Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-05-04 City Council Emails
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 5/4/2026 Document dates: 4/27/2026 – 5/4/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Lara Buelow To:Council, City Subject:crossing guards PAUSD Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 11:50:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi. I'd like to express my support for keeping all crossing guards for PAUSD. Cars drive way too fast and recklessly, especially in school zones during morning commutes. I worry about my 5 and 6yo constantly. I've literally been next to them in a crosswalk as a person basically turned right into us. With the crosswalk lights on! PROTECT CHILDRENS LIVES. Slow cars the funk down. Thank you for your hard work, Lara Buelow, mom of 2 @ Escondido Lara Buelow (she/her) Author / Career Coach 650.575.6785 @larabuelow www.larabuelow.com/book Click to schedule a meeting Sent via Superhuman This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Peter Drekmeier To:UAC Cc:Council, City Subject:Comment Letter - PA Urban Water Management Plan Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 11:09:43 AM Attachments:Final YRA Letter re- PA Urban Water Management Plan .pdf PastedGraphic-1.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Utilities Staff, Attached, please find Yosemite Rivers Alliance’s letter to the UAC regarding the City's Urban Water Management Plan. Thank you. -Peter Please note my new email address. ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier Policy Director Yosemite Rivers Alliance (Formerly Tuolumne River Trust) peter.drekmeier@yosemiterivers.org 1 May 4, 2026 Chair Greg Scharff and Commissioners Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission UAC@PaloAlto.gov Re: Item 4: 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Chair Scharff and Commissioners: While approval of Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) might seem like a formality, the document will serve as a roadmap for future programs, policies and investments, so it’s important for it to be based on accurate information and analyses. It should reflect Palo Alto’s values – our support for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and interest in reasonable drought planning and realistic rationing projections. The SFPUC is experiencing a financial death spiral, so Palo Alto needs to prepare itself for the impacts. As the price of water increases, consumers use less, and because Hetch Hetchy is a fixed-cost system, prices must increase even further to make up for lost revenue. The negative feedback loop builds on itself. Fortunately for the residents and businesses of Palo Alto, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) has become a regional leader on water issues. You do your homework and question information presented to you. Please continue this role as you consider the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The current document simply cuts and pastes information provided by the SFPUC – data and analyses you have rejected in the past. This must be corrected. A primary motivation for the SFPUC is to undermine the Bay Delta Plan. Reasonable planning will show we can produce a win/win for the environment and ratepayers. Concerns about Palo Alto’s UWMP I’m concerned that Palo Alto’s UWMP, like the One Water Plan that was rejected by the UAC, is based on unreasonable rationing projections provided by the SFPUC. Right up front the UWMP states: 2 “Given the City’s forecasted water demand and projections of water supply availability provided by the SFPUC, the City anticipates the need to implement water use reductions of up to 48% in consecutive dry year scenarios post implementation of the Bay Delta Plan Amendment.” (p. 12) As I explained in my letter on March 30, 2026 (available here), the water availability figures provided by the SFPUC for a “five consecutive dry-year sequence” are arbitrary and unsupported by facts and science. They’re based on the SFPUC’s Design Drought, which might be expected to occur once in 8,000 years (on the low end). The SFPUC’s calculations don’t show how much water would remain in storage at the end of the five consecutive dry -year sequence – water that could be used to eliminate the entirety of rationing they suggest would be required. If the SFPUC used the same drought planning scenario as other large water agencies, including Valley Water and EBMUD, the UWMP could show the need for zero rationing during the driest consecutive five-year sequence. Following is Table YRA-1 from my March 30 letter that shows water in storage at the end of each year. As a reminder, water demand in the SFPUC service area has been under 200 million gallons per day (mgd) for the past 11 years. 200 mgd equals 224 thousand acre -feet (TAF). In addition to the extreme severity of the Design Drought, the demand projections presented by the SFPUC and BAWSCA are inflated, making the rationing figures even more unreliable. I’ve heard people say they agree that the Design Drought is unreasonable, but if the SFPUC says they will base rationing on it, then we must be prepared. In reality, it’s not so straightforward. As stated in Palo Alto’s UWMP: “Implementing water use reduction greater than 20% requires the SFPUC to meet and discuss with Wholesale Customers a strategy for meeting incremental reductions above the Tier One plan. The SFPUC has the authority to make final allocation decision for the 3 portion above 20%, though the Wholesale Customers have the contractual right to challenge the proposed approach.” (p. 116) What would happen if the SFPUC tried to impose rationing greater than 20%? Curious people would visit Crystal Springs Reservoir and see it was close to full. They might then visit another SFPUC Reservoir, such as Calaveras, and it too would be close to ful l. Ambitious types might head up to Hetch Hetchy and witness yet another topped -off reservoir. The storage hit during droughts is to the SFPUC’s water bank at Don Pedro Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts. Palo Alto led a wholesale customer lawsuit against the SFPUC in the 1970s and won. We would win again. Water Demand Projections Palo Alto Utilities staff did a great job at forecasting future water demand. As shown in Table 4 -5 from the SFPUC’s UWMP (included here as Attachment A), Palo Alto is one of only seven BAWSCA agencies that projects a decline in demand, which has been the trend and is likely to continue. BAWSCA agencies that over-project demand hurt everyone by creating the impression that we might need to invest in very expensive alternative water supplies (AWS) to make up for the perceived shortfall. Hayward is a prime example. You’ll see they’re project ing demand to increase 44% by 2050, which is highly doubtful. BAWSCA needs to do a better job at monitoring and improving demand projections to protect all of its member agencies from over-investment in unneeded AWS. Impact of Cost on Water Demand In 2008, the SFPUC adopted the Water System Improvement Program – more than 80 capital projects costing $4.8 billion plus debt service. The wholesale water rate in FY 2007-08 was $1.30 per CCF. The SFPUC just adopted a wholesale rate of $6.23 per CCF for F Y 2026-27. Rates will have increased 479% in just 19 years. Skyrocketing water rates have sent a strong price signal to consumers. As a result, water demand and sales plummeted over the past two decades (back to the death spiral). The SFPUC now acknowledges the need to invest another $10.1 billion in capital projects over the next 30 years. Here’s what they say: “The regional and local water systems have capital needs totaling $10.1B ($6.8B in Local/Regional + $3.3B in HHW), including addressing regulatory requirements for all 4 reservoirs and dams…We have spread these necessary projects over a 30 -year period while prioritizing the most critical.”1 How will this additional spending impact rates and demand? Over-projecting water demand and sales has serious budget implications. You’ll see from the SFPUC’s recent FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Report2 that water sales revenues were down by almost $23 million. Source: SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026 Water Demand vs. Sales Projections It should be noted that SFPUC sales projections are produced by their Finance Bureau, whereas the demand projections included in the UWMP are produced by their Water Enterprise and BAWSCA. The UWMP numbers are always considerably higher. In 2022, we convinced the SFPUC Commissioners to take interest in the large gap between the two sets of projections, and they directed staff to produce a report.3 Here’s what it said about the projections: Water Enterprise "…the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the next 25 years...These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected.” 1 SFPUC Water Enterprise Budget and CIP Presentation, January 29, 2026 (slide 14) – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa811d26a902b48ffa9d611b3cc5669ee 2 SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/seb03a545f6ef4b8b8355977efeca86e2 3 SFPUC Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections, July 5, 2022 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa628ebe9c31e4326b84ffa2976f9f9a3 5 Finance Bureau "By contrast, for the purpose of financial planning and for short term water system management, we estimate the demand that we are likely to experience. For budgeting and rate setting we use demand projections that are as close to actual as we can make them.” Both the Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau have always over-projected demand/sales, but Finance has been much closer to the actuals. Following is Table 20 from Palo Alto’s UWMP showing demand projections. Attachment B shows the SFPUC’s Financial Plan sales projections. The following table shows the difference in RWS demand/sales between the two sets of projections. Unnecessary Rationing Leads to Lower Sales and Higher Rates As I pointed out in my letter to the UAC on April 1, 2026 (available here), the Design Drought is beyond unreasonable. It might be expected once in 8,000 years and is 19 times less likely to occur than a repeat of the drought of record (which other agencies plan for). The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment used 100 years of observed data, 1,100 years of tree ring data and produced 25,000 years of model data, but did not produce a single drought as severe as the Design Drought. Yet all SFPUC water supply planning is run through the Design Drought model. Attachment C provides an example of how this impacts ratepayers. In November 2021, when the SFPUC 6 declared a Water Shortage Emergency and asked everyone to conserve, they had 4.5 year’s - worth of water in storage. They never had less than 4 year’s -worth of water in storage during the entire 2020-22 drought. As a result of unneeded rationing, the SFPUC experienced a $30 million revenue shortfall in FY 2023 -24. How did the Water Shortage Emergency impact Palo Alto? Palo Alto’s UWMP states: “During the 2021 drought, City water use declined by 15% in response to SFPUC’s system-wide voluntary water reduction measure.” (p. 97) And: “As a retail provider, the City’s fixed costs primarily relate to the cost of operating and maintaining the City’s distribution system. Due to the City’s volumetric rate structure, decline in sales revenue will exceed the decline in expenses. For each stage in the WSCP and assuming 2025 rate schedules, the revenue shortfall, net of the decline in expenses and based on FY 2025 costs and revenues, is calculated to be: Stage 1: Up to 10% target water savings results in $1.8 million shortfall Stage 2: 10% - 20% target water savings results in $3.5 million shortfall …”(p. 111) This suggests Palo Alto Utilities experienced a loss of about $2.5 million in sales revenue following the declaration of the Water Shortage Emergency and request for consumers to conserve. The impact was long-term, as explained in the UWMP: “Use per account declined from FY 2020 to FY 2025 due to voluntary water use reductions adopted during the 2021 drought. Overall water use per account decreased by 10%.” (p. 53) Alternative Water Supplies Shockingly, the figures used in the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan 4 are based on the inflated Water Enterprise demand projections. The AWS Plan projects the need to develop between 92 and 122 mgd. Based proportionally on AWS projects identified in the AWS Plan, 92 to 122 mgd would cost $17 to $25 billion. Here’s what Palo Alto’s UWMP says about the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan: 4 4SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan, February 2024 – https://hetchhetchy.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/12/SFPUC-recent-demand.pdf 7 “In 2019, the SFPUC established the Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Program to identify and plan water supply and storage projects and actions that increase the dry - year reliability of the RWS. Based on the 2045 planning horizon that the SFPUC applied in its February 2024 AWS Plan, the SFPUC anticipates a water supply gap will occur in future dry years. The AWS Program aims to help fill the gap through local and regional capital projects. The February 2024 AWS Plan identified six regional projects that might partially address the future water supply gap and the priorities for this planning effort. Since the development of that plan, three projects have been deferred (Daly City Recycled Water Expansion, Alameda County Water District-Union Sanitary District Purified Water, and Calaveras Reservoir Expansion) and one project has been canceled (Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion). The AWS Program is continuing to pursue the following two projects: [PureWater Peninsula and South Bay Purified Water].” (p. 76) Here's the background on the SFPUC’s AWS Program. After many meetings where SFPUC staff espoused gloom and doom about the Bay Delta Plan’s potential impact on water supply (based on the Design Drought and inflated demand projections), the Commissioners dir ected them to produce a plan to meet the stated shortfall. Staff was in a predicament, because they knew their claims were exaggerated. To support their narrative, they based the AWS Plan on Water Enterprise (UWMP) demand projections, even though they alwa ys claim the UWMP is not a planning document. And here’s the background on PureWater Peninsula, one of the two remaining viable AWS projects. It would cost $747 million (see Attachment D) but would produce only 6 mgd of new water. Assuming BAWSCA pays for two-thirds of the project, that would amount to $500 million. Assuming Palo Alto is on the hook for 7% of BAWSCA’s share, that would amount to $35 million. Is PureWater Peninsula even needed, and would it provide any benefit to Palo Alto? The SFPUC and BAWSCA should be prepared to make their case to the UAC. If the SFPUC based drought planning on the drought of record (1987 -92) – the high end of what all other water agencies plan for – they would not need to develop any new alternative water supplies. Not 6 mgd, and certainly not 92 -122 mgd. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Palo Alto’s UWMP. I hope you will consider the information presented here and make significant changes to the document. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Policy Director 8 Attachment A Source: SFPUC draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, March 2026, p. 4-16 – https://www.sfpuc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-UWMP-Public-Draft.pdf 9 Attachment B – SFPUC Financial Plan 10 Attachment C Irrational Fear of Water Shortages Leads to Budget Deficits and Rate Increases Example: SFPUC Water Shortage Emergency Declaration (2021) Summary November 2021: Following two dry years, the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and called for systemwide water use reductions. At the time of the declaration, the SFPUC had more than a million acre-feet of water in storage (see below) – enough to last 4.5 years. April 2022: The SFPUC imposed a 5% drought surcharge on San Francisco retail customers to make up for lost sales. Wholesale customers enacted their own measures. Early December 2022 : SFPUC storage was at a drought low-point of 932 thousand acre-feet – still enough water to last 4 years. January 2023: After extremely heavy precipitation in December and January, it was clear the SFPUC would achieve full storage. On January 17, storage was at 1.35 million acre -feet. May 2023: The SFPUC finally lifted the drought surcharge, but not before it was built into their FY 2023-24 budget. That budget experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a $5 million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales. Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 6, 2021 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s3f98fbd30ca8422f9bf2697011658a15 11 SFPUC storage hit its lowest point of the drought in early December, 2022, but there was still enough water to last four years. Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 5, 2022 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se561a2fd0c224d50b095180735655931 By mid-January 2023, SFPUC storage had already reached 92% of capacity and snowpack accumulation was on a record-setting pace. The drought was clearly over. Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s1111ed0e5e0340309c66116c8fbdd606 12 Snowpack can be considered “water in the bank,” and it was clear there would be a tremendous amount of runoff in the spring to top off all the reservoirs with lots of water to spill. Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023 The SFPUC Water Enterprise was headed toward a large budget deficit in FY 2023 -24 – it ended up being $25 million in lost retail (San Francisco) revenues and $5 million in lost wholesale (BAWSCA) revenues. Here’s how it was explained: “Water and Wastewater: revenues are projected to be below budget. The budget was adopted assuming the drought surcharge would remain. It was removed May of 2023. Additionally, the wholesale water volumes are lower than expected.”5 Why did the SFPUC wait until May to lift the drought surcharge, and why did they assume it would remain in place for another year despite the extremely wet beginning to 2023? How did the Water Supply Emergency and call for water conservation impact Palo Alto Utility finances and water rates? Was it prudent for the SFPUC to declare a Water Supply Emergency when they had 4.5 year’s - worth of water in storage? The Design Drought suggests it was. 5 SFPUC FY 2023-24 1st Quarter Budget Report, December 12, 2023 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se1f88d7d5b3a41829939713649bc1802 13 Source: SFPUC FY 2023-24 4th Quarter Budget Report, September 24, 2024 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s297e2428d54946e5a39c984791d83b82 Based on the following graph, was it reasonable for the SFPUC to wait until May to lift their drought surcharge? Source: SFPUC Water Supply Conditions Update, October 2, 2023 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sf6f82f2b14124eb78816f30e2163bdb1 The SFPUC ended the water year entitled to enough water (2.77 million acre -feet) to refill all of their reservoirs almost twice. 14 Attachment D – PureWater Peninsula Source: SFPUC Water Enterprise Fiscal Years 2027-2036 Ten Year CIP, January 13, 2026, p. 94 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa9d58a5cbdfa427795f0da6a7727efd2 From:Michael Regula To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: Support Housing Near the CalTrain Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 10:46:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto City Council, My name is Mike Regula and I live in University South neighborhood. SB 79 will have a significant impact on the neighborhood that I live in for the better. My wife and I live within 15 minutes of the Palo Alto CalTrain station, which SB79 directly impacts, and have reaped the benefits this enables. For one, it allows us to walk/bike to the CalTrain to visit friends and family, reducing our transportation costs by more than $10,000 per year, money that we use to support Palo Alto businesses. For another, these modes of transportation improve Palo Alto's air quality, reduce particulate emissions, and move us closer to achieving our sustainability goals, which is particularly important to us as young professionals. It also adds even more value to our local economy. It excites me that more people will be able to contribute to our community in the same way. More housing near the CalTrain stations will provide a steady stream of regular customers to our local businesses while also building greater community pride in our high value downtown areas at University and Cal Ave. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it, Cheers, Mike Regula This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:David Ball To:Deborah Goldeen Cc:epna-discuss@googlegroups.com; Council, City; rstolee@gmail.com Subject:Re: Leaving Evergreen Park Neighborhood After 40 Years Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 10:34:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thank you for this important bit of history. Preserving things "as they are" really depends on your timeline. When I look back and see that the Grateful Dead used to perform here, I think about how no struggling musician could afford to live anywhere near here--and I think that, besides the importance to the civitas, having a variety of people across all dimensions (including economic class) adds to the cultural life of a place. I would love to have a coop instead of Mollie Stone's, and I wasn't aware that it had ever been anything else. In other words, saying that "density is a change" ignores all the changes that have already happened. We should argue about what kind of town/world we want on the merits--not on the basis of an arbitrary definition of the status quo. DB On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 2:06 PM Deborah Goldeen <deborah.goldeen@sonic.net> wrote: I expect most people who know me have noticed, by now, the for sale/open house sign in front of my house (2130 Birch). My dream for that property was to “be the change that you want to see” and build four, 2,400 square foot flats (for private ownership, not rental). Since I first started giving our urban design serious thought, at the age of eight, my vision for Palo Alto was always along the lines of a European type city; a walkable, bikeable, culturally and economically vibrant metropolis with lots of privately owned, four or five story flats. Palo Alto does not need more low income/charity housing. Even more so, it does not need more luxury housing. What Palo Alto needs is housing for “the missing middle.” Even though we had to scrimp and save for decades to afford our house, everyone reading this will know what I mean when I say we were blessed to be able to buy what was probably the last single family home sold for under $300K in Palo Alto. Because we believe in “sharing the wealth,” we were going to donate the value of the property. We would have ended up with one, well designed, large enough residence for us, and three other homes that, by Palo Alto standards, would have been affordable. Even more important, unlike all the “housing” be built on “the El Camino Corridor,” it would be located in a spot where someone could truly thrive, not just survive. SB79 should have allowed us to do this. But no. The state gatve cities an opportunity to get ahead of the game and develop “objective standards.” No city put more energy and enthusiasm into this project than Palo Alto. he upshot is that the City of Palo Alto has created so many restrictions that we can’t build four, decent units at 2130 Birch. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Our new house isn’t very far away. Ironically, it’s still, technically, in Palo Alto. The house is new to us, but it is not new, which means we are now running the repair gauntlet. This has involved a couple of emergency technician calls, technicians who are driving in from Gilroy or Tracy or Livermore (we pay their travel time). When I explain to the technicians why we moved and how I’ve had decades of hearing Palo Alto residents say, “people can just go live somewhere else,” you can see the smoke coming out of their ears. What to do about SB79 is item 14 on city council agenda tomorrow (Monday, May 4th). If you are contemplating weighing in, please consider the fact that even though you may not personally see or experience the hurt caused by obstructing the construction of decent, denser housing, make no mistake - the number of people hurt by this decades truculence is probably, by now, in the millions. Palo Alto likes to pride itself on its humanitarian/environmentally conscious values. When I was growing up here in the ’60’s and ’70’s, those values did indeed, fairly often, prevail. There was a promise that the City of Palo Alto could have delivered on those values and been a shining example for the rest of the state. But no. Cowardice, self preservation and greed ended up ruling the day. Based on my personal values, I feel Palo Alto has failed. God only knows what is going to be built on 2130 Birch St. now. What happens to that property now is out of our control. Even though this long email, which most won’t read to the end, I have included a link to a an excellent OWN Real Estate produced video about the Palo Alto and building housing. I have found that the vast majority of residents who I talk with about housing in Palo Alto are woefully uniformed or misinformed. This video is as close to unbiased as it comes and presents the information with an extraordinary level of rigor and clarity. I can’t recommend it enough. Wishing you all the best and see you at the farmers market - Deborah Goldeen https://youtu.be/XBWyE2bGaLk?si=KImTlkPtUeQGRXOG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EPNA Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epna- discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epna-discuss@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/epna-discuss/34573AD7- 26F2-4D9F-A4C5-E2FC46C57555%40sonic.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From:Sungjune Park To:Love, Dominay Cc:Ihnhwa Song; Mokhtar, Ahmad; Daneshmand, Bijan; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 9:04:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. I don't think we can live in a hotel, but we aren't going to request some fancy SFH either. We don't need to get money from PG&E, no problem for PG&E to directly pay the property owner/management. But we need to understand what is the allowed limit and the duration to even look for a place. Can I look for a $5,000/mo, $7,000/mo, $10,000/mo? What is it? I am not going to do all the research only to find out from you that you can't support. And this is the continued attitude that I can't stand. Everything is open. Nothing is definitive or helpful. My car is destroyed... "Oh sorry it is the contractor's problem. But I said I am sorry." You offered a place, yet I am the one that need to look for options without any guidelines. Construction duration quietly extended. Please. My family is going through this suffering daily. None of you on this email thread live here. And I wonder if any of you have even been to the site. We have already been going through this for five month since last December. There is another four months that we must endure this which is an absolute nightmare. On Mon, May 4, 2026, 8:43 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Hello, Thank you for your patience while I looked into this further as this isn’t usually something we usually do. We are able to book and pay for a local hotel room through the duration of the project. There will not be a monthly allowance provided. Thank you From: Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:44:52 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com>; Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Daneshmand, Bijan <B3D4@pge.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Hi Could you please let us know the monthly allowance amount and the duration for which it will be provided? On Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 9:01 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Hello, At this time, we can offer your family temporary accommodations in another house in the area of the same size and quality, or a hotel if you prefer. This will be a quieter space and will hopefully provide some relief through the remainder of the project. We apologize that your family has been impacted and again we are working as safely and efficiently as possible. The location of the tanks has been and are continuing to be monitored by The City of Palo Alto. Thank you, Get Outlook for iOS From: Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:35:48 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com>; Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Daneshmand, Bijan <B3D4@pge.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Hi- I can no longer tolerate the noise coming from the water tank; it is causing significant mental stress, especially in the early morning hours. Furthermore, I have nearly collided with passing cars on Middlefield Road multiple times while attempting to turn left. My visibility is completely obstructed, and the existing mirror is not helpful at all. I am requesting that the water tank adjacent to my property be relocated. It is unfair that my family is the only one forced to endure these noise and safety issues. On Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 12:24 PM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: I believe you misunderstood my previous email, Sungjune regarding communication that the project had been delayed previously. The signage dates allow for our current permit approval duration. We are required to renew permits after a certain duration of time. Nonetheless, if you require access to drive in or out of the side driveway please just go out and let any crew member know for now. We are also working on getting something to put over those hoses so that you are able to drive in and out without needing to alert the crew. Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:10 PM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com>; Daneshmand, Bijan <B3D4@pge.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Please do not make false statements; every No Parking sign on Ashton Ave. states an end date of 6/1, also the digital roadside signage on Middlefield states the same date. Even 6/1 is an incorrect date based on what you have told me back in end of March. So, no proper communication is happening. If the drive is accessible anytime, then please provide the name and phone number of the on-site contact person I can reach for driveway access. This person should either 1) confirm I can drive over those water pipes when entering the property or 2) have them promptly removed. Lastly, I do not permit the use of my property for any construction work. Please ensure no water pipe is dangerously laid on my property. I just observed several water pipes along the front and side of my property line. On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:40 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Sungjune, My initial email to you this morning I apologized on behalf of PG&E for the accident, and the project delays. The previous construction timeline update was communicated through a no parking street sign, and confirmed when you sent an email in. The driveway is accessible at any time, Sungjune. The equipment currently located on the street consists of groundwater filtration units, which must remain in place until the final tie-in is completed. Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:24 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> Cc: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com>; Daneshmand, Bijan <B3D4@pge.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. I am adding them back. They can reach out to me directly and request removal, since I started the thread. Free free to remove them when you respond to the thread. Wow, I'm very surprised that even a simple apology is such a hard thing to receive. I don't need temporary housing, so I decline your offer. However, I mentioned this multiple times in my correspondence with you and Ahmad that I have a remodeling planned on my property that I discussed with my architect before this construction was even notified to the neighbors. This is why I repeatedly asked for the completion date, so I can also coordinate my schedule. Just quietly extending the construction time seems unacceptable. PG&E sent a notice to the neighborhood last time there was an extension, why not this time? Also, City and PG&E discussed the water tanks and moved it THREE times due to bad planning. Why can't the water tanks move down the street? The third time when the water tanks were moved, it was split into two smaller tanks to give my driveway back. Ahmad, I am not sure if you're aware, but that driveway is BLOCKED AGAIN with water pipes! (See attached photos) Is the City really overseeing what is happening here? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:02 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Sungjune, The City Council and City Clerk has requested not to be added onto our email thread. Please do not include them going forward. Please see below: Hi Dominay, Please remove City Council and City Clerk from any future responses from PG&E. Thank you, Holly Holly Boyd, P.E. Assistant Director Public Works Department (650) 329-2612 | holly.boyd@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works Thanks, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:42 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Hi Ahmad, Dominay, Deferring your responsibility to some downstream contractor/subcontractor is not an apology. I am very upset with how the City is dealing with the situation. Also, I am very confused by Dominay's email. Has the construction been delayed further without notifying the neighborhood? Below is the communication that we (between you, Ahmad and myself) had at the end of March, just about a month ago. The construction was supposed to be completed by late June / mid July, which was already more than a 1.5mo. delay from the original May end date which was mentioned back in November of 2025. Based on your current POR timeline, can you please clarify when the water tanks adjacent to my property will be removed? How much longer must I endure this? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 9:10 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Good morning Sungjune, We were made aware of the accident by our contractor (ARB) when it occurred. All compensation will be handled through ARB. We understand this entire project as well as the accident has been a major inconvenience to your life and we deeply apologize. We are doing our very best to work as safely, and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned unforeseen circumstances have come up which delayed the project completion and we are actively resolving issues as they come up. The following is a current high level bullet point schedule with tentative dates. I’ve also attached a Section Exhibit to help identify areas of work: Section 1 · 04/09/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 2 · 05/01/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 3 · 04/23/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/08/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 4 · 05/11/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/22/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 5 · 05/26/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 06/15/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 6 · 06/16/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 07/10/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Pipe Testing & Tie-In · 7/10/26 Test Pipe · 7/16/26 Tie-In Pipe Pipeline Abandonment · 07/22/26 Slurry Fill Pipe Final Backfill & Restoration · 08/10/26 Paving & Striping · *Please note weather and other factors could adjust these dates. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:28 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. https://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/privacy. From:Vladimir Prelovac To:Council, City Subject:Suggestion to reconsider stop sign placement at Webster/Kingsley Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 8:01:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Vladimir Prelovac, a Palo Alto resident. I would like to respectfully suggest reviewing the stop sign configuration at the intersection of Webster Street and Kingsley Avenue. Currently, Kingsley has the stop signs while Webster traffic flows through. I believe reversing this would better reflect actual usage of the intersection, for two reasons: 1) Kingsley is the larger through-street and consistently carries more traffic than Webster. 2) In the mornings, Kingsley is a primary bike route for high schoolers heading to Palo Alto High School. Many students living on this side of Paly take Kingsley as their main corridor to campus, and requiring them to stop at every block adds friction and, more importantly, safety risk when cars on Webster may not anticipate cyclist volume. Placing the stop signs on Webster instead would align right-of-way with the dominant traffic and bicycle flow, and would likely improve both throughput and student safety during peak school hours. Thank you for considering this suggestion. I am happy to provide additional observations or discuss further if useful. Best regards, Vladimir Prelovac 655 Kingsley ave, Palo Alto, CA This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Rob Nielsen To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: [INSERT SUBJECT HERE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR SB 79] Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 2:18:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Venker and other Palo Alto City Council members, I am Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I am writing to urge you to implement SB 79 in good faith in order to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly urge the council either to allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or to implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the Palo Alto Transit Center. Focusing housing near transit is particularly beneficial as it makes the best of transit investments by city, county, and state entities. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access— provided we take advantage of it. Rob Nielsen This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:William M. Conlon To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: Support for Emergency Ordinances Date:Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:31:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Bill Conlon, and I have lived in Old Palo Alto for 42 years. SB79 provides for housing density of 100 dwelling units per acre within 1/2 mile of the California Avenue train station, an area of some 506 acres, with still higher density closer to the station. The 1/2-mile radius extends from Tasso to Williams Street and from Lowell to El Dorado and could potentially hold 50,000 new units. At 1000 square feet each, and assuming current price per square foot, this $100 billion real estate developer wet dream would instead be an urban renewal project. Unlike urban renewal, which involves the clearing of blighted areas, SB79 will allow the destruction of vital, vibrant, and valuable neighborhoods. And like urban renewal, SB79 will entail displacement of entire communities. YIMBY advocates argue that existing residents will benefit from higher land values while arguing the contradiction that increased supply will make housing more affordable. And they disregard the lost value from air, view/light, water, noise, traffic, and other impacts from the transformation of our community into an urban renewal zone with ongoing large scale high-rise construction projects. It's conceivable that SB79 urban renewal will cause residents to flee to avoid these impacts and the risk of declining property values. Moreover, it is ironic that SB79 prioritizes housing in the immediate vicinity of the Caltrain stations, apparently to restore Palo Alto's status as a bedroom community for San Francisco, rather than addressing the needs of our community to house those who work here, not only in technology, but in community services like police, fire, education, healthcare, government, and the local businesses we patronize. The vacancies are proof that new housing is not meeting the needs of people who want to live here -- it's often too small and oriented toward delivering "units" instead of homes. In considering options, I urge the council and staff to consider the long-term implications of SB79 on our infrastructure (schools, roads, water and wastewater, power, public safety). We need housing alternatives that can sustain Palo Alto as a community that people want to live in, not merely commute to and from. Let's craft housing plans that benefit Palo Alto, instead of pit us against each other. Bill Conlon From:Deborah Goldeen To:epna-discuss@googlegroups.com Cc:Council, City; rstolee@gmail.com Subject:Leaving Evergreen Park Neighborhood After 40 Years Date:Sunday, May 3, 2026 2:06:06 PM I expect most people who know me have noticed, by now, the for sale/open house sign in front of my house (2130 Birch). My dream for that property was to “be the change that you want to see” and build four, 2,400 square foot flats (for private ownership, not rental). Since I first started giving our urban design serious thought, at the age of eight, my vision for Palo Alto was always along the lines of a European type city; a walkable, bikeable, culturally and economically vibrant metropolis with lots of privately owned, four or five story flats. Palo Alto does not need more low income/charity housing. Even more so, it does not need more luxury housing. What Palo Alto needs is housing for “the missing middle.” Even though we had to scrimp and save for decades to afford our house, everyone reading this will know what I mean when I say we were blessed to be able to buy what was probably the last single family home sold for under $300K in Palo Alto. Because we believe in “sharing the wealth,” we were going to donate the value of the property. We would have ended up with one, well designed, large enough residence for us, and three other homes that, by Palo Alto standards, would have been affordable. Even more important, unlike all the “housing” be built on “the El Camino Corridor,” it would be located in a spot where someone could truly thrive, not just survive. SB79 should have allowed us to do this. But no. The state gatve cities an opportunity to get ahead of the game and develop “objective standards.” No city put more energy and enthusiasm into this project than Palo Alto. he upshot is that the City of Palo Alto has created so many restrictions that we can’t build four, decent units at 2130 Birch. Our new house isn’t very far away. Ironically, it’s still, technically, in Palo Alto. The house is new to us, but it is not new, which means we are now running the repair gauntlet. This has involved a couple of emergency technician calls, technicians who are driving in from Gilroy or Tracy or Livermore (we pay their travel time). When I explain to the technicians why we moved and how I’ve had decades of hearing Palo Alto residents say, “people can just go live somewhere else,” you can see the smoke coming out of their ears. What to do about SB79 is item 14 on city council agenda tomorrow (Monday, May 4th). If you are contemplating weighing in, please consider the fact that even though you may not personally see or experience the hurt caused by obstructing the construction of decent, denser housing, make no mistake - the number of people hurt by this decades truculence is probably, by now, in the millions. Palo Alto likes to pride itself on its humanitarian/environmentally conscious values. When I was growing up here in the ’60’s and ’70’s, those values did indeed, fairly often, prevail. There was a promise that the City of Palo Alto could have delivered on those values and been a shining example for the rest of the state. But no. Cowardice, self preservation and greed ended up ruling the day. Based on my personal values, I feel Palo Alto has failed. God only knows what is going to be built on 2130 Birch St. now. What happens to that property now is out of our control. Even though this long email, which most won’t read to the end, I have included a link to a an excellent OWN Real Estate produced video about the Palo Alto and building housing. I have found that the vast majority of residents who I talk with about housing in Palo Alto are woefully uniformed or misinformed. This video is as close to unbiased as it comes and presents the information with an extraordinary level of rigor and clarity. I can’t recommend it enough. Wishing you all the best and see you at the farmers market - Deborah Goldeen https://youtu.be/XBWyE2bGaLk?si=KImTlkPtUeQGRXOG From:Barb V To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: support for housing near transit and SB79 Date:Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:51:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Barb Voss and I live in Palo Alto Redwoods (4250 El Camino Real) Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. Please also prioritize affordable and accessible housing near transit hubs. I am a locally- employed educator with disabilities who recently went through a housing transition. I was shocked at how few properties in Palo Alto have accessible housing options. This forced difficult compromises for me - living further than desired from my job, and letting go of some accessibility features that would eventually enable me to age in place as my condition progresses. Although I am currently able to drive, many people with disabilities are not. It's critically important that transit-accessible housing be designed with accessibility in mind from the beginning to make sure that our community is inclusive and affordable. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Barb Voss, 4250 El Camino Real C221, Palo Alto CA 94306 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Steve Pierce To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:SB 79 Revised Exhibit Date:Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:20:14 AM Attachments:SB 79 Exhihit A Color Version.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Dear Council Members, The attached color version of Exhibit A [to the letter sent on Friday May 1, also attached] shows more clearly that there are numerous examples of historic homes with multifamily residences on the the rear portion of the lot. This common lotting pattern supports my request that SB 79 units be permitted on parcels with an historic structure when that structure is retained. It is critical that we maximize the opportunities for new housing. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Date: May 1, 2026 To: Members of the City Council From: Steve Pierce RE: SB 79, Item #14, Meting May 4, 2026 Should the Council decide to exclude sites containing historic resource from SB 79 development standards, that exclusion should NOT include sites where SB 79 development will not result in the removal of the historic resource. In areas such as Downtown North where there are extensive areas zoned R-2 and RM [multifamily], it is common for there to be multiple residences on a parcel. There are many examples of 100+/- year old homes with additional structures, including apartment buildings, behind. Because this is the prevalent land use pattern in Downtown North, it should be allowed to continue under SB 79, if the historic home is preserved. Powered by Mimecast By way of example, the property at 177 Bryant is a Category 4 historic home located on the front quarter of a largely vacant 11,000+sf parcel zoned RM-20. [See Exhibit A.] To its left [#171] is a 12 unit multifamily structure. To the right is an historic bungalow [#179] with multiple units on the rear of the site. As shown in Exhibit A, this block [like many others in downtown] is dense, with multiple residences on most parcels. Our historic homes are a community resource and if they are preserved, development of precious housing can occur on the same parcel, as has been demonstrated over the decades. The blanket exclusion of sites with historic resources is not appropriate. Although there are historic homes, Downtown North is not Professorville. From:Pamela Mayerfeld To:Council, City Subject:Bike lanes on East Meadow Dr & Fabian Date:Saturday, May 2, 2026 6:20:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I noticed in the Palo Alto Daily that you will be discussing requesting a grant for $326,590 for bike lanes on East Meadow Drive & Fabian Way. I hope you are not still considering making it a separated bikeway, putting bollards & reducing parking on East Meadow Dr between Middlefield & Louis. There are presently ample bike lanes in this section Reducing parking will create several hazards Ramos Park is heavily used (especially with the wonderful new bathrooms) and relies on street parking If parking was removed adjacent to Ramos on the South side of E Meadow 3 dangerous situations would increase (both already happening) people would have to park on the North side of E Meadow & then cross E Meadow to reach the park (often with strollers & equipment) people would make U turns on E Meadow in order to park on the North side people would have to park on Ross Road, making the shared bike lane more dangerous PLEASE listen to the people who use Ramos Park as well as those who live in the area before you get rid of parking on East Meadow Dr. Thank you, Pam Mayerfeld From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:Flock cameras information report Date:Saturday, May 2, 2026 2:33:53 PM To: Palo Alto City Council Members From: Winter Dellenbach RE: Flock Cameras: Stop the denial A number of supposed control measures have and are to be instituted as mentioned in the 2-page Information Report on Flock camera usage in Palo Alto. Most were in place at the inception of the PAPD’s contract with Flock in 2023. Some additional oversight has now been added (see Report) in an attempt to smooth over Flocks wrong doing. What is the problem? "In 2023, unbeknownst to many users including PAPD, Flock added a new “Nationwide Lookup” search feature. Using this feature, an out-of-state local law enforcement or federal agency could perform a broad search of data from Flock’s entire nationwide network of over 6000 cameras, including the 20 cameras then-deployed in Palo Alto. The feature did not enable targeted searches of any specific agency’s data. These searches could only be performed system-wide when a full 7-digit license plate number was known and only based on the articulation of a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” (Information Report) PAPD was finally made aware of this Nationwide Lookup feature by Flock in Dec. 2025, including its discontinuance in late October, 2024. All California law enforcement agencies were finally notified by March 2025. It took that long! None of Flocks recent notifications should instill any confidence by any reasonable person in Flocks surveillance. It was dishonest and reckless to launch its Nationwide Lookup, violating its agreement with Palo Alto. That no specific Palo Alto license plate was broadly targeted by law enforcement and ICE nationwide is sheer luck, excusing nothing. Yet PAPD seems to be trying to tell us, Folks, it’s fine, there’s nothing to see here, move along, move along. No, Palo Alto and PAPD shouldn’t move along. We should stop doing business with Flock now, not waiting on a non-conflicted auditor to report. Given Flocks nationwide breach of trust, we should do what Denver, Santa Clara Co, several cities in the Country and Santa Cruz have done - stop doing any business with Flock. To do less is being is to deny reality - Flock cannot be trusted. Palo Alto should take action rather than being hood-winked. Winter Dellenbach From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Knight, Julia; Armer, Jennifer Subject:Item 14 on SB 79 alternatives Date:Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:33:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and council members, Recommendations 1) Select option 4 and ask staff to develop an Alternative TOD plan to meet SB 79 and city housing goals 2) Direct staff to continue developing and expand the Downtown Housing Plan to include more sites. Explanation Option 4 the development of an alternative TOD plan to meet the SB 79 goals meets the city housing goals and allows the most local control consistent with continuing to promote our Housing Element goals and programs. By allowing the SB 79 density to be moved around, it maximizes the location of new housing in areas close to jobs, shopping, services and public and Stanford shuttle transit. In particular, option 4 could support new housing in the broader downtown area, which is ideally suited and also supports less car use. In addition, option 4 is also the only option that truly minimizes the impacts on R1 neighborhoods if that is what residents and council members want. And option 4 can include option 2 by exempting historic sites to the extent allowed by SB 79 In contrast option 3 will, as I understand it, allow townhomes and small apartments in R1 neighborhoods as that is consistent with 50% of the SB 79 density. I hope staff will show members and the public pictures of the housing that will be allowed under option 3 in R1 neighborhoods. I hope the council has time and energy to help staff move forward on the Downtown Housing Plan. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast As it exists, it includes only the least likely parcels to site housing and faces challenges outlined in the October 2025 Strategic Economic report cited in the staff report. I suggest a broader definition including the SOFA and parts of University South and North. 660 University, 332 Forest and the townhome proposal on Webster are all outside the existing study area yet that is where housing is being proposed. I favor an area from Everett to Homer or the north side of Channing and extending to Middlefield in parts of the area. I support the ULI study findings about the potential on lands near the transit center and note that these lands and portions of Stanford are in the 1/4 mile area. Whatever else council chooses, please include these sites in the housing inventory update underway by staff. As a downtown resident, I believe our area is well suited for more housing and it is time to make housing more feasible in the north part of Palo Alto. Stephen Levy From:Adam Schwartz To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Please approve new homes at 3781 El Camino Real Date:Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:20:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the members of the Palo Alto City Council: Hello, my name is Adam Schwartz, and I live with my family in a townhouse in University South. I write to ask you to please support the proposal to build 183 new homes at 3781 El Camino Real. This is a great place for new neighbors, near transit, jobs, and amenities. It will also help revitalize the ECR corridor: new neighbors are new customers for our local businesses. So many people I know would love the opportunity to live in the bay area in new homes like these. They can help make our beautiful city even more beautiful. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community, Adam Schwartz University South From:Adam Schwartz To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: please fully implement SB 79 to build new homes Date:Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:16:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Palo Alto city council: Greetings, my name is Adam Schwartz, and I have lived in Palo Alto for a decade, mostly in University South. I write to respectfully request that you fully implement SB 79 to promote the most new homes reasonably possible around our Caltrain stations (two in Palo Alto and one adjacent to us in Mountain View). I particularly hope the council will either (1) allow SB 79 to go into effect as written, or (2) implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. The local and state issue I care about the most is building new homes in our beautiful city and entire bay area. So many of my friends and family members want to stay here or move here, but are being pushed out or block from moving in by one thing: the high rents and home purchase prices. This problem is caused in significant part by overly restrictive zoning, permitting, and fees. So this problem can be solved in significant part by adjusting our local policies. Our city's implementation of SB 79 is a great opportunity to do this. Let's take this chance to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access Sincerely, Adam Schwartz University South From:Ken Novak To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: Implement SB 79 Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 11:03:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello , My name is Ken Novak and I live near Duveneck school. I’m writing to urge you to implement SB 79 in good faith to maximize housing near our Caltrain stations. This law presents a significant opportunity to address our housing shortage, improve affordability, and strengthen transit-oriented development. I encourage the council to either allow SB 79 to take effect as written or adopt a local alternative that meaningfully expands housing capacity—particularly across our downtown area, along the California Avenue corridor, and at key sites such as the University Station Transit Center. These are high-opportunity locations where additional housing can support both residents and our broader economic and environmental goals. SB 79 offers a rare chance to align housing growth with transit access. I urge you to take full advantage of this opportunity and ensure that implementation results in substantial, not minimal, new housing capacity. Ken Novak 1644 Channing Ave, Palo Alto, Ca 94303 krnovak@gmail.com This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Ken Novak To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Support for 3781 El Camino Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 11:03:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is Ken Novak and I live near Duveneck school. I’m writing to ask you to support the proposed project at 3781 El Camino Real, which would deliver 183 new homes and contribute to the revitalization of the El Camino Real corridor. This proposal—along with other Builder’s Remedy applications—demonstrates how our community benefits when local policies allow flexibility to move housing forward. Projects like this can help us meet our housing goals, increase street activity, and support local businesses by bringing more residents into the area. Thank you for your continued support for expanding housing opportunities in our community. Ken Novak 1644 Channing Ave, Palo Alto, Ca 94303 krnovak@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Gia Pham To:Council, City Subject:Item 14 on 5/04/26: SB 79 Public Comment Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 9:29:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto living at the Stanford Apartments in Alma Village on Alma Street near Grocery Outlet. I am submitting my comments on SB 79 both as a resident and as a nonprofit professional working in the city. I work as the Communications Coordinator at Housing Choices, where we support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in finding and retaining affordable housing. SB 79 will have a significant impact on cities across California, and that impact will largely depend on how local jurisdictions choose to implement it, making it important that cities carefully consider their approach. It is important that Palo Alto’s approach reflects long-term priorities that support a thriving and vibrant city that retains its historical roots while thoughtfully and intentionally adapting to the needs of the community. Maximize Housing Near Stuff Those with Disabilities In my work with individuals with developmental disabilities, I see daily how essential public transit and walkable communities are for a stable life. Access to affordable housing and reliable transportation, nearby services, and jobs without dependence on a car - and urban design that supports multimodal mobility - directly determines independence and quality of life. Those with disabilities get constantly pushed to the sides, it's important for city leadership to make urban planning decisions that are universally designed to optimize the success for all its residents. Myself This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report I have also experienced the value of living near transit and services personally (even though I am able bodied) while living and working in Palo Alto. For 1 year I didn’t have a car due to a hit and run. During this time, I had to make mandatory monthly orthodontic appointments as well as go to work. Good thing I lived 3 minutes from the dentist and a 15 minute “Palo Alto Link” ride to work. Sometimes I had to go to Santa Clara. My nearest reliable bus stop was a 25-minute walk to access these regional routes. Not terrible but could be better. These experiences highlight how critical it is to live near transit hubs like Caltrain and major bus lines, as well as everyday essentials such as healthcare, food, and employment centers. Someone I know I also live with someone who relies entirely on biking and does not own a car, which reinforces how important safe and connected infrastructure is for daily mobility. Because of this, I strongly believe housing should be prioritized/maximized in locations where it best supports daily life—near transit, jobs, schools, grocery stores, and healthcare, and in areas that reduce dependence on private vehicles. This is especially important for people with disabilities, low-income workers balancing multiple jobs, residents without cars, and students or newcomers to the region. Preserve Historic Sites Beyond transportation, I value Palo Alto’s cultural and community assets that contribute to livability for residents of all ages and incomes. Preserving historic and community sites such as Gamble Garden and Ramona Street supports public enjoyment and provides accessible, low-cost or free activities. I am a big supporter of “cheap thrills,” and I believe museums, historic places, and interesting streets help define the city’s character while also creating walkable, engaging neighborhoods where people can access educational and affordable leisure activities. Therefore, Palo Alto should move forward with a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan without delay. This is the only option that actively accomplishes both: preserve historic sites and maximize housing in best sites. Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge the City Council to prioritize policies that ensure housing is both accessible and well-connected, so all residents, regardless of income (as people like teachers or nonprofit workers may qualify as low income even when they are providing meaningful value to the community) or ability, can fully participate in Palo Alto’s community life. Warm Regards, Gia Pham From:Steven Atneosen To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: We support SB 79 Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 8:09:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We live in the College Terrace neighborhood and most recently, Crescent Park. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. We care deeply about housing near transit because it is one of the most practical, equitable, and environmentally responsible ways to grow Palo Alto. Concentrating housing near Caltrain reduces car dependence, lowers emissions, and allows people—especially families, young professionals, and essential workers—to live closer to where they work, shop, and build community. It also helps ensure that Palo Alto remains a diverse and economically vibrant city rather than an increasingly exclusive one. More importantly, this is an opportunity to bring Palo Alto fully into the 21st century. All European cities have demonstrated that thoughtful density near transit creates thriving “15- minute cities”—places where daily needs are accessible within a short walk or bike ride. These communities are not only more sustainable, but also more livable, resilient, and socially connected. Palo Alto already has the foundational elements—transit, a strong downtown, and walkable corridors—but we have not yet aligned our housing policies to realize that vision. By embracing SB 79 and focusing growth around transit, the City can help create vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods where residents can live, work, and connect without relying on long commutes or car trips. This is how we strengthen our local economy, reduce congestion, and preserve quality of life at the same time. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access—if we take advantage of it. Steven Atneosen and Caroline Dahllof Steven Atneosen atneosen@hotmail.com From:Pauline Hamamoto To:Council, City Subject:Please continue Palo Alto Link beyond June 30, 2026 Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 7:35:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Council Members: Please do not cancel Palo Alto Link. I know that I speak for myself as well as other seniors who use Palo Alto Link. Since August 2025 I have been using Palo Alto Link because my car was totaled by my insurance company due to vandalism: breaking the driver side and passenger side windows, the sunroof, and having blood in the front and back seats. There was nothing to steal because the car was empty while being parked outside my home. I have limited income and live on my social security. Fortunately, my son pays my rent. My husband died five years ago. Everyday, Monday to Friday, I use Palo Alto Link to go to Stevenson House to help seniors who live there who might need help filling out documents because they do not speak or read English but only speak or read Chinese, Russian, Spanish, and other languages. Luckily I am able to use "translate" to help them. Some seniors are unable to button their clothes when I see them and they come to me while I'm sitting on my rollator walker. As well, I eat lunch and donate $5 for each meal. After leaving Stevenson House, I run errands like going to the Post Office on Hamilton Avenue where I have a postal box because mail or packages on my street are stolen every day. I use PAL to get groceries, go to the bank, go to FedEx to fax to my bank's head office, go to Walgreens or CVS Drug Store, Eye Doctor, Personal Doctor, Stanford Hospital, Dentist, public library. On Sundays, luckily a friend takes me to church. Other riders in the PAL vehicles have expressed the same concerns but I do not know if they are able to address the Palo Alto City Council. Many do not have internet nor a computer. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Paying $2 for a one way ride is affordable for me and for others. The most I spend a day is $4 to $6 a day. Using Uber or Lyft will cost more even with a voucher. The drivers of PAL all know me because I am a frequent rider. They are careful in watching their speed limit, watching for pedestrians and bike riders as well as cars. They are kind to all the riders. The City needs to continue to support this program. Students, workers, and others, mainly seniors, use this program. The seniors I have met in the PAL vehicles do not own cars and do not drive. They all mention that they are living on limited income. I am praying that the Palo Alto Link Program continues. Thank you kindly. Sincerely, Pauline Hamamoto From:Reid Kleckner To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: Housing is the cornerstone of prosperity Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 5:24:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Reid Kleckner and I live in Midtown. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. In particular, the California Avenue district could use more homes. It is ideally located next to several businesses that would all greatly benefit from additional customer foot traffic. It is an opportunity for new residents and families to live a low-car, walkable lifestyle. There are three grocery stores right in that neighborhood, and my neighbors and I would all have fresher produce if more patrons shopped there. A bakery, GK Pastry, recently opened on Park Ave, but declined to renew its lease after a few months. Now I miss that convenient sourdough that I could pick up on my way home after getting off the train at the Cal Ave train station. If we had housing-over-retail on the Cal Ave strip, then maybe we'd be able to support our own neighborhood-local bakery. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it, Reid Kleckner This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Steve Pierce To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Item #14 SB 79 Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 3:58:05 PM Attachments:SB 79 Exhibit A.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Date: May 1, 2026 To: Members of the City Council From: Steve Pierce RE: SB 79, Item #14, Meting May 4, 2026 Should the Council decide to exclude sites containing historic resource from SB 79 development standards, that exclusion should NOT include sites where SB 79 development will not result in the removal of the historic resource. In areas such as Downtown North where there are extensive areas zoned R-2 and RM [multifamily], it is common for there to be multiple residences on a parcel. There are many examples of 100+/- year old homes with additional structures, including apartment buildings, behind. Because this is the prevalent land use pattern in Downtown North, it should be allowed to continue under SB 79, if the historic home is preserved. By way of example, the property at 177 Bryant is a Category 4 historic home located on the front quarter of a largely vacant 11,000+sf parcel zoned RM-20. [See Exhibit A.] To its left [#171] is a 12 unit multifamily structure. To the right is an historic bungalow [#179] with multiple units on the rear of the site. As shown in Exhibit A, this block [like many others in downtown] is dense, with multiple residences on most parcels. Our historic homes are a community resource and if they are preserved, development of precious housing can occur on the same parcel, as has been demonstrated over the decades. The blanket exclusion of sites with historic resources is not appropriate. Although there are historic homes, Downtown North is not Professorville. Powered by Mimecast From:Russell Siegelman To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: I strongly support SB 79 - please implement it in Palo Alto! Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 3:11:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Russell Siegelman and I live at 244 Santa Rita Av. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. I want more housing, more rental housing and more affordable housing in Palo Alto. We need to build more housing in CA and other cities in Silicon Valley (e.g. Mt View, Cupertino, Redwood City) have built significant multi-family rental housing. Why can’t we? I want our teachers, fire fighters, police force and more middle and lower class families to be able to live in my community. Our zoning has blocked out these folks for decades. There are now laws like SB 79 to change that and we need to enforce them and build accordingly. There is a significant multi-family project proposed on the site of Molly Stone’s grocery store . This is very close to my home and I strongly support this development. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Please make sure we do! Russell Siegelman Russell.siegelman@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:dgoldeen@icloud.com To:pdsdirector Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Report #:2603-6132 (SB79) Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 3:00:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mr. Jonathan Lait - Nice work! I’ve read a lot of staff reports. This one was really well done, and on such an important topic. Thank you. - Deb Goldeen, 94304 From:David Ball To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: Denser housing Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 1:19:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is David Ball and I live in Evergreen Park. SB 79 is really important to provide affordable housing and to cut down on greenhouse gases by building near Caltrain stations. IGNORE ALL MY NIMBY NEIGHBORS--hey, we all wished we lived somewhere that didn't have exorbitant housing or climate crisis, but that is not the world as it is. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Thank you, David Ball (Greer Stone's former professor) This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Jaime Bayan To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: SUPPORT FOR SB 79] Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 1:17:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Jaime Bayan and I live on Greer Road . Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University . Living near transit promotes using public transit and less need for owning a car. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it, Sincerely , Jaime and Lisa Bayan This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Susan Setterholm To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: [INSERT SUBJECT HERE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR SB 79] Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 12:34:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Susan and I lived in Downtown Palo Alto (Forest). Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high- opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. Palo Alto and California need housing near transit. As we look at the medium-term probability of huge fuel price increases, it is obvious we all need more people to take public transportation from where they live. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Susan Setterholm From:Christopher A Kantarjiev To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item 14: I support SB79"s initiative to improve housing equity in Palo Alto Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 12:06:02 PM Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Christopher Kantarjiev and I live in Southgate. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center. I understand that there are concerns about the Mollie Stone's project - but honestly, it's a perfect location for dense housing. The people who eventually live there have easy walking access to transit, retail, and food ... unlike the San Antonio corridor, which seems designed to require more car trips, not fewer. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it, Thank you, Chris Kantarjiev From:Rob Schreiber To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Support for 3781 El Camino Real Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 11:55:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councillors and Commissioners, Please allow me to reïterate some points that I recently made about the 3606 ECR project. They concern the desirability of new housing on ECR at 3781 and in South Palo Alto generally. This site is in the middle of the stretch of El Camino that represents a huge opportunity because it is now wasted on things ranging from weeds to decaying low-value single-story structures. The arguments are the same. This project makes a positive impact in many directions, not least by helping achieve our growth goals in a core area of the city, reducing pressure for overdevelopment in the peripheral and resource-poor SARAP area. Very important, to my way of thinking, is to help counter the disturbing trend of wholesale replacement of medium (by our extraordinary standards) priced housing options by redevelopment of south Palo Alto homes into housing only for the very wealthy. Rob Schreiber (A resident of Greenmeadow) PS. Here is the earlier message: The project at 3606 El Camino has so much going for it. It has a builder who can and will build it; it "pencils out". It addresses parking. It will replace a completely underused, blighted stretch of the depressing, embarrassing South Palo Alto El Camino. It will bring over 300 younger, less wealthy individuals and families into our ever more economically homogeneous city, add demand for retail and services, reduce the commute times for these new residents, and add students to the public schools, which should continue to be at the core of what makes this city special. Please vote to approve it. No objection based on bicycling or other secondary considerations should be allowed to delay or derail it. We need housing and we need investment and we need redevelopment of antiquated decaying streets. We need these things now. Thank you for considering these things before deciding. From:Glenn Fisher To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 10:41:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I STRONGLY object to considering the closure of Churchill rail crossing. You are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, suicide is terrible, but closing Churchill does not stop access to Caltrain tracks, and most suicides have occurred at other crossings. Closing Churchill seriously endangers pedestrians and bike riders who will be diverted to either Page Mill or Embarcadero, which have high traffic and high speeds. In addition, both of those under crossings are seriously impacted at rush hour, creating additional congestion. It’s time to stop inaction and hand-wringing and move forward with grade separation. That is the real solution here. If you’d made a decision several years ago instead of dithering, the project would be moving along and have a visible horizon. Now we still see a 15 year window for any result. As a resident of South Palo Alto, I find this inexcusable. Make a commitment to grade separation, and let’s move toward a real solution of the problem. Glenn Fisher Adobe Meadow, Palo Alto From:CaraSilver@proton.me To:Council, City Cc:Austin Marshall; David Waksberg; Mike Slind Subject:May 5 Agenda Item: New Coalition SOS Palo Alto Requests Immediate Termination of Flock Contract Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 9:57:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members: On behalf of SOS Palo Alto (Safety Over Surveillance), a coalition of ten local community organizations, we write to express our alarm over the recent revelations that data from Palo Alto’s Flock surveillance system was shared with multiple external organizations, over an extended period of time. These revelations did not surprise us: they conform to our experience with Flock in other cities, locally and across the country. However, the scope of the access is quite alarming. While the Palo Alto Police Department has repeatedly claimed that its Flock camera system has never been accessed by outside agencies, the Department’s recent release of network audit logs shows a multi-year pattern of outside agencies improperly accessing the Department’s system in violation of California law (SB 34) and the City’s own Surveillance Use Policy. Despite guardrails that you and your colleagues had established, audit logs show that outside organizations were able to easily access Palo Alto’s Flock database without required prior authorization. Indeed, outside agencies were able to access the City’s Flock system hundreds of times by directly accessing its Flock database without complying with the City’s written policies. While Flock has claimed that past violations have been corrected, we believe Palo Alto data remain vulnerable to back door or side door access. Flock has shown time and again that its system is easily hackable and that it is willing to allow outside agencies into other cities’ databases without proper authorization. Throughout the country, Flock data has been accessed for ICE investigations and for actions against women seeking abortions. Palo Alto residents were assured that, because the City had done its homework, Palo Alto would be different. Recent revelations call those assurances into question. Furthermore, we have seen evidence that Flock cameras have been used elsewhere for monitoring dissent. We do not anticipate Palo Alto agencies would pursue such an approach. However, the combination of data leakage incidents and the cavalier attitude toward civil liberties exhibited by the current federal administration is cause for grave concern. Based on our understanding of the City’s Surveillance Use Policy, it appears that either Palo Alto data from the Flock system was shared with unauthorized parties without the City Council’s or the Police Department's knowledge, or the Police Department ignored the policy safeguards that the City Council had specifically put in place for the Flock system. In light of the above, our coalition calls on our City to take two policy actions: 1. To cancel its contract with Flock. 2. To cover Flock cameras until the Flock contract is canceled. In addition, we understand that the City seeks to engage an independent auditor to report on the Flock system prior to a decision on the contract’s renewal or non-renewal. Because we have observed that audits of Flock in other cities have been incomplete and over-reliant on assertions by Flock, we request a transparent process in which the public has access to information about the design and parameters of the audit and in which local experts are able to advise the City on best practices for such an audit. Thank you for your leadership. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you fully. On behalf of Palo Alto SOS (Safety Over Surveillance), Austin Marshall Cara Silver David Waksberg SOS Palo Alto (Safety Over Surveillance) Coalition members: Blue Turn Indivisible Envision Transform Build East Palo Alto (ETB) Indivisible Mid-Peninsula Indivisible Palo Alto Plus Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE) Multi-Faith Voices for Peace and Justice Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN) Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America Together We Will - Palo Alto/Mountain View Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From:Raghav Lal To:Council, City Subject:Save Palo Alto Link! Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:26:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please keep the Palo Alto Link service it helps reduce auto traffic for within Palo Alto travel. Thanks, Raghav LAL Resident of Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Frick, Coleman; Armer, Jennifer; Scottoneil Subject:Public Comment Agenda Item 14: Implementing SB 79 to Promote Homes and Further City Goals Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 5:33:07 PM Attachments:2026.3.9 Public Comment on SB-79 Implementation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon city council, Please see the attached comment with Palo Alto Forward's perspective regarding the implementation of SB 79. We hope the city will leverage the law strategically to address our housing needs, promote homes near transit, and build a more inclusive community. Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to seeing you at May Fete this weekend, Jeremy -- Jeremy Levine (he • him) Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward (650) 485-0127 April 30, 2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Agenda Item 14, Implementation of SB 79 To the Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Forward works to expand housing and transportation choices in our community. In furthering our mission, we want the city to implement SB 79 in a way that maximizes housing options near transportation in our community, promoting housing affordability, walkability, transit access. To that end, we support the city implementing SB 79 as written, as we believe every neighborhood–especially those near transit–can benefit from additional housing options. However, we understand the city has additional goals. To best achieve those goals, we would also support the city implementing a good faith local alternative plan (Approach 4) to comply with SB 79. A local alternative plan will allow the city to focus new homes in the places that make the most sense near transit, jobs, and amenities. SB 79 provides a tool to further opportunities for transit-oriented homes such as the Downtown Housing Plan, the University Station Transit Center, and the Cal Ave corridor. By implementing a local alternative plan, Palo Alto can maximize housing allowed in the places that make the most sense for development. It can build upon its housing element commitments to actually meet its housing goals. And it can facilitate sustainable lifestyles for current and future Palo Alto residents, who will benefit from more vibrant mixed-use residential and commercial areas with more customers and more diversity of housing options. If a local alternative plan will take substantial time to pass, we would endorse allowing SB 79 to take effect combined with an emergency ordinance as proposed by staff to exempt historic sites in the interim. We have identified several factors that we believe some council members care about—though they are not our top priority—on which the four approaches presented in the staff report create tradeoffs. These are presented below in Table 1 on the following page, and will be explored in detail in the rest of this document. As discussed in the following pages, Approach 4 (move forward with a TOD Alternative Plan without delay) best meets the city’s specified goals for SB 79 implementation. Table 1 - Comparison of Approaches Approach Default SB-79 TOD Alternative Plan 1: No Action 2: Emergency Ordinance 3: 50% Now, Rest in 2032 4: TOD Alternative Plan Now Minimizes Expense To City Reduces R-1 Neighborhood Impact Promotes Cohesive Massing Maximizes Housing on Best Sites Maximizes Chances of Building RHNA Preserves SDBL Height Exemption Preserves Historic Sites Delays or Avoids Full TOD Alternative Plan Table 1. Comparison of approaches presented by staff. A check mark means the approach accomplishes that goal, a minus sign means the approach has no impact on the goal relative to baseline assumptions under SB 79, and an X means the approach directly undermines the stated goal. Analysis of Factors The following sections explain in detail our assessments in Table 1. Minimizes Expense to the City Approach 1 (No Action) is absolutely free, which is categorically different from all the other approaches which would require new workstreams (including staffing, consultant services, technical report preparation, etc.) by city staff overseen by elected and appointed officials. Accordingly, we awarded it the only green checkmark. Approaches 2 (Ordinance) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) both require new workstreams. Approach 3 (50% now) sets itself in a different category from 2 and 4, because it requires all of the work of a TOD Alternative Plan (albeit due in 2032), and a separate comparable workstream due ASAP. Approach 3 will involve multiple rezonings, multiple rounds of CEQA review, and HCD oversight. Accordingly, Approach 3 is assigned the ‘red x’ for cost. Returning to Approaches 2 and 4, we do expect 4 would be qualitatively more expensive. Reduces R-1 Impact Approaches 1 (No Action) + 2 (Ordinance) do not allow the city to move density around within the TOD area. Accordingly, R-1 neighborhoods would generally be upzoned to levels consistent with midrise construction. We have scored these options ‘red’. Approaches 3 + 4 do allow the city to exempt R-1 areas from 50% (but not all) of the effects of SB-79 which is the most the law allows, so we have scored them both ‘green’. We will likely see townhomes in R-1 neighborhoods even with these measures–the sort of gradual neighborhood change we hope the council will support in neighborhoods so close to transit. Promotes Cohesive Massing Approaches 1 (No Action), 2 (Ordinance), and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) all move the city as quickly as possible into the land use regime that will ultimately prevail for the foreseeable future. We believe this quality is what will lead to the best aesthetic outcomes as our downtowns evolve. Approach 3 (50% now), in contrast, will introduce an interim period where only townhomes and low-density apartments are allowed even on sites that, after 2032, could support up to four times that density (i.e., in the event of a TOD Alternative Plan that moves the maximum allowable density from an R-1 neighborhood into a transit-adjacent downtown site.) Once development like that happens, it will take decades for the use to convert again during which time adjacent structure heights will be jarringly uneven. Accordingly, we have awarded Approaches 1, 2, and 4 green checks, and Approach 3 a red x. Maximizes Housing on Best Sites SB-79 aligns transit infrastructure with train stops, but not with other resources such as bus routes, jobs, retail, and services. We believe the city will want to align housing production not just with rail transit infrastructure, but also factors such as these. Approaches 1 (No Action) and 2 (Ordinance) do a decent job of this by allowing midrise construction in such areas in the near term, but are blunt instruments. We have scored them a “yellow checkmark.” We also acknowledge the Ordinance offers an advantage over No Action. Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) has the disadvantage that it will zone our best sites to just 25% of their future capacity. This risks generating actual projects at this density before 2032. We have scored this outcome red. Approach 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) improves upon the approaches above by allowing the city to move density from less favorable sites to more favorable sites –also in the short term. Consequently, we have awarded this approach a green checkmark. Maximizes Chances of Building RHNA According to the city’s latest Annual Progress Report to Housing and Community Development, the city is not on-pace to build its sixth-cycle RHNA, having permitted just 173 units in 2025, down from 181 in 2024 and 271 in 2023. Going forward, the city needs to produce an average of 1,092 units per year to meet aggregate RHNA, which understates the challenge once the distribution of units across income categories is considered. Approaches 1 (No Action) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) urgently move the city toward legalizing apartment-scale construction in SB-79 areas. We have scored these approaches ‘green’. Approach 2 (Ordinance) somewhat reduces scope of the reform, and might exclude some units. It is scored ‘yellow’. Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) unnecessarily delays (yet does not prevent) the legalization of units at this scale to as late as 2032. It has been scored “red.” Preserves SDBL Height Exemption As drafted, SB-79 exempts sites in the TOD area from using State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to exceed the heights specified in SB-79. However, this SDBL exemption is lost if the city adopts a TOD Alternative Plan.1 Approaches 1 (No Action) and 2 (Ordinance) preserve this SDBL exemption, which is a local control advantage. Without implying that this outweighs the local control advantage obtained by adopting a TOD Alternative Plan (we believe it does not), we are surfacing this factor in the table with a green checkmark. Approaches 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) both involve forming TOD Alternative Plans and loss of SDBL exemptions, and are scored with ‘red x’. Preserves Historic Sites Approach 1 (No Action) is the only approach which would not likely result in historic sites being exempted from SB-79 treatment. We have scored it as red and all others as green. Delays or Avoids Full TOD Alternative Plan We believe Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) is presented as an approach because it defers deliberation about how to move density between areas. As SB-79 is written, it does accomplish this. This is not an advantage over Approach 1 (No Action) or Approach 2 (Ordinance) because those effectively defer a TOD Alternative Plan to a due date of “never,” but it is an advantage over Approach 4 (TOD Alternative Plan.) Accordingly, we have scored Approaches 1, 2, and 3 green and Approach 4 as red for this factor. Conclusion A TOD Alternative Plan can best harmonize the city’s goals with the opportunity to promote housing in Palo Alto’s most desirable locations, and the city will be best served by moving toward adopting such a plan without delay. Notably, delaying a TOD Alternative Plan for other options: ● Increases expense ● Fails to maximize our chances of meeting our housing goals ● Fails to promote cohesive build environments ● Fails to maximally align housing production with site suitability 1 See the interaction between 65912.161(d): “Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local transit-oriented alternative plan…”; and 65912.157(d), which implements the SDBL height exemption in SB-79. We urge the city to either allow SB 79 to take effect as written or adopt a TOD Alternative Plan, the best way to balance housing needs with other city priorities. Thank you for your consideration, Jeremy Levine Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward From:LWV of Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:May 4, 2026 Council meeting, agenda item 14 (SB79) Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 10:02:25 AM Attachments:ULI and SB79 v.4 (1) (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto submits the attached comment on Agenda Item 14 (SB 79) at the May 4, 2026 Council Meeting. -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 903-0600 Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto 1 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto California 94303 (650) 903 -0600 lwvpaoffice@gmail.com April 30, 2026 Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council members: Re: May 4 Agenda Item 14 (SB79) The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports (1) increasing the supply of low and moderate income housing and (2) educating communities concerning the need for affordable housing and the methods by which this can be attained. The League urges the City to follow the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) recommendations for development around the downtown transit station (the “Gateway”) and to promptly enter into joint development agreements with Stanford and the regional transit agencies. We also urge promptly adding Gateway Area sites to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)Housing Inventory sites to create housing affordable to all incomes, families, and age groups in downtown Palo Alto, an existing well-resourced area, in line with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The Gateway also presents faster and less costly development opportunities and a wider array of state, regional, and local financing opportunities for affordable housing than any other area of the city. ULI’s recommendations stress that the Gateway presents a unique opportunity to comply with SB 79’s goal of locating affordable housing near existing transit stations. The League would oppose rezoning which would make that goal infeasible by reducing allowed density downtown. Discussion Under its 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Palo Alto must plan for providing affordable homes to 3,465 very low, low, and moderate-income households, in addition to 2,621 homes affordable to above moderate-income households. Plus, by July 1, 2026, SB 79 requires the City to allow denser housing (5 -9 stories) near major transit stops, to reduce emissions and boost housing available for all incomes, families and age-groups. Where should the City zone for these homes? The area (the “Gateway”) near the downtown transit station has an existing multi-transit infrastructure, including a Caltrain station, the Palo Alto Transit Center (a major hub for 2 multiple bus providers situated next to Caltrain), and well-established bike routes. ULI’s recent study found that the Gateway is uniquely positioned for creating mixed income housing (including family housing) together with walkable and bikeable retail and community gathering spaces. Relevant factors include large parcels of land and few landowners which make development faster and less costly; existing multi -transit infrastructure; qualifying for state transit and emissions reduction funds; and the opportunity for land value recapture. ULI Study in October 2025. At the request of Stanford, VTA, and Palo Alto, ULI in October 2025 studied the impact of SB 79 on development around the Gateway. The ULI study1 found: 1. The land is uniquely positioned to comply with SB 79 because it has large parcels of land, few landowners, an existing transit center, and can accommodate around 1500 units of new mixed income housing. These factors make development, including financing of affordable housing feasible. The ULI designers imagined space for about 1500 units of mixed income housing (including families), retail facilities, and walkable and bikeable community gathering space. Because the area consists of large parcels with only a handful of landowners, these conditions create an opportunity for faster and less costly development compared to other areas of Palo Alto. This in turn allows land value recapture to pay for infrastructure and housing, or operations of the transit station, or other public priorities. Considering the Gateway for development and land value recapture, one ULI researcher made this point: “Time kills all [development] deals…the land is uniquely valuable here. Most of Palo Alto is comprised of small lots with separate ownership... [the Gateway] has large parcels with only a handful of owners…consider the monetary value of this land…as land density increases, so does the value of the land [due to government action]. Some of this increase can help pay for infrastructure and housing, or operations of the transit station, or other public priorities. . . you need to weigh the increasing value and how its split…too much burden and you halt development…you don’t want it to be a cash grab for the developer- that just got the benefit of having this land increase in value…” A similar point is made by land use experts at CalMatters https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/03/housing -production-tax-increment- financing/#:~:text=This%20housing%20can%20help,sufficient%20incentives%20to%20us e%20it 3 2. The Gateway should also enable Palo Alto to take advantage of the State’s desire to prove that SB 79 can alleviate the housing shortage and reduce dependence on cars by being a pilot program for SB 79. ULI suggested immediately exploring joint development agreements with the transit agencies, the City, and Stanford. Although SB 79 does not explicitly provide funding for new housing, it does authorize transit agencies like the VTA to develop housing or c ommercial projects on land within one half mile of a transit stop, allowing them to generate their own revenue. 3. State and Regional financing programs are available for affordable, high density, and mixed-use projects within one-half mile of a transit station, including the Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund (TOAH), the California TOD Program, the Bay Area Preservation Pilot Fund, and the BAHFA Priority Sites Program. Other financing under California Housing Emissions Reduction programs includes Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants and loans and the California Energy Commission’s BUILD program. 4. The San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP)is the other contender for locating affordable housing production, labeled “Housing Opportunity Sites” in the City’s Housing Element. But the City’s SARAP “Existing Conditions” report for the San Antonio Road area highlighted obstacles to funding affordable housing in that area: the City could either demand, on a project-by-project basis from many different developers, either a small percentage (13-20%) of low- and moderate-income units or a contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund (which would be made available for 100% affordable developments by nonprofits.) Since the affordable housing sites in the San Antonio Road Area are not within one half mile of the Mountain View Caltrain station, transit-oriented housing state funds or funds authorized by SB 79 would not be available nor would funding for Emissions Reduction. 2 Both the Gateway and SARAP are considered high resource areas for Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding. However, SARAP is an under resourced neighborhood lacking city parks, retail, and community gathering spaces, as well as transportation infrastructure funding to address both existing unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bikes and the transportation impact of 1600 new housing units. Conclusion We urge the City to designate new RHNA Housing Inventory Sites in the Gateway area or transfer some sites from SARAP to the Gateway, which presents faster and less costly development opportunities and a wider array of state, regional, and local financing opportunities for affordable housing. 4 Transferring some housing sites to the Gateway and away from SARAP would also address concerns that by locating a large percentage of affordable housing in an under resourced area (SARAP), the City is ignoring its duty to affirmatively further fair housing which could be met by distributing low and moderate income housing throughout the community to areas with existing amenities like parks, libraries, retail, and well-developed transit. We would oppose suggestions to rezone which would make the Gateway vision infeasible. Sincerely. Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu Copresidents LWV Palo Alto 1 . Video of ULI October 2025 presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8rVK3- vWZc, particularly 1:48:21 Andrew Malik on unique opportunity downtown 2 SARAP Existing Conditions Report chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/publ ic/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/long-range-planning/area-plans-and- studies/san-antonio-rd-area-plan/draft-san-antonio-road-area-plan-existing-conditions- analysis-summary-report-9-4-2025.pdf, particularly Housing Findings, p. 19 and Transportation challenges, p. 29 From:Allison Chang To:Council, City Subject:Call for imaginative artists and writers: Palo Alto 2044 Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:47:04 AM Attachments:PA2044_social_logo_SQ_400px.png Flyer_Palo Alto 2044_Call for entries_PRINT.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council, Pleasure to meet you—I’m Allison Chang from the new Palo Alto Museum. As we prepare to open, we’re actively building meaningful connections across Palo Alto and beyond. I’m reaching out to invite you to help amplify an exciting initiative: Palo Alto 2044, an exhibition imagining the city at 150 years old. We’re calling on artists and writers of all ages and backgrounds—locally and globally—to contribute their vision. Submissions are now open in two categories: Visual Art — Original two-dimensional works (12 x 16 inches, horizontal/landscape format) depicting Palo Alto in the year 2044 The 15-Word Story — Exactly 15 words of prose or poetry on cardstock (12 x 16 inches, vertical/portrait format), representing one word for each decade of the city’s story Selected works will be featured in our inaugural exhibition, published in a commemorative book, and preserved in a digital time capsule. Submissions are open through June 30, 2026. Would you please be willing to be a community outreach partner and share this opportunity with your networks via email, social media, flyers or announcements? Please share this across your channels and tag @paloaltomuseum so we can spotlight your partnership. As a partner, the City of Palo Alto's logo will be featured on the Palo Alto 2044 webpage. We're already fortunate to have community outreach partners in Neighbors Abroad, Pacific Art League, and the City's Public Art Program. Please let me know if you'd like to be included. We’d be thrilled to collaborate to envision our community's future and bring this forward- looking project to life together. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Best, Allison To make sharing easy, here are ready-to-use materials: Official Palo Alto 2044 website: https://paloaltomuseum.org/palo-alto-2044/ Submission form: https://form.jotform.com/261057011134038 Flyer and social media assets (attached) Example post copy: "We’re excited to share that the Palo Alto Museum has launched Palo Alto 2044, inviting artists and writers worldwide to imagine the city at 150 years old. Selected works will be featured in an inaugural exhibition, a commemorative book, and a digital time capsule. Submissions are open through June 30, 2026. Learn more: https://paloaltomuseum.org/palo- alto-2044/" -- Allison C. Chang Executive Business Partner Palo Alto Museum 300 Homer Avenue | Palo Alto, California paloaltomuseum.org Imagine Palo Alto at 150 Founded in 1894, Palo Alto has helped shape the modern world —and has long been a place people call home. What could the city become by 2044? To celebrate the grand opening of the Palo Alto Museum in Fall 2026, we invite artists, writers, students, and visionaries to imagine Palo Alto at 150—its people, its place, and its possibilities. IMAGINE 2044 SUBMIT YOUR VISION VISUAL ART: “VISUALIZING 2044” Drawing, painting, digital, collage, or photography Two-dimensional artwork • 12 × 16 inches • Horizontal/ Landscape* 15-WORD STORY A future of Palo Alto—in exactly 15 words 15 words for 15 decades: 1894→2044 Text on 12 × 16–inch cardstock • Vertical/Portrait* CALL FOR ENTRIES * Submit high-resolution image of original art or writing (300 DPI+) IN THE MUSEUM’S PALO ALTO 2044 • Grand Opening Exhibition • Commemorative Book • Digital Time Capsule OPEN TO ALL | DEADLINE: JUNE 30, 2026 BE FEATURED LEARN MORE SUBMIT ENTRY From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:May 4, 2026, Item 4: FY 2027 Budget Study Session, Utility Rate Increases and Affordability Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:01:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council, I've been following the utility rate proposals closely this budget cycle and I am concerned about the impact on affordability. The City uses profits from its utilities to fund city services, unlike a private utility where profits go to shareholders. This is good. But the story changes if the City raises rates specifically to sustain that transfer. Then it becomes a regressive tax, one that hits every ratepayer equally regardless of income. Has the story changed for us in Palo Alto? Voters authorized a transfer to the General Fund of up to 18%. But we didn't authorize making the maximum transfer a guarantee, paid for by ratepayers. Each year's increase builds on the last, growing both the dollar amount of the General Fund transfer and the Utility Users Tax simultaneously. Electric +6%, Gas +9%, Water +8%. These are significant increases. We are a captive market; residents don't have other options. Council and staff should weigh heavily that these increases are regressive. The Utilities Advisory Commission voted to recommend a lower gas rate, explicitly citing the burden on ratepayers. I would ask Council not to approve the proposed budget until it has a full review of the utility rate increases and a full accounting of the tax burden. Thank you for your consideration of these affordability concerns and for your service to our community. Best regards, Meri Gruber Palo Alto From:Alan Daniel To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Linkk Is Important Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 7:56:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I rely on this service very strongly to contribute to the local economy. It would be most ideal to keep it running throughout 2028. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thank you, Alan Daniel This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Richard Stolee To:Council, City Cc:ctraboard Subject:Crossing Guards near Escondido School Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 5:06:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing on behalf of the College Terrace Residents Association to urge you to retain funding for crossing guards at Escondido Road & Stanford Avenue and Stanford Avenue & El Camino Real. These are two of the most heavily used school crossings in our neighborhood. Students and families rely on them daily to walk and bike safely to school. As you know, these streets carry high volumes of fast-moving traffic, which makes safe crossings especially dependent on active management. Crossing guards are not interchangeable with signage or striping. They actively manage conflicts, create predictable gaps in traffic, and give children the confidence to cross safely. When guards are removed, driver yielding becomes less consistent and families shift toward driving, increasing congestion and reducing safety for everyone. If the City is considering reductions, these locations should be among the last considered. Removing guards here would have immediate, visible impacts on student safety and travel behavior. We understand the City is facing difficult budget decisions. We respectfully ask that you prioritize retaining crossing guards at these intersections and identify alternative areas for cost savings. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard M Stolee President, College Terrace Residents Association 650-468-9000 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:dgoldeen@icloud.com To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City; Friends of Foothills Preserve Subject:Cutting Costs Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:15:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. City Manger proposed reducing irrigation in Foothills Park/Nature Preserve. Why stop there? Why not stop the irrigation in Tramps Valley entirely. City Council changed the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve. If it’s a nature preserve, why is Trampas Valley being irrigated at all? You want to give biodiversity a boost? Restore Trampas Valley to native grasslands (Project for Acterra/Grassroot Ecology/Friends of Foothills, etc…). Keeping it as irrigated, mowed turf is, and always has been, in my opinion, not in keeping with sound ecological management practices nor fiscally responsible. From:nhbeamer@yahoo.com To:"dick held"; cct25569@gmail.com Cc:"TC Rindfleisch"; "CPNA"; "Hamilton Hitchings"; "Jeff Shore"; "Jeffrey R Koseff"; "Kevin Fisher"; "Stephen Monismith"; "Steve Bisset"; "Xenia Hammer"; Eggleston, Brad; "Denean Ni"; Shikada, Ed; "Jeff Levinsky"; "Jerry Hearn"; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; "Miyko Harris-Parker"; "Neilson Buchanan"; Council, City; "Tess Byler"; "Drew Combs"; Stone, Greer; "Lisa Gauthier"; "Mark Dinan"; "Nai Hsueh" Subject:RE: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:13:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Radical environmentalists and selfish opposition neighbors who live downstream from the bridge and so are not vulnerable as long as the Pope Chaucer bridge is left alone are partly to blame. From: dick held <dh259@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 6:48 PM To: cct25569@gmail.com Cc: TC Rindfleisch <tcr.sumc@gmail.com>; CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>; Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue This is the response I got from a very competent member of the SFCJPA: "Hello, I am offsite attending a conference. Response time may be slower than anticipated. 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 Thanks!” Fixing the Chaucer Street bridge has also been “slower than anticipated.” Is attending another conference going to speed resolution of this problem that hasn`t been solved in 28 years? Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/004501dcd823%247047f050%2450d7d0f0%24%40gmail.com. From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:today"s Daily Post front page about Julie Lythcott-Haims Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 6:58:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Venkeer, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers, I've always considered my ability to speak during public comment and responsibilities as a member of the public a privilege. And I have generally trusted the process and your body. Today, after learning about the politics that played into an application to one of the City's commissions, I believe that Ms Haims betrayed everything about the public process. I no longer trust her judgment and I am deeply concerned about the whole of Council - if you think that what was reported today is "ok." My view is that Ms Haims should immediately resign. And as long as Ms Haims sits on your dais and I go to advocate to your body on City issues, I will feel shame. Shame that your body includes someone who plays with our processes. That looks at people stepping up to serve or engage with the City and our issues, with insane filters. Jennifer From:Jeffrey Koseff To:Richard Almond; dick held; cct25569@gmail.com Cc:TC Rindfleisch; CPNA; Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Kevin Fisher; Stephen G Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 4:52:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good point. But to be fair the idea for the GG bridge was first proposed in 1872 and then more formally in 1916. Planning began in 1919 and construction began in 1933 which was 3 years after the bonds were approved. So lets call it 21 years which is still less than the Pope-Chaucer saga and significantly bigger!!! Probably worth reminding those making the decisions about this fact. Jeff On 4/29/26 4:41 PM, Richard Almond wrote: And the golden Gate Bridge took 4 years and was finished early. Richard Almond, MD 1520 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated. From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> on behalf of dick held <dh259@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:47 PM To: cct25569@gmail.com <cct25569@gmail.com> Cc: TC Rindfleisch <tcr.sumc@gmail.com>; CPNA <crescent-park- pa@googlegroups.com>; Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen G Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue This is the response I got from a very competent member of the SFCJPA: "Hello, I am offsite attending a conference. Response time may be slower than anticipated. Thanks!” Fixing the Chaucer Street bridge has also been “slower than anticipated.” Is attending another conference going to speed resolution of this problem that hasn`t been solved in 28 years? Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park- pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/004501dcd823%247047f050%2450d7d0f0%24%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/C2CA0ED7-E657-45EC-B9CE-5837623A8C61%40hotmail.com. -- Jeffrey R. Koseff William Alden and Martha Campbell Professor of Engineering Emeritus Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor of Oceanography Emeritus Department of Oceans Stanford School of Engineering Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability Founding Perry L. McCarty Director, and Senior Fellow Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment Emeritus Stanford Faculty Athletic Representative Emeritus to the NCAA koseff@stanford.edu phone: (650) 387-0719 Academic: https://profiles.stanford.edu/jeffrey-koseff Research: https://web.stanford.edu/~koseff Stanford University Ancestral lands of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe From:Richard Almond To:dick held; cct25569@gmail.com Cc:TC Rindfleisch; CPNA; Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Jeffrey R Koseff; Kevin Fisher; Stephen G Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 4:47:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. And the golden Gate Bridge took 4 years and was finished early. Richard Almond, MD 1520 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated. From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> on behalf of dick held <dh259@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:47 PM To: cct25569@gmail.com <cct25569@gmail.com> Cc: TC Rindfleisch <tcr.sumc@gmail.com>; CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>; Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen G Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue This is the response I got from a very competent member of the SFCJPA: "Hello, I am offsite attending a conference. Response time may be slower than anticipated. Thanks!” Fixing the Chaucer Street bridge has also been “slower than anticipated.” Is attending another conference going to speed resolution of this problem that hasn`t been solved in 28 years? Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park- pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent- park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/C2CA0ED7-E657-45EC-B9CE-5837623A8C61%40hotmail.com. From:dick held To:cct25569@gmail.com Cc:TC Rindfleisch; CPNA; Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Jeffrey R Koseff; Kevin Fisher; Stephen Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:51:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This is the response I got from a very competent member of the SFCJPA: "Hello, I am offsite attending a conference. Response time may be slower than anticipated. Thanks!” Fixing the Chaucer Street bridge has also been “slower than anticipated.” Is attending another conference going to speed resolution of this problem that hasn`t been solved in 28 years? Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/004501dcd823%247047f050%2450d7d0f0%24%40gmail.com. From:Jenkins To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Link Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:45:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Is a needed service for the disabled and elderly to get around. Shoot parents get kids around safely with Link. Would like it to be more dependable and efficient that would be nice Sent from my iPhone From:dick held To:Craig Taylor Cc:TC Rindfleisch; CPNA; Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Jeffrey R Koseff; Kevin Fisher; Stephen Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:35:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/004501dcd823%247047f050%2450d7d0f0%24%40gmail.com. From:dick held To:Craig Taylor Cc:TC Rindfleisch; CPNA; Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Jeffrey R Koseff; Kevin Fisher; Stephen Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:Re: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:33:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Over 28 years. When I talked to the Executive Director about it she told me, “you have to understand, these things take time.” This is an example of the “Abundance” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson) syndrome at its worst. We keep making excuses, and bearing the cost, for government not solving our eminently solvable problems. It took the ancients some 26 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and that was in 2600 BC. Quite honestly, all government officials involved should be replaced with leaders committed to doing what we elect them to do. Dick Held On Apr 29, 2026, at 2:59 PM, cct25569@gmail.com wrote: Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject: Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From: Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To: tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 <image001.png> Best Regards, <image002.png>Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> <image007.png> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/10a3d5f6-fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/004501dcd823%247047f050%2450d7d0f0%24%40gmail.com. From:cct25569@gmail.com To:"TC Rindfleisch"; "CPNA" Cc:"Hamilton Hitchings"; "Jeff Shore"; "Jeffrey R Koseff"; "Kevin Fisher"; "Stephen Monismith"; "Steve Bisset"; "Xenia Hammer"; Eggleston, Brad; "Denean Ni"; Shikada, Ed; "Jeff Levinsky"; "Jerry Hearn"; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; "Miyko Harris-Parker"; "Neilson Buchanan"; Council, City; "Tess Byler"; "Norm Beamer"; "Drew Combs"; Stone, Greer; "Lisa Gauthier"; "Mark Dinan"; "Nai Hsueh" Subject:RE: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:59:37 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Tom, It has only been a bit over twenty years. Craig From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52 PM To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> Cc: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Jeff Shore <jshore1905@gmail.com>; Jeffrey R Koseff <koseff@stanford.edu>; Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>; Stephen Monismith <monismith@stanford.edu>; Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>; Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com>; Brad Eggleston <brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>; Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>; Michel Jeremias <michel.jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Drew Combs <dcombs@menlopark.gov>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lisa Gauthier <lgauthier@smcgov.org>; Mark Dinan <mdinan@cityofepa.org>; Nai Hsueh <nhsueh@valleywater.org> Subject: [CPNA] [CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject:Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From:Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To:tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 Best Regards, Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent- park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park-pa/10a3d5f6- fca6-403d-be52-8a4344c66218%40gmail.com. From:TC Rindfleisch To:CPNA Cc:Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Shore; Jeffrey R Koseff; Kevin Fisher; Stephen Monismith; Steve Bisset; Xenia Hammer; Eggleston, Brad; Denean Ni; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Levinsky; Jerry Hearn; Margaret Bruce; Jeremias, Michel; Miyko Harris-Parker; Neilson Buchanan; Council, City; Tess Byler; Norm Beamer; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh Subject:[CPA PUBLIC WORKS]: Notice of Continued Storm Drain Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:52:22 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Friends, in case you did not get this message, 2026 work under Palo Alto Public Works to increase storm drain capacity along Hamilton Ave, Alester Ave, and Center Ave (>2026) will continue this summer. This increased drainage takes advantage of available downstream pump station capacity (~300 cfs) during heavy storm flows to reduce water levels in adjacent neighborhoods. I know this disrupts traffic during construction, but it is important to help reduce flood levels from overflows upstream of the Pope-Chaucer bridge during heavy storms in the San Francisquito creek watershed. Meanwhile, planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to increase the conveyance along Reach 2 of the creek so we may finally be able to remove the Pope-Chaucer bridge drags on at a snail's pace... Regards, Tom R. Subject:Notice of Construction on Hamilton Avenue Date:Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:01:37 +0000 From:Thai, Vicki <Vicki.Thai@paloalto.gov> To:tcr.sumc@gmail.com <tcr.sumc@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: As of April 2026 Public Works Engineering contractor has installed over 1,073 LF of 4,000 LF of pipe as part of the Hamilton Avenue Capacity Upgrades Project. The project will increase storm drain capacity by replacing sections of the existing pipes with 48-inch lines. This Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is designed to capture street runoff along Hamilton Avenue, including the area shown in the image below. The improvements will also enable future storm drain upgrades on Center Avenue (a planned future CIP) and Alester Avenue (scheduled for Summer 2026). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year. PROJECT CONTACTS Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division City Email: pwecips@paloalto.gov City Phone: (650) 329-2295 Project Website: www.paloalto.gov/HamiltonStormDrain Contractor Company: Precision Engineering, Inc. Project Engineer: Enrique Vargas-Sandoval Contractor Phone: (415) 999-7758 Best Regards, Vicki Thai Engineer, Storm Drain Group Public Works Department (650) 617-3116 | vicki.thai@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From:Deborah Goldeen To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City; Friends of Foothills Preserve Subject:Cutting Costs Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:00:47 PM City Manger proposed reducing irrigation in Foothills Park/Nature Preserve. Why stop there? Why not stop the irrigation in Tramps Valley entirely. City Council changed the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve. If it’s a nature preserve, why is Trampas Valley being irrigated at all? You want to give biodiversity a boost? Restore Trampas Valley to native grasslands (Project for Acterra/Grassroot Ecology/Friends of Foothills, etc…). Keeping it as irrigated, mowed turf is, and always has been, in my opinion, not in keeping with sound ecological management practices nor fiscally responsible. From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Julia M. Adams Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; Michael Gennaco Subject:Re: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:40:28 PM Attachments:04.28.26 NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OWNER) 26PCE-000218.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Ms. Adams, I need to correct a serious mischaracterization in your email regarding yesterday. I did not follow the vendor from one floor to another. I read your email privately in my room, then exited my unit and went to the third floor to observe what was occurring in a common hallway. While I was standing at the far end of the hallway, I observed the vendor coming out of Room 315. That is materially different from following, pursuing, harassing, interfering with, or intimidating anyone. Your continued characterization of my conduct as “harassment” or a “lease violation” is deeply concerning, especially when I am able to prove that I did not do what is being alleged. These repeated accusations are becoming oppressive, retaliatory, and defamatory in effect. This is also directly connected to my accommodation request. I have requested to be communicated with in a respectful, non-threatening, non-accusatory, and non-escalatory manner. Accusing me of misconduct I did not commit is not respectful communication. It is harmful, destabilizing, and inconsistent with the accommodation process. I am also a protected domestic violence survivor. Under Marsy’s Law, victims have rights to dignity, fairness, and respect. While I understand you are representing the property owner, it is still wrong to communicate with me in a way that falsely paints me as threatening, harassing, or violating rules when I am documenting serious safety concerns in a building now formally cited by the City. I also need to address the seriousness of what happened with Unit 205. In November, I provided the doctor documentation Abode requested. By January, I had provided four doctor notes. I later provided additional medical documentation showing that I had developed permanent joint damage between my first and second rheumatology appointments, and that my physician was extremely concerned about loss of dexterity and the need for me to be removed from this room immediately. Despite that, I remained in Unit 205 while Abode continued representing that the unit did not have mold. That is not a minor misunderstanding. That is a deeply serious failure. A disabled tenant provided repeated medical documentation showing worsening physical harm, and instead of being moved to a safe environment, I was left in the same room while being given conflicting explanations about mold, sewage, water damage, and safety. The City’s Notice of Violation now identifies Unit 205 as affected by “Water Damage / Mold / Unpermitted Work.” That confirms why I have been so alarmed. Abode was on notice. Abode had my medical documentation. Abode knew I was reporting worsening symptoms and loss of function. Yet I was left in an affected room and then repeatedly treated as if my concerns were unreasonable. I am requesting a direct written explanation for how this was allowed to happen. I also have written communications from Abode management stating that Unit 506 did not have mold. I have also been told my own room did not have mold. The City’s Notice of Violation now identifies affected units, including Unit 506, as involving “Water Damage / Mold / Unpermitted Work.” Unit 506 was the same unit repeatedly presented to me as the relocation option. This creates a serious documented contradiction and raises concern that I was being asked to move from one affected environment into another affected environment, without being offered the same range of alternative units reportedly offered to other tenants. Please confirm: 1. Why Unit 506 was offered to me if it is now identified by the City as an affected unit; 2. Who determined that Unit 506 did not have mold; 3. What inspection, testing, or clearance supported that statement; 4. Whether the prior representation that Unit 506 did not have mold is being withdrawn or corrected; 5. Why I was told my own room did not have mold; 6. What inspection, testing, or clearance supported that statement; 7. Whether my current room is included in the affected areas identified by the City; 8. Why I was not offered other available alternatives; 9. Whether Abode/ownership will now offer me a safe relocation option that is not listed in Attachment A; and 10. Whether Abode will stop characterizing my safety documentation and common-area observations as harassment or lease violations. Given the City’s Notice of Violation, I am requesting that Abode stop characterizing my concerns as improper and provide a direct written answer about where I am expected to safely live. I have included a copy of the notice. Rebecca Wolf On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 12:10 PM Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> wrote: Ms. Wolf: Please note that I did not state that the items you observed being moved were not coming from #315. I stated that the items did not belong to Ms. Ortiz. You proceeding to follow the vendor from one floor to another while video recording is absolutely harassment and a violation of your lease. What the vendor was doing onsite was not your concern and did not involve you in any way. I am also informed that Ms. Carney’s belongings were handled according to the appropriate procedures after her death. This is not your concern. I have inquired about the cones outside of your window. I have been assured that no one is going to your unit without first communicating with me – unless there is an emergency. No one touched the cones or tampered with them in any way. I must remind you that you have been instructed to not place items on the ledge outside of your window. It is a decorative element of the building and is not meant to hold weight. There is a children’s play area below the ledge and items placed on the ledge could fall or blow off, potentially harming someone in the play area below. Please remove all items from the ledge immediately. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 6:04 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Re: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Ms. Adams, I dispute the characterization that I harassed, interfered with, or violated the lease. --- UNIT 315 – OBSERVATIONS I also dispute the statement that my concern about Unit 315 was baseless. I personally observed and handled some of the items being removed, including clothing, and based on what I saw, I believed they were Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. After receiving your email, I went to the third floor to verify what I personally observed and saw the moving vendor exiting Unit 315. I am attaching a photo documenting that observation. I also observed the same vendor moving items from the fifth floor, so it appears more than one unit may have been involved. That does not change what I personally observed with respect to Unit 315. If management maintains that the belongings were not from Unit 315, please preserve all records, work orders, vendor instructions, inventory records, and communications related to the removal of property from or near that unit. --- UNIT 215 – PRIOR INCIDENT (CINDY CARNEY) My concern is not idle curiosity. I previously witnessed belongings from Unit 215 being discarded after a resident death. I was given paperwork recovered from Unit 215 after Ms. Cindy Carney’s belongings were discarded. I personally reviewed that paperwork, and it contained emergency contact information. Was Miss Catney”s next of kin contacted regarding her belongings? That prior incident is why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again. The recovered documents also included journal entries and restraining-order paperwork showing that, before Ms. Carney became increasingly isolated, she had gone to the building for help regarding a restraining-order-related safety concern and felt that her request for help was weaponized against her. That prior incident is directly relevant to why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again and why I do not accept vague assurances without documentation. --- DOCUMENTATION AND TENANT AWARENESS If management prevents tenants from taking photographs, prevents tenants from asking basic questions, and provides explanations that do not align with what tenants directly observe, it raises serious concerns about how residents are expected to understand whether proper procedures are being followed. I understand management cannot disclose private household information. However, privacy does not prevent tenants from raising good-faith concerns based on observable events. I also dispute any claim that I am categorically prohibited from documenting conditions in common areas when the documentation relates to safety, habitability, evidence preservation, or my own legal rights. --- ROOM 411 - Arnold Arnold had surgery a month ago and since he returned to his room, he has not been seen since.. I have inquired about his health several times and I want to put it in writing to ensure he is looked after. — WINDOW / CONE – IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN Separately, today I began smelling burning plastic from inside my unit. There were two orange traffic cones outside my window this afternoon, I smelt smoke and burning plastic. When I looked out my window, the cone was smoking. See attached photo. One cone appeared visibly damaged and had been smoking or heat-affected. This occurred in the same area I previously reported as disturbed. I asked artificial intelligence how this could have happened, and it suggested vapors were trapped in the cone, causing a reaction with the sun. If the window ledge was never disturbed, why would this happen? Please confirm in writing whether any substance, sealant, spray, chemical, heat source, or work activity occurred on or near my window ledge, exterior wall, or surrounding area before this occurred. --- Nothing in this email is an admission of any lease violation, waiver of rights, or agreement with management’s allegations. Rebecca Wolf On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:02 PM Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> wrote: Ms. Wolf: As you are fully aware, management is unable to share with you what goes on with other households. This includes households where the former resident is deceased. Accordingly, I am unable to share with you if a next of kin for Ms. Ortiz was contacted. That said, I have spoken with management and confirmed that all procedures relevant to that situation were followed. However, your allegation regarding the removal of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings is incorrect. The photos that you attached to your email were not of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. The items belong to an entirely different resident who is fully aware of the removal. I am informed that you followed the moving vendor from the second floor to unit #315, recording the vendor the entire time. This is the second occurrence in two weeks where you have video recorded in common areas of the building. This time you were interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s moving vendor and told them that you needed to see where the items were coming from - even though the belongings that were being moved are completely unrelated to you or your unit. Two weeks ago, you were observed recording on the 4th floor where you removed two large trash bags from the trash room and took them to your unit. Paragraph 3.o. of the House Rules state that you are not permitted to make video or audio recordings in common areas of the Property without the express permission of the Landlord. You do not have permission to record management’s vendors in common areas of the building, and you are requested to cease doing so immediately. Further, paragraph 3.q. of the House Rules provides that you are prohibited from interfering with the job responsibilities or harassing vendors authorized by the landlord. Video recording the vendor in common areas without their permission is considered harassment and following the vendor around the building interferes with their job responsibilities. Accordingly, you are in violation of the lease agreement. You are instructed to comply with the House Rules and immediately cease recording others in the common areas of the building and to cease interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s employees and authorized vendors. Please note that this email does not waive, change, or cancel the Notice to Perform Covenants of the Lease or Quit that was served on you on April 13, 2026, and does not prevent management from enforcing that notice in a future legal proceeding. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:49 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Property management: Please stop any disposal or removal of Debbie’s belongings from Room 315 immediately. I am concerned that property belonging to a deceased resident is being discarded before her family, emergency contact, or lawful representative has been notified. I observed belongings being moved toward the trash today. Please preserve all property, including electronics, jewelry, documents, medications, photos, IDs, financial records, and personal effects, until the proper legal contact or next of kin is notified and given an opportunity to retrieve them. I am requesting immediate written confirmation that disposal has stopped and that Debbie’s belongings are secured. in writing immediately. Becky Wolf From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; 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 Lafargue 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 Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez Subject:San Carlos" Thinking of Managing RVs on Their Streets Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:41:42 PM Attachments:San Carlos RVs 1_29Apr26.png San Carlos RVs 2_29Apr26.png San Carlos RVs 1_25Apr26.png San Carlos RVs 2_25Apr26.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Folks Concerned About RVs on their Streets, For those of you who may not have seen these articles in the Daily Post over the last several days or will not see these articles I thought it beneficial that I share them with you since it is quite beneficial to know how other Peninsula cities are approaching this RV crisis and especially how other cities are taking a much more aggressive approach. There is a lot of food for thought here and we really don’t want Palo Alto to continue their soft-hearted approach and be the weak link in the chain. Regards, Bob Marinaro ***************************************************** Daily Post 4/29/26 ************************************************ ***************************************************** Daily Post 4/25/26 ************************************************ From:Lara Anthony To:Council, City Subject:Crossing Guard Funding Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:18:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Finance Committee Members, I am the PTA Council Chair for Safe Routes to School, but I am writing today in my individual capacity to urge the Finance Committee to please direct City staff to find alternative budget cuts rather than reducing crossing guards, as currently proposed. Our children and families depend on crossing guards to get to school safely. When crossing guards aren't present, the safety for our children is directly impacted. In addition, having fewer crossing guards results in more families choosing to drive their children to school because they feel less safe walking and biking. That in turn has numerous negative downstream impacts in our community, affecting the environment, traffic congestion, the physical and mental well- being of our children and young people who would otherwise enjoy active commutes, and it makes it less safe for others to walk & bike to school since there are more cars on the road. I recognize and appreciate that you are juggling many important and competing priorities in a difficult budget year, but I implore you to please find alternative cuts as opposed to reducing critical safety infrastructure for our children. Thank you for your service and for prioritizing our children's safety. Best regards, Lara Anthony 513-265-6447 lara.anthony@gmail.com From:Julia M. Adams To:Becky Wolf-Loretz Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; Michael Gennaco Subject:RE: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:10:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Ms. Wolf: Please note that I did not state that the items you observed being moved were not coming from #315. I stated that the items did not belong to Ms. Ortiz. You proceeding to follow the vendor from one floor to another while video recording is absolutely harassment and a violation of your lease. What the vendor was doing onsite was not your concern and did not involve you in any way. I am also informed that Ms. Carney’s belongings were handled according to the appropriate procedures after her death. This is not your concern. I have inquired about the cones outside of your window. I have been assured that no one is going to your unit without first communicating with me – unless there is an emergency. No one touched the cones or tampered with them in any way. I must remind you that you have been instructed to not place items on the ledge outside of your window. It is a decorative element of the building and is not meant to hold weight. There is a children’s play area below the ledge and items placed on the ledge could fall or blow off, potentially harming someone in the play area below. Please remove all items from the ledge immediately. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 6:04 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Re: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Ms. Adams, I dispute the characterization that I harassed, interfered with, or violated the lease. --- UNIT 315 – OBSERVATIONS I also dispute the statement that my concern about Unit 315 was baseless. I personally observed and handled some of the items being removed, including clothing, and based on what I saw, I believed they were Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. After receiving your email, I went to the third floor to verify what I personally observed and saw the moving vendor exiting Unit 315. I am attaching a photo documenting that observation. I also observed the same vendor moving items from the fifth floor, so it appears more than one unit may have been involved. That does not change what I personally observed with respect to Unit 315. If management maintains that the belongings were not from Unit 315, please preserve all records, work orders, vendor instructions, inventory records, and communications related to the removal of property from or near that unit. --- UNIT 215 – PRIOR INCIDENT (CINDY CARNEY) My concern is not idle curiosity. I previously witnessed belongings from Unit 215 being discarded after a resident death. I was given paperwork recovered from Unit 215 after Ms. Cindy Carney’s belongings were discarded. I personally reviewed that paperwork, and it contained emergency contact information. Was Miss Catney”s next of kin contacted regarding her belongings? That prior incident is why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again. The recovered documents also included journal entries and restraining-order paperwork showing that, before Ms. Carney became increasingly isolated, she had gone to the building for help regarding a restraining-order-related safety concern and felt that her request for help was weaponized against her. That prior incident is directly relevant to why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again and why I do not accept vague assurances without documentation. --- DOCUMENTATION AND TENANT AWARENESS If management prevents tenants from taking photographs, prevents tenants from asking basic questions, and provides explanations that do not align with what tenants directly observe, it raises serious concerns about how residents are expected to understand whether proper procedures are being followed. I understand management cannot disclose private household information. However, privacy does not prevent tenants from raising good-faith concerns based on observable events. I also dispute any claim that I am categorically prohibited from documenting conditions in common areas when the documentation relates to safety, habitability, evidence preservation, or my own legal rights. --- ROOM 411 - Arnold Arnold had surgery a month ago and since he returned to his room, he has not been seen since.. I have inquired about his health several times and I want to put it in writing to ensure he is looked after. — WINDOW / CONE – IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN Separately, today I began smelling burning plastic from inside my unit. There were two orange traffic cones outside my window this afternoon, I smelt smoke and burning plastic. When I looked out my window, the cone was smoking. See attached photo. One cone appeared visibly damaged and had been smoking or heat-affected. This occurred in the same area I previously reported as disturbed. I asked artificial intelligence how this could have happened, and it suggested vapors were trapped in the cone, causing a reaction with the sun. If the window ledge was never disturbed, why would this happen? Please confirm in writing whether any substance, sealant, spray, chemical, heat source, or work activity occurred on or near my window ledge, exterior wall, or surrounding area before this occurred. --- Nothing in this email is an admission of any lease violation, waiver of rights, or agreement with management’s allegations. Rebecca Wolf On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:02 PM Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> wrote: Ms. Wolf: As you are fully aware, management is unable to share with you what goes on with other households. This includes households where the former resident is deceased. Accordingly, I am unable to share with you if a next of kin for Ms. Ortiz was contacted. That said, I have spoken with management and confirmed that all procedures relevant to that situation were followed. However, your allegation regarding the removal of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings is incorrect. The photos that you attached to your email were not of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. The items belong to an entirely different resident who is fully aware of the removal. I am informed that you followed the moving vendor from the second floor to unit #315, recording the vendor the entire time. This is the second occurrence in two weeks where you have video recorded in common areas of the building. This time you were interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s moving vendor and told them that you needed to see where the items were coming from - even though the belongings that were being moved are completely unrelated to you or your unit. Two weeks ago, you were observed recording on the 4th floor where you removed two large trash bags from the trash room and took them to your unit. Paragraph 3.o. of the House Rules state that you are not permitted to make video or audio recordings in common areas of the Property without the express permission of the Landlord. You do not have permission to record management’s vendors in common areas of the building, and you are requested to cease doing so immediately. Further, paragraph 3.q. of the House Rules provides that you are prohibited from interfering with the job responsibilities or harassing vendors authorized by the landlord. Video recording the vendor in common areas without their permission is considered harassment and following the vendor around the building interferes with their job responsibilities. Accordingly, you are in violation of the lease agreement. You are instructed to comply with the House Rules and immediately cease recording others in the common areas of the building and to cease interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s employees and authorized vendors. Please note that this email does not waive, change, or cancel the Notice to Perform Covenants of the Lease or Quit that was served on you on April 13, 2026, and does not prevent management from enforcing that notice in a future legal proceeding. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:49 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Property management: Please stop any disposal or removal of Debbie’s belongings from Room 315 immediately. I am concerned that property belonging to a deceased resident is being discarded before her family, emergency contact, or lawful representative has been notified. I observed belongings being moved toward the trash today. Please preserve all property, including electronics, jewelry, documents, medications, photos, IDs, financial records, and personal effects, until the proper legal contact or next of kin is notified and given an opportunity to retrieve them. I am requesting immediate written confirmation that disposal has stopped and that Debbie’s belongings are secured. I know Debbie has immediate family. Have they been contacted? I would like a response in writing immediately. Becky Wolf From:Sungjune Park To:Love, Dominay; Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Mokhtar, Ahmad; Ihnhwa Song; Daneshmand, Bijan Subject:Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:27:45 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image009.png image010.png image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am adding them back. They can reach out to me directly and request removal, since I started the thread. Free free to remove them when you respond to the thread. Wow, I'm very surprised that even a simple apology is such a hard thing to receive. I don't need temporary housing, so I decline your offer. However, I mentioned this multiple times in my correspondence with you and Ahmad that I have a remodeling planned on my property that I discussed with my architect before this construction was even notified to the neighbors. This is why I repeatedly asked for the completion date, so I can also coordinate my schedule. Just quietly extending the construction time seems unacceptable. PG&E sent a notice to the neighborhood last time there was an extension, why not this time? Also, City and PG&E discussed the water tanks and moved it THREE times due to bad planning. Why can't the water tanks move down the street? The third time when the water tanks were moved, it was split into two smaller tanks to give my driveway back. Ahmad, I am not sure if you're aware, but that driveway is BLOCKED AGAIN with water pipes! (See attached photos) Is the City really overseeing what is happening here? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:02 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Sungjune, The City Council and City Clerk has requested not to be added onto our email thread. Please do not include them going forward. Please see below: Hi Dominay, Please remove City Council and City Clerk from any future responses from PG&E. Thank you, Holly Holly Boyd, P.E. Assistant Director Public Works Department (650) 329-2612 | holly.boyd@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works Thanks, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:42 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Hi Ahmad, Dominay, Deferring your responsibility to some downstream contractor/subcontractor is not an apology. I am very upset with how the City is dealing with the situation. Also, I am very confused by Dominay's email. Has the construction been delayed further without notifying the neighborhood? Below is the communication that we (between you, Ahmad and myself) had at the end of March, just about a month ago. The construction was supposed to be completed by late June / mid July, which was already more than a 1.5mo. delay from the original May end date which was mentioned back in November of 2025. Based on your current POR timeline, can you please clarify when the water tanks adjacent to my property will be removed? How much longer must I endure this? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 9:10 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Good morning Sungjune, We were made aware of the accident by our contractor (ARB) when it occurred. All compensation will be handled through ARB. We understand this entire project as well as the accident has been a major inconvenience to your life and we deeply apologize. We are doing our very best to work as safely, and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned unforeseen circumstances have come up which delayed the project completion and we are actively resolving issues as they come up. The following is a current high level bullet point schedule with tentative dates. I’ve also attached a Section Exhibit to help identify areas of work: Section 1 · 04/09/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 2 · 05/01/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 3 · 04/23/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/08/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 4 · 05/11/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/22/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 5 · 05/26/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 06/15/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 6 · 06/16/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 07/10/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Pipe Testing & Tie-In · 7/10/26 Test Pipe · 7/16/26 Tie-In Pipe Pipeline Abandonment · 07/22/26 Slurry Fill Pipe Final Backfill & Restoration · 08/10/26 Paving & Striping · 08/13/26 Demobilize (Project Complete) *Please note weather and other factors could adjust these dates. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:28 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. https://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/privacy. From:shadi momtahen To:Council, City Subject:Support for Palo Alto Link Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:11:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I am a Stanford student, and I strongly support continuing the Palo Alto Link service. Many riders, including students like myself, have very limited budgets. This service is essential for commuting to campus, work, and daily needs. Without it, transportation would become much more difficult and costly. Students and young professionals contribute to the community and will continue to give back to society after graduation. Supporting accessible transportation like Palo Alto Link helps us stay connected and succeed. I kindly ask you to continue funding this important service. Thank you for your consideration, Shadi This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Love, Dominay To:Sungjune Park Cc:Mokhtar, Ahmad; Council, City; Clerk, City; Ihnhwa Song; Daneshmand, Bijan Subject:RE: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 10:52:37 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sungjune, I have been advised that our contractor has already resolved the issue of compensation for the accident. The project was delayed further since the communication in March. We have been in communication heavily with the City of Palo Alto, and all permits remain up to date. It is not within our practice to advise when the project end date is pushed out, as all dates provided from the very start are communicated to be tentative and subject to change. The tanks will remain on Middlefield through the end of the project. I have worked with my project team and currently, we are able to offer you placement in temporary housing (at a hotel) through the end of the project. Is this something you would be interested in? Please advise. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:42 AM To: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> Cc: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. Hi Ahmad, Dominay, Deferring your responsibility to some downstream contractor/subcontractor is not an apology. I am very upset with how the City is dealing with the situation. Also, I am very confused by Dominay's email. Has the construction been delayed further without notifying the neighborhood? Below is the communication that we (between you, Ahmad and myself) had at the end of March, just about a month ago. The construction was supposed to be completed by late June / mid July, which was already more than a 1.5mo. delay from the original May end date which was mentioned back in November of 2025. Based on your current POR timeline, can you please clarify when the water tanks adjacent to my property will be removed? How much longer must I endure this? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 9:10 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Good morning Sungjune, We were made aware of the accident by our contractor (ARB) when it occurred. All compensation will be handled through ARB. We understand this entire project as well as the accident has been a major inconvenience to your life and we deeply apologize. We are doing our very best to work as safely, and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned unforeseen circumstances have come up which delayed the project completion and we are actively resolving issues as they come up. The following is a current high level bullet point schedule with tentative dates. I’ve also attached a Section Exhibit to help identify areas of work: Section 1 · 04/09/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 2 · 05/01/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 3 · 04/23/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/08/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 4 · 05/11/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 05/22/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 5 · 05/26/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 06/15/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 6 · 06/16/26 Start Open Trench Construction · 07/10/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Pipe Testing & Tie-In · 7/10/26 Test Pipe · 7/16/26 Tie-In Pipe Pipeline Abandonment · 07/22/26 Slurry Fill Pipe Final Backfill & Restoration · 08/10/26 Paving & Striping · 08/13/26 Demobilize (Project Complete) *Please note weather and other factors could adjust these dates. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:28 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. https://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/privacy. From:Sungjune Park To:Love, Dominay Cc:Mokhtar, Ahmad; Council, City; Clerk, City; Ihnhwa Song Subject:Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:47:40 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Ahmad, Dominay, Deferring your responsibility to some downstream contractor/subcontractor is not an apology. I am very upset with how the City is dealing with the situation. Also, I am very confused by Dominay's email. Has the construction been delayed further without notifying the neighborhood? Below is the communication that we (between you, Ahmad and myself) had at the end of March, just about a month ago. The construction was supposed to be completed by late June / mid July, which was already more than a 1.5mo. delay from the original May end date which was mentioned back in November of 2025. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Based on your current POR timeline, can you please clarify when the water tanks adjacent to my property will be removed? How much longer must I endure this? On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 9:10 AM Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com> wrote: Good morning Sungjune, We were made aware of the accident by our contractor (ARB) when it occurred. All compensation will be handled through ARB. We understand this entire project as well as the accident has been a major inconvenience to your life and we deeply apologize. We are doing our very best to work as safely, and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned unforeseen circumstances have come up which delayed the project completion and we are actively resolving issues as they come up. The following is a current high level bullet point schedule with tentative dates. I’ve also attached a Section Exhibit to help identify areas of work: Section 1 04/09/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 2 05/01/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 3 04/23/26 Start Open Trench Construction 05/08/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 4 05/11/26 Start Open Trench Construction 05/22/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 5 05/26/26 Start Open Trench Construction 06/15/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 6 06/16/26 Start Open Trench Construction 07/10/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Pipe Testing & Tie-In 7/10/26 Test Pipe 7/16/26 Tie-In Pipe Pipeline Abandonment 07/22/26 Slurry Fill Pipe Final Backfill & Restoration 08/10/26 Paving & Striping 08/13/26 Demobilize (Project Complete) *Please note weather and other factors could adjust these dates. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:28 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. https://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/privacy. From:Love, Dominay To:Sungjune Park; Mokhtar, Ahmad Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Ihnhwa Song Subject:RE: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:11:39 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Section Exhibit.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good morning Sungjune, We were made aware of the accident by our contractor (ARB) when it occurred. All compensation will be handled through ARB. We understand this entire project as well as the accident has been a major inconvenience to your life and we deeply apologize. We are doing our very best to work as safely, and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned unforeseen circumstances have come up which delayed the project completion and we are actively resolving issues as they come up. The following is a current high level bullet point schedule with tentative dates. I’ve also attached a Section Exhibit to help identify areas of work: Section 1 04/09/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 2 05/01/26 Open trench Construction Complete Section 3 04/23/26 Start Open Trench Construction 05/08/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 4 This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 05/11/26 Start Open Trench Construction 05/22/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 5 05/26/26 Start Open Trench Construction 06/15/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Section 6 06/16/26 Start Open Trench Construction 07/10/26 Finish Open Trench Construction Pipe Testing & Tie-In 7/10/26 Test Pipe 7/16/26 Tie-In Pipe Pipeline Abandonment 07/22/26 Slurry Fill Pipe Final Backfill & Restoration 08/10/26 Paving & Striping 08/13/26 Demobilize (Project Complete) *Please note weather and other factors could adjust these dates. Thank you, Dominay Love | Senior Customer Outreach Specialist South Bay / Central Coast Pacific Gas & Electric Company (925) 412-8981 | Dominay.Love@pge.com From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:28 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>; Ihnhwa Song <ihnhwa.song@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car !!! EXTERNAL SENDER !!! This email came from outside PG&E. Think before you click. Be extra wary of links, attachments, providing sensitive information, and QR Codes. If this email seems suspicious, use the REPORT PHISH BUTTON. - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. https://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/privacy. SECTION 1 SECTION 4 SECTION 3 SECTION 2 SECTION 5 SECTION 6 PG&E R-2063 PALO ALTO From:Elizabeth Robinson Weingarten To:Council, City Subject:Crossing guard on Louis and North California Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:32:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members: I am writing in regard to the elimination of the crossing guard position—particularly the one at North California and Louis. I live on Bret Harte St., and the traffic of Stratford School plus Greene Middle school creates a great deal of traffic at the corner of Louis and North California. That four way stop is guarded well by crossing guard when both schools are getting out at the same time. I am not a parent in either of these schools; just a driver who uses this path frequently. Elementary schools may have your main interest, but middle school children on bicycles are not to be overlooked. The children can be absent minded and ride in groups overlooking everyone’s safety. From my experience as a resident, the statistical evaluation of an intersection has the lowest pedestrian/motor vehicle exposure in the system and is not designated on the High Injury Network according to the July 2025 Transportation Safety Action Plan may not match with the real experience of being on the streets during school time. I request that you reconsider the elimination of the crossing guard at North California and Louis. Sincerely, Elizabeth Weingarten 1889 Bret Harte St. Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Sungjune Park To:Mokhtar, Ahmad Cc:Love, Dominay; Council, City; Clerk, City; Ihnhwa Song Subject:Re: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:29:02 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i - Police Department (I have reached out them separately and have resolved the problem) Hi Ahmad, I received a phone number from the construction crew to handle my car, but I did not receive an apology from PG&E, and I am not sure if they are even aware of the incident. I had to take a day off to look for body shops for estimates, call their insurance, drop off my car, and go pick up a rental car. I am wasting a full day using my own PTO to complete all this, while the incident is 100% their fault. I haven't heard from PG&E with an apology, additional compensation or how they will improve the site to make it safer. Why am I dealing with all this? The City probably wouldn't even have been aware of the incident if I hadn't sent you an angry email. Also what is the current POR date of completion for the construction? On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - April 29, 2026 Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:10:50 AM Attachments:RE Follow-up Request for Consent Letter from City for California Historical Landmark Application for El Palo Alto.msg RE Urgent Public Safety Concerns Regarding Potential Closure of the Churchill Avenue Rail Crossing in Palo Alto.msg RE Student-Led Mental Health Initiative (Request for City Support).msg FW Public Safety Environmental Concern 4000 Block of Fabian Street RV Encampments.msg RE Ballroom Dancing at the Cubberley Pavilion.msg RE proposed conversion of Cubberley Pavilion to a theater.msg RE Cubberley renovation plans.msg RE Traffic analysis request for 3606 El Camino Real.msg image001.png image002.png RE Addendum to URGENT Public Health Hazard Emergency Sanitation Request 241 Addison Ave.msg RE Public Comment Questions -Council Meeting April 20 Agenda Item AA2 - PFAS for MayField - testing incomplete.msg RE Ineffective enforcement of RV parking on East Meadow.msg FW OSV Migration into Residential Neighborhoods.msg FW Local Resource for Palo Alto Teens.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through April 29, 2026. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Deborah Goldeen To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City Subject:Wasting Money Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:11:33 PM If the city has to cut staff, why is it a couple of council members are being allowed to indulge in creating delays around SB79, delays and debates that will cost the city millions? Members of council and PTC already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in their Sisyphean crusade to obstruct SB’s 9&10, a crusade that backfired so badly that we ended up with builders remedy projects being rammed through. For this you are cutting staff? From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Julia M. Adams Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; Michael Gennaco Subject:Re: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 6:05:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Ms. Adams, I dispute the characterization that I harassed, interfered with, or violated the lease. --- UNIT 315 – OBSERVATIONS I also dispute the statement that my concern about Unit 315 was baseless. I personally observed and handled some of the items being removed, including clothing, and based on what I saw, I believed they were Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. After receiving your email, I went to the third floor to verify what I personally observed and saw the moving vendor exiting Unit 315. I am attaching a photo documenting that observation. I also observed the same vendor moving items from the fifth floor, so it appears more than one unit may have been involved. That does not change what I personally observed with respect to Unit 315. If management maintains that the belongings were not from Unit 315, please preserve all records, work orders, vendor instructions, inventory records, and communications related to the removal of property from or near that unit. --- UNIT 215 – PRIOR INCIDENT (CINDY CARNEY) My concern is not idle curiosity. I previously witnessed belongings from Unit 215 being discarded after a resident death. I was given paperwork recovered from Unit 215 after Ms. Cindy Carney’s belongings were discarded. I personally reviewed that paperwork, and it contained emergency contact information. Was Miss Catney”s next of kin contacted regarding her belongings? That prior incident is why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again. The recovered documents also included journal entries and restraining-order paperwork showing that, before Ms. Carney became increasingly isolated, she had gone to the building for help regarding a restraining-order-related safety concern and felt that her request for help was weaponized against her. That prior incident is directly relevant to why I became concerned when I observed belongings being removed again and why I do not accept vague assurances without documentation. --- DOCUMENTATION AND TENANT AWARENESS If management prevents tenants from taking photographs, prevents tenants from asking basic questions, and provides explanations that do not align with what tenants directly observe, it raises serious concerns about how residents are expected to understand whether proper procedures are being followed. I understand management cannot disclose private household information. However, privacy does not prevent tenants from raising good-faith concerns based on observable events. I also dispute any claim that I am categorically prohibited from documenting conditions in common areas when the documentation relates to safety, habitability, evidence preservation, or my own legal rights. --- ROOM 411 - Arnold Arnold had surgery a month ago and since he returned to his room, he has not been seen since.. I have inquired about his health several times and I want to put it in writing to ensure he is looked after. — WINDOW / CONE – IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN Separately, today I began smelling burning plastic from inside my unit. There were two orange traffic cones outside my window this afternoon, I smelt smoke and burning plastic. When I looked out my window, the cone was smoking. See attached photo. One cone appeared visibly damaged and had been smoking or heat-affected. This occurred in the same area I previously reported as disturbed. I asked artificial intelligence how this could have happened, and it suggested vapors were trapped in the cone, causing a reaction with the sun. If the window ledge was never disturbed, why would this happen? Please confirm in writing whether any substance, sealant, spray, chemical, heat source, or work activity occurred on or near my window ledge, exterior wall, or surrounding area before this occurred. --- Nothing in this email is an admission of any lease violation, waiver of rights, or agreement with management’s allegations. Rebecca Wolf On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:02 PM Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> wrote: Ms. Wolf: As you are fully aware, management is unable to share with you what goes on with other households. This includes households where the former resident is deceased. Accordingly, I am unable to share with you if a next of kin for Ms. Ortiz was contacted. That said, I have spoken with management and confirmed that all procedures relevant to that situation were followed. However, your allegation regarding the removal of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings is incorrect. The photos that you attached to your email were not of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. The items belong to an entirely different resident who is fully aware of the removal. I am informed that you followed the moving vendor from the second floor to unit #315, recording the vendor the entire time. This is the second occurrence in two weeks where you have video recorded in common areas of the building. This time you were interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s moving vendor and told them that you needed to see where the items were coming from - even though the belongings that were being moved are completely unrelated to you or your unit. Two weeks ago, you were observed recording on the 4th floor where you removed two large trash bags from the trash room and took them to your unit. Paragraph 3.o. of the House Rules state that you are not permitted to make video or audio recordings in common areas of the Property without the express permission of the Landlord. You do not have permission to record management’s vendors in common areas of the building, and you are requested to cease doing so immediately. Further, paragraph 3.q. of the House Rules provides that you are prohibited from interfering with the job responsibilities or harassing vendors authorized by the landlord. Video recording the vendor in common areas without their permission is considered harassment and following the vendor around the building interferes with their job responsibilities. Accordingly, you are in violation of the lease agreement. You are instructed to comply with the House Rules and immediately cease recording others in the common areas of the building and to cease interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s employees and authorized vendors. Please note that this email does not waive, change, or cancel the Notice to Perform Covenants of the Lease or Quit that was served on you on April 13, 2026, and does not prevent management from enforcing that notice in a future legal proceeding. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:49 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Property management: Please stop any disposal or removal of Debbie’s belongings from Room 315 immediately. I am concerned that property belonging to a deceased resident is being discarded before her family, emergency contact, or lawful representative has been notified. I observed belongings being moved toward the trash today. Please preserve all property, including electronics, jewelry, documents, medications, photos, IDs, financial records, and personal effects, until the proper legal contact or next of kin is notified and given an opportunity to retrieve them. I am requesting immediate written confirmation that disposal has stopped and that Debbie’s belongings are secured. I know Debbie has immediate family. Have they been contacted? I would like a response in writing immediately. Becky Wolf From:Mokhtar, Ahmad To:Sungjune Park Cc:Love, Dominay; Council, City; Police; Clerk, City Subject:RE: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:53:30 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Hi Sungjune, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I’m sorry to hear about the damage to your car as well as the inconveniences caused by the gas main installation project. Regarding the accident, the work on Ashton is being performed under a City streetwork permit. The permittee (PG&E) would be responsible for any damage resulting from their operations. I see that you cc’d Love Dominay from PG&E, so they should be working directly with you to address the damage. If you do not hear from them, please let me know and I will follow up. Separately, we understand that construction delays can be frustrating. Unfortunately, the project has been encountering groundwater conditions that are worse than anticipated. This has been main reason for the delayed schedule since it slows the pace that they can install pipe each day. To manage this, we’re actively overseeing the project to help expedite certain processes between Public Works, PG&E, and the contactor and allowing certain means and methods that help speed up progress while maintaining City standards. In addition to this, PG&E replaced the previous contractor with one that is better equipped to deal with the project’s challenges. If there are other issues such as excessive dust, noise, work hours, access concerns, and so on please let me know and I’ll look into it. Regards Ahmad Mokhtar, P.E. Senior Engineer Public Works Department (650) 329-2226 | ahmad.mokhtar@paloalto.gov https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works From: Sungjune Park <neotictac@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 9:44 AM To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@paloalto.gov> Cc: Love, Dominay <D7HS@pge.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Police <pd@PaloAlto.gov>; Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Accident at Ashton Ave construction site: Damaged car CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi - I would like to bring to your attention that there was an accident this morning, where one of the construction car hit my car parked in front of my house (699 Ashton Ave.) and damaged it. I am kinda fed up with this whole situation with noise, dust, and inconvenince that the multi-month construction work has caused. I personally am not seeing any upside on this public work yet I have been suffering this for months just because my property happens to be there. In fact, I am having to delay my own property remodeling due to all this. What is the city doing manage this? From:Julia M. Adams To:Becky Wolf-Loretz Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; Michael Gennaco Subject:RE: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:02:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Ms. Wolf: As you are fully aware, management is unable to share with you what goes on with other households. This includes households where the former resident is deceased. Accordingly, I am unable to share with you if a next of kin for Ms. Ortiz was contacted. That said, I have spoken with management and confirmed that all procedures relevant to that situation were followed. However, your allegation regarding the removal of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings is incorrect. The photos that you attached to your email were not of Ms. Ortiz’s belongings. The items belong to an entirely different resident who is fully aware of the removal. I am informed that you followed the moving vendor from the second floor to unit #315, recording the vendor the entire time. This is the second occurrence in two weeks where you have video recorded in common areas of the building. This time you were interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s moving vendor and told them that you needed to see where the items were coming from - even though the belongings that were being moved are completely unrelated to you or your unit. Two weeks ago, you were observed recording on the 4th floor where you removed two large trash bags from the trash room and took them to your unit. Paragraph 3.o. of the House Rules state that you are not permitted to make video or audio recordings in common areas of the Property without the express permission of the Landlord. You do not have permission to record management’s vendors in common areas of the building, and you are requested to cease doing so immediately. Further, paragraph 3.q. of the House Rules provides that you are prohibited from interfering with the job responsibilities or harassing vendors authorized by the landlord. Video recording the vendor in common areas without their This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast permission is considered harassment and following the vendor around the building interferes with their job responsibilities. Accordingly, you are in violation of the lease agreement. You are instructed to comply with the House Rules and immediately cease recording others in the common areas of the building and to cease interfering with the job responsibilities of management’s employees and authorized vendors. Please note that this email does not waive, change, or cancel the Notice to Perform Covenants of the Lease or Quit that was served on you on April 13, 2026, and does not prevent management from enforcing that notice in a future legal proceeding. Regards, Julia M. Adams ZANGHI TORRES ADAMS LLP 625 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone - 415.977.0444 x.228 Facsimile - 415.977.0156 jadams@ztalaw.com PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the information contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number or email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:49 PM To: Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; city.council@paloalto.gov; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>; vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov; greer.stone@paloalto.gov; Stephen Connolly <stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> Subject: Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Property management: Please stop any disposal or removal of Debbie’s belongings from Room 315 immediately. I am concerned that property belonging to a deceased resident is being discarded before her family, emergency contact, or lawful representative has been notified. I observed belongings being moved toward the trash today. Please preserve all property, including electronics, jewelry, documents, medications, photos, IDs, financial records, and personal effects, until the proper legal contact or next of kin is notified and given an opportunity to retrieve them. I am requesting immediate written confirmation that disposal has stopped and that Debbie’s belongings are secured. I know Debbie has immediate family. Have they been contacted? I would like a response in writing immediately. Becky Wolf From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Cc:"gmca-discuss" Subject:Historic Place Designation Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:30:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council & Director Lait, Question related to SB79 and Historic Place designation: Greenmeadow neighborhood is on the National Register of Historic Places. (GMCA has all of the original paperwork associated with this designation.) Can State law or local ordinance legally override or undermine this Federal designation in order to rezone for higher density? Many people in our neighborhood have worked to respect this designation and to restore our Eichler homes to bring formerly non-contributing homes to compliance so they now contribute to the integrity of Greenmeadow as an Historic Place. I am asking this question because of comments in the May 4 Council packet, Item #14 re: Historic designation. Thank you, in advance, for providing your perspective on this matter. Sincerely, Penny Ellson Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Julia M. Adams Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; Michael Gennaco Subject:Debbie Ortiz room 315 – death and belongings Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:49:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Property management: Please stop any disposal or removal of Debbie’s belongings from Room 315 immediately. I am concerned that property belonging to a deceased resident is being discarded before her family, emergency contact, or lawful representative has been notified. I observed belongings being moved toward the trash today. Please preserve all property, including electronics, jewelry, documents, medications, photos, IDs, financial records, and personal effects, until the proper legal contact or next of kin is notified and given an opportunity to retrieve them. I am requesting immediate written confirmation that disposal has stopped and that Debbie’s belongings are secured. I know Debbie has immediate family. Have they been contacted? I would like a response in writing immediately. Becky Wolf From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Council, City; City Mgr Cc:barr@stanford.edu; Pigman, Sophie; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; nathanial.r.hill@hud.gov; osh@hhs.sccgov.org; r9intakeinbox11; Viji Sundaram; Barbieri, Shelly; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; fairhousing@civilrights.usdoj.gov Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 2:02:01 PM Attachments:City manager report – TOC copy.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Cc Department of Justice- housing complaint - Case No: 681243CPJ Dear City Manager, Mayor, Ms. Pigman, Ms. Vargas, and Mr. Christiansen, I am requesting immediate City-level intervention. ## 1. My Unit and the Six-Month Delay I reached out to two code enforcement officers outside Palo Alto, and both told me that a notice like this should take no more than approximately 30 days at most. Ms. Vargas inspected my room in October. It is now almost May. There is no reasonable explanation for a six-month delay. Ms. Vargas told me she was working on this building full- time, yet I have not received the unit-specific report I need, and I have not seen meaningful action regarding my unit. I am formally requesting by 5:00 PM today: 1. Immediate hotel placement as a disability accommodation; 2. The unit-specific report for my room; 3. A written explanation for why Ms. Vargas’ inspection findings/notice have taken over six months. ## 2. Other Residents Reporting Unsafe Conditions and Retaliation This is no longer only about my room. At least 16 residents on the single side have raised concerns with me about unsafe rooms, retaliation, unequal rule enforcement, property loss, and fear of speaking up — and I do not know every resident on the single side. If I did, that number would likely be higher. Some rooms are also vacant. Last week alone, I believe there were approximately six emergency visits here, and this appears to be a regular pattern. Residents are getting sick. People are living in mold. The City needs to step up immediately. ## 3. Room 215, Emergency Contacts, and Belongings I am raising serious concerns about what happens when residents die, are hospitalized, or are no longer able to protect their belongings. I have paperwork showing that the woman who died in Room 215 had an emergency contact. I want to know whether that emergency contact was notified before her belongings and paperwork were discarded or removed. I need to know this immediately, because if they have not been contacted, this must be addressed. I am deeply concerned that residents’ belongings are being mishandled, discarded, or sold instead of properly secured and returned to their families or emergency contacts. ## 4. Shared Kitchen and Loss of Building Access The shared kitchen on my floor has been unusable for months. I can see through the window that it is full of another resident’s belongings. That is not acceptable in supportive housing. Why are residents expected to pay full rent when we do not have access to major parts of the building because of management’s actions or inaction? ## 5. City Responsibility The City cannot stand by while this is happening. The City has known about these conditions for months. I brought these issues forward, Ms. Vargas came to my room in October, and yet I still do not have the report or notice needed to get help. Please answer today: - Will the City place me in a hotel immediately as an accommodation? - When will Ms. Vargas’ unit-specific report be released? - Why has this taken more than six months? - What is being done for other residents reporting unsafe conditions and retaliation? - Who is accountable for monitoring this building and ensuring resident safety? - Has Room 215 been formally released or cleared, and by whom? - Was Room 215’s emergency contact notified? - What happened to the belongings and paperwork from Room 215? - Why has the kitchen been unusable for months and filled with another resident’s belongings? - What safeguards are in place to protect residents’ belongings after death, hospitalization, or displacement? If I do not receive a sufficient response by 5:00 PM today, I will escalate this to Social media, my contacts on LinkedIn, anyone and everyone to amplify my voice and the voice of the people being harmed, I have been speaking with several reporters already familiar with these issues. I invite each of you to come spend a weekend here with us. Stay on the single side. Walk the halls. Look through the kitchen window. Listen to the residents. Watch the emergency vehicles come and go. See what it feels like to live in rooms where people are reporting mold, retaliation, fear, illness, and neglect. Then ask yourselves whether this is acceptable supportive housing in the City of Palo Alto. What troubles me most is the gap between the City’s public image and the reality inside this building. The City promotes itself as protecting and supporting vulnerable residents, yet we are living in unsafe and unhealthy conditions while asking for basic help. That contradiction is not sustainable, and it needs to be addressed now. Accountability starts now. Sincerely, Rebecca Wolf This is the cities responsibility! I am also enclosing the City Manager’s Report CMR 157-03, which I have raised before. That report shows the Opportunity Center site was approved with environmental mitigation and monitoring obligations because of known contamination, high groundwater, drainage/waterproofing concerns, sewer and wastewater safeguards, ventilation requirements, and indoor-air-quality protections. In other words, the City knew from the beginning that this site required ongoing attention to water intrusion, mold prevention, vapor/contaminant risk, and resident safety. That is why the City’s six-month delay in producing Ms. Vargas’ unit- specific findings is so concerning. Key Findings From the 2003 City Manager’s Report (CMR 157-03) Page 1 of 5 (All of these are directly relevant to your unit’s mold, water intrusion, and contamination issues.) 1. The Site Was Already Identified as Environmentally Hazardous The report explicitly states the property was found to have (quote): • “Lead detected in surface soils” • “Elevated concentrations of benzene in groundwater” • “Chlorinated solvents (PCE, TCE) at unsafe levels” • “Asbestos & lead in building materials” The City required a Remedial Action Plan before construction. *** This means the land under the Opportunity Center was already contaminated with petroleum products, solvents, benzene, and lead. Chronic exposure to moisture + old contamination = heightened toxic risk. If remediation failed or moisture pulled contaminants upward, your symptoms make sense. 2. The City Document Identifies High Groundwater Problems on Site The EIR found groundwater so close to the surface that: • Any trenching or underground work could disturb toxic groundwater • Any failure in drainage or plumbing could release contaminants *** High groundwater on a contaminated site = increased mold, VOCs, benzene vapor intrusion, and moisture wicking up through slabs and walls, especially in a building with known leaks. Your moisture levels (47% at windowsill) are consistent with a building constructed on already- compromised, moisture-heavy soil. Key Findings From the 2003 City Manager’s Report (CMR 157-03) Page 2 of 5 3. Strict Mold & Water-Intrusion Prevention Was REQUIRED — meaning if your unit has mold, the owner is violating city-mandated conditions The EIR includes conditions requiring: • Proper waterproofing • Moisture barriers • Vapor intrusion protection • Inspection during construction • Adequate drainage systems • Ensuring no water leaks into residential units This matters A LOT. *** Relevance *** Your unit violates multiple mandatory environmental/health conditions the City imposed before the building was even allowed to be built. This strengthens your CRD/HUD case massively. 4. Sewer & Wastewater System Must Be Maintained to Prevent Leakage or Backflow The City required: • Replacement of the entire sewer lateral to the city main • Inspections • Prohibitions against certain materials • Proper grading to prevent wastewater flow back toward the property • Sewer systems must handle projected use without overflow *** Relevance*** Your maintenance man repeatedly came to your door saying: Key Findings From the 2003 City Manager’s Report (CMR 157-03) Page 3 of 5 “Is your table overflowing? Your tub is leaking into the lobby.” This is consistent with: • Backflow issues • Sewer line stress • Drainage failures documented as risks in the original City report If water from your tub is reaching the lobby, that indicates the system is not built or maintained to required code. 5. The Building’s Environmental Approval REQUIRED Ongoing Monitoring The environmental review wasn’t one-and-done. The City required: • Follow-up inspections • Hazard mitigation measures • Compliance checks • Ongoing protective measures for residents 👉 Relevance: You have a strong argument that the owner / Abode violated: • EIR Conditions of Approval • Building & Safety Code requirements • Environmental Mitigation Monitoring obligations Meaning: The City required them to maintain health-safe conditions, and they didn’t. This is GOLD for your CRD and HUD filings. 6. Hazardous Materials Were Required to Be Managed “In Perpetuity” Key Findings From the 2003 City Manager’s Report (CMR 157-03) Page 4 of 5 The report says hazardous materials (lead, benzene, solvents) must be managed permanently, not just before construction. Relevance: If moisture in your unit is drawing up contaminants, Abode is responsible under: • CEQA • City Conditions of Approval • State Health & Safety Code This is a serious failure. 7. The Building Must Have Adequate Ventilation The report requires adequate ventilation systems for habitability. 👉 Relevance: You have only one window, which is mold-contaminated, and ventilation is poor. That likely violates original City requirements. 8. The City Required Prevention of “Indoor Air Quality Hazards” Including: • Moisture • Mold • Contaminants • Vapor intrusion • Chemical exposure • Inadequate ventilation 👉 Relevance: Key Findings From the 2003 City Manager’s Report (CMR 157-03) Page 5 of 5 Your worsening medical symptoms (wheezing, headaches, joint pain, brain fog, dog panting) are consistent with exposure to: • Mold mycotoxins • VOCs • Solvent residues • Pesticide residues • Contaminated moisture intrusion This document proves the City already knew these risks existed, and Abode is responsible for preventing them. MY BOTTOM LINE: 1. The land under the Opportunity Center was contaminated — benzene, PCE/TCE, lead, solvents. 2. Groundwater contamination was severe and close to the surface. 3. The City REQUIRED strict water-intrusion and mold prevention. 4. Your unit violates those requirements. 5. The City REQUIRED proper sewer and drainage systems. 6. Your unit’s leaks → lobby water leak = proof of system failure. 7. Indoor air quality protection was mandated. 8. Poor ventilation + mold = violation of original conditions of approval. 9. Abode is legally responsible for maintaining environmental safety forever, not just at construction. You can absolutely use every one of these points in your CRD complaint, HUD complaint, ADA documentation, and building inspector follow-ups. From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; 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 Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda Subject:East Meadow Circle Box Truck Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:58:19 PM Attachments:Box Truck on EMC.png IMG_5026.mov CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, East Meadow Circle Businesses, and Others, I just wanted to bring to your attention that there is someone living in this Box Truck across from 1035 East Meadow Circle. Oftentimes when I ride by I see the back door partially open with a fan and generator running. I suspected someone was living in there, but then when I rode by yesterday the door was all the way open and I saw a person and two large dogs in there. I quickly doubled back and asked the guy if helived there and he said “Yes, temporarily!” So I would think this would raise a number of other issues along with the constant buzz of generators such as waste disposal, safety, etc. As this situation continues, and continues, and continues, I will continue to monitor these streets that negatively impact fellow residences and businesses. Regards,Bob Marinaro From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:City Mgr; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer Cc:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Pigman, Sophie Subject:Accommodation request & immediate answers Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:43:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Manager, Mayor, Ms. Pigman, Ms. Vargas, and Mr. Christiansen, I am requesting immediate intervention from City leadership. Yesterday, I discovered that my rheumatoid arthritis medication was destroyed because it froze in the refrigerator provided in my unit. This medication costs over $10,000. I take it weekly, and I have already been unable to take it because I remain in a toxic environment. I notified the City yesterday. This is not a minor inconvenience. I am disabled. I am in severe pain. I am living in conditions the City has already identified as involving mold, damp/wet conditions, water intrusion, drainage/waterproofing issues, and possible unpermitted work. Senior Code Enforcement Officer Elisa Vargas inspected my unit in October. She indicated she would return in early November. Every time Miss Vargas asked me for something. I jumped through hoops. It is now almost May. There is no reasonable explanation for a unit- specific report or Notice of Violation to take more than six months. During this time, the retaliation I have experienced is severe. The Office of Supportive Housing informed me that until I have Ms. Vargas’ report documenting the conditions in my room, I cannot effectively obtain outside assistance to leave this unit. That means the City’s delay is directly keeping me in substandard conditions. I am no longer willing to be passed between departments while my health, medication, finances, and safety continue to deteriorate. I am requesting the following immediately: 1. Immediate hotel placement as a reasonable accommodation; 2. Immediate release of Ms. Vargas’ unit-specific inspection findings; 3. Reimbursement for my destroyed rheumatoid arthritis medication; 4. Reimbursement for expenses I have incurred because of these conditions, including environmental/fleet-related investigation costs; 5. Reimbursement for my dog’s medication and related expenses caused by prolonged exposure to unsafe conditions; 6. A written explanation from City leadership identifying who is responsible for the six-month delay; and 7. A written response by 5:00 PM today. I came here to receive support. Instead, I have been left in unsafe conditions for seven months This requires immediate City Manager and Mayor-level intervention. Sincerely, Rebecca Wolf From:Patrick Muffler To:Council, City Subject:FW: Excessively motorized bicycles Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:25:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/04/28/e-bikes-e-motos-public-safety-challenges- intense-vehicles-child-abuse-charges/? utm_email=85B0E441C5D4556204D99493D9&lctg=85B0E441C5D4556204D99493D9&acti ve=yesP&listId=%23Listrak%5clistId%23&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_ter m=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2026%2f04%2f28%2fe-bikes-e-motos- public-safety-challenges-intense-vehicles-child-abuse-charges%2f&utm_campaign=bang- multi_pubs-morning_report-nl&utm_content=manual <https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/04/28/e-bikes-e-motos-public-safety-challenges- intense-vehicles-child-abuse-charges/? utm_email=85B0E441C5D4556204D99493D9&lctg=85B0E441C5D4556204D99493D9 &active=yesP&listId=%23Listrak%5clistId%23&utm_source=listrak&utm _medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2026%2f04 %2f28%2fe-bikes-e-motos-public-safety-challenges-intense-vehicles-child-abuse- charges%2f&utm_campaign=bang-multi_pubs-morning_report- nl&utm_content=manual> This is an increasingly serious problem, particulary on multi-use paths (e.g,, the path between Bol Park and Gunn High School). I hope that Council can take a leadership role in addressing this matter, rather than waiting for the State of Califonria to get its act together. One certainly cannot expect the Palo Alto School District to pay any attention to it. Patrick Patrick Muffler This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Sonya Bradski To:Council, City Subject:Please Protect the Greenmeadow"s Eichler One Story Historic Neighborhood Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:40:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please protect the Greenmeadow Eichler One Story Historic neighborhood. I understand that the Greenmeadow neighborhood is located near the San Antonio train station but there is no parking, bike lanes, or pedestrian paths at the San Antonio train station. The University Avenue and California Avenue CalTrain Stations currently have parking, bike lanes and pedestrian paths to accommodate more dense housing. Please DO NOT change the zoning in Greenmeadow to accommodate high dense housing. There are better areas in Palo Alto to accommodate high density housing near University Avenue or California Avenue CalTrain Stations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sonya Bradski Greenmeadow Resident 650-575-2395 From:Verizon Connect To:Council, City Subject:Is your fleet resilient? Prepare for Q2 storm season. Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:10:05 PMCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i Verizon Connect. The bestfleets areprepared forthe worst. Will your plan hold up under pressure? Get the emergency prep guide When every minute counts, you need more than a plan, you need near real-time visibility. Whether it’s the start of hurricane season in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, peak tornado activity in the Midwest, or wildfire mitigation in the West, Q2 is the most critical window for emergency preparedness. This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Verizon Connect helps public safety and government fleets navigate the chaos of extreme conditions: Locate distressed drivers: Instantly find vehicles and check driver status during zero- visibility storms or floods. Navigate around hazards: Use real-time GPS to reroute around downed power lines, debris, and closed roads. Coordinate in near-real time: Send the right teams where they’re needed most—from Sheriff’s deputies to Public Works crews. Protect high-value assets: Use geofencing to monitor expensive equipment moved during evacuations and recover assets faster. Get prepared See it in action: Prepare before crisis hits. Don’t wait for the siren to test your response. See how GPS tracking, asset management, and in-cab alerts help you operate safer when the pressure is on. Request a quick 15 minute demo Verizon Connect, 5055 North Point Pkwy, Alpharetta, GA 30022 Unsubscribe | View this email in your browser © 2026 Verizon Connect. All Rights Reserved. The Verizon name and logo and all other names, logos, and slogans identifying Verizon’s products and services are trademarks and service marks or registered trademarks and service marks of Verizon Trademark Services LLC or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Pigman, Sophie; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Re: Subject: Urgent Meeting Required: Unit Conditions, Medical Harm, City Oversight, and Reimbursements Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:00:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Ms. Pigman, Ms. Vargas, and Mr. Christiansen, I am requesting a written response by 5:00 PM today regarding my urgent accommodation request for immediate hotel placement. There is no reasonable explanation for a Notice of Violation or unit-specific inspection findings to take more than six months to prepare. Ms. Vargas inspected my unit in October. It is now almost May. I was informed by the Office of Supportive Housing that until I have a written report from Ms. Vargas documenting the conditions in my room, I cannot effectively obtain outside assistance to get out of this unit. That means the City’s delay is directly keeping me in substandard conditions while I am in severe pain and not feeling well. Please confirm by 5:00 PM today: 1. Whether the City will approve temporary hotel placement as an accommodation; 2. Who has authority to approve it; and 3. When Ms. Vargas’ unit-specific report will be provided. This has to stop. Sincerely, Rebecca Wolf This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Google Groups To:Council, City Subject:Invitation to join Safe Inbox Circle Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:47:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Safe Inbox Circle Google Groups Hi city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, eliana1367599@gmail.com invited you to join the Safe Inbox Circle group. Google Groups allows you to create and participate in online forums and email-based groups with a rich community experience. You can also use your Group to share documents, pictures, calendars, invitations, and other resources. Learn more. If you do not wish to be a member of this group or believe this group may contain spam, you can report the group for abuse. For additional information see our help center. Accept this invitation If you do not wish to be added to Google Groups in the future you can opt out here. Visit the help center. From:Susan Dunn Subject:Be part of an elegant night with Susan Dunn celebrating cuisine and connection. Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 5:58:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. ! Paperless Post Experience an enchanting evening with Susan Dunn, where laughter rises like song, joy is woven into every conversation. delight is found in every detail, and each memory shine long after the evening ends. ForF V I E W A N D R E P L Y Please view the full invitation details on a desktop or PC. Let’s toast to Susan Dunn as we celebrate this moment. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Add to calendar Guest List View guest list For your security, Paperless Post sends emails only from the following email addresses: paperlesspost@paperlesspost.com, paperlesspost@accounts.paperlesspost.com, and paperless@email.paperlesspost.com. Be cautious of emails from other addresses claiming to be us. If you suspect this email violates Paperless Post's Terms of Service, help protect our community and report abuse. To guarantee that you never miss a Paperless Post invitation or greeting card, please add paperlesspost@paperlesspost.com to your address book and drag emails to your primary inbox if they land in "Spam" or "Promotions." If you want to stop receiving emails from Paperless Post, you can block a specific sender or unsubscribe to stop receiving all event invitations, greeting cards, and marketing emails sent via Paperless Post. Learn more about our Privacy Policy. © Paperless Post • 115 Broadway, New York, NY 10006 From:Heather Gioia To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Will Palo Alto Go Purple for BTS in 3 weeks? Tampa Just Did - and the Results Were Stunning. Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 7:53:59 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 Palo Alto City Council, Last weekend, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor lit up Tampa's City Hall and downtown bridges in purple to welcome BTS for their sold-out North American tour opener at Raymond James Stadium. The city turned itself into a three-day festival, the images went viral, and local outlets projected the concerts would generate between $800 million and $900 million in economic impact for the Tampa area. Now BTS is coming to us. BTS will perform three sold-out shows in three weeks at Stanford Stadium on May 16, 17, and 19 — right in Palo Alto's backyard. If you're not familiar with them, BTS is one of the most globally dominant pop acts of the past decade. Their current world tour has 45% fewer shows than Taylor Swift's record-breaking Eras Tour, yet is projected to generate up to $2 billion — likely surpassing Taylor Swift on a per-show basis. Their fanbase, known as ARMY, is arguably the most organized and economically active in the world, buying 3–5x more merchandise than the average concertgoer. As a Bay Area resident and proud member of ARMY, I am writing to ask: would the City of Palo Alto consider lighting City Hall and local landmarks purple in honor of this historic moment? Palo Alto has done this before. When Ukraine needed the world to notice, this city lit City Hall in blue and yellow. That gesture said: we see you, and you matter to us. Purple for BTS says the same thing — to South Korea, to ARMY worldwide, and to every fan who will make Palo Alto their destination this May. And if you want to give the world an image it will never forget: light El Palo Alto purple as well. A 1,000-year-old redwood — the tree this city is named after, the tree on the city seal — glowing purple on the night of a sold-out stadium concert would be shared around the world within minutes. No other city on this tour can offer that. One hundred and fifty thousand fans will be arriving in Palo Alto over three nights. A gesture as simple as lighting City Hall purple would generate enormous goodwill, media attention, and visibility This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report for Palo Alto as a warm and welcoming place — and give local businesses a meaningful boost, as fans eagerly spend in the neighborhoods surrounding the venue. Tampa showed the rest of the country how it's done. Palo Alto, as the city closest to Stanford Stadium, has the chance to lead the Bay Area in doing the same — and the infrastructure to make it happen before May 16. I plan to make similar requests of neighboring cities including San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, and it would be wonderful for Palo Alto to lead the way. I would be delighted to connect with your office if helpful. Thank you so much for your consideration. Warm regards, Heather Gioia 619-549-5294 From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu To:Council, City; PlannerOnDuty Subject:910 Webster Street proposed project and R-1 daylight plane Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 5:06:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. April 27, 2026 Subject: 910 Webster Street proposed project and R-1 daylight plane Palo Alto City Council and Planning Department: My reading of the City ordinances/guidelines is that the 10-foot-up/45-degree daylight plane "easement" for R-1 properties must be enforced and protected by City Planning. This project would certainly violate the daylight plane for homes along Addison, likely across Webster, and perhaps even diagonally across Channing. I hope the daylight plane situation is a central part of the discussion about this project. Mike Forster 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu From:Amanda Brown-Stevens To:Veenker, Vicki Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: More Days to Nominate Your Staff for the Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt Awards Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 4:08:40 PM Attachments:GreenbeltAlliance-hidden-heroes-logo.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Vicki Veenker and Councilmembers, As I mentioned in an earlier email, the nominations for Greenbelt Alliance's sixth annual Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt Awards are open. We extended the deadline until May 17 so more people can contribute! I invite you to nominate staff from the City of Palo Alto or another public agency in your jurisdiction that has been instrumental in building climate resilience in the region. CLICK HERE TO NOMINATE Three winners will be recognized and honored at our annual benefit, which will take place on Wednesday, September 23rd, at the Prescott Market in Oakland! Why is this important? As environmental and climate protections continue to be rolled back at the national level, local leaders are our most important line of defense. Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt is our annual celebration honoring the extraordinary local government staff whose work on land use, housing, and climate resilience is protecting our region and inspiring change beyond it. Nominating is simple: Nominees should be San Francisco Bay Area local government staff (city/county/agency), non-elected, working at the intersection of land use and climate change within the following categories: Nature-based Adaptation: working on policies and projects that lead with nature to build climate resilience. Planning for Resilience: planning and community engagement that implements equitable, climate resilience strategies. Abundant Smart Housing: building more homes in the Bay Area, close to jobs and transit and away from fire hazards, that are affordable for all, is one of the most impactful actions we can take to reduce climate impacts. Deadline extended: Nominations should be submitted via the Google Form by May 17, 2026. Hidden Heroes is a festive day when residents, nonprofits, government, and businesses come together and celebrate our collective commitment to this work. Learn more about our previous Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt awardees. Thank you for helping us uplift inspiring leaders from your region. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Sincerely, Amanda Brown-Stevens Executive Director Greenbelt Alliance 827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607 greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X From:glenn_s@rubyquest.com To:Council, City Subject:Keep Cubberley Gym As Is Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 3:20:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am a long time TheatreWorks annual subscriber (35+ years) and a user of the Cubberley gym. TheatreWorks have a very nice venue at Mountain View and honestly, most of the time it is rarely over 50% occupied. I see no value in converting the gym to a theater. And, Cubberley today as a gym and dance center is awesome. Regards, Glenn This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Sheryl Klein To:Council, City Subject:Re: Alta Housing - Tree Planting at Colorado Park Apartments - May 5, 2026 Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 2:24:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi again, The Alta Housing-Canopy tree planting will be on Tuesday, May 5th -- sorry about the typo in my previous email. Hope that you can join us, sheryl Sheryl Klein (she/her) Chief Operating Officer CA DRE # 01844288 Alta Housing Sobrato Center for Nonprofits 3460 W. Bayshore Rd. Ste. 104, Palo Alto, CA 94303 c: 650-255-2671 e. sklein@altahousing.org w: altahousing.org Our impact goes beyond housing -- see what we did in 2025! This message and any attached files are confidential and solely for use by the intended recipients. Disregard and permanently delete the email and any attachments if you received this message in error. BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER Palo Alto Housing is now Alta Housing! Curious about our new name? Read about Alta Housing On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 12:11 PM Sheryl Klein <sklein@altahousing.org> wrote: Dear Mayor and Council Members, planting at our Colorado Park Apartments on Monday, May 5, in celebration of Affordable Housing Month. This event is being held in partnership with Canopy and will bring together residents, volunteers, and community partners to plant trees, enhance the landscape, and spend time together outdoors. The day will also include a small Cinco de Mayo celebration with residents, creating an opportunity to connect with families who call Colorado Park home. Your presence would mean a great deal to our community. These moments—when residents, local leaders, and partners come together—help reinforce the shared commitment to building strong, healthy neighborhoods. Event Details: Colorado Park Apartments, 1141 Colorado Avenue Monday, May 5 - 4 to 6 pm Please let me know if you are able to attend. We would be glad to coordinate remarks or simply welcome you to join the planting. Thank you for your continued support of affordable housing in our community. Warmly, Sheryl Sheryl Klein (she/her) Chief Operating Officer CA DRE # 01844288 Alta Housing Sobrato Center for Nonprofits 3460 W. Bayshore Rd. Ste. 104, Palo Alto, CA 94303 c: 650-255-2671 e. sklein@altahousing.org w: altahousing.org Our impact goes beyond housing -- see what we did in 2025! This message and any attached files are confidential and solely for use by the intended recipients. Disregard and permanently delete the email and any attachments if you received this message in error. BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER Palo Alto Housing is now Alta Housing! Curious about our new name? Read about Alta Housing From:Avroh Shah To:Council, City Subject:Re: Request to Sign On to Support BAAD Rules 9-4, 9-6 Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 1:37:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. I realize I linked the letter twice (thank you Councilmember Lu for pointing that out!), and not the actual sign on form. Here is the form: eay--g/viewform Best, Avroh On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 4:27 PM Avroh Shah <avrohshah@gmail.com> wrote: Hello City Councilmembers, I hope you are all doing well. BAAQMD, which is now BAAD (which is somehow an even worse acronym?), will be voting on zero emission appliance standard Rules 9-4 and 9-6 on 5/6, and there is a sign on letter going around for local electeds. I think that we're very fortunate to breathe clean air for much of the year in Palo Alto (AQI is usually around 35, barring orange skies), and I hope that you will all sign on to the letter and stand up for cleaner air, unless you are someone who is a member of the Air District board. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, thank you for having signed on already, and I hope to see all of your names on the letter. You can sign on at this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12IaSAKAK-w7sYVtIEbFGXfTpFEpiUGT- m54YB9QoIY8/edit?tab=t.0. Kind regards, Avroh From:San Mateo County Transit District To:Council, City Subject:SamTrans Next Stop e-News Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 1:35:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. • Spring 2026 | View online • Transit is your ticket to Bay Area exploration Looking for spring adventures in the Bay getaways and vibrant downtowns are all part of this month’s Hop Off Here podcast. LISTEN: Hop Off Here Help guide future transit decisions We want your input to help shape a local investment plan that would guide future transit improvements in San Mateo County. Take the survey Route ECR detours due to Caltrans construction The most heavily used SamTrans route is facing some changes as we work to avoid a major construction project along El Camino Real. Stay up to date with the latest ECR route detours. Learn more • • • Get Next Stop sent to your inbox | Subscribe• • • How SamTrans is improving safety systemwide New enforcement tools and safety investments are helping protect operators, reduce incidents and build rider trust. See what’s working Next phase of bus stop upgrades is here With recent Board adoption, the project now moves into implementation and coordination. Read all about it UPCOMING EVENTS May 14 — Bike to Wherever Day - All routes take bikes June 28 — SamTrans in the San Francisco Pride Parade - Route 292 July 1 — SamTrans 50th Anniversary - Ride FREE Day - All routes Join our team! Bus operators Mechanics Utility worker See more openings Also get updates via Bluesky and Threads. Forward Next Stop to your friends, so they can subscribe too! Editor: Randol White WhiteR@SamTrans.com Copyright (C) 2026 San Mateo County Transit District. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Julia M. Adams Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Subject: Urgent Meeting Required: Unit Conditions, Medical Harm, City Oversight, and Reimbursements Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 1:23:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject: Urgent Meeting Required: Unit Conditions, Medical Harm, City Oversight, and Reimbursements Dear Ms. Adams, Ms. Vargas, and Mr. Christensen, I am requesting an urgent meeting with all three of you — in person, by phone, or by video. The format does not matter. This needs to be discussed now. I have been raising concerns about this unit and this building with the City of Palo Alto since October. Ms. Vargas personally came to my room in October and told me she would return within approximately three weeks after obtaining the plans. I am still waiting for a clear written determination. I also spoke with the Office of Supportive Housing, and I was told it is my right to have Ms. Vargas’s report/determination. Once I have that report, I can seek help outside of Abode through the City and other appropriate channels. If Abode or the City is going to prevent me from obtaining that report, then I need to be placed in a hotel immediately while this is resolved. I need to know what determination was made about my room. Was my unit red-flagged? Was any report created? Was any inspection finding made? Was any referral, internal note, code concern, habitability concern, environmental concern, or enforcement issue documented? Based on the records I have reviewed, this building is not an ordinary property. The City of Palo Alto appears to have had monitoring and oversight responsibilities connected to environmental conditions, including air, water, soil, groundwater, vapor, drainage, and other site-related safety issues. Records also reference contamination concerns, including benzene in groundwater and PCE/TCE-related contamination concerns. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast If the City was responsible for monitoring these conditions, and if the building failed to pull permits for years, then both the City and the building need to explain exactly what happened, what was missed, and what is being done now. Meanwhile, I am still living in this unit. My health is getting worse. I am experiencing significant right-hand pain and visible deformity from rheumatoid arthritis. The medication I need to prevent further joint damage is Enbrel/etanercept, which can cost approximately $9,500–$11,000 per month without insurance. That medication was destroyed when the refrigerator in my unit froze it. This is a serious financial and medical loss, and it needs to be reimbursed immediately. I also need answers regarding: 1. reimbursement for the destroyed medication; 2. reimbursement for prior documented losses; 3. the defective refrigerator; 4. the defective window and lack of safe ventilation; 5. the unsafe/toxic conditions in my unit; 6. whether permits were required or pulled for relevant work; 7. what reports exist regarding my unit or adjacent areas; 8. what Ms. Vargas determined after her October visit; 9. what the City’s current position is on habitability and safety; 10. when I will be moved into a safe, nontoxic environment. I do not want to remain in this unit anymore. I should not have to keep begging for answers while my body is being harmed and my disability is worsening. Please provide meeting availability within 24 hours and identify who has authority to resolve reimbursement, relocation, and safety issues. Sincerely, Rebecca Wolf From:Sky Posse Post To:sforoundtable@smcgov.org Cc:Council, City; senator_padilla@padilla.senate.gov; repsamliccardo@mail8.housecommunications.gov; eric.henshall@mail.house.gov; 9-awp-noise@faa.gov; airportdirector@flysfo.com; senator.becker@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Shikada, Ed; City Attorney; bos@sfgov.org Subject:SFO Fly Quiet Program does not serve Mid-Peninsula populations Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 1:12:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the SFO Roundtable Technical Working Group, We offer the following comment regarding your April 29 meeting - agenda item #4 “Fly Quiet Program – Review of Final Program” that we hope you will consider. As some of you may recall, in the late 1990’s the town of Woodside, in coordination with the SFO Roundtable, asked the FAA to remove the Oceanic flight path (flights from Asia bound for SFO and OAK) previously overflying Filoli Gardens and move it to Mid-Peninsula residential neighborhoods. SFO and Roundtable leadership have not taken responsibility for the resulting impacts, particularly the nighttime noise burden on cities with a significant population including many youth and elderly. The SFO Noise Office once suggested that bigger planes need to go farther south to turn which puzzled aviation experts, who noted that speed, not aircraft size, is the determining factor of where to turn. The records are unambiguous about why the Oceanic flight path that safely serviced SFO and OAK by crossing over Woodside was moved to instead overfly Palo Alto and MidPen. On August 12, 1997, the San Francisco Examiner stated that the change was for Woodside residents “to sleep more soundly.” We documented this action in our input to the FAA on the agency’s environmental rule 1050.1G (see page 4 of our letter). In addition, in 2014 FAA personnel noted the noise shift “off the record” at the Nextgen EA workshops, and San Carlos Airport personnel from the 90’s recall that the Oceanic traffic “disappeared.” Ironically, when Oceanic flights crossing Woodside were shifted south, one mitigating feature was that altitudes would be higher over MidPen but Nextgen procedures later forced them lower. At your meetings earlier this year, your Vice-Chair representing Woodside commented that he gets “zero” complaints from Woodside, understandably, and would rather that the Roundtable’s Fly Quiet program help the greatest number of people closer to the airport. In fact, the SFO Roundtable has long influenced SFO/FAA/airline and congressional attention to address Woodside and Portola Valley’s concerns. San Mateo cities also used their seats on the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals to exert influence. Nevertheless, at the Select Committee, now a decade ago, the FAA acknowledged Mid-Peninsula concerns about night time noise; offered real solutions to our communities - that require SFO and airline involvement - but this has been ignored. The densely populated Mid-Peninsula needs to have a noise-abating night time program. Given that SFO, FAA, and your body do not announce or disclose initiatives that can negatively impact other communities, SFO and your body should please clearly and visibly disclose the program’s limitations. Permanent noise monitors currently end at Redwood City. As a result, the areas that generate the majority of SFO noise complaints and are highly populated receive neither adequate data collection, meaningful analysis, nor targeted noise mitigation measures. SFO and the airlines need to have transparency about these inadequacies, and address Mid-Peninsula noise concerns with urgent attention to night time impacts. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto Copy: Palo Alto City Council Elected representatives FAA Western Regional Office SFO Director San Francisco Board of Supervisors From:Deborah Goldeen To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Online: Proposed Budget Date:Monday, April 27, 2026 1:01:14 PM How much money would the city save if the de-commissioned the HRC and the ARB? And why is the fact that Palo Alto has TWICE as many steps required from building project approval not up for examination? How much money in staff time could be saved, to say nothing of redoing the pain and aggravation of building in Palo Alto, by taking out, say, one or two of those steps? Considering that some, if not all, of the staff positions that are proposed to be cut are truly essential, it serves to reason that the city/city manager has a fiduciary duty to propose tackling the root of the budget bleed. Deb G.