection and examining the culture of Palo Alto High
School to support youth.
All council members are elected public servants whose duty is to serve our community.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From:Kathryn Croce
To:Council, City
Subject:DON"T CLOSE CHURCHILL
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 4:18:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed closure of the Churchill Avenue rail
crossing. I want to begin by acknowledging the recent tragic loss of life at this location and
the broader history of rail-related suicides in Palo Alto. This is a deeply serious issue, and I
appreciate the City’s efforts to address it.
I’m concerned that closing the Churchill crossing may shift safety risks rather than reduce
them overall.
In particular, the closure would likely divert a substantial volume of morning bicycle and
pedestrian traffic to the Embarcadero underpass. This corridor is already heavily congested
during peak commute and school hours and is not equipped to safely handle a significant
increase in pedestrian and bicycle volume. Increasing density in this constrained space
could create new safety risks. Separately, traffic patterns near Castilleja’s new underground
parking garage on Emerson Street raise additional concerns, as vehicles exiting during
peak morning hours will conflict with bicycle and pedestrian traffic traveling to Paly,
increasing the risk of accidents.
More broadly, this proposal has system-wide implications. Redirected traffic patterns are
likely to increase congestion at key intersections, including Oregon Expressway and
Embarcadero Road. These changes may not only affect daily traffic flow but could also
impact the movement and response times of emergency vehicles, raising additional public
safety concerns.
I encourage the Council to consider whether the current proposal fully accounts for these
secondary and system-wide impacts. Changes at one crossing do not occur in isolation—
they reshape movement patterns across the city.
Given Palo Alto’s history with rail incidents, it is critical that solutions reduce overall risk
rather than unintentionally displace it.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Croce
Emerson St
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; "Vicki Veenker"; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Subject:Churchill Closure 2
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 3:06:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Loss of young lives is painful and tragic. Addressing risk factors requires careful study,
understanding, and an important admonition, “First, do no harm.”
Question: Why has this proposal not undergone PABAC review?
Closing Churchill is unnecessary and may create NEW risks.
Lethal means reduction intervention in the form of Track Watch is in place 24/7 at
Churchill. It seems to be working, as it has in the past. During south PA suicide
clusters, Track Watch, coupled with strong mental health support and education for
parents, students, educators and community members disrupted cluster. We have
proven strategies that work. Let’s dust off that proven play book.
The city also might add a Quiet Zone at Churchill to eliminate horn noise that we
understand triggers anxiety for Paly students and faculty.
The JED Foundation letter in the Staff Report (Attachment B) notes that structural interventions
at specific crossings are “unlikely to address suicide by train across the broader Peninsula,
given the many accessible points along the rail corridor.” Given that Meadow and Charleston
historically have been the dominant locations of Palo Alto track suicides, the degree to which a
Churchill closure reduces system-wide risk—versus relocating it—is unclear and a concern.
This is a citywide problem. Please expedite planning for citywide rail grade
separation projects.
We cannot understand what the safety risks of closing Churchill will be without a
comprehensive (unrushed) traffic study of impacts of probable multi-modal traffic
diversion multi-modal traffic diversion from/to bike boulevards and school routes.
Safe bike/pedestrian networks take careful planning. The city spent decades working with PTA
parents, students and PAUSD on gradually improving the safety of existing elementary, middle
and high school routes that lean on a Churchill connection. Improvements were based on the
assumption that an open Churchill would be part of the school commute and bike network.
The inconvenience of biking or walking longer school routes may incent more
students to shift to cars and put greater numbers of inexperienced teen drivers on
school routes during school commute times, affecting safety for all road users,
including elementary, middle school and high school kids. Where is this studied?
Mode shift to cars creates traffic congestion and safety risks. Decades ago we
experienced intense traffic congestion on PAUSD campuses and school routes and the safety
impacts of this. Auto traffic safety, congestion on school routes and PAUSD campuses was
once a serious problem in Palo Alto. PTAs, the City and PAUSD worked in partnership to
eliminate impacts of auto-centered school commutes through Safe Routes to School
Education, Encouragement Engineering, Enforcement and Evaluation-- the 5 E’s—rigorously
applied over time. Results were transformative. Young people, and the rest of us, have greater
freedom to move safely about our community on bikes and on foot. Let’s not recreate old
hazards as we address a new one.
How might Churchill closure affect emergency vehicle response times to affected
neighborhoods? Losing lives because responders cannot reach people or get to a hospital
fast enough is a bad trade-off. This should be studied and mitigated.
Daily exercise and the fun, relaxing, social activity of walking and bicycling to
school is good for student mental health. Do we want to move backward on this in this
moment? Kids need exercise like they love, food, and water. It is essential to their happiness
and physical and mental health. The joy of sharing a bike ride or walk with friends builds
community and starts and ends each school day with the energizing lift of light exercise.
If Council decides to implement “temporary” closure, monitoring changes in the
number and severity of collisions on affected school and bicycle boulevard routes
should be part of the project evaluation. However, it appears unclear that
“temporary” closure is, actually, an option. If I’m understanding correctly, FRA
recognizes only permanent closures. The CPUC has been “unlikely” in the past to grant
temporary closure reversal.) If this may be a permanent change, all the more need to
proceed with careful due diligence. )
This is not an immediate, exclusively north PA problem.—It should be tackled as
what it is, a long-term, ongoing citywide at-grade rail crossing safety problem.
Please apply resources toward moving grade separation planning for all school route at-grade
crossings forward expediently, so we will be ready to implement when funding is available.
Please do not distract staff with a “temporary” Churchill closure that likely will create more
safety problems than it solves.
TrackWatch works. Mental health services support works. Coupling these with a Quiet Zone
addresses key problems. Let’s use the playbook. This time, we should maintain mental health
resources when the cluster abates. Adolescence is a difficult time of life. There should always
be readily available mental health support.
Thank you for considering this difficult issue…and for all that you do.
Penny Ellson
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Julianne Stafford
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not close Churchill crossing at Alma
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 1:32:29 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,
Please do not close the Churchill crossing at Alma.
I live in College Terrace and regularly use the crossing to get downtown or to attend church,
dine or shop. I know how heavily used this intersection is.
I would like to share two important reasons to keep Churchill open:
The crossings to the North or South are already extremely congested and would be strongly,
negatively impacted by a Churchill closing.
In addition to cars, Churchill crossing is heavily used by students on foot or bicycle, and
alternative routes for both are distant to PALY and Castilleja.
Suicide is a mental illness tragedy for families and the community. However, closing this
crossing does not address this tragedy directly. Please consider alternatives such as funding
crossing guards 24/7, and regularly educating students about mental health resources available
through school and city.
Thank you for your time,
Julianne Stafford
2304 Oberlin Street
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Stanley Chism
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 1:25:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To City Council,
I attended the listening event at PAUSD recently and was very sympathetic to the emotional appeal to close
Churchill argued by the parents who have suffered the tragedy of losing a child to suicide. I am also sympathetic to
the plight of all parents in our community who fear the effects of competition and status on their children by the
high achievement standards realized by the many gifted young people in our town. All young people are
experiencing extraordinary pressure to compete and match those high achievers. Social media, sycophantic
chatGPTs bots, parent expectations and constant online access worsens the pressure on our young people.
But …. My rational thinking convinced me that the measures already taken are a good pragmatic start to protect
from suicide behavior the Paly students and all struggling people in our community. The track watchers are diligent
and especially safety-effective by checking the tracks and signaling to the train that the Churchill intersection is
clear and safe to proceed. The other mitigations measures already implemented also help to currently to prevent
suicide by trains. Future mitigation measures are also planned and a strategy is underway.
In contrast to the benefits already implemented, a closure of Churchill would dramatically and immediately worsen
the community’s safety by forcing a surge of bike, foot and car traffic onto Embarcadero, the California Avenue
bike/pedestrian tunnel, and the Oregon Expressway option of crossing the railroad tracks. The burden on Paly
students would actually be immediately more severe because they form a large congestion of traffic during the
dozen minutes before the school starting times. I live in Southgate and see frequently collections of 50 and even
more students of foot, bike and car waiting on the East side of the Alma avenue traffic light at Churchill. The
collection of students on e-bikes, regular bikes, and the pedestrians make the intersection look like the start of a
marathon, Tour de France peloton, and an automobile race when the light changes. Most of the students are calm
but invariably one aggressive student is quickly matched by another trying to win the sprint start. (Especially true
with e-bike acceleration)
Promoting the measures that have already been implemented and are planned for the future would be the wiser
decision. Closure of the Churchill crossing without the future mitigation steps accomplished is certainly going to
worsen the safety of the students and all people who use that crossing. I hope the bereaved parents will understand
that the measures implemented will protect as much as immediately possible, and that their emotional belief that
closing Churchill will not benefit generations of students but will actually probably harm them.
Finally, we need to identify the reasons why we have a cluster of young people deaths in our community and
address those causes. I do not rationally believe that blocking traffic from crossing the tracks at Church Ave will
help anyone and will certainly make problems worse.
Stan Chism
Southgate, Palo Alto
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Steve Levy
Subject:A Bit of Good Job News for California
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:49:14 PM
Attachments:Numbers-Apr2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Attached is our latest Numbers in the News
California and most regions and counties added more jobs than previously reported in 2024
and early 2025. This is in sharp contrast to the nearly 900,000 downward revision for the
nation during this period.
The largest upward revision was in the Bay Area and there were upward revisions in
Southern California and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions.
The state and regions outperformed the nation between January 2025 and 2025 with a
0.7% job gain compared to 0.2% for the nation. All regions outperformed the nation led by
the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento regions.
There are two cautions to this data. The actual data's last complete count was in March
2025 and the estimates after then will be revised and could be lower reflecting tariff and
deportation policies.
In addition the labor force declined in California and most regions after January 2025
reflecting retirements and, probably, deportations.
Still, this is a bit of good news about the California economy as the state and nation face
significant challenves.
Steve
650-814-8553
365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com
1
April 2026
A Bit of Good Job News for California and Regions
Revised job estimates for California and counties released on April 3rd by the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) show that job growth in
California and major regions in 2025 was much higher than originally estimated.
The state had 67,800 more jobs between December 2024 and December 2025
than previously estimated. This revision is in sharp contrast to the revised
898,000 decline in U.S. jobs in March 2025 reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) compared to the previous estimate.
All major regions of the state except the San Diego region had upward revision
led by a large upward revision in the Bay Area. Note: In all these tables the
regional and county data is estimated separately from the state estimate and the
region/county trends may not match the state trend. Also, since they are
estimated separately, the sum of the regions will not match the state total.
Job Growth Dec ’24 – Dec ’25
Original
Revised
Change
California -11,200 56,600 67,800
Southern California -8,500 6,600 15,100
Bay Area -20,000 27,900 47,900
San Diego 4,700 2,800 -1,900
Sacramento Region -3,300 10,800 14,100
SJ Valley 5,100 20,400 15,300
Source: EDD
As a result of these revisions, all major regions in California outperformed the
nation in job growth for the 12 months ending in January 2026. U.S. job growth
during these 12 months was just 0.2% compared to the revised state job growth
rate of 0.7% with a similar growth rate for the Southern California region. Bay
Area job growth was a bit higher at 0.8%. The San Joaquin Valley has the
highest 12-month job growth rate at 1.6%.
365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com
2
Nonfarm Payroll Jobs
Jan ’25
Jan ’26 % change
U.S.
158,268.0 158,627.0 0.2%
California 18,024.8 18,156.0 0.7%
Southern California 8,367.2 8,425.4 0.7%
Bay Area
4,002.7 4,033.3 0.8%
San Diego 1,568.4 1,576.2 0.5%
Sacramento Region 1,151.8 1,163.1 1.0%
SJ Valley
1,477.9 1,502.2 1.6%
Source: EDD and BLS
Even with these gains, the state trails the nation in job growth since before the
pandemic. In January 2026 California had 2.8% more jobs than in the high before
the pandemic compared to a 4.2% gain for the nation. And the Bay Area, even
after very strong growth last year, was still below the pre-pandemic peak. The
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions did post strong job growth
compared to the nation during this period.
Nonfarm Payroll Jobs
Feb ’20
Jan ’26 % change
U.S.
152,293.0 158,627.0 4.2%
California 17,660.9 18,156.0 2.8%
Southern California 8,284.5 8,425.4 1.7%
Bay Area
4,120.5 4,033.3 -2.1%
San Diego 1,523.0 1,576.2 3.5%
Sacramento Region 1,085.7 1,163.1 7.1%
SJ Valley
1,373.0 1,502.2 9.4%
Source: EDD and BLS
There are three cautionary notes to these results. The first is that the revisions
were as of March 2025 and the state and county growth for the remaining
months are estimates that will be revised next year. The second caution is that
365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com
3
the period after March 2025 will reflect the new administration policies and the
dramatic slowing of population growth. The full year population estimates for
2025 will be released on May 1 of this year. The third caution comes from the
sluggish and sometimes negative trends in local area and state labor force
change between January 2025 and January 2026.
In the state and most areas, the labor force in January 2026 was below the
January 2025 level. This could have happened for two primary reasons: 1)
population fell as a result of deportations, declining immigration and high housing
prices or 2) people retired either as they aged or to take early retirement facing
poor job prospects. The one outlier is Los Angeles County where labor force
rose.
Labor Force Jan ’25 – Jan ’26
(Thousands)
County/MSA Jan ’25 Jan ’26 Change
Imperial
73.5 74.4 0.9
LA
5,086.5 5,112.6 26.1
Orange
1,626.5 1,606.2 -20.3
Riv-SB MSA 2,233.1 2,232.6 -0.5
Ventura
419.9 416.7 -3.2
SoCal
9,439.5 9,442.5 3.0
Oakland MSA 1,448.7 1,437.4 -11.3
Napa
75.1 72.0 -3.1
San Fran MSA 926.9 908.3 -18.6
San Jose MSA 1,058.7 1,058.9 0.2
Sonoma
246.6 244.0 -2.6
Solano
217.3 218.3 1.0
Marin
125.2 122.4 -2.8
Bay Area 4,098.5 4,061.3 -37.2
San Diego 1,660.6 1,650.3 -10.3
Sacramento MSA 1,190.9 1,193.0 2.1
Yuba MSA 81.9 81.7 -0.2
Sac Region 1,272.8 1,274.7 1.9
365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com
4
Fresno MSA 540.3 542.2 1.9
Kern
411.9 408.7 -3.2
Kings
59.6 59.4 -0.2
Merced
122.3 123.9 1.6
Stanislaus 257.9 253.4 -4.5
San Joaquin 373.0 374.8 1.8
Tulare
223.8 220.3 -3.5
SJ Valley 1,988.8 1,982.7 -6.1
California 19,728.5 19,622.9 -105.6
Source: EDD
These results contrast with the job growth experienced in most areas between
January 2025 and January 2026. The state and most areas experienced modest
to strong job growth in the year ending January 2026. A caution is that the
estimates after March 2025 do not reflect actual data so may be revised
substantially. It is hard to see job growth continuing at these levels if population
and labor force are stable or declining. Future memos will update these trends.
Nonfarm Payroll Jobs
County/MSA Jan ’25 Jan ’26 Change
Imperial
59.8 60.3 0.5
LA
4,583.0 4,621.4 38.4
Orange
1,692.9 1,692.9 0.0
Riv-SB MSA 1,712.4 1,731.5 19.1
Ventura
319.1 319.3 0.2
SoCal
8,367.2 8,425.4 58.2
Oakland MSA 1,188.2 1,190.9 2.7
Napa
74.7 75.0 0.3
San Fran MSA 1,123.8 1,132.8 9.0
San Jose MSA 1,153.5 1,169.6 16.1
Sonoma
204.6 206.2 1.6
Solano
146.2 147.2 1.0
Marin
111.7 111.7 0.0
Bay Area
4,002.7 4,033.4 30.7
365 Forest Avenue 5A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 814-8553 • www.ccsce.com
5
San Diego 1,568.4 1,576.2 7.8
Sacramento MSA 1,100.0 1,110.1 10.1
Yuba MSA 51.8 53.0 1.2
Sac Region 1,151.8 1,163.1 11.3
Fresno MSA 442.5 447.5 5.0
Kern
298.2 303.6 5.4
Kings
43.5 43.6 0.1
Merced
75.4 78.9 3.5
Stanislaus 190.9 193.1 2.2
San Joaquin 282.9 289.9 7.0
Tulare
144.5 145.6 1.1
SJ Valley
1,477.9 1,502.2 24.3
California 18,005.9 18,156.0 150.1
Source: EDD
From:sheepgirl888@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Andie Reed
Subject:Opposed to Closing Churchill at Alma Train Crossing : Special City of Palo Alto session 4/15/2026
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:32:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I replayed the Temporary Churchill Avenue Rail Closure Listening on March 12, 2026 to understand fully
both sides of the issues.
I am saddened to hear how many students and family of students were affected by the suicides that
happened in the clusters previously and of the most recent two suicides. It is good to hear from one of the
speakers that when temporary guards have been placed at railroad crossings, suicides have not occurred
there. This is the temporary pause that prevents suicides occurring while it is being monitored. I am glad to
see that there is a guard also at the Alma to El Camino crossing as I remember an my daughter’s friend’s
father had also died by suicide many years ago there. Another lady at this meeting reminded us that another
suicide happened at the East Meadow Crossing, not anywhere near a school. This latest incident should be
the impetus for the city to use this pause to gather its thoughts and resources to quickly move forward to a
better solution for all the grade crossings. They have been debating it for way too long without taking
action.
I am also wondering, does close access to Paly cause more students to die by suicide at this particular
crossing? Based on the occurrences at other grade rail crossings even though the last two were at the
Churchill crossing, others have occurred at East Meadow and Alma crossings. These suicides also were
calculated and not rash acts. But the fact that it was an at grade intersection which makes ease of access in
all intersections, this should be a reason for the city separate the rails from street throughout the city.
Historically, the Embarcadero underpass was built in 1936 because of a horrible accident that killed 2
students when Alma street was at grade with Embarcadero road. The city at that point should have seriously
considered building underpasses for all the streets crossing the tracks in Palo Alto. Parents and students who
support the closing of Churchill to prevent easy access to the tracks should instead push for grade separation
of road and tracks as a more permanent solution. This can happen at any of the crossings, not just at
Churchill.
In the meantime, I understand the trauma of the train noise as triggering for many of the parents and
students. Silencing the horns when trains pass Paly and slowing the trains or even stopping them at
Churchill and then starting back up to the next station may help alleviate the trauma with sounds as well as
prevent the train from going full speed at the intersection. I appreciate this suggestion by Hank Souza who
spoke at the meeting. Please see if the city can work with Cal Trains to create that safety stop at the
intersection immediately. This would be better than completely shutting down the crossing that will
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
exacerbate the traffic situation around Palo Alto.
I lived near 1 block from Embarcadero for 24 years and have seen the pile ups of cars heading towards Paly.
Closing Churchill will just push traffic and students onto Embarcadero, the next closest link to Paly. This
corridor is already overwhelmed with cars and bikes heading to Castilleja, Paly, Stanford and Town and
Country. Forcing more commuters onto it will heighten tempers, increasing chances of accidents,
endangering the lives of students walking and biking this Embarcadero corridor. As a high school student in
the early 19080’s I remember when there were no lights at Embarcadero by Paly and witnessed many fender
benders as Paly students ran across the crosswalk (no lights) at Embarcadero to Town and Country for
lunch. My son and daughter, both alumni of Paly also witnessed the congestion and dangers while walking
to school every day.
Thank you for not jumping to close Churchill without seriously considering the amplifying affects that will
radiate out to jeopardize the safety of the students and heighten the gridlock of other the commuter
corridors.
Kimberley Wong,
Longtime resident of Palo Alto
From:Ken Kershner
To:Council, City
Cc:Lo, Ria; Transportation; City Mgr
Subject:Churchill — A Better Answer Than Full Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:30:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
After reading the staff report, I keep coming back to one question:
Why couldn't the City close Churchill to cars while keeping it open to bikes and pedestrians?
Physical barriers and monitoring staff at the crossing achieve the lethal means restriction goal.
Displacing 714 student cyclists onto unsafe alternative routes does not — it just creates a
different safety crisis. The staff report dismisses this option in essentially one paragraph.
That's not good enough for a decision that affects hundreds of student cyclists and one of the
most important active transportation corridors in the city.
Here's why the phased hybrid approach is better on every dimension that matters:
It's faster. Vehicle closure with temporary barriers is a traffic control measure that can happen
now, not in September after the school year ends and the most acute phase of the postvention
window has passed.
It protects student cyclists during the transition. Full closure routes 714 students onto
Embarcadero — which the City's own Safe Routes program won't recommend — before the
improvements are even in the Capital Improvement Program. The California Avenue tunnel
runs at 12% grade, exceeding ADA standards. And the most direct route sends students north
to Embarcadero and then contraflow on the south sidewalk directly to Paly. That's a Safe
Routes disaster. The hybrid approach keeps students on the route that actually works while the
permanent solution — Seale Avenue underpass — is built.
It avoids the mode shift trap. The staff report acknowledges that full closure may convert bike
trips to car trips. If even a quarter of the 714 student cyclists switch to being driven to school,
that's hundreds of additional vehicles on corridors already projected to hit Level of Service F.
The hybrid keeps bike trips as bikes.
It may solve the Federal Railroad Administration permanence problem. A vehicle-restricted
crossing that remains open to bikes and pedestrians may not trigger the FRA's permanent
closure classification — keeping the Quiet Zone timeline intact and preserving regulatory
optionality for the long term.
It generates real data for a permanent decision. Nobody actually knows what full closure does
to cycling mode share, substitution at other crossings, or emergency response under real
conditions. The hybrid approach runs that experiment in real time while keeping the network
functional.
And Seale Avenue underpass makes everything work permanently. Fund design now with a
2027 construction start. A bike and pedestrian underpass — not a vehicle underpass — is
buildable and fundable through Measure K and federal active transportation grants. Without
Seale, we are having this exact conversation again in two years. With Seale, there is a
permanent answer that upgrades the active transportation network regardless of what
ultimately happens at Churchill.
We want Churchill safer. We want the suicide cluster to end. But we shouldn't accept a
solution that protects one group of students by creating foreseeable safety risks for another.
Close it to cars if you must. Keep it safe for bikes. Build Seale now.
That's an answer that actually works.
Respectfully,
Ken Kershner
From:Elina Johari
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Crossing is not safe for students
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:28:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to close the Churchill crossing. For over thirty years it has not been safe for students. I’m a Palo Alto
High School graduate and a fellow graduate was remarking to me that she was astounded that they hadn’t fixed the
problem still… thirty years later.
Not only is it easy access for suicides, but students are sometimes crowding on the curbs at the crossing and
sometimes sticking out into the streets during peak hours. Also the times for preventing car crossings should be
changed as the school times have changed. A temporary closure of Churchill crossing, well signed while Palo Alto
evaluates the safety of the Churchill crossing would be a good move.
Thanks!
Best,
Elina Johari Haggerty
Sent from my iPhone
From:promiserani
To:Council, City
Subject:Means restriction at Churchill and other crossings
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11:12:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Thank you for your recent efforts in ensuring paid guards are watching our crossings to keep
our community safe. As one of the organizers of the community-led Trackwatch and a parent
of two teenagers in the district, I am writing to urge you to continue to take action for the sake
of our young people, in particular by closing the Churchill crossing. Our family lives in
Midtown and would be affected by the change, but every one of us is willing and even happy
to do so if it means that students at Paly are no longer subjected to the daily reminder of lethal
means and the past suicide deaths that have occurred there. Like Trackwatch, and like the paid
guards, this would be one part of a larger effort across our community, continuing to have
guards beyond the one year timeline, ensuring that there is grade separation at the other
crossings, making sure bikes and pedestrians are safe, and continuing to provide support at
local places like allcove, schools, and Teen centers for young people to find mental health
support. All of these are needed to help keep our community safe, but we can only act on what
is in front of us. Right now, that is the closure of Churchill, which will not only send a
decisive signal to our teens that we care, but will also keep them from physical harm, much as
we would take a weapon from their hands to keep them safe, while also holding them close
and helping them find their footing again.
We can, indeed, take action at the same time as learning more about how to mitigate the
effects. We can build a tunnel at Seale to keep bikers and pedestrians safe while we find other
ways to get around. We can watch how kids get to school help them make wise choices, even
when there is a road closure, while we find ways to reroute the displaced traffic to
Embarcadero Rd and Oregon Expressway.
For the sake of my kids, yours, and all those in our community who continue to struggle,
please take swift action to ensure the trains can pass safely without causing further harm to our
community.
Thank you,
rani Jayakumar
Midtown
From:Barbara Wallace
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Temporary Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11:12:20 AM
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,
I am opposed to the temporary closure of the Churchill crossing without the mitigations identified several
years ago by XCAP and the consultants who reported to City officials.
I am a longtime resident of Lincoln Avenue, a street broad enough to accommodate two-way traffic and
parking on both sides. For generations, Lincoln has been a walking and bicycle route for students and
workers heading to Addison, Castilleja, Paly, and Stanford.
Lincoln is next to the Alma-High-Emerson-Kingsley-Bryant (bike boulevard) network of streets adjacent to
Embarcadero. On occasion Lincoln has received a flood of traffic temporarily diverted from Embarcadero.
When I foresee a daily repetition of overflow congestion from Embarcadero and driver frustration at the
tight network of neighborhood stop signs, I worry for the safety of walkers, bikers, pram-pushers,
dogwalkers, drivers trying to back out of driveways, downtown workers, and elderly walkers like me.
Deaths on our train tracks, accidental or intentional, are always tragic. Level crossings in Palo Alto are
hazardous. Opposing closure does not indicate insensitivity to student wellness and safety. Closing the
Churchill crossing without mitigations is reckless. XCAP and the consultants show us why.
Sincerely,
Barbara Wallace
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:bill Powar
To:Council, City
Subject:Don"t Close Churchill
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:54:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Embarcadero traffic is already a nightmare at key times, with backups often reaching Bryant or
further. The Paly High/T&C traffic issues have never been addressed and closing Churchill will
do nothing but make it worse. To increase the traffic burden particularly at key rush hour times
would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Suicide is a mental health issue, not to be solved by traffic changes. Closing off one option (and
one that is used infrequently) would just cause impacted people to pursue other options. It
really won't address the problem. That requires a commitment to address the causes of
depression, not the actions taken by people looking for a way out.
Furthermore, Embarcadero is not set up for bikes, scooters, etc. Traffic coming from El Camino
goes at speeds significantly above the posted 25 MPH limit. I would expect many more injuries
and even deaths to result if all current Churchill traffic, including non-vehicular, were forced
onto Embarcadero and would far outweigh the very small number of suicides that occur at the
Churchill crossing, let alone the number that would not find another outlet for their depression.
Given that you are concerned with trains being used to commit suicide, why not just outlaw
trains passing through Palo Alto. But I guess that is just as unrealistic as closing Churchill.
If the council does take such a foolish step, I would not be surprised to see a ballot measure
filed to have the voters set aside your action.
Sincerely,
William Powar
1310 Emerson Street
From:Lisa Van Dusen
To:gstone22@gmail.com; Vicki Veenker; Lu, George; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Pat Burt;
pat@patburt.org; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Chris.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Across the Table: Intergenerational Exchange Pop-Up Invitation to pop by a Pop-up Activation in the POPOS;
Thursday, 4/16 9:30 am -1:30 pm
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:52:23 AM
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council member and Ed, Jonathan, and Chris,
I am writing with a Pop-Up Invitation to pop by a Pop-up Activation in the POPOS. It’s
tomorrow, Thursday, 4/16/26, 9:30 am -1:30 pm.
I realize you are all very busy and booked to the max. And that this is a late-breaking invite.
There will be more activations coming up in the next few months.
My goal here is to let you know this is happening and invite you to stop by and say hello if
you have a few spare minutes and are in the neighborhood of High Street and Homer Avenue,
where St. Michael’s has outdoor tables. If by some miracle, you’d like to participate fully from
10:30 am - 12:30 pm, please let me know. It would be an honor to have you in the mix, even
for a brief visit.
You may be aware that I had an art exhibition last October at Afvenidas, called Public Benefit,
which focused on Palo Alto's 12 POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces). This is
what’s happening:
Approximately 12 Palo Alto High School students will welcome about 12 older adults
for an intergenerational experience called ACROSS THE TABLE: Intergenerational
Exchange. This is part of the YCS (Youth Community Service) Paly Service Day this
Thursday, April 16th, 10:30 am - 12:30 pm at the corner of High Street and Homer
Avenue, where the St. Michael’s Alley restaurant has outdoor tables in Downtown Palo
Alto - one of Palo Alto’s 12 POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces). See the
“older adult” version of the flyer attached below for details. Note that the students,
as co-leaders of this activation, will be there from 9:30 - 1:30, while the older adults will
attend from 10:30 am - 12:30 pm.
This two-hour intergenerational exchange is an extension of my MFA in
Interdisciplinary Arts thesis project, Public Benefit, which centered around an art
exhibition last October at Avenidas, that included a conversation with Palo Alto Art
Center Director, Karen Kienzle, and a public tour focused on the 12 POPOS (Privately
Owned Public Open Spaces) in Palo Alto. Some of you came to the exhibition and
reception, so you are familiar with this project. (Thanks to those of you who came.)
This phase of the project, called Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS, is part of a
Palo Alto Public Art Program ArtLift Grant, which I was just awarded to activate and
engage the public in the POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces).
Across the Table: Intergenerational Exchange is an experiment, designed to be fun,
pique curiosity, and create connections between generations. It is a collaboration with
the youth. Ultimately, we will be members of the Public out there in the public together.
We’ll see what happens.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Of course, questions, comments, ideas are welcome as we use the POPOS as a place for the
Public to gather, connect, have fun and ultimately build a healthier community.
Best regards,
Lisa
Lisa Van Dusen
lisa@lisavandusen.com | 650-799-3883
lisavandusen.com | paloaltopopos.org
Instagram @lisavandusen LinkedIn
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City
Subject:ABSOLUTELY NO on Churchill Ave Rail Closure
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:15:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council,
I am totally opposed to closing Churchill. Previous email below.
Reasons include
* Unbelievable disruption to cars and pedestrians who currently use Churchill. Closing
Churchill will force unnecessary detours (especially for the multitude of students who
transverse Churchill, will now have to go via Embarcadero), extra gas (for those who
still drive gas cars),
* Excessive traffic on side streets and Embarcadero (which is already clogged)
* Frustration with increased risk of accidents.
* Increased time for police and fire to arrive at their destinations with potential loss of
life or property
* I support what Nadia Naik will say tonight " Why the XCAP and Consultant Work
Shows Closure
Cannot Occur Without Full Mitigations"
* Track watch works. It is cost effective and has proven to work.
* If someone (and not just a teen) wants to end their life, they will find a way. There
are other rail crossings, and easier means to do so.
In conclusion, IMHO, closing Churchill is a Knee Jerk reaction to a tragic incident. The
community is mourning, as we should, but please re-think the decision and DO NOT
CLOSE CHURCHILL. Do the most good for the most people. Keep what works (track
watch) and don't throw away all the work and recommendations from the XCAP and
consultant. Let's work together as a community to identify and support those
individuals who are at risk.
I know this is a difficult decision, but I trust that reason will prevail and the road will
remain open.
thanks for considering my opinion.
Annette
On Thursday, March 5, 2026 at 11:12:16 AM PST, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net> wrote:
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
I am opposed to closing Churchill Ave to cars.
I realize that Palo Alto teens are under incredible pressures, but closing Churchill is
not the solution, especially without a plan to mitigate this closure. I thought today's
Looking at closing Churchill: The statistics in the Daily pointed out that not all of the
suicides were teens. Frankly, and not politically correct, if someone wants to commit
suicide they will find a way or another rail crossing.
A better solution is to support our teens, and adults too. There is a crisis of loneliness,
not just teens but adults, especially older ones. We are living in stressful times.
I applaud and recommend attending the Mental Health Awareness talk on March 18th
at Mitchell Park for anyone who cares about this issue.
thanks for listening
Annette Glanckopf
From:Frank Viggiano
To:paloalto@bikesiliconvalley.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: [SVBC PALO ALTO] Churchill Closure goes to City Council - ACTION ITEM #1 TOMORROW night, Weds, April
15
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:37:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I also find Ken K.'s proposal of interest.
And I agree that a trial closure to car traffic would be a good check of how it impacts traffic on
other nearby roads. The closure should be preceded by a traffic count to compare against the
after-closure traffic count.
- Frank
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 9:15 AM David Coale <david@evcl.com> wrote:
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I think this could work and it moves all issues forward in
my mind. While I have not read the report, it seems that closure to cars would tend to
increase mode shift to biking, not decrease it as implied by some. This would also allow for
more data to see if closure at Churchill is the right solution for grade separation, which will
not happen anytime soon, and where other solutions are more expensive.
Thanks,
David
PS. I am not able to make the meeting this evening.
On Apr 14, 2026, at 10:00 PM, Ken Kershner <ken@triomotors.co> wrote:
Subject: Re: Churchill Closure — Council Vote Tomorrow Night — Why
Couldn't This Work?
Thanks Penny. This is moving fast and cycling voices need to be heard — not
just opposing closure but advocating for a solution that actually works for
everyone.
After reading the staff report, I keep coming back to one question:
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
Why couldn't the City close Churchill to cars while keeping it open to bikes and
pedestrians?
Seriously. Walk me through why this doesn't work.
Lethal means restriction requires fencing, gates, and monitoring staff at the
crossing. It doesn't require removing 714 student cyclists from their safest most
direct route to school. A properly designed channelized bike and pedestrian
corridor with four-quadrant gates, high security fencing, and monitoring staff
achieves the suicide prevention goal. The cars are gone. The bikes keep moving.
The staff report dismisses this option in essentially one paragraph. That's not
good enough for a decision that affects hundreds of student cyclists and one of
the most important active transportation corridors in the city.
Why the phased hybrid approach is better — on every dimension that matters:
It's faster on suicide prevention. Vehicle closure with temporary barriers is a
traffic control measure that can happen now — not in September after the
school year ends and the most acute phase of the postvention window has
passed.
It protects student cyclists during the transition. Full closure routes 714 students
onto Embarcadero — which the City's own Safe Routes program won't
recommend — before the improvements are even in the Capital Improvement
Program. The California Avenue tunnel runs at 12% grade, exceeding ADA
standards. The hybrid approach keeps students on the route that actually works
while the permanent solution (Seale undercrossing) is built.
It avoids the mode shift trap. The staff report itself acknowledges full closure
may convert bike trips to car trips. If even a quarter of 714 student cyclists
switch to being driven to school that's hundreds of additional vehicles on
corridors already projected to hit Level of Service F. The hybrid approach keeps
bike trips as bikes. Or hundreds of students bike north to Embarcadero and then
ride the shortest route on the south sidewalk (contraflow) directly to Paly.
That's a disaster from a Safe Routes perspective.
It may solve the Federal Railroad Administration permanence problem. A
vehicle-restricted crossing that remains open to bikes and pedestrians may not
trigger the FRA's permanent closure classification — keeping the Quiet Zone
timeline intact and preserving regulatory optionality for the long term.
It generates real data for a permanent decision. Nobody actually knows what
full closure does to cycling mode share, substitution at other crossings, or
emergency response under real conditions. The hybrid approach runs that
experiment in real time while keeping the network functional.
And Seale Avenue underpass makes everything work permanently. Fund design
asap with a 2027 construction start. A bike and pedestrian underpass — not a
vehicle underpass — is buildable in the $8-15 million range and fundable
through Measure K and federal active transportation grants. Without Seale we
permanent answer that upgrades the active transportation network regardless of
what ultimately happens at Churchill.
Let's not defend the status quo. We want Churchill safer. We want the suicide
cluster to end. But we represent the students on bikes, and we shouldn't accept a
solution that protects one group of students by creating foreseeable safety risks
for another.
Close it to cars if you must. Keep it safe for bikes. Build Seale asap. That's an
answer that works.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 6:15 PM <pennyellson12@gmail.com> wrote:
PABAC and SVBC Palo Alto Local Team,
Churchill Closure will go to City Council as an ACTION Item (Agenda Item
#1) tomorrow night, Weds, April 15.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?
meetingTemplateId=20077 Today’s Weekly article says that temporary closure
is more likely to be permanent closure.
Penny Ellson
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SVBC Palo Alto Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to paloalto+unsubscribe@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/paloalto/045f01dcc
c75%245d0b3dd0%241721b970%24%40gmail.com.
--
Ken Kershner | Co-Founder & CEO
Cell 650-248-9059 | Email k en@triomotors.coTrio Motors | Menlo Park
--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SVBC Palo Alto Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to paloalto+unsubscribe@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/paloalto/CAGzb2G1
giNPcTLrLwKBL9ceK3k5wGdDwRfeap4mLMsK5pDreew%40mail.gmail.co
m.
--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVBC Palo
Alto Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
paloalto+unsubscribe@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/paloalto/2B4CDB8B-F7BC-
4997-A38E-42346BE74265%40evcl.com.
From:David Coale
To:paloalto@bikesiliconvalley.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: [SVBC PALO ALTO] Churchill Closure goes to City Council - ACTION ITEM #1 TOMORROW night, Weds, April
15
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:19:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I think this could work and it moves all issues forward in
my mind. While I have not read the report, it seems that closure to cars would tend to increase
mode shift to biking, not decrease it as implied by some. This would also allow for more data
to see if closure at Churchill is the right solution for grade separation, which will not happen
anytime soon, and where other solutions are more expensive.
Thanks,
David
PS. I am not able to make the meeting this evening.
On Apr 14, 2026, at 10:00 PM, Ken Kershner <ken@triomotors.co> wrote:
Subject: Re: Churchill Closure — Council Vote Tomorrow Night — Why
Couldn't This Work?
Thanks Penny. This is moving fast and cycling voices need to be heard — not just
opposing closure but advocating for a solution that actually works for everyone.
After reading the staff report, I keep coming back to one question:
Why couldn't the City close Churchill to cars while keeping it open to bikes and
pedestrians?
Seriously. Walk me through why this doesn't work.
Lethal means restriction requires fencing, gates, and monitoring staff at the
crossing. It doesn't require removing 714 student cyclists from their safest most
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
direct route to school. A properly designed channelized bike and pedestrian
corridor with four-quadrant gates, high security fencing, and monitoring staff
achieves the suicide prevention goal. The cars are gone. The bikes keep moving.
The staff report dismisses this option in essentially one paragraph. That's not good
enough for a decision that affects hundreds of student cyclists and one of the most
important active transportation corridors in the city.
Why the phased hybrid approach is better — on every dimension that matters:
It's faster on suicide prevention. Vehicle closure with temporary barriers is a
traffic control measure that can happen now — not in September after the school
year ends and the most acute phase of the postvention window has passed.
It protects student cyclists during the transition. Full closure routes 714 students
onto Embarcadero — which the City's own Safe Routes program won't
recommend — before the improvements are even in the Capital Improvement
Program. The California Avenue tunnel runs at 12% grade, exceeding ADA
standards. The hybrid approach keeps students on the route that actually works
while the permanent solution (Seale undercrossing) is built.
It avoids the mode shift trap. The staff report itself acknowledges full closure may
convert bike trips to car trips. If even a quarter of 714 student cyclists switch to
being driven to school that's hundreds of additional vehicles on corridors already
projected to hit Level of Service F. The hybrid approach keeps bike trips as bikes.
Or hundreds of students bike north to Embarcadero and then ride the shortest
route on the south sidewalk (contraflow) directly to Paly. That's a disaster from a
Safe Routes perspective.
It may solve the Federal Railroad Administration permanence problem. A
vehicle-restricted crossing that remains open to bikes and pedestrians may not
trigger the FRA's permanent closure classification — keeping the Quiet Zone
timeline intact and preserving regulatory optionality for the long term.
It generates real data for a permanent decision. Nobody actually knows what full
closure does to cycling mode share, substitution at other crossings, or emergency
response under real conditions. The hybrid approach runs that experiment in real
time while keeping the network functional.
And Seale Avenue underpass makes everything work permanently. Fund design
asap with a 2027 construction start. A bike and pedestrian underpass — not a
vehicle underpass — is buildable in the $8-15 million range and fundable through
Measure K and federal active transportation grants. Without Seale we are having
this exact conversation again in two years. With Seale, there is a permanent
answer that upgrades the active transportation network regardless of what
ultimately happens at Churchill.
Let's not defend the status quo. We want Churchill safer. We want the suicide
cluster to end. But we represent the students on bikes, and we shouldn't accept a
solution that protects one group of students by creating foreseeable safety risks for
another.
Close it to cars if you must. Keep it safe for bikes. Build Seale asap. That's an
answer that works.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 6:15 PM <pennyellson12@gmail.com> wrote:
PABAC and SVBC Palo Alto Local Team,
Churchill Closure will go to City Council as an ACTION Item (Agenda Item #1)
tomorrow night, Weds, April 15.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=20077
Today’s Weekly article says that temporary closure is more likely to be permanent
closure.
Penny Ellson
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SVBC Palo Alto Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to paloalto+unsubscribe@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/paloalto/045f01dccc
75%245d0b3dd0%241721b970%24%40gmail.com.
--
Ken Kershner | Co-Founder & CEO
Cell 650-248-9059 | Email k en@triomotors.co
Trio Motors | Menlo Park
--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SVBC Palo Alto Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to paloalto+unsubscribe@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/paloalto/CAGzb2G1gi
NPcTLrLwKBL9ceK3k5wGdDwRfeap4mLMsK5pDreew%40mail.gmail.com.
From:Amie Ashton
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Safety for Bikes/Peds
Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:29:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council,
We need a solution that actually works for everyone at Churchill.
Why not close Churchill to cars while keeping it open to bikes and pedestrians?
Lethal means restriction requires fencing, gates, and monitoring staff at the crossing. It
doesn't require removing 714 student cyclists from their safest most direct route to school.
A properly designed channelized bike and pedestrian corridor with four-quadrant
gates, high security fencing, and monitoring staff achieves the suicide prevention
goal. The cars are gone. The bikes keep moving.
The staff report dismisses this option. That's not good enough for a decision that affects
hundreds of student cyclists and one of the most important active transportation corridors in
the city.
A hybrid approach is better:
It's faster on suicide prevention. Vehicle closure with temporary barriers is a traffic
control measure that can happen now — not in September after the school year ends and
the most acute phase of the postvention window has passed.
It protects student cyclists during the transition. Full closure routes 714 students onto
Embarcadero — which the City's own Safe Routes program won't recommend — before
the improvements are even in the Capital Improvement Program. The hybrid approach
keeps students on the route that actually works while the permanent solution is built.
It avoids the mode shift trap. The staff report itself acknowledges full closure may convert
bike trips to car trips. If even a quarter of 714 student cyclists switch to being driven to
school, that's hundreds of additional vehicles on corridors already projected to hit LOS F.
The hybrid approach keeps bike trips as bikes.
It keeps kids safe. Hundreds of students bike north to Embarcadero and then ride the
shortest route on the south sidewalk (contraflow) directly to Paly. That's a dangerous
disaster from a Safe Routes perspective.
It may solve the Federal Railroad Administration permanence problem. A vehicle-
restricted crossing that remains open to bikes and pedestrians may not trigger the FRA's
permanent closure classification — keeping the Quiet Zone timeline intact.
It generates real data for a permanent decision. Nobody actually knows what full closure
does to cycling mode share, substitution at other crossings, or emergency response under
real conditions. The hybrid approach runs that experiment in real time while keeping the
network functional.
Seale Avenue underpass makes everything work permanently. Fund design asap with
a 2027 construction start. A bike and pedestrian underpass — not a vehicle underpass — is
buildable in the $8-15 million range and fundable through Measure K and federal active
transportation grants.
Let's not defend the status quo. We want Churchill safer. We want the suicide cluster to
end. But we represent the students on bikes, and we shouldn't accept a solution that
protects one group of students by creating foreseeable safety risks for another.
Close it to cars if you must. Keep it safe for bikes. Build Seale asap. That's an answer
that works.
Amie Ashton
From:Julia Curtis
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill crossing closure
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 10:04:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council,
I hope you have had a well-rested weekend.
Before tomorrow's meeting, I wanted to reiterate how important it is to temporarily close the
Churchill crossing.
Paly is the only school in California that borders a railroad crossing without grade separation,
and, not coincidentally, is simultaneously in the school district with the highest teen suicide
rate in the country — four times the national average, according to NPR.
We know that without accessible lethal means, suicide decreases. It has been proven time and
time again. We know that staff and students, as well as parents, have been and continue to be
working on mental health and are still innovating new mental health resources as we speak.
But we have also seen that as the security guard contracts end, suicide does not. We need
something bigger to keep Paly students safe.
Just like any development, people will adapt, because prioritizing student safety over
inconvenience is the most important goal of both the school board and the city council — is it
not?
I stand with the Paly community when I say that I hope you consider the decision to move
forward with every perspective in mind, including the students who have lost friends, parents
who have lost children, teachers who have lost students, and neighbors who jump at the sound
of train whistles blowing.
Thank you,
Julia Curtis
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Bill Zaumen
To:Council, City
Subject:Possible Churchill closing
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 7:46:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is merely a technical comment.
A possible closing of Churchill is apparently apparently a
response to suicides involving high-school students, with
some concern about "clusters". Such events - a low rate,
with each independent of the other - have a Poisson
distribution. That distribution tends to randomly produce
bursts or clumping, in this case a completely random
process. Particularly when concerned, there is a natural
human tendency to assume a cause for the clustering when
there really isn't one. The way to check is to use
various statistical tests that can determine if the observed
distribution fits a Poisson distribution. Without doing that,
there is a risk of making suboptimal decisions.
Easy to read references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_process
Regards,
Bill Zaumen
From:Melinda McGee
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Option B – Maintain Churchill Crossing with Enhanced Measures
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 5:09:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We all share the urgent goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating teen suicide in our
community. However, closing the Churchill crossing is not the solution and may
unintentionally create additional harm.
After carefully reviewing the Rail Safety Ad Hoc Committee’s thoughtful and well-written
report, I strongly support Option B: Maintain the Crossing with Enhanced Measures.
While continuing 24/7 monitoring is costly, it is practical and responsive. Most importantly,
accelerating implementation of the Quiet Zone should be the City’s top priority. As the report
clearly states, “Quiet Zone acceleration can address long-term trauma-reduction and
environmental health goals at lower cost and disruption,” and if accelerated, “would
permanently eliminate routine train horn use at Churchill without closing the crossing.”
Eliminating routine train horns is critical. The horns disrupt instruction throughout the school
day at Palo Alto High School and serve as a constant reminder of the nearby tracks. Reducing
that noise will reduce ongoing stress and trauma for students and staff.
Closing Churchill would also have significant unintended consequences for students. My son
rode his bike to Paly every day, rain or shine. Closing the crossing would force students to
find longer, more time-consuming routes to school. It would also serve as a daily, physical
reminder of past tragedies. In addition, alternative routes currently pose greater safety risks,
and as the report notes, making those routes safer will require substantial time and funding.
Improvements to Embarcadero are needed, but they will not happen overnight.
Accelerating the Quiet Zone project — something that has been needed for decades — would
provide citywide benefits. Residents living near Caltrain would experience improved sleep and
quality of life, and the school environment would be less disrupted.
Finally, closing Churchill would negatively impact local businesses, particularly Town &
Country Village. Traffic and parking are already challenging. Diverting additional cars to
Embarcadero could discourage shoppers and push them to alternatives in neighboring
communities, such as Mountain View or Menlo Park.
We can pursue meaningful suicide prevention strategies without creating new risks and
disruptions. I urge the Council to adopt Option B and prioritize accelerated Quiet Zone
implementation while maintaining the Churchill crossing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Melinda McGee
650-704-6236
From:Nancy Krop
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing Churchill: Seale Ave Bike/Pedestrian Safety Mitigation
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 4:32:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Regardless of how you vote on closing the Churchill Caltrain crossing, I write to
request you direct staff to immediately start work on implementing the Seale Ave
bike/pedestrian public safety mitigation.
The Churchill/Alma intersection is currently a dangerous public safety hazard - with
bikes and pedestrians piled up at that intersection - that you have the power to
address and remedy.
It’s my understanding this public safety mitigation could be accomplished before
the new school year this Fall.
It’s my understanding staff is already familiar with, and has demo’d the technology
that would make this public safety mitigation possible - called “hydraulic box-
jacking.”
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration to getting this pedestrian/bike safety
mitigation implemented now - and done before the school year starts in the Fall.
Nancy Krop
Barron Park resident
From:Marissa Mayer
To:Sauls, Garrett
Cc:Zachary S. Bogue; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith;
Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Project at 910 Webster Street (Application No. 26PLN-00026)
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 4:17:53 PM
Attachments:2026.04.06 Ltr to Palo Alto re 910 Webster.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mr. Garrett Sauls
Principal Planner
Planning & Development Services Department
City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov
Dear Mr. Sauls:
We are writing to express our grave concerns about this proposed project, which is directly
adjacent to our property. The proposed density is simply too much for this location; the
proposed structure is too tall and would loom over nearby single-family homes; and it would
further intensify the clash between the different zoning designation and land uses already
existing on this single block in Palo Alto.
Our property is on the same block as 910 Webster Street, the proposed location for a new six-
story, 70-unit building that is up to 85 feet tall (the “Project”). Part of the Project includes
rezoning the Project site. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to “prescreen” the Project
on April 20, 2026. We oppose the Project because the Project’s site’s current zoning is suitable
for multi-family housing projects that better fit within the character of the neighborhood and
the Project disregards one of the main purposes of the property’s current zoning, which is to
serve as a transition between single-family residential housing and denser multi-family
residential housing.
Our understanding is that the Project proponent wants to rezone the Project site from RM-20 to
“Planned Home Zoning,” which is another term for “Planned Community” (PC) zoning. The
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
contemplated Project will be up to 85 feet tall.
In several important respects, the Project far exceeds the standards applicable to the Project
site’s current zoning, RM-20, which already allows for multi-family residential housing. If a
higher residential density is desired, the Project could take advantage of the city’s Housing
Incentive Program. The city should not sidestep the options under the Housing Incentive
Program to allow a project up to 85 feet tall that is immediately adjacent to single-family
homes.
Critically, the Project proponent does not appear to have considered the impacts on the
neighboring properties zoned R-1 and R-2. (Our home is in the R-2 district.) Project plan pages
A1.14 and A1.15A show that many units will face, and look directly down upon, the neighboring
single-family homes, including ours.
Finally, the Project would be contrary to the purpose of the RM-20 district. The RM-20 district
is “intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multi-
family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby,
including single-family residence districts. The RM-20 residence district also serves as a
transition to moderate density multi-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses.”[1]
The Project site shares the block with properties that are zoned R-1 and R-2. The requested
zoning change would negate the intentionally transitional nature of the RM-20 zoning district by
placing high density development directly adjacent to single family homes.
Even the regulations for PC districts reflect the city’s intent to have transitional zoning between
single-family districts and higher-density residential housing. Palo Alto Municipal Code section
18.38.150(b) states, “The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM or
applicable PC district shall be 35 feet” except for RM-30 or RM-40 districts, for which the
maximum height “shall be 50 feet.”
The Project does not fit the character of the zoning the City has established for this block. The
City’s stated policies, goals, and zoning laws do not support an 85-foot project next to and
overlooking single-family residential districts. The City should not allow the Project as
proposed and should not encourage the developer to continue to put resources into a project
that is widely opposed by its neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Zachary Bogue & Marissa Mayer
From:D Martell
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Drekmeier, Peter; Joe Simitian; carol@carolruthsilver.net; Aram James
Subject:Hillary Freeman ... Congratulations on Your Appointment to Emergency Council
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 3:16:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hillary, I'm sending this to your Stanford/SLAC email because our city has not assigned an email to you. -DM
Hillary Freeman, former Councilwoman
Emergency Councilmember
City of Palo Alto
Dear Hillary,
Congratulations on your appointment to the Emergency Council. I have always known you to
be a dedicated supporter of our community, and accessible to and caring about myself and the
other good residents of Palo Alto.
The press stated Palo Alto's Black councilwoman advocated to other councilmembers for your
appointment because you are a Black person. In my view, skin color should not be a factor in
this position, particularly given your established success and contributions to our community.
Thank you for your continued service to Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
-Danielle
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.comPalo Alto City Council Candidate 2005 & 2016
From:Bharat Bhushan Nandwani
To:Council, City
Subject:Subject:- Community engagement’s and new learning about health
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 2:41:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Sir,
I am Senior & want to get engaged with communities and learn new things about health so
that we together can contribute to our posterity for an ethical & healthy living. It will be a
great opportunity if I can a chance to first get some good ideas from you and repay back to
society at large.
Thanks & Regards,
Bharat Bhushan
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Vincent Croce
To:Council, City
Subject:Don"t Close Churchill!
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 1:59:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good evening,
I would like to voice my opposition to the closure of the Churchill train crossing. I am
writing from the perspective of a recent Paly graduate (class of 2020), a retired student board
member of Paly’s Theatre Arts program (of which Ash He and Summer Mehta were
involved), and a transgender adult. Additionally, my family and I have lived on Emerson
Street near both the Churchill crossing as well as the Embarcadero underpass for the past 8
years, and are intimately familiar with traffic patterns at both locations.
The loss of a student is undeniably a tragedy. However, I am concerned that the
proposed solution is a band-aid to a much deeper problem in our community. I believe that the
closure will be the first piece in a domino effect leading to new problems placing more lives at
risk.
Heavy traffic congestion at the beginning and end of the school day is inevitable for all
commuters. Should the Churchill crossing be closed, the alternate crossings available to biking
and pedestrian students include the Cal Ave and Embarcadero underpasses. I am familiar with
the Embarcadero underpass as the route I walked to school for years; the underpass is a tight
squeeze next to fast traffic that is already shared by pedestrians and bikes passing at full speed
in both directions. The underpass leads to and from sidewalks with overgrown foliage
(decreasing the available space even more) and an often-blind turn across Kingsley where cars
stopping for pedestrians, in my experience, is rare. The underpass at Cal Ave is similarly tight,
and while there are barricades intended to encourage commuters to walk their bikes, it is not
uncommon for these to be ignored. An increase in traffic in these locations will undoubtedly
lead to an increase in accidental collisions, particularly during these hours. Additionally, as car
traffic increases near and on Embarcadero with Castilleja’s recently constructed parking
garage, an even greater number of students will be competing for the same limited space. This
competition poses a safety risk to all students commuting to both Paly and Castilleja.
Meanwhile, the Churchill crossing provides the necessary infrastructure to accommodate
pedestrians, bikers, and cars for safe passage.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Paly and Gunn high school share a history of suicide clusters, but it is important to
note that Gunn’s suicide rate is comparable to Paly’s despite its campus being farther away
from the Caltrain tracks. It is also important to note that in both 2026 cases, the students were
members of the transgender community. It is an exceptionally difficult time in American
history for the community, and especially so for transgender minors. It is crucial that Paly
takes this into consideration when working to support its student body. A lack of support and
safe spaces for transgender students and other vulnerable demographics, especially when
simultaneously suffering from bullying, will contribute to isolation and higher rates of suicidal
ideation.
For these reasons, I hope that you will reconsider the closure of the Churchill crossing.
We share the same goal of creating the safest community possible for all members, which is
why I urge you to take the necessary time to examine all potential consequences of this
decision.
Thank you for your consideration,
Vincent Croce
From:Cynthia Bright
To:Council, City
Subject:Prospective Churchill Closure
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:29:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello. My husband and I are residents of Southgate. We understand the desire to close Churchill as a temporary
measure to mitigate the risk of further teen suicides. We are also sympathetic to our neighbors who are concerned
that the closure will create serious access issues for residents on both sides of Alma. We believe this decision is
extremely difficult. That said, ee are willing to live with the temporary closure as an experimental measure,
provided it is truly an experiment.
If closure is your collective decision, please consider the following: (1) commit to revisit the decision at least at 6
and 12 months, (2) understand how important the bike path will become for residents to access down town (I.e., for
the farmers market, Whole Foods, restaurants, friends) east of Alma, (3) do not “open up” Southgate to unlimited
two-way travel at Park — that would allow car traffic from Oregon Expressway to zoom through the small streets of
our neighborhood, (4) consider additional ways to calm the traffic flowing onto Embarcadero — red-light running
through the left-hand turn lane from El Camino onto Embarcadero has been horrific for years, (5) consider timing
lights on Embarcadero to better move traffic through the city, especially around Paly and Town & Country, (6)
solicit feedback from high school students at Paly for the impact of the prospective closure, and (7) please share
your decision process with the city.
Thank you.
Cynthia
Southgate Resident
From:Wyatt
To:Council, City; Police
Subject:Unprofessional Aggressive and Rude Non-Emergency Call With Female Officer on April 13th, 2026
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:10:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I have had a downstairs neighbor that has threatened me in person, on camera (he said. "I will
deck you" and got in my face), I reported it to the police, and it was documented on March
10th. We got the wrong unit last time. It surrounded loud noise like banging and flushing
toilets.
I thought he had actually been AGGRESIVELY banging on my floorboards of my apartment
beneath me for like 8 months now. I reported it to the prior property manager. Turns out it was
someone slowly dying falling over and over again in a different unit.
Banging on my floorboards occurred very badly yesterday, the slamming on my floorboards,
two nights ago between 10 pm - 2 am
and 12 pm - 4 pm, yesterday, April 13th, 2026.
I called the non-emergency line and asked if they could find the incident #. patrick 9989
badge number continuously put me on hold and did not take me seriously but was
professional. He said he couldn’t find anything off my name or phone #(?).
I was kept getting put on hold I called back multiple times and a 2nd lady hopped on the line
around 4:25 pm ish April 13th, 2026. she was VERY aggressive and PASSIVE aggressive
and told
Me I would have to call back because there was a bad crash and my situation was NOT AN
EMERGENCY (when I saved a life, and she laughed and spat in my face metaphorically; I’m
a Palo Alto citizen of 20 years btw… grew up here).
She did tell me it was a recorded line which IRONICALLY will NOT be good for her lol..
I am requesting this be looked into, she refused to give me her name or badge number, which I
know she does not have to legally.
Then badge number 4593 walker told me I had to wait an hour because it wasnt an emergency
and that the non-emergency line police officers also answer the emergency line. Which is
somewhat logical but…….
I guess this begs the question: is the police department in palo alto understaffed?
It did end up being an urgent emergency, is an hour response time acceptable really? For a
town only a couple miles wide and 67,000 people?!
I feel threatened by the PAPD and my social group has supported the 11-99 foundation (shout
out to CHP and all of our service people), and the PAPD ALWAYS.
The 2nd lady that talked to me (a female officer, not walker) did not care at all about me and
was SUPER rude and mean to me. Wow, so nice to know the palo alto police department, after
20 years of living here, treats a loyal citizen like this: by taking out her stress from an
emergency from another person feeling threatened. She lost her cool, I thought service
women, specifically dispatchers, remain calm?
I hope she learns that being calm is important. The marines have a saying I learned (although I
never was one): CIC (calm in chaos).
She was so mean to me when im feeling threatened, isnt that the opposite of what she should
do.
I am formally Requesting an internal investigation from City Council and the Palo Alto Police
Department Chief into this women's extremely unprofessional and aggressive tone and
refusing to help me.
I love my country and I love my service women. But when we are in need, they are supposed
to help; not hinder and harass.
I have bcc'd my lawyer in case I get harmed or my friends in the future and the Palo Alto
Police Department refuses to help me again and someone is SERIOUSLY injured with a
response like this.
PS:
The city of Palo Alto is god damn lucky to have Officer Glauson (vehicle 1685860 // 5220
yesterday). He might be a little direct in his tone to voice (but so am I), and he was the only
one who listened and saved a life….
Best,
Wyatt Lichtenger
650-793-6200
From:Wyatt
To:Council, City; Police
Subject:Fwd: Noise
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 11:58:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi City Council and Palo Alto Police Department,
Next time I tell the PAPD non-emergency dispatch operator that I’m pretty sure it’s an
emergency please stop putting me on hold and giving me a terrible sarcastic and aggressive
response and attitude, and making me call back 10 times…
Forwarding some information in a 2nd email, because I am requesting for an internal
investigation into one of the female PAPD’s dispatch officers, which could have almost killed
my neighbor, and refused to take me seriously. Without professional tenured Officer Glauson,
someone may have died.
The female officer did rub into my face that the call was recorded as I begged over and over
for them to come, and she laughed and sarcastically and passive aggressively said they had a
big crash and put me on hold, and I’m not the priority….
Ironically, I’m happy it was recorded :). I guess my instincts were right I saved a life and
maybe this dispatcher needs some further training in staying calm under pressure!
Thank you.
Best,
Wyatt Lichtenger
650-793-6200
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Wyatt <wyattlichtenger@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Noise
To: Karla Rubio <krubio@altahousing.org>
Wow… so happy they are ok and I called the Palo Alto Police Department.
God bless our service people and wishing the neighbor of 232 Better health.
Best,
Wyatt Lichtenger
650-793-6200
On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 9:05 AM Karla Rubio <krubio@altahousing.org> wrote:
Hi Wyatt,
Good morning. I apologize for not following up last night; we had an emergency that
required immediate attention.
Your report actually helped save a life yesterday. Based on the items I saw, I believe the
noise you heard was caused by a resident falling. When we checked on them, we discovered
they were severely ill and required urgent medical attention.
Regarding your other concerns:
- One resident confirmed they were home all day doing laundry and moving items.
- Another resident stated they were not intentionally making noise by banging or disturbing
the peace.
I will keep you updated as I receive more information. Additionally, I have a plumber
scheduled for Friday to check the pipes as a precaution. If anything else comes up I will let
you know.
Thank You,
Karla Rubio
Alma Place Community Director
krubio@altahousing.org
Office:650.473-9195
From:Susan L M
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Crossing Closure
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 11:29:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the closing of the Churchill Rail Crossing at Alma. I strongly agree and
sympathize with the families and friends who have lost children who died by suicide at
the Churchill crossing that we must prevent immediate access to the railroad tracks.
The important concern here is the easy immediate access to the tracks. The Track Watch
with security guards has been effective in deterring suicides in the past. Caltrain has
implemented measures to make it harder to access the tracks in a suicide
attempt and easier to detect "track intrusion" and warn train operators.
Installing nets across the Golden Gate Bridge has been used as an example of successful
suicide prevention of easy access to the water without closing the bridge. There are other
ways to prevent access without the permanent closure of Churchill Ave.
Easy Immediate Access is the crucial point here, similar to easy access to guns in the
home. What we should consider is Easy Immediate Access to in-person counseling,
listening, and help at a moment’s notice. Multiple chool counseling offices should be in
sight with easy access. Student counsellors are trained to notice who among their peers
may be having trouble, depressed, being bullied. They will both notify adult counselors,
teachers, and connect with that friend to prevent an immediate disastrous permanent
decision.
The city can use the funds for closing Churchill to help work with PAUSD to set up
more counseling services on campus. As a citizen of Palo Alto, I strongly agree to using
my tax dollars for this purpose, not for closing Churchill.
Thank you,
Susan Mitchell
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
High Street.
From:Lisa Nissim
To:Council, City
Subject:Creating a Safe Forum @ Wednesday Study Session
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:46:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for scheduling Wednesday’s study session considering closure of the Churchill crossing. I
am writing to ask you to focus special attention on making this forum a place where all people feel
safe in expressing their views. Unfortunately, this was not the case at the April listening session. I am
aware of several residents who had planned to speak at the April meeting but chose not to because
they were intimidated by the cheers and clapping in support of those favoring closure.
Everyone has a right to be heard. As stated in Section 5.1 in the Council Protocols and Procedures
Handbook regarding Public Participation during City Council Meetings: Open government meetings
must allow everyone to be heard without fear of cheers or jeers. For these reasons, the Council
takes these rules seriously. Disruptive or unruly behavior in violation of the law can result in
removal from the Council meeting and/or arrest and prosecution.
Using the authority you have as prescribed by these Council Protocols, I urge you not to
tolerate cheers, jeers, clapping or any other disruptive behavior on Wednesday.
No matter what side people choose on this emotional issue, we can all agree everyone attending the
Wednesday study session cares deeply about our Palo Alto community, especially about students
and adults with mental health issues. Without a safe environment for the Council to hear what
residents have to say, Councilmembers will not get all the information you need to make a decision
about this important issue.
Thank you in advance for your efforts to ensure the Wednesday study session affords our community
a safe place for rational and respectful discussion.
Sincerely,
Lisa Nissim
From:Elaine Wood
To:Council, City
Subject:Property Aggregation Colleagues Memo
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:37:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I am writing in support of the Property Aggregation Colleagues memo that was on the Council’s agenda yesterday
evening, April 13. As one who lives within a block of the continually growing compound of the Zuckerberg family,
I have seen first hand the duo effects of a) constant disruption, congestion, and noise; and b) the lasting impact on
the look and feel of a beautiful, historic, and community-enhancing neighborhood. Also it is clear the architectural
and construction project review process, as it is currently designed, does not prevent property owners from
aggregating properties and establishing high-impact compounds that discount the rights and needs of all around
them.
Please take this matter seriously and take action to protect Palo Alto’s character for the future.
Sincerely,
Elaine Ide Wood
111 Island Drive
From:Hugo Boris
To:Council, City
Subject:Dog Bite Injury – Can You Take This Case?
Date:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 4:51:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
--
Dear Counsel,
I am requesting a case evaluation following a dog bite incident that resulted in injury and
financial damages.
I believe the dog owner may be legally responsible and would like to take appropriate legal
action. I am seeking an attorney to review my case and advise on how to proceed.
Please let me know if you are available for a consultation.
Thank you,
Hugo Boris
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr
Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T
Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy
Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott 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; Alisa Pedicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek
Subject:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (4/11/26)
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 10:26:26 PM
Attachments:RV Inventory_10Apr26.xlsx
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,
It’s time for another snapshot of where we stand on the OSVs on our streets. My latest count is from 4/9 - 4/11 and numbers are holding pretty steady at 130-ish. I did add a new street, Page Mill Rd, just off of Park Blvd. next
to the tech buildings. This is not a good sign for the developers who have built modern office buildings here or plan to build additional office buildings here.
And, in the photos below I highlighted an ugly situation on Fabian Way in addition to poor East Meadow Circle and the businesses on East Meadow Circle who are subjected to this unfortunate situation day in and day out.
City Council - - please put yourself in the position of a business owner who has these RVs parked in front of your business every day or a real estate person who is trying to lease condos or lab space. It is unconscionable how
this situation has been allowed to fester month after month after month. It is your responsibility to implement policies that benefit the tax-paying residents and businesses of this community not hurt them. Remember who
elected you and who funds your coffers!
We can do better, we need to do better!!!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Talk about a perfect name for an TV on East Meadow Circle
Fabian Way (4/9/26) - - I guess my photo in my last e-mail of a OSV-Free Fabian Way was a pipe dream. Hat’s off the Palo Alto Police. This rig and his junk was gone in 24 hrs. after I reported it!
Fabian Way (4/9/26)
Fabian Way (4/9/26)
Fabian Way (4/9/26)
Fabian Way (4/9/26)
Fabian Way (4/9/26) - - Thankfully I’m not the only one reporting this blight to the police!
San Antonio Road - - Got to hand it to him (Bad Acor #3), he moved his rig one block over from Commercial Street!
Faber Place - - Yes, enjoy the view from your new lab space and your lunchtime strolls down Faber Place
Gateway to East Meadow Circle - - Such an Inviting Ambience!
East Meadow Circle - - This our buddy with the boat hitched to the back of his RV
East Meadow Circle - - Great View from the Condos at the End of the Block
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
What Me Worry! “No Parking Citywide” There are 42 other RVs parked on East Meadow Circle so I’ll just comfortable!
Palo Alto On Street OSV Count
Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs DT OSVs DT OSVs DT OSVs
##########################12/3/2025 #########1/14/2026 1/28/2026 ###################################
& 10/22/25 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11
4 4 0
2 2 0
9 5 5
1 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 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 0
3 4 2 2 0 4 1 1 0 2
1 0 0 0 0 0
200 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 24 21 14
19 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
(2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.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 4
- -- -- -1
20 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 0 15 1 12 0 12
Total:220 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 149 24 22 14
Delta:-3 9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1
Days since first count: ########20 29 43 60 85 99 115 129 141 159 170
Months since first count: ########0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6
Yellow OSVs on New Street
Green Utility Construction
Detached Trailor DT = Detached Trailers as a Subset of the Total Count
Ash Street Numerous auxillary vehicles in addition to OSV
RV Inventory_10Apr26 4/20/2026 1:03 PM
From:ANDREA B SMITH
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: 191 Walter Hays Drive
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 10:23:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The City Manager never responded to my e-mail.
If he forwarded my e-mail to the code enforcer, that person never responded. I complained when my
neighbor had her tenants cook on the stove in the garage which was/is illegal. The female code enforcer
(from the police department which was eliminated) said that "yes there is a stove in the garage but it is
covered with a blanket." The tenants did cook on the stove in the garage.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ANDREA B SMITH <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net>
To: Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 12:30:09 PM PDT
Subject: 191 Walter Hays Drive
Hello Mr. City Manager -
A neighbor (Shirley Chu) at 191 Walter Hays Drive I believe is and has lived in assisted living somewhere
maybe in Cupertino for the past several years.
There has been a very OLD rusted red truck (license 8B67124, no tag) wood slats on the back in the
driveway, flat tire for a year, two years or longer. AND her son's (at least) 20 year old Jeep Cherekee
(Colorado expired (14) license plate 978-TCW).
There may be someone living there who has a van which is not there today. I do not know when the van
left. or if there is someone living in the house.
This is not East Palo Alto - the worst part - where I use to deliver Meals on Wheels. The house looks
abandoned. Someone use to come to blow debris out of the driveway and "yard" which has not been
done in some time.
I do not understand why we have to put up with something that looks really awful.
Andrea Smith
194 Walter Hays Drive
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Switzer, Steven; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:thank you for your confidence in the applicant and staff re 3606
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 8:24:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
From:Cordell Ratzlaff
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Closing Churchill Avenue is the wrong response
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 5:33:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to reject the proposal to close the Churchill Avenue railroad
crossing.
I share the community's grief over the deaths of Palo Alto students (my daughter lost a
good friend to suicide on the Caltrain tracks in the 2009 student suicide cluster). It is
precisely because these young lives matter that the Council must resist actions that feel
meaningful but are not, and instead invest its energy where it will make a real difference.
Closing the Churchill crossing is suicide prevention theater. It gives the appearance of bold
action while not addressing the underlying cause, which is a mental health emergency
driven by academic pressure, isolation, and depression. None of these issues will be cured
by a road closure. The train will still run. The tracks will still be accessible at Embarcadero,
East Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and elsewhere along the corridor. Between 2009
and 2020, most fatalities at Palo Alto at-grade crossings occurred at Charleston and East
Meadow, not Churchill. A student in crisis will not be stopped; they will simply be redirected.
Closing Churchill does not treat the disease; it moves the symptom.
The traffic consequences are serious and well-documented. Churchill carries roughly
10,000 cars per day. The city's own prior traffic studies confirmed that diverting that volume
would severely snarl Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway. Residents and
commuters will bear that cost daily, and longer emergency response times to Stanford
Hospital and other facilities pose a real risk to anyone in a medical crisis.
The time, money, and political capital being spent on this debate should go to mental health
resources. The city should expand school counseling, invest in accessible crisis services,
accelerate the installation of quad gates to create a quiet zone at Churchill, and pursue the
long-term grade separation work that has been studied for years. These interventions
address causes, not just locations.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
I urge the Council to vote against the Churchill closure and direct the community's energy
toward solutions that will actually save lives.
Respectfully,
Cordell Ratzlaff
760 Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto, CA
cordell.ratzlaff@yahoo.com
From:David Lee
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Closure Comments 4/13/26
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 5:24:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
> Hi, I am a resident of Southgate, having lived here since 1991. Churchill is a vital street for residents of Southgate
and also for east-west traffic essential for people going to and coming home from work, as well as for Paly students,
which included my children who graduated a few years ago. I feel deeply for the suicide victims of the past years,
but root cause must be addressed, not a knee-jerk band aid. Root cause is the emotional state of the victims, not the
Churchill crossing or the trains. Many years ago I remember a Gunn student took his life by taking medicine. The
solution was not to ban medicine. Research what the emotional state of the student was, why it happened, and what
real changes must be addressed to change the state of mind of those who are affected and feel that suicide is the only
escape. Do this if you truly want to save the children in the future who contemplate this desperate and devastating
measure.
David Lee
1531 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent Public Safety Concerns Regarding Churchill Ave. Closure
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 4:14:27 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 am Barbara Hazlett, a 45 year resident in Professorville. I am writing in opposition to any
proposal to close Churchill Avenue, at the rail crossing, due to significant safety concerns for
the community. As has been well documented, the closure will result in rerouting thousands
more cars, bicyclists and pedestrians a day onto Embarcadero, already a highly congested
road. Both the Palo Alto Police and Fire Departments have expressed “significant
concerns” that this will impact their ability to reach incident locations.
Thus, there is a terrible trifecta of harm to all North Palo Alto residents.
1. There will be delays in emergency response times where minutes can make the difference
between life and death.
2. Frustrated drivers, caught in gridlock, will divert and speed through neighborhood streets
imperiling bikers, walkers and residents.
3. An exponential increase in risk to our children will be created by thousands more cars
speeding past the three schools that border Embarcadero. In particular, the hundreds
of Paly students biking, walking, skateboarding and driving to school each morning will be in
direct competition with cars for space on this street. This is clearly NOT a safe route to
school.
The City will face liability for a Churchill closure if injuries or death ensue based on three
important facts:
1. They will be rerouting a traffic count of thousands a day onto Embarcadero Road comprised
of cars, bicyclists and pedestrians into a known hazardous corridor.
2. The risk is clearly foreseeable.
3. They have failed to implement reasonable safety measures.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Bottom line: You can’t eliminate a high intensity, multi-modal thoroughfare and not expect
harmful fall out. A sound approach to deterring future suicides has been implemented, in
accordance with both the widely signed petition requesting 24 hour security guards at this and
other Palo Alto rail crossings, and the JED Foundation’s recommendation of “sustained
staffing of trained security personnel at high-risk crossings”. The call for a Churchill closure,
while emotionally understandable, is irrational, and the City will be held to account for the
harm it causes. Thank you for your attention to this critical public safety matter.
Barbara Hazlett
Professorville Neighborhood
Palo Alto, CA
From:James Lloyd
To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty
Subject:public comment re item 8 for tonight"s Council meeting
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 3:48:58 PM
Attachments:Palo Alto - 3606 El Camino Real - HAA Letter - CC.pdf
CalHDF v LCF - compressed.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 8
for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 321-unit housing development project at 3606 El
Camino Real, which includes 38 units affordable to low-income households.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Apr 13, 2026
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 3606 El Camino Real
By email: Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov;
George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov;
Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov;
Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; city.council@PaloAlto.gov
Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org;
CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”)
and AB 130 when evaluating the proposed 321-unit housing development project at 3606 El
Camino Real, which includes 38 units affordable to low-income households.
Under the HAA,1 a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a
housing development project that provides a certain percent of the total units to
lower-income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the
grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer
submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development
application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state
law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).2) This statutory provision temporarily
suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against
qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La
Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision
2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application
for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect).
1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.
However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous
version of the law or the new version of the law.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) The City’s Housing Element was
not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330
was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.
CalHDF also notes that the City’s Housing Element has planned for 37 units on the project
site, including 12 lower-income housing units. Failure to approve this project would risk
de-certification of the City’s Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
The DBL offers the project certain benefits. (See Gov. Code, § 65915.) The City must respect
these benefits. In addition to increased density, the City must grant any requested waivers
and concessions. If the City were to disapprove the requested waivers, Government Code
section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific,
adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City were to disapprove the
requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings
that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the
concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the
concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears
the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a
reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and
concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when
an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL,
the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude
construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the
bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74
Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA review under AB
130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that
local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a
CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly-needed
affordable housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will increase the city’s
tax revenue; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition
for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung
regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing
2 of 3
crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to
approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From:John Beard
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on Item No. 10, April 13, 2026 City Council meeting
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 2:32:52 PM
Attachments:Letter to City re Item 10, 4-13-26 meeting.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon,
Attached is a letter for today’s City Council meeting commenting on Item No. 10, “Colleagues Memo
on Mitigating Impacts of Property Aggregation in Residential Districts.”
Please let us know if you have any issues with the attached letter.
Thank you,
John Beard
John Beard | Of COunsel | SSL LaW FIrM LLP | 1 Post Street, Suite 2100 | San Francisco, CA 94104|
Direct: 415.243.2667 | Main: 415.814.6400 | Fax: 415.814.6401 | Email: jbeard@ssllawfirm.com
This email and any attachments may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
delete all copies. Legal Advice Disclaimer: You should recognize that responses provided by this e-mail means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face
conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion could
reach a different result.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
1 POST STREET, SUITE 2100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
TELEPHONE: 415.814.6400
FACSIMILE: 415.814.6401
business@ssllawfirm.com
CHRISTINE R. WADE
DIRECT TEL: 415.243.2088
chris@ssllawfirm.com
April 13, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY
City Council
City of Palo Alto
City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: Comments on Agenda Item No. 10 for the April 13, 2026 Regular
Meeting: “Colleagues Memo on Mitigating Impacts of Property
Aggregation in Residential Districts”
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Councilmembers:
The course of action contemplated by Agenda Item No. 10’s supporting document,
“Colleagues Memo on Mitigating Impacts of Property Aggregation in Residential Districts”
(“Memo”) is not only impractical to implement, it is severely at odds with constitutional principles
of property rights, equal protection, due process, the right to privacy, and the prohibition against
arbitrary and capricious government action. Certain provisions are also squarely in conflict with
State law.
The Memo proposes an “Aggregation Oversite Overlay” (“AOO”) district that would only
regulate certain parcels in low-density residential zones (R-1, R-2, RMD, and RE) when a “single
owner (including related LLCs, trusts, other corporate structures, affiliates, or entities working in
concert) acquires three or more parcels located within a 500-foot radius of the applicant’s real
property[.]” Once triggered, the AOO would impose, on a parcel-by-parcel basis, vacancy
restrictions, construction management requirements, and potentially a temporary moratorium on
future improvements.
First, whether the AOO would apply hinges solely on the identity of the property owner. One
particular parcel of land could be subject to vastly different regulations depending on who owns it.
This fact alone would be enough to convince any court that the regulation is unlawful. Both Federal
and State Constitutions prohibit government entities from denying any person equal protection of
the laws. Selective enforcement of existing standards or laws that on their face target specific owners
City Council
April 13, 2026
Page 2 of 3
run afoul of these constitutional protections. The proposed legislation would violate basic principles
of equal protection and well-established land use law.1
Second, the Memo’s understanding of “single owner” raises significant privacy concerns and
undercuts the bedrock principles of law that hold individual corporations or companies as separate
entities.2 The proposed regulations would effectively “pierce the corporate veil” without
establishing any of the essential elements of the alter ego doctrine which include but are not limited
to evidence of wrongdoing.3
Third, the Memo’s proposed definition of a “single owner” is unworkable. Given the City of
Palo Alto’s recordkeeping practices and resources, implementation and enforcement would be
practically impossible. And, there is no zoning map that an individual would be able to reference
to determine the extent of any AOO that is triggered “when a single owner . . . acquires three or more
parcels . . . .” Any attempt by the City to make beneficial ownership information available to the
public would be a significant violation of the constitutional right to privacy.4
Fourth, the private right of action, in and of itself, is infeasible and would be prone to abuse.
Private individuals likely would not try to determine the beneficial ownership of any given parcel.
More likely, individuals with grievances against their neighbors would abuse the process to
complicate their neighbors’ projects, increasing costs. As contemplated in the Memo, a complaining
party would have to first give written notice to the owner and to the city. An owner targeted by a
neighbor would have no recourse under the proposed regulations because it is impracticable, if not
1 See County of Butte v. Bach (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 848, 860-61 (“An examination of the California decisions
discloses that the cases in which zoning ordinances have been held invalid and unreasonable as applied to particular
property fall roughly into four categories . . . . 4. Where a small parcel is restricted and given less rights than the
surrounding property . . . thereby creating an ‘island’ in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses.” (internal
citations omitted).); see also Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 855, 859, citing
with approval Vlahos v. Little Boar’s Head District (1958) 101 N.H. 460 (“Although the decisions are not numerous,
it has been held that such a restriction [i.e., a permit condition limiting transferability of the permit] is invalid
because zoning conditions and restrictions are designed to regulate the land itself and its use and not the
person who owns or operates the premises by whom such use is to be exercised.” Emphasis added.)
2 See, e.g., . See Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-39 (“Ordinarily, a corporation is
regarded as a legal entity . . . with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations.”)
3 Id. at 539 (“Alter ego is an extreme remedy, sparingly used. [Citation omitted.] Here, at least one of the two
essential elements of the alter ego doctrine was not established; there was no evidence of any wrongdoing . . . .”)
The other element is unity of interest and ownership. Factors to be considered are commingling of funds and other
assets, inadequate capitalization, failure to maintain separate records, and use of an entity as a shell or
instrumentality for an owner’s personal business. See, e.g., JPV I L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 172 (194-
95.
4 Personal privacy “takes on special significance in the context of private residences.” Van Nuys Pub. Co. v. City
of Thousand Oaks, 5 Cal. 3d 817, 825 (1971) (citing Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970). “The
ancient concept that ‘a man's home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality
. . . .” Rowan, 397 U.S. at 737. It is “obviously reasonable to expect privacy in one’s home.” Tom v. City and County
of San Francisco (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 674, 685.
City Council
April 13, 2026
Page 3 of 3
impossible, for the owner to prove that he or she is not the owner of two other properties within 500
feet of the targeted parcel. In order to do so, the targeted property owner would theoretically have to
establish the ownership of all parcels within 500 feet. All the while, hanging over the head of the
owner is the possibility that his or her neighbor might file a lawsuit, pursuant to which, per the Memo,
said neighbor could collect attorney’s fees if deemed a “prevailing plaintiff[].”
Fifth, the City is aware that state law governs private security. As stated in the Memo, the
state is responsible for licensing private security service providers. Any regulation in this field would
have to meet the requirements for local regulations in the Private Security Services Act.
Finally, the proposed regulations would violate principles of due process and equal
protection by treating property owners differently within the same zoning district. Merely by
exercising the right to own property, an owner could trigger the AOO, thereby subjecting his or her
properties to what amounts to impermissible spot zoning that unfairly discriminates against the
owner’s properties.5 An owner using the permitting procedures established by the city to develop
and improve property that he or she lawfully acquired is not grounds to limit his or her property
rights.6
Retaliatory enforcement of laws against specific individuals, rather than uniform application
of standards across the board, violates equal protection. The course of action proposed in the Memo
would trample individuals’ rights. If the City were to adopt an ordinance as envisioned by the Memo,
it would only be inviting protracted litigation. Given the extent of the constitutional violations
inherent to the Memo’s approach, the City would not prevail.
Very truly yours,
SSL LAW FIRM, LLP
Christine R. Wade
Partner
5 See Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954 (“Be that as it may,arbitrary line-drawing is antithetical
to the individual right to equal protection of the law. The city appears to be afraid it will be forced to treat other
landowners in a nondiscriminatory manner if it treats the Rosses in a nondiscriminatory manner. This is not an idea
with much persuasive force.” (at 962); “The city appears to be saying that neighborhood opposition to construction
on nearby private property is itself a ‘rational basis’ for a local government body to forbid the construction. [¶] This
argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would be fundamentally destructive of the basic rights guaranteed by our
state and federal Constitutions. If public opinion by itself could justify the denial of constitutional rights, then those
rights would be meaningless. (at 643).)
6 See Ross, 1 Cal.App.4th at 967, citing with approval Benner v. Tribbitt (1948) 190 Md. 6 (“[I]n restricting
individual rights by exercise of the police power neither a municipal corporation nor the state legislature itself can
deprive an individual of property rights by a plebiscite of neighbors . . . . Such action is arbitrary and
unlawful . . . .”)
From:James ODonohue
To:Council, City
Subject:re: Churchill rail crossing closure discussion
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:51:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear PA City Council members,
My family has lived on Waverley St. near Embarcadero in Professorville for 40 years. Both my children
attended Paly.
Two families we know well each lost a son to suicide on the tracks, one at the Meadow or Charleston
crossing 15 years ago, and the other was a Stanford student who committed suicide at the Alma crossing
just a few years ago. We knew both boys well.
Every suicide is a tragic loss, but if the Churchill crossing is closed, any person, student or adult, who
decides to commit suicide on the tracks will go to another crossing, or climb a fence.
I believe that the only real solution to preventing these tragic suicides is 24 x 7 crossing guards.
The best argument against closure, besides the lack of efficacy, is cost. For every 1000 commuters who
lose 10 minutes a day, that is 10,000 minutes, way more that the 1440 minutes of 24 x 7 crossing guards.
The resulting traffic congestion and driver frustration will probably result in an increase in accidents
involving cars, bikes, and pedestrians, certainly injuries, and possibly deaths. There are the additional
"invisible" costs of increased traffic congestion pollution, resulting in economic and medical costs
impossible to calculate.
If the Palo Alto city council really wants to save lives, you could do what you to ensure that the existing
laws governing speed, red light and stop-sign runners are actually enforced. And please stop the
proliferation of 200 pound e-bikes traveling at 20 mph on sidewalks because children riding them will be
killed.
It will be tempting from a political perspective for any council member to vote in favor of closure, because
that will prove that they are "a member of the community of the virtuous" and sensitive to the outpouring
of grief that naturally follows suicides. But this will just be political theater, not true political leadership.
Real leadership involves looking at the proven efficacy of solutions and their direct and indirect costs to
the community.
Respectfully submitted,
James O'Donohue
1321 Waverley St
Palo Alto, CA
I live in Professorville, a few houses away from Embarcadero. I personally would tolerate the
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
inconvenience of increased traffic if it would save a young life or two, but there is no evidence that it will.
From:Deml, Amanda
To:Lynn Kearney; Council, City
Cc:City Mgr; O"Kane, Kristen
Subject:RE: Keep Cubberley’s gym
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:49:43 PM
Dear Lynn,
Thank you for reaching out and for sharing your concerns. I want to start by acknowledging the
incredible history and value of the ballroom dance program at Cubberley. A program that has been
part of the community for more than 25 years is deeply meaningful, and we understand why there is
concern about its future. I want to assure you that the City has been very aware of the Pavilion’s
long-standing use for activities like ballroom dance throughout the planning process. As part of the
Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan, we have been intentional about ensuring that there will continue
to be space for programs like yours moving forward.
While the Pavilion is now being considered as part of a future theater project in partnership with
TheatreWorks Silicon Valley, that concept is still evolving. The scope, funding, and timing have not
yet been finalized. At the same time, the proposed Recreation and Wellness Center has been
designed with large, flexible gymnasium spaces that can accommodate a variety of uses, including
ballroom dance. We have been thoughtful and intentional in planning for activities like yours to
continue in the future.
We recognize how important scheduling, floor conditions, and space feel are to your program, and
those are exactly the types of details we want to better understand as we move forward. Our goal is
not to displace long-standing community groups, but to ensure they can continue to thrive within an
updated and improved campus.
Thank you again for your advocacy and for being such an important part of the Cubberley
community. We truly value your input and encourage you to stay engaged as we refine the next
phases of the project.
Thanks
AMANDA DEML
Assistant Director for Community Services
Arts & Sciences Division
(650) 463-4950 | Amanda.Deml@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Kearney <lynnjkearney@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 6:03 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Keep Cubberley’s gym
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please please please keep the gym as a gym at Cubberley!!!
From:Rosita Wong
To:Council, City
Cc:Hana Chandler; michael.julia.grinkrug@gmail.com; Larry Kavinoky; realproduce501@gmail.com; Josie Chang;
mel.grondel@gmail.com; lkforrest@yahoo.com; priag@birketthouse.com; sandyflying66@gmail.com;
Aileen.lattmann@jll.com; debbie Kaplan; Randy Bluestone; Jiahe (Jan) Wang; TApan Mukerji
Subject:April 20 Council meeting - Comments: College Terrace Residents and Merchants comments on 531 Stanford
Demolition
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:46:54 PM
Attachments:Oppose Any Delay of Demolition Enforcement.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 Palo Alto City Council Members,
We are residents and merchants (all copied in this email) along Oxford Avenue in the College
Terrace neighborhood. We respectfully request your support on the following matters
concerning 531 Stanford Avenue:
Immediate Demolition Enforcement / Do Not Link Enforcement to Redevelopment
Approval
The structure at 531 Stanford Ave has been determined to be in violation of City code and is
currently under enforcement. We urge the City Council to require immediate demolition of the
unsafe structure and do not allow the developer to link enforcement to Redevelopment
Approval.
In addition, demolition must be conducted in full compliance with all applicable safety
requirements, including proper asbestos inspection and abatement protocols, to protect the
health and well-being of nearby residents, businesses, and families.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to protecting Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods and local businesses.
Sincerely,
College Terrace Residents and Merchants
Powered by Mimecast
Oppose Any Delay of Demolition Enforcement / Do Not Link
Enforcement to Redevelopment Approval (APNs: 137-01-121,
137-01-002, 137-01-003)
February 24, 2026
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
We are Palo Alto residents and neighbors of the property located on the combined lots
APNs: 137-01-121, 137-01-002, and 137-01-003. We are writing to strongly urge the
City Council to reject any request to delay demolition enforcement of the decayed
structures and to oppose any effort to tie demolition compliance to approval of the
developer’s proposed redevelopment plan.
The City has already determined that the property is in violation of fire code and poses a
hazard to the community. The City Council has previously ruled in favor of demolition.
This demolition order is a matter of public safety enforcement, and it must be carried
out immediately.
The property has remained vacant and deteriorated for an extended period, creating
ongoing safety and public health concerns for nearby residents. Vacant and decaying
structures have become an attractor for illegal activity, unsanitary conditions, and pests.
The City has an obligation to protect the surrounding community from these hazards.
Most importantly, I urge the Council to maintain a clear separation between two distinct
issues:
1. Code enforcement and demolition of a hazardous property, which is urgent
and required for public safety.
2. The proposed redevelopment plan, which is a separate matter that must follow
established planning processes, including due process, environmental review (as
applicable), and public hearings.
Allowing a developer to delay demolition enforcement unless and until a redevelopment
proposal is approved would establish a dangerous precedent. It would effectively allow
property owners to use public safety compliance as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in
the entitlement process. This undermines the City’s enforcement authority and weakens
public trust in fair and consistent governance.
Additional Concern: Material Misrepresentation of Environmental Safety
Standards (PCBs / Hazardous Materials)
1. In addition, the applicant has submitted a signed “PCBs in Priority Building
Materials” form (SLLC SB-330 signed.pdf) that appears to be factually
incorrect. The applicant certified that the project is exempt from PCB
requirements. However, public records and Santa Clara County Assessor data
show that the site is a former hotel, not a single-family or duplex residential
building, and that the structure was constructed in 1955 and remodeled in 1964.
Based on these facts, the correct response to Part 2 Questions A and B should
be “YES” to both. Instead, the applicant certified “NO,” which improperly allowed
the applicant to bypass mandatory PCB screening and professional sampling
requirements required under applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board
standards.
This is a serious issue. We respectfully request that the City find the
application incomplete under Government Code § 65941.1 until a professional
PCB sampling report is submitted and reviewed.
Further, the certification statement itself warns of significant penalties for
submitting false information, which we expect the City to enforce.
2. Additionally, the applicant must comply with the City’s demolition permitting and
inspection requirements. Palo Alto requires demolition and construction permit
applications to be submitted through the Accela Citizen Access (ACA)portal.
For demolitions or significant renovations, inspection for asbestos-containing
materials (ACM) is legally required under state and regional regulations
(including Cal/OSHA and BAAQMD) before permits are issued or work begins.
Given the size of the existing structure, the potential danger of asbestos fibers
being released into the air over an extended demolition period—potentially
lasting months—poses a serious health risk to nearby residents if proper testing,
abatement, containment, and monitoring are not conducted. This is not a minor
procedural matter; it is a critical public health protection.
Similarly, mandatory PCB screening and professional sampling must not be
skipped or omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The City must
require full environmental compliance and verification before allowing any
demolition or redevelopment activity to proceed.
Request to the City Council
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the City Council to:
• Uphold and enforce immediate demolition of the unsafe structures on these
lots;
• Reject any proposal that links demolition enforcement to redevelopment
approval or delays enforcement as part of negotiation; and
• Require full compliance with environmental and hazardous materials
requirements, including PCB sampling and asbestos inspection, before any
demolition or redevelopment proceeds.
Demolition enforcement is a public safety obligation and must not be treated as a
bargaining chip. Any redevelopment plan should be reviewed separately and fairly
through the normal public process, without shortcuts or political pressure.
Thank you for your service and for protecting the health and safety of Palo Alto
residents.
Sincerely,
College Terrace Residents
From:Annette Isaacson
To:Council, City
Subject:Let"s build the 321 houses at 3606 El Camino
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:46:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I hope you will approve of the new housing project at 3606 El Camino.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
Midtown, Palo Alto
From:Rosita Wong
To:Council, City
Subject:One change - Public comment for item 11 on Council Meeting April 20 agenda Re: Your e-mail to City Council
was received
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:31:29 PM
Attachments:Council Meeting April 20 Public Comment item 11 - WONG.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 City Council,
I had a typo in my public comment. If you can kindly replace the old one with this attached
PDF, I will greatly appreciate it.
Thank you
Rosita
On Apr 13, 2026, at 1:21 PM, Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all
seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in
the next available Council packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda,
you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next
meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply
with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
------------------Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with@cityofpaloalto.org and there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may comefrom City consultants acting on the City’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations,City partners, including local foundations such as the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends ofthe Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo do send out fundraisingcommunications. Please contact the appropriate City department or City Council Member to
Powered by Mimecast
April 13, 2026
Public Comment to City Council – April 20 Councill Meeting
Agenda item 11:
Quasi-Judicial: Adoption of a Resolution Documenting the City Council’s Consideration and
Decision on an Appeal of the Chief Building Official’s Order to Demolish the
Buildings Located at 531 Stanford Avenue.
Commentor:
Rosita Wong, home owner, 546 Oxford Ave (a single family home sharing rear and side property
line with 531 Stanford and involved structures)
Position:
I urge the City Council to uphold the order to demolish the endangered buildings and to proceed
with demolition promptly, in full compliance with asbestos and safety regulations.
Comments:
1. An endangered complex encircling my house presenting hazards that threaten health and
safety
The city has fully and professionally examined the structures and, based on evidence, found
the complex “to be dangerous and unsafe, constituting public nuisances that pose substantial
danger to health, safety, and general welfare”, “The Order was based on findings that the
structures were fifty percent or more damaged, decayed, or deteriorated, constituted fire
hazards, and could not be repaired to eliminate code violations”.*
It has been six months since the Order to Demolish the buildings was issued on October 16,
2025, that my house is standing next to structures facing high-risk of fire hazards due to the
buildings’ “dilapidated fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems; high combustible storage
creating excessive fire loads; improper hazardous materials storage; severely corroded and
exposed electrical wiring creating ignition sources;…non-functioning fire-rated doors and
assemblies compromising fire separation”.*
My house on Oxford
531 Stanford Structures
Any delays to enforce the Order to Demolish pose daily threats to my house and people
living inside – physically and mentally. We live with the risk that all it takes is someone
leaving an unextinguished cigarette bud inside or around the buildings, especially when the
structures are surrounded by uncared weeds, to catch a fire and could burn down the
buildings, my house and could cause lives.
2. Increasing unwanted activities in/around 531 Stanford, raising risk of fire and health hazards
I had called the police department non-emergency line many times since the buildings were
red-taped, reporting individuals: hoping fences to get into the building, camping outside,
leaving bottles of urine, food, bedsheets, trash, and even needles. These items are abandoned
around the structures, some were left in the sidewalks, and outside my driveway. Oxford and
Stanford are the major routes for children to bike to Escondido Elementary, Greene, and
Paly. I ended up removing urine bottles, bedsheets, and needles in the mornings to prevent
young children coming into contact with these items. I called Public Works many times
requesting street cleaning because it smells urination outside the buildings and my house. My
ring doorbell recorded an individual walked into my front yard and urinated behind my tree.
Rats in the size of a small rabbit are often seen run around outside my house.
These unwanted human activities, with cigarette butts, human litters and needles are doubling
the risks of fire hazards and threats to public health and safety. These activities are
Urine bottle
Urine bottle Cigarette
butts
Cigarette butts
unchecked. The police department has no authority to do anything about it. Yet, the vacant
buildings continue to attract an increasing level of unwanted activities. One cigarette bud
thrown into the buildings with dilapidated fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems; high
combustible storage creating excessive fire loads; improper hazardous materials storage
would burn down my house and take away lives. I sincerely urge to the city council to take
into consideration of threats of the endangered structures to our neighborhood, and to enforce
the Order to Demolish immediately without further delay.
Being the neighboring property next to 531
Stanford, I am often reminded of the 3-alarm
fire on El Camino and San Antonio in
December 2023. Despite its separate nature
from this case, it highlights the fact that
human activities next door, near my doorstep
could bring the same fast-spreading fire to
my house and to our neighborhood. That
grave reminder sent me to countless sleepless
nights.
3. Requesting immediate demolition with proper compliance
According to public record, 531 Stanford structures were built around 1955. By California
law, constructures built prior to 1980 are subjected to asbestos inspection. I know some
people close to 531 Stanford have respiratory issues, including myself. I request that any
demolition work should meet city and state compliance. The buildings are multi-level and
with underground parking, covering four parcels of land. Should there be asbestos contained,
the amount of hazardous materials released to the air during months of demolition would be
extremely harmful to people living nearby. When I demolished my old property (built in
1952) for re-construction in 2023, I followed the city’s compliance requirement, performed
asbestos testing, and removed asbestos found professionally in order to obtain a J permit. 531
Stanford should be expected to follow the same compliance for public safety.
4. Developers’ economic interests should not be prioritized over public safety and human life
Our neighborhood has already waited for six months since the Order to Demolish was issued.
Each day passes, we risk fire hazards and public health safety threats. I find the developer’s
appeal to link the demolition order to its future re-development plan unacceptable and urge
the council to consider a rejection to this appeal based solely on the urgent needs for
demolition.
Residents and homeowners who chose to call Palo Alto home and pay property taxes expect
the city to protect our bottom line of safety and properties. That bottom line is universal to all
residents and should not be seconded to any developers’ economic calculations. This
developer has already set a negative precedent by maneuvering legal procedures to delay
(since October 16, 2025) a needed enforcement of code violation that is jeopardizing our
safety and quality of life. Most of us in the neighborhood do not have the resources to hire a
fleet of attorneys to fight the process. We rely on the city professional staff and the city
council members to stand up and defend what is universal to public health and safety for us.
Palo Alto is a desirable community for many people because we have one of the most
respected planning and building department that enforces high quality of city growth. After
evidence-based inspections and repeated examinations by the city supporting a demolition,
further delays to a proven, needed enforcement is an attack on our city’s integrity, reputation
and the trust that brought us all to Palo Alto.
5. Willingness to work with the developer and the city
As the adjacent neighbor to 531 Stanford, I am willing to work with the developer and the
city during the demolition work, given that steps taken by the developer follows city’s
compliance.
Thank you for your consideration.
* Information is quoted from city report.
From:Rosita Wong
To:Council, City
Subject:Public comment for item 11 on Council Meeting April 20 agenda
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 1:21:29 PM
Attachments:Council Meeting April 20 Public Comment item 11 - WONG.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please kindly find attached my public comment for item 11 on the council meeting agenda on April
20.
Thank you,
Rosita Wong
546 Oxford Ave
Palo Alto
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item 8: 3606 El Camino Real
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 12:24:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Venker and Palo Alto council members,
My name is Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I am writing to ask for your vote to
approve 3606 El Camino Real. Among the many advantages here are the high
proportion of 2- and 3-bedroom homes that can support families with children.
One not-often mentioned benefit of this project is how it will support underutilized
infrastructure in the city.
First of all are the schools. Palo Alto public schools are losing enrollment, and the
ones in the Barron Park area are faring worse than average on this score. Schools
are indeed infrastructure, as they include not only physical facilities--which are getting
costlier to build each year--but also "soft infrastructure" such as faculty and curriculum
development, which take years to accomplish, and reputation, which takes decades.
Secondly is public transit, particularly the 22/522 bus route. VTA has invested a lot of
money in making this one of its highest frequency offerings, much higher than what
Samtrans offers with the ECR line, so that you often do not even have to check the
schedule first before taking this bus. So far, ridership results have been mixed, but
with the housing elements for Santa Clara County (Stanford), Palo Alto, Mountain
View, and Los Altos all providing for much housing near El Camino Real, the situation
is bound to improve -- provided that the housing actually gets permitted and built.
Along these lines, I also support the city making additional transportation
improvements around the 3606 ECR project, such as improved bike infrastructure,
but I do not think those should impact the project moving forward.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Rob Nielsen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Charlie Jackson
To:Council, City
Subject:Ballroom Dancing at the Cubberley Pavilion
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 12:17:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council Members -
Ballroom Dancing at the Cubberley Pavilion has been a Palo Alto cultural tradition for more
than 40 years.
As a young man, I discovered The Pavilion in the early 90s. Not only did I learn to dance
there, but I made many new friendships that extended over the years, and later, over the miles.
Every Friday night for a few hours, The Pavilion transforms itself into the single largest
ballroom dance floor on the west coast (or perhaps anywhere). At The Pavilion, dance shoes
aren’t just footwear—they’re the keys to a beautiful tapestry of connection and joy. There,
people of all ages and walks of life come together, drawn by the magic that only this place
creates.
Where else can you witness grandmothers in their 70s and 80s gracefully moving alongside
Stanford undergraduates? Where San Francisco surgeons exchange smiles with Milpitas
housekeepers, grocery clerks sway with software developers, and Sunnyvale teachers dance
hand in hand with San Jose entrepreneurs and Burlingame retirees? It’s more than dancing—
it’s a celebration of our community, a shared rhythm that bridges generations and
backgrounds, reminding us that the dance floor is where we all truly come alive.
Before I moved to the Seattle area 15 years ago, I was fortunate to be considered “a regular” at
The Pavilion. I’d arrive early, setting up chairs, arranging snacks, and welcoming newcomers.
It wasn’t just a gymnasium —it was a community, a family, a place where strangers became
friends and every evening felt like coming home. While the commercial ballroom studios—
Starlite Ballroom, Imperial Ballroom, The Floor, and others—came and went, the heart of the
community beat steady and strong at the Cubberley Pavilion. It's been a Palo Alto tradition
for more than 40 years.
I still dance, but nowhere else has ever felt quite like The Pavilion. Whenever I visit the Bay
Area, I plan my trips around a weekend there—so I can come “home” once again and lose
myself in its music and its magic.
Even after 15 years away, when I step through those gymnasium doors, and step onto that
giant wooden floor, I’m greeted by familiar faces and warm smiles; many of the dancers still
remember me, and the sense of belonging washes over me like no other place can.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
It is my hope that year after year, I’ll be able to return “home” to that vast, golden-hued
wooden dance floor—the heart of the Cubberley Pavilion—where friendships live, and the
music never fades.
Thank you,
Charles Jackson
Woodinville, WA
650-400-3759