Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-18 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS 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: 5/18/2026 Document dates: 5/11/26 – 5/18/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Paweł Zawadzki To:Council, City Subject:Urging Council Support for Cubberley Community Center Modernization Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 11:59:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I am writing to urge the City Council to advance a ballot measure to fund the comprehensive revitalization of the Cubberley Community Center and designate it as a primary beneficiary of general use tax revenues. The Cubberley campus is a vital hub for South Palo Alto, yet its 1960s-era facilities have fallen into deep disrepair. For years, residents in our neighborhood have advocated for its renewal, often feeling that the needs of this part of the city have been overlooked. As Palo Alto moves forward with increased housing density—particularly in the southern neighborhoods—the strain on our local infrastructure will only grow. A modernized Cubberley is essential to meet these expanding recreational and community needs. Furthermore, upgrading this facility serves as an effective traffic mitigation strategy, allowing local families and seniors to access essential programs and classes without adding to cross-town congestion to reach northern facilities. Please show your commitment to equitable infrastructure and the well-being of all Palo Alto residents by enthusiastically supporting this measure. Sincerely, Pawel Zawadzki 264 Scripps Ct, 94303 Palo Alto, CA This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. This person's name has non-English characters. Mark Safe Report From:Marty Keller To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 8:34:24 AM Good afternoon council members, my name is Marty Keller and I live in Midtown. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. I support the option that provides more affordable housing as the difference between 17 and 14stories is not descernable. I don’t think the other option does anything meaningful except lower the amount of affordable units. I do think parking has to be increased. Thank you for your consideration, Marty Keller From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City Subject:Support for Mollie Stone’s option #2 (agenda item 14 public comment) Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 8:26:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Palo Alto city council, On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I am writing in support of the Mollie Stone’s project. Though both options would be a great addition to our city—transit-oriented, mixed-use, with more deed-restricted homes that many publicly funded projects—we would prefer the council support Option #2. Option 2 reflects the negotiated solution between the city and developer, which the city should honor. It will include a more appealing Mollie Stone’s store front while reflecting the true demand for commercial space, which would otherwise risk sitting vacant. And it provides more homes overall. We appreciate the hard work of Vice Mayor Stone and Council Member Lauing to negotiate an updated project, and we hope the council will wholeheartedly support. Both options illustrate the benefits of density near commercial areas and public transit. They will bring customers to a struggling commercial corridor, provide affordable housing at no cost to the city, and pay dramatically more in property taxes than the old Mollie Stone’s building. SB 79 implementation provides an opportunity for Palo Alto to proactively plan for more projects like this in similar locations like the transit center and other transit-oriented locations. Regards, Jeremy -- Jeremy Levine (he • him) Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward (650) 485-0127 From:Catherine Perman To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment to City Council May 18 meeting: Agenda Item 13 Cubberley Project Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 7:56:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Public comment to City Council May 18 Meeting: Agenda Item 13 Cubberley Project Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan. This plan includes many laudable ideas and design considerations. Thanks to all the contributors for their hard work! My “Cubberley Time” is primarily at Zohar Dance Company and other dance studios at Cubberley Building L. I have been a part of the Zohar community since I moved to Palo Alto in 1984. Zohar provides a supportive and positive space which encourages everyone to find joy in dance. Zohar offers classes, space for rehearsals, performances, special workshops and master classes that are open to the local community. I have been reviewing the Cubberley Conceptual Plan plan and its appendices to better understand how long term leasers will be able to sustain their activities and day-to-day operations during construction phases. In particular I have a personal interest in the 3 dance organizations with studios/performances/offices spaces in building L: Zohar, Dance Visions, and Dance Connection. The plan very briefly mentions finding transitional spaces for these types of organizations in PAUSD owned buildings. To quote the plan: “During construction, current program providers and tenants who occupy buildings affected by Phase 1 Construction will move to a temporary location which will be vacated by PAUSD prior to the project start” (see pages 49 and 52). That’s an admirable intention but without any additional information is it not really sufficient to assist the long term leasers. A conceptual plan might not include specific timelines, detailed designs or step by step processes but should include content for major transitional events. These organizations rely on daily activities including: classes, rehearsals and performances. Interruptions to these schedules would not only be detrimental, but could in fact jeopardize the organizations’ ability to remain solvent. I recommend that the conceptual plan describe possible processes that include long term leasers so that they can contribute to any additional planning. I think it would be prudent to include more than one sentence on how these leasers can start looking forward to their futures at Cubberley. There are several comments in the appendices that provide more details on the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report needs of these dance studios. I would be grateful to follow up with the planners on this matter. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the City Council. Catherine Perman Palo Alto Resident From:Diane Reklis To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:07:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The most important thing we can do to prevent suicides is to Make Palo Alto Fun Again. Rebuild Cubberley to preserve current programs, provide for future growth near San Antonio Road, and add joy to all of our lives. Our community centers should be welcoming and fun, not embarrassing and sad. Diane Reklis This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Hiroko To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Mitchell Courts Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 10:29:41 PM Attachments:20260518.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear, I hope this email finds you well. I am a Palo Alto resident and an avid tennis player. Please find the attached. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hiroko Ohtsuki 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:edie groner To:Council, City; GMCA-Discuss Cc:Edie Groner; Gabe Groner Subject:Remodeling Cubberly Community Center Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 9:38:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I encourage the Council members to move forward with a ballot measure to support remodeling Cubberley Community Center and it should be a priority beneficiary of the general use tax revenue. As a member of Greenmeadow, we need a renewed community center for those who live in South Palo Alto, and others from Palo Alto neighborhoods. The conditions of the buildings built in the 60's are in disrepair and in need of renewal. For years we have begged the city council to take action to renovate the Cubberley campus and felt that our needs were being neglected by the city. Our seniors in the South of Palo Alto utilize this Cubberley Community Center . With developments in housing increasing in South Palo Alto, it is important for the city to have sufficient recreation needs met at Cubberley Community Center. Traffic will increase in the city with housing developments which means that a rejuvenated Cubberley Community Center will make it easier for young people and seniors to access Cubberley without having to go to the north part of the city for classes and programs. I encourage each member of the council to enthusiastically support this ballot measure by showing that you care about the well being of Palo Alto residents of both the south and north of the city who will utilize this facility. Sincerely, Edie Groner 230 Pakside Dr. Palo Alto, CA 9306 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:Namita Joshua To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Palo Alto Tennis Courts Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 9:08:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good evening, My name is Namita Joshua and I am a Palo Alto resident, living at 1210 Newell Rd, right by some of the Rinconada tennis courts. I am writing this in response to the request to convert some of the Mitchell Park tennis courts into pickleball courts. What this would do is increase the number of tennis players at the already crowded courts in Rinconada. I would like to request you to not go ahead with this proposal. As it is, courts are in high demand in Rinconada. We live within earshot of 9 courts, and usually have to wait for courts to play on in the evenings. Additionally even the tennis wall is frequently in use. There are many times when I have had to wait to get a turn. I also use the park for my hour-long evening walk and I daily see these courts full in the evenings. Players wait patiently on the stands for their turn. I am just saying this to testify that those courts are already in high demand, with the number of players interested in playing at this location. You can drive by any evening to see that these courts are at full occupancy till the lights go off around 10PM every night. To close the Mitchell Park courts would drive more tennis traffic to Rinconada, to an already busy set of courts. This will only make the current situation worse, and increase wait times, while reducing available play times. I humbly request you to consider the high demand for these tennis courts in Palo Alto, and not close/convert tennis courts. Thanks, Namita M Joshua (607) 379-2581 namitajoshua@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Stephanie Sharron To:Council, City Cc:Jeff Hickman Subject:Cubberley Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 8:45:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please vote to purchase the additional 7 acres of the 35-acre Cubberley site from the school district for $65.5 million. Please don't lose this opportunity. We need a community center in South Palo Alto ASAP. Thank you so much. Best, Stephanie Sharron 343 Shasta Dr Palo Alto CA 94306 From:Blake Smith To:Council, City Subject:Tennis Courts Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 8:11:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please save the Mitchell Park Tennis Courts because they are still often in use and the pickleballers have enough courts for the Palo Alto community. Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone From:arl mock To:Council, City Subject:Keep Pavilion as a gym! Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 7:16:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto council members, I have been dancing at the Pavilion for years. My primary doctor, Ganna Baetge has encouraged me to "KEEP ON DANCING". The recent (May 2026) result of my bone density scan test showed an increased bone mineral density since the last test was taken in 12-18-23 and did not take any prescribed drugs for bone density. Ganna had remarked that it was the FIRST time that a patient of her made this remarkable improvement in increasing bone mineral density. Also being in that I am physically active, especially in dancing had prevented a recommended hip surgery in 2018. We need to keep the Pavilion as a gym and not another theater so that our community can continue to have a place that will provide wellness in mental and physical health, as well as to maintain a good standard of living filled with a lifetime full of joyful and healthy life for all. Sincerely, Arlene Mock Palo Alto resident since 1969 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:spencecovey@aol.com To:Council, City Cc:spencecovey Subject:Cubberley Pavilion should remain as is. Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 5:13:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please not the following: 1. I have been attending ballroom classes at Cubberley Pavilion since 1990 or 36 years. Prior to Covid the place use to be packed on Friday and Saturday evenings. Ballroom dancing took a major blow when Covid hit but is slowly making a comeback. It's so nice to see people returning to such a great activity as ballroom dancing. It's the only real ballroom to go to between San Jose and San Francisco! 2. A few weeks back the Pavilion was closed for floor refinishing and the dance took place in a gym about 100' just north of the Pavilion. The gym had no acoustic qualities like the Pavilion and it was a total disaster. No one could hear the instructors, the echo's were unimaginable and the music quality was horrible. The Pavilion on the other hand has a domed ceiling, excellent acoustic properties and a very large dance floor. I have read it is the largest dance floor in California. 3. Ballroom dancing is an asset to the community. The people that go are high quality people that enjoy music, Waltz, Fox Trot, etc. In fact, Stanford University's ballroom students have put on many performances at the Pavilion and have appreciated having such a nice place to show off their abilities! 4. To tear down such a wonderful place at the cost of millions of dollars would be a huge mistake. The Pavilion is one of a kind type of ballroom. It cannot be replaced by holding dances in the gyms. Thank you so much for your consideration! Sincerely, Spencer Covey 576 Maple Street San Mateo, Ca.94402 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 650 570-6400 Cell spencecovey@aol.com From:Subu To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick Subject:Please do not convert Mitchell Park Tennis Courts to Pickle ball courts anymore Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 5:12:32 PM Attachments:MEMORANDUM - Coversion of Tennis Courts.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor, Palo Alto City Council Members, and Parks and Recreation Commission Members, Please find the attached memo opposing the conversion of tennis courts to pickleball courts. As a Palo Alto resident of over 25 years and an avid tennis player, I frequently use the Mitchell Park courts. Due to recent conversions, only four tennis courts remain available at this location. It has become increasingly difficult for my family and me to secure playtime, particularly during weekends and outside of standard work hours. This policy effectively forces South Palo Alto tennis players to seek facilities elsewhere. I request that you stop converting existing tennis courts and instead focus on building new infrastructure for pickleball. Additionally, I ask that you consider restoring the dual-use courts at Mitchell Park to tennis-only use, as the overlapping lines are confusing, especially for children. While I support the pickleball community and their access to facilities, converting existing courts is an inadequate solution. Both Cubberley and Mitchell Parks have sufficient space for new construction. Furthermore, I urge you to require new real estate developments in South Palo Alto to include the recreational facilities necessary to support our growing community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Subu Govindaswamy 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Palo Alto City Council & Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Subu Govindaswamy, 25-Year Palo Alto Resident & Avid Tennis Player DATE: May 17, 2026 SUBJECT: Preserving Dedicated Tennis Courts at Mitchell Park and South Palo Alto SUMMARY This memorandum addresses the critical shortage of dedicated tennis courts in South Palo Alto resulting from recent pickleball conversions. It requests a freeze on further court conversions, the restoration of dual-use courts at Mitchell Park to tennis only, and the utilization of open space or developer funding to build dedicated pickleball facilities. BACKGROUND & CURRENT IMPACT * Resident Status: Over 25 years of residency in Palo Alto using city recreation facilities. * Severe Court Shortage: Cumulative conversions have left only 4 dedicated tennis courts available at Mitchell Park. * Access Constraints: Families face immense difficulty securing playtime during high- demand windows (before/after work and weekends). * Geographic Disparity: The current policy effectively forces South Palo Alto tennis players to travel across town to access uncompromised facilities. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES & SOLUTIONS * Build New Infrastructure: Do not strip existing tennis infrastructure. Use uncommitted open space at Cubberley Community Center or Mitchell Park to build brand-new, dedicated pickleball courts. * Leverage Real Estate Development: Require newly approved, large-scale residential real estate developments in South Palo Alto to fund or build new recreational public spaces. * Restore Mitchell Park Courts: Revert the current dual-use/multi-line courts at Mitchell Park back to standard, single-use tennis layouts to eliminate line confusion and scheduling conflicts. CONCLUSION & CALL TO ACTION Recreational expansion should not be a zero-sum game that penalizes long-standing sports communities. I request that the Parks and Recreation Commission place Mitchell Park sports infrastructure on a near-term meeting agenda to formalize a strategy for dedicated, separate growth for both tennis and pickleball. Respectfully submitted, Subu Govindaswamy From:Harriet Stern To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com; Howard, Adam Cc:Olenka S. Villarreal Subject:Visitors affected by Pickleball at Mitchell Park Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 5:07:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Parks and Recreation Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns regarding pickleball expansion at Mitchell Park. I have been a Palo Alto resident since 2010 and currently serve as Curator of Community Kindness for the Magical Bridge Foundation. Mitchell Park is one of Palo Alto’s most treasured public spaces because it serves so many different people and purposes. Over the years, my family and I have enjoyed the playgrounds, library, Ada’s Café, sports fields, community events, concerts, and countless gatherings there. Through the City’s Enjoy Catalog, I also took pickleball lessons at Mitchell Park when portable nets were still used on shared tennis courts. I appreciate pickleball and understand its popularity. However, Mitchell Park does not need additional pickleball courts. In fact, for Magical Bridge Playground visitors, the existing 15 courts are already too many. When Magical Bridge was founded 11 years ago to provide a sanctuary for people with disabilities, no one anticipated that a loud, high-turnover racket sport would operate right next door from sunrise to 10:00 PM. As pickleball has expanded, I have personally witnessed a decrease in playground visitors. The extreme parking shortage deters disabled visitors who lack handicap placards. Furthermore, the constant, high-pitched pop-pop-pop triggers individuals with sensory sensitivities. Recently, while working with Scouts on their Disability Awareness Merit Badge, the pickleball noise completely drowned out their presentations on the Magical Bridge stage. Attaching a recording. Additionally, we host "Magical Tennis" for neurodiverse youth on courts 3 and 4, serving close to 200 participants in three years. This program relies on the existing tennis infrastructure, as well as the neighboring bathrooms, lawns and playground. Magical Bridge is the only playground intentionally built for our most marginalized citizens. Pickleball is directly compromising their access to a space Palo Alto created specifically for them. It also strains shared resources. Parking is so impacted that I regularly must reserve spots at 5:00 AM or 10:00 PM for our volunteers and community partners on event and tennis This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast days. Unlike the Pickleball Club, which can mobilize thousands of members with a single email, individual residents, tennis players, library patrons, and families cannot organize in the same way. The disabled community is constantly fighting daily battles for basic access, support, and education; they cannot easily attend Parks and Recreation meetings. Magical Bridge was built as a sanctuary. Now, due to triggering noise and crowds, many families stay away. Mitchell Park must remain a balanced space that serves everyone. It is a beloved community asset, not a regional pickleball center. Please do not create more pickleball courts. Mitchell Park for All. Sincerely, Harriet Stern Curator of Community Kindness Magical Bridge Foundation (a 501c3 non-profit) www.magicalbridge.org From:Barbara Platt To:Council, City Subject:CUBBERLEY Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 4:29:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members I enthusiastically support the City of Palo Alto adopting CUBBERLEY Master Plan As a Palo Alto residence for 35 years, I have seen CUBBERLEY decline Over the years The proposed community partners of Avenidas, TheatreWorks, friends of Palo Alto recreation and wellness center, maker Nexus, and Palo Alto community childcare are important to the Greenmeadow community and the City of Palo Alto at large. I want CUBBERLEY to be the priority beneficiary of the general use tax revenue This project will have my support of time money and my vote thank you for your kind attention Barbara Platt 490 El Capitan Pl. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Aleks Totic To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Pickleball courts Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 1:31:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, I live in Palo Verde, and I do not support more pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I've played at Mitchell during Covid for a few months, and I think that pickleball is amazing in how it brings everyone together. The reason I oppose the expansion at Mitchell is because pickleball should be spread out to more Palo Alto parks, not just have it concentrated in one spot. Mitchell is a multi-use park, and parking can be difficult with so many pickleball players driving in. It'd be better if other Palo Alto parks had courts, so that everyone can have their local court. Greer has lots of open space, or build some when new housing gets built near San Antonio. Best, Aleks This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Action Item 14 156 California Ave Building Housing and Commercial Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:20:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council, I strongly support this housing including option #2. This is a perfect place for more people to live. It is near transportation, commercial businesses, jobs, schools and all that makes living in Palo Alto great. It is also a place where local businesses will benefit as well as schools, jobs and all the ways our city will benefit from new residents. I hope you will work with the developer to make this happen as quickly as possible. California Avenue needs this to reinvigorate its businesses also. Thank you for your commitment to housing for all and as infill so you provide locations that serve many interests. Patty Irish 850 Webster Palo Alto 94301 -- Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Wensi Yin To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Strong Objection to the Proposed Additional Tennis-to-Pickleball Court Conversions at Mitchell Park Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 10:33:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council, My name is Wensi Yin. I am writing as a Palo Alto resident living near Mitchell Park (3727 Grove Avenue) to formally voice my strong objection to the proposed conversion of two additional tennis courts into pickleball courts. One of the primary reasons I purchased my home in this neighborhood back in 2024 was having Mitchell park and library in walking distance and the ability to utilize Mitchell Park's tennis facilities. I went to Mitchell Park a couple times a week with family and neighbors and my whole family really enjoys time there. While I understand the popularity of pickleball, the current proposal creates a severe, unfair disadvantage for local tennis players and neighborhood taxpayers. If this conversion moves forward, Mitchell Park will be left with only two tennis courts. This creates two critical issues for South Palo Alto residents: 1. Complete Elimination of Nighttime Tennis: Mitchell Park is the only public park in South Palo Alto with lighted tennis courts. The remaining two courts are already heavily booked for city-sponsored and private lessons. If these tennis courts are converted, residents who work during the day will have absolutely nowhere to play tennis at night in our half of the city. 2. Unfairness to local taxpayers: Furthermore, it is widely observed that a large percentage of the players utilizing the current Mitchell Park pickleball courts are non- residents traveling from neighboring cities. While Palo Alto has always been welcoming, our neighborhood park infrastructure and local tax dollars should prioritize the recreational needs of Palo Alto residents first. This further conversion will severely impact local neighborhood access to our own park, causing increased traffic and parking congestion, all while displacing the resident tennis community. Public parks must serve a balanced ecosystem. I urge the City to reject this conversion proposal and instead protect the unique, lighted tennis infrastructure that South Palo Alto residents rely on. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to our neighborhood. Best, Wensi From:Sahana Mysore To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Transportation Subject:Urgent Concerns Regarding 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Adoption Draft Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 10:36:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission, I am writing as a an almost 20-yr resident of Palo Alto to express my significant disappointment and concern regarding the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Adoption Draft released this April. While the plan outlines an ambitious long-term vision, the Recommended Near-Term Projects (Figure EX 6) fail to address the most critical safety and infrastructure needs of our community. Based on the data provided in the city’s own draft—which I have attached and linked below for your immediate reference—there is a clear and dangerous misalignment between where the city is experiencing the highest risk and where it is choosing to invest. I would like to highlight several points where the current plan falls short: • Disconnect Between Demand and Investment: The "Demand for Walking and Biking Improvements" map (Figure 5) clearly shows that the downtown core is the highest demand zone in the entire city. Yet, the Near-Term Improvements map (Figure EX 6) largely ignores this sector. • Concentration of Injuries and Fatalities: The data in Figure 12 (Pedestrian Collisions) and Figure 13 (Bicycle Collisions) shows a dense cluster of fatal and severe injury collisions concentrated in the downtown area. It is unacceptable that neighborhoods with the highest density of accidents are bypassed in the 0–5 year implementation window. • Safety for Our Schools and Commuters: Many students navigate intersections that the "Intersection LTS Results" (Figure 9) categorize as the most dangerous (LTS 4). Delaying improvements here puts our most vulnerable residents at continued risk. • Impact of SB 423 + 79 (Housing Growth): With the significant housing density slated for downtown due to the passage of recent state laws, the volume of pedestrians and cyclists will only grow. Adding hundreds of new residents to an area where safety infrastructure is currently excluded from near-term plans is a major oversight. The city's own evidence proves that downtown is a high-risk, high-demand hotspot. I urge the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Council to re-evaluate the Near-Term Project List to include immediate, protected infrastructure for the Downtown North and University Avenue corridors. Reference Document: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/bicycling- walking/bptp-update-2024/final-plan/2026-bptp-adoption-draft-final_april-2026.pdf Please refer to the attached images highlighting Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 from the aforementioned document. Sincerely, Sahana Mysore From:Euginia Merken To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Mitchell Park Pickleball Courts Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 9:59:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council, I am an 18-year resident of Palo Alto, where I raised my two children alongside my husband. Two years ago, my husband of 33 years died unexpectedly. In the wake of that devastating loss, I found a powerful sense of community at Mitchell Park that helped me cope and heal. Living as a stay-at-home mom in the California suburbs can be profoundly isolating. Navigating that isolation as a 60-year-old widow with adult children felt incredibly bleak. While Palo Alto offers an array of services to strengthen community ties—and I have volunteered at our public schools, taken classes at the Pacific Art League, and used the community gardens—nothing came close to the profound connection I found at the Mitchell Park pickleball courts. Pickleball courts exist in many cities, but our local courts possess a unique magic: the sheer number of courts available allows people of all skill levels to play together. The only comparable local alternative is a private club called The Hub, which charges a staggering $40 daily drop-in fee. Because of our current municipal setup, Mitchell Park attracts players from far and wide, including advanced and professional athletes. In fact, I first learned about these courts from a high school friend living in Toronto, Canada, who had read about them. On any given day, I might play alongside retired football players, a reality show contestant, seniors, or teenagers. I even brought a young guest visiting from Germany to the courts; he had a marvelous time and still talks about how much fun he had. The success of this community relies entirely on having enough courts to bring people together. Expanding the number of courts will only make this vibrant community stronger, safer, and more inclusive for residents navigating difficult life transitions. The pickleball courts are truly the best thing about Palo Alto. I strongly urge the City Council to actively support the expansion and improvement of these courts, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report preserving and growing the vital community resource that has meant so much to me and countless others. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Euginia Merken Palo Alto Resident From:Christopher Turney To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Palo Alto pickleball courts Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 5:53:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council, I'm a Palo Alto resident of 11 years. I learned pickleball when I visited my parents for the holidays this past winter, and couldn't wait to play more so I joined the Palo Alto Pickleball Club as soon as I got back and have been playing at Mitchell Park a couple times a week since then. I'm writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park at the prompting of the club leaders. The place always seems to be packed, even during the day on weekdays. More courts would definitely be great! Anecdotally Mitchell Park lines up with what I've observed all over, that pickleball courts tend to be full and tennis courts tend to be empty, so we don't seem to have aligned the courts ratio with the players ratio yet. I've had a ton of fun playing pickleball at Mitchell Park, it's been a great way to reconnect with organized sports in a way that I haven't since I was a kid, it's getting me outside and exercising more, and I've met a bunch of great people really quickly. The sport seems to attract a really nice and welcoming crowd. My guess is b/c it's so more accessible than tennis, both fitness wise (you can play even if you're old and not super mobile), and skill wise (you pretty much have to be taught how to to serve and hit topspin forehands in tennis to even play, whereas there's still plenty of room to improve in pickleball but you can actually play your first time), and b/c it's more social (much more focused on doubles and fun and camaraderie, and the players are closer to each other). Thanks! Christopher Turney, from Cowper St south of University Ave christopher.j.turney@gmail.com 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 From:Aspo Normantas To:Howard, Adam Cc:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; PlayingFields; Hartmann, Chase Subject:Concerns about additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 5:07:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Adam, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a long-time Palo Alto resident of over 40 years and a dedicated tennis enthusiast who has been actively working to support and grow community-based tennis leagues. Over the years, I have also contributed to youth athletics in our city— working with middle school girls programs and had built traveling teams, and my family has remained deeply engaged in community sports. I am reaching out again regarding the ongoing discussion about reallocating tennis courts at Mitchell Park for pickleball use. As you know, many of us in the tennis community have worked hard to advocate for balanced and equitable access to courts. I attended the August meeting and many previous meetings discussing difficulties with tennis court availability in the city of Palo Alto. After years of discussions and decisions, with the city council and the Parks and Recreation at the city of Palo Alto changes were made. I want to sincerely thank you and the City for the recent improvements in scheduling, particularly the effort to reduce USTA match play during peak community hours. That change 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 become more manageable to find courts for regular play. I have witnessed how this small change has made a positive change to our community tennis play. With players that normally could not get a court reliably, have now returned to enjoy their neighborhood courts. Once again, we are facing a proposal that would significantly reduce available tennis courts at Mitchell Park, and I would like to respectfully share several concerns: 1. Use of Funds and Equity in Contributions The pickleball club has offered $100,000 toward converting tennis courts for their use. I respectfully ask why these funds are not instead being directed toward the maintenance and upkeep of the existing pickleball facilities that they have used with regularity to collect their fees. Palo Alto residents already bear the financial responsibility for court maintenance, staffing, and park operations through our tax dollars. Meanwhile, the pickleball club, which collects membership fees and includes many non-resident users, does not appear to contribute proportionally to the ongoing maintenance of these shared public resources. This raises important questions about equity and sustainability. 2. Impact on Nearby Educational Programs There is an education specialist school located directly adjacent to the courts in question. Many of these students have noise sensitivities, and the distinctive sound of pickleball can be highly disruptive. Expanding pickleball activity in this location would create an ongoing barrier to their learning environment. I have spoken to parents with Autistic children who suffer with these sensitivities and they expressed concerns. I strongly urge the City to consider the daily impact on these students and prioritize their educational needs over recreational play. 3. Access and Availability of Courts While total court numbers are sometimes cited, many courts included in these counts are not accessible for tennis with asphalt surfaces and not reliably accessible to the public. PAUSD courts are often reserved for school use, including practices, matches, and tournaments, which significantly reduces availability for residents. If additional courts at Mitchell Park are converted, the resulting impact will further strain access across all Palo Alto facilities. 4. Resident Use vs. Non-Resident Demand Mitchell Park is a highly valued community asset. Increasing demand from privately organized clubs—particularly those with non-resident membership—places additional strain on a system already designed to serve local taxpayers. There has not been clear discussion about whether the Pickleball club and their non- resident pickleball users would contribute financially to offset this impact. The question becomes why are we entertaining a proposal from a private club to use public facilities? 5. Community Preference Many residents in the surrounding neighborhood have consistently expressed concern about increased congestion, noise, and reduced access resulting from expanded pickleball use at Mitchell Park. I respectfully ask that these voices be meaningfully weighed in to the decision-making process since they will be asked to fund resurfacing and other expensive long term maintenance costs. After many years of discussion, I had hoped this issue was largely resolved in a way that balanced access for all. I am concerned that revisiting these proposals will again create strain within the community and reduce access to already limited tennis resources. I respectfully ask that this proposal not move forward and that we residents while exploring solutions that do not come at the expense of existing facilities. Would it be considered reasonable for tennis players to demand to take over a well-used, state‑of‑the‑art lighted basketball facility and continue to propose that it be converted into tennis courts? Most people would instinctively say no—because it would displace an existing, active user group.” This is a relentless pursuit and frankly needs to be put to rest. Thank you again for your time, your thoughtful consideration, and your continued efforts to keep our community parks working for the community. Aspo Normantas Loving life in Palo Alto! From:Sonya Bradski To:Council, City Subject:Please Purchase Cubberley Community Center from PAUSD Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 3:29:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please vote to purchase the additional 7 acres of the 35-acre Cubberley site from the school district for $65.5 million. I think it will be easier to have one owner of the property to do the next step of the Cubberley property. Please don't lose this opportunity. We really need a community center in South Palo Alto ASAP. Thank you so much. Sonya Bradski Greenmeadow Resident (Next Door Neighbor to Cubberley) From:Phyllis Brown To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley: item 13 on the May 18 Council Agenda Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 3:20:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Veenker and City Council Members, I urge the City Council to approve the Conceptual Plan for the Cubberley renovation and adopt the CEQA mitigated negative declaration. The conceptual plan is very ambitious, but the three phases of implementation and the strong support from a variety of Palo Alto organizations that want a renovated Cubberley to be their new home makes it realizable. Palo Alto deserves an ambitious renovation of Cubberley, a valuable community resource even in its current delapidated state. Please do everything you can to purchase the necessary seven acres from the Palo Alto Unified School District. I understand that the ballot measure you are considering, authorizing the 1/2 cent increase in sales tax, is a general purpose tax and cannot focus solely on the purchase of Cubberley acreage and renovation of the community center. However, it will be important for voters to trust that the City will use tax revenues for that purpose if the ballot measure passes. I have reviewed the draft language for the CIty of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure in both the January and the March polls and would like to see more assurance that the tax increase would support Cubberley renovation and maintenance over the years. Assuming the Council moves ahead with the ballot measure, I certainly will vote for it. But I will feel deeply betrayed if the funds end up going to maintenance of city streets and development of resources in North Palo Alto instead of to renovation of Cubberley. South Palo Alto will be experiencing a population surge over the next ten years. A renovated, vibrant Cubberley will be central to the success of Palo Alto's growth in housing. Phyllis Brown From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Subject:Cobberley Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 11:37:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and council members, I write in support of moving forward to improve the Cubberley site. I write in memory and appreciation for community leaders like Aggie Robinson, Ray Bacchetti and many others who promoted the common good and made this a great place for Nancy and I to live and raise our family. I am and expect to be an infrequent user of the improved Cubberley site and write to explain why, nevertheless, I am a strong supporter. The improved site will be a plus, not only to current users, but to the broader south Palo Alto area where much new housing is planned and I say this as a downtown resident with direct access to great amenities. In particular, the Cubberley site and their next door neighbor, the Charleston Shopping Center, will be a vital and much appreciated destination for the many new residents planned in the San Antonio area. I believe strongly in investing for the common good whether it benefits Nancy and I directly. As a practical matter, I believe articulating the common good for this endeavor will be important to many voters, who like ne, will be infrequent users. I also note that to achieve these common good benefits, future phases must move well beyond physical renovation to add a variety of new facilities and activity areas. Onward!! Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report From:Tess Byler To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Mitchell Park Tennis Courts Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 8:27:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am a tennis player writing to object to a plan to take over more courts for pickle ball at Mitchell Park. There are not enough courts for tennis as is and we are biking all around town to find open courts. Parking cars at the Mitchell Park library is difficult as it is, and converting more tennis courts to pickleball will more quadruple the problem. Finally, you should be aware that many of the pickleball players are not from Palo Alto- Mountain View declined adding courts due to noise. I am not against pickleball but the sales job by the players seems to have pulled the wool over Palo Alto and will continue to do so unless you turn down this underhanded proposal. Thank you, Tess Byler 355 College Ave From:Andrea Allais To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 7:33:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon council members, my name is Andrea Allison and I live in University South. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. I am lucky enough to live near a Caltrain station and I want more people to enjoy the same benefits Thank you for your consideration, Andrea Allais 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:hglann@gmail.com To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 7:56:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Council Members: I wanted to express my support for housing development at the Mollie Stone’s site. While I support either option, I do like the new enhancements to the grocery store, which will make it more vibrant and hopefully have more shoppers support it. I also am excited about more housing near transit, because it makes transit a much more attractive option for new residents. Sincerely, Hilary Glann 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:Joyce Beattie To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 7:08:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear council members, Re: Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone's Option #2 Hi, I live in Stevenson House Senior Apartments now, and had moved to Palo Alto in the Fall of 1970. Please endorce the new housing plans at the Mollie Stone's site. I support either proposal, but option #2 would bring more housing overall and providea nicer store front for the grocery store. It's transit-oriented, keeps needed retail and is an enhancement to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Joyce Beattie This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Susan Setterholm To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 4:21:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon council members, my name is Susan Setterholm and I lived in downtown and Ross near Loma Verde. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. I have always dreamed of living in an apartment near the California Avenue train station I believe a high rise housing development over Mollie Stone’s is an excellent use of land that will make housing available to the more affluent parts of the middle class. Thank you for your consideration, Susan Setterholm From:Bill Fitch To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:55:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon council members, my name is Bill Fitch and I have lived in Evergreen Park for 50 yrs Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. I strongly support the Molly Stone site for housing both because we need the housing but also because this project helps increase funds for continuing Caltrain. Calave will benefit from a larger population to support small businesses. Thank you for your consideration, Bill From:Jeannie Clancy To:Templeton, Cari; Bryna Chang; bryna.chang@gmail.com; To: Comm"r Ji; Allen Akin; To: Chair Akin; To: Comm"r Peterson; Cha, Kelly; Stone, Greer; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; bgh@matteoni.com; Armer, Jennifer; Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Request to Pull Item [25PLN-00298] (4103 Old Trace Road Tentative Map) from Consent Calendar Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:37:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to formally request that the Consent Calendar item regarding 4103 Old Trace Road [25PLN-00298] (Tentative Map for a 9-lot subdivision, 9 single-family residences, and 7 JADUs) be pulled and placed on the regular agenda on May 18, 2026 for full public discussion and a separate vote. Substantial new information and unresolved critical safety issues emerged during the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting that demand council scrutiny and public transparency: 1. At the PTC meeting, the City Planner explicitly acknowledged that fire danger was not evaluated beyond the immediate boundaries of the project lot. This lot is located within city and county fire protection management areas. Neighborhood fire mitigation is required annually. The project site sits at the intersection of Old Trace Road, which dead- ends at a 21-acre park, and Arastradero Road, a critical east-west evacuation route. Multiplying neighborhood density at this specific bottleneck creates an extreme safety hazard. 2. The applicant is seeking a waiver to reduce the required 32-foot- wide private road to just 20 feet. This substandard road will prevent emergency vehicles from turning into the development. To fix this, the PTC recommended painting "no parking" red curbs on Old Trace Road near the development entrance. Eliminating on street parking spaces near the development will force cars to be parked further up Old Trace Road which prevents emergency access to my house and puts more people on a street without pedestrian infrastructure like sidewalks. City Council must deny a waiver preventing emergency access. 3. A mandatory 53-foot special setback applies to 200 feet of the proposed development property line to protect the environmentally sensitive areas around Barron Creek and its tributaries. A similar setback is found on Oakhill Avenue just to the east of this lot. This is not a zoning setback and all the neighboring properties comply with it. This This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report critical environmental protection was never discussed, analyzed, or fully explained to the public. 4. Pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.10, the RE district allows a baseline maximum of two primary units per parcel, not 7. Applying maximum bonus density multipliers to this base zoning establishes an absolute, legally unyielding limit of three primary units for this parcel. The RE district is explicitly codified to protect and dictate "very low-density" residential use. It is legally distinct from standard single-family residential zones (R-1) or any sub-categories thereof, which are governed by a completely separate chapter of the municipal code. Because three Councilmembers must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar, I urge you to act in the interest of neighborhood safety, environmental protection, and due process by moving this item to the regular agenda. Thank you for your time and your dedication to the safety of Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Jeannie Clancy 4146 Old Trace Road -- Jeannie Clancy 970-261-5527 From:Barb V To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:02:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon council members, my name is Barb Voss and I live in Palo Alto Redwoods, 4250 El Camino Real. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. Accessible and affordable housing near transit is especially important for people with disabilities, many of whom are unable to drive. Housing right near the CalTrain station will also take cars off the road and encourage environmentally sustainable public transit. Thank you for your consideration, Barb Voss This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:leovolpe@yahoo.com To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Mitchell Park Courts Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:00:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department: I hear that the City of Palo Alto is again considering converting Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into 6 to 8 Pickleball courts. This will only leave two tennis courts in all of Mitchell Park, and those are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. I am concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 & 4, there will be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents. There will also be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents if any other Palo Alto tennis courts are converted to Pickleball courts. Please instead build new pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities. Negative impacts of converting existing tennis courts to pickleball courts include: Tennis Players will be displaced from Mitchell Park or any other converted courts and will have to find other tennis courts in the City to play on. On peak days/times of day it is already nearly impossible to find tennis courts in the City. This will make that even worse. In recent years, the City of Palo Alto has allowed more tennis courts to be used for Kids Summer Camps, making it extremely difficult for adult residents to play tennis for entire weekdays in Palo Alto over a 2+ month period during summer. This makes that issue worse. There are currently 15 pickleball courts in Mitchell Park and so many people come from neighbor communities to use those courts there is no available parking for Palo Alto residents who want to use the park in other ways --- go to the library, use the playground, attend a summer concert, picnic, play catch etc. More Pickleball courts will mean more even more people come to play Pickleball and an already bad parking problem will be made even worse. The Magical Bridge Playground is an amazing inclusive area of the park that is used by 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 and large groups of people standing around cycling on & off courts can trigger severe discomfort, distress and anxiety in neurodivergent people. The new 50 unit housing complex at 525 Charleston is geared towards neurodivergent folks & is only a 6 minute walk from the Mitchell park tennis courts. Given the proximity of this new development, more not fewer people going forward will be going to Mitchell Park who are very sensitive to the kinds of noise that pickleball makes & adding 6-8 more courts to the already 15 will greatly increase an already distressing sound. Neighbors of Mitchell park gave feedback in 2025 that they could hear the pickleball noise at their homes which could in the long run reduce their property values - and result in lower property tax revenue that the City receives. Thank you, -Leo Volpe 4191 Donald Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Adam Schwartz To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:More homes please! Yes to Mollie Stone"s option #2 (Item 14 Public Comment) Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:55:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello members of the Palo Alto City Council: My name is Adam Schwartz, and along with my family I am a ten-year resident of Palo Alto's University South neighborhood. I write in strong support of option #2 for new homes at the Mollie Stone's site. It would provide more overall homes, and a nicer store front. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. The Mollie Stone's site is the dictionary definition of a great place for homes like these. It is right next to CalTrain, and wonderful amenities on California Avenue. This issue is very important to me, because many of my friends and family members want to move to the bay area or stay here, and find it very difficult to do so because of the shortage of homes. Thank you for all you do, Adam Schwartz University South From:Francis Larkin To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Preserve tennis courts at Mitchell Park Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:54:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners and City Council Members, I'm a Palo Alto resident writing to oppose the proposed conversion of additional Mitchell Park tennis courts into pickleball courts. Mitchell Park already has 15 pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts. Converting half of the remaining tennis courts would effectively end community tennis play at this location...courts 1 and 2 are largely committed to lessons and classes. Displaced players would shift demand to Rinconada, where securing court time is already difficult, creating a ripple effect across the city's already packed tennis courts. I play 2-3 times per week and find the courts in Palo Alto are already tight for the number of people coming to play. I'm not opposed to growing pickleball in Palo Alto, but the answer shouldn't be taking capacity away from another community of players who also depend on these public facilities. The existing 15-to-4 ratio at Mitchell Park already heavily favors pickleball. I'd urge the Commission to explore alternative sites for pickleball expansion and to preserve Palo Alto's already limited number of public tennis courts. Thank you for considering this perspective. Sincerely, Francis Larkin Bryant St, Palo Alto, CA This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Robert Rozak To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Mitchell Park Pickleball Courts Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:50:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Greetings, I am a resident of Greenmeadow. I am writing in support of adding the proposed 8 additional pickleball courts in Mitchell Park. Probably at least 4 times a week, I walk over to the courts at Mitchell Park and play pickleball at the courts there. Although my first love is tennis (and the tennis courts at Cubberly are even closer for me), the organizing principle of pickleball makes it so much more accessible. The games are relatively short, so I know if I show up and the courts are full, I'll be able to rotate in quickly to play (where I might have to wait a long time for occupied tennis courts to open). Also, it has much more of a 'basketball pickup game' vibe than the tennis courts, where I can walk over as a single and rotate into games at the 'players without a partner' courts. I don't need to coordinate with anybody else to get some games in. But, I also go over to the courts with my wife and sometimes others from Greenmeadow to play, so it also has a community/social aspect. Regarding accessibility, the Palo Alto Pickleball Club is where I got introduced to the game, learned the rules, developed my skills, and met people to play. I hope that anybody out there who might have an interest in playing, but sees a bunch of courts occupied with people who already look like they know what they are doing, signs up with the club and takes the introductory lessons to get kickstarted. All in all, the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park are a great asset for us in Greenmeadow, and I hope the city chooses to expand them. -- Best Regards, Robert Rozak Greenmeadow, Palo Alto This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:tedfeng@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:Michelle Park Tennis Courts Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:43:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I hear that the City of Palo Alto is again considering converting Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into 6 to 8 Pickleball courts. This will only leave 2 tennis courts in all of Mitchell Park and those are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. I'm very concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 & 4, there will be many very negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents. There will also be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents if any other Palo Alto tennis courts are converted to Pickleball courts, : please instead build new pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities. Negative impacts of converting existing tennis courts to pickleball courts includes: Tennis Players will be displaced from Mitchell Park or any other converted courts and need to find other tennis courts in the City to play on. On peak days/times of day it is already nearly impossible to find tennis courts in the City. This will make that even worse. In recent years, the City of Palo Alto has allowed more tennis courts to be used for Kids Summer Camps, making it extremely difficult for adult residents to play tennis for entire weekdays in Palo Alto over a 2+ month period during summer. This makes that issue worse. There are currently 15 pickleball courts in Mitchell Park and so many people come from neighbor communites to use those courts there is no available parking for Palo Alto residents who want to use the park in other ways --- go to the library, use the playground, attend a summer concert, picnic, play catch etc. More Pickleball courts will mean more even more people come to play Pickleball and an already This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report bad parking problem will be made even worse. The Magical Bridge Playground is an amazing inclusive area of the park that is used by neurodivergent people and the loud noise created by the pickleballs hitting the racket and large groups of people standing around cycling on & off courts can trigger severe discomfort, distress and anxiety in neurodivergent people. The new 50 unit housing complex at 525 Charleston is geared towards neurodivergent folks & is only a 6 minute walk from the Mitchell park tennis courts. Given the proximity of this new development, more not fewer people going forward will be going to Mitchell Park who are very sensitive to the kinds of noise that pickleball makes & adding 6-8 more courts to the already 15 will greatly increase an already distressing sound. Neighbors of Mitchell park gave feedback in 2025 that they could hear the pickleball noise at their homes which could in the long run reduce their property values - and result in lower property tax revenue that the City receives. There is a need, OK, but let's not "rob Peter to pay Paul". Please look instead for a location where pickleball courts could be newly built instead of taking existing services from residents --- tennis courts, parking, library access, park enjoyment for all. Thank you, Ted Feng, 4121 Campana Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Garrett Clark To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:40:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon council members, my name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. Please approve new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. Housing near transit will enable us to reach our environmental and climate goals, allow residents the option to avoid fueling oil wars in the Middle East, and create vibrant communities that are accessible to more people. Thank you for your consideration, Garrett Clark From:Reid Kleckner To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:05:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon council members, my name is Reid Kleckner and I live in Midtown. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. Mollie Stone's is my primary grocery store. I bike there every week. I've written to you previously about GK Pastry opening in the Cal Ave shopping district and then closing a few months later. Retail needs customers, not parking stalls that sit empty most of the day. This development has the potential to secure and revitalize an important neighborhood amenity, and hopefully support new ones. I urge you to leave behind the lengthy Palo Alto process and embrace the city-of-yes mindset, so we can make room for the next generation of Palo Altans. Thank you for your consideration, Reid Kleckner From:zhen To:Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission Subject:Opposition to Further Tennis Court Conversions at Mitchell Park and City Parks Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 1:51:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission, I am writing as a Palo Alto resident and parent to express my strong opposition to any further conversion of tennis courts to pickleball courts at Mitchell Park or any other city park. While I respect pickleball as a sport, the pattern of incremental conversions has gone far enough. Continuing down this path would be a disservice to the tennis-playing community and to the principle of balanced public resource allocation. Mitchell Park originally had nine tennis courts, including seven full-sized and two junior courts. Today, only four remain. Five courts have already been converted into 15 pickleball courts. Of the four surviving tennis courts, two are reserved for city tennis programs, leaving just two courts available for general public use. The Palo Alto Pickleball Club's proposal to convert Courts 3 and 4 into yet another eight pickleball courts would effectively eliminate open public tennis access at Mitchell Park altogether. Across the city, pickleball already has eight dedicated courts and seven dual-use courts where pickleball players receive scheduling priority. Palo Alto provides more pickleball courts per capita than Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, or Los Altos. We have been more than generous. The question is no longer whether pickleball deserves accommodation. It already has it, in abundance. I also want to flag a fairness concern. A significant portion of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club's membership, reportedly over 40%, consists of non-residents. Palo Alto taxpayers are funding and sacrificing park amenities to serve a regional demand that neighboring cities have been slow to address. Converting more of our courts only relieves pressure on those cities to build their own facilities and further entrenches Mitchell Park as a regional pickleball destination, with all the associated noise, parking congestion, and traffic that residents in the surrounding neighborhood already endure. The right path forward is investment in new, purpose-built pickleball facilities rather than continued cannibalization of existing tennis infrastructure. Tennis remains a widely played sport with strong demand, and the city's own data shows that all tennis courts at Mitchell Park are regularly in use. The city should explore new construction at underutilized sites, partner with neighboring jurisdictions on shared facilities, or identify alternative locations that can 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 absorb pickleball growth without displacing another sport. Our family, like many in Palo Alto, values access to quality tennis courts. Our children are active in tennis, and we rely on well-maintained public courts for regular play. Every conversion further reduces availability for the thousands of residents who depend on these facilities. I urge the Council and Commission to draw a firm line: no more conversions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Zhen Fang Palo Alto Resident From:Milo Trauss To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 1:05:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon council members, my name is Milo. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. The more housing the better, so that families like mine can afford to have a place to live in this community. Thank you for your consideration, Milo Trauss 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:Alex Giovannotto To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Letter Submission re: Item #15 (Retail Vitality and Zoning) Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:34:32 PM Attachments:Letter re Item #15 (Retail Vitality and Zoning) - Council Meeting 5_18_26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, I also sent this email with attached letter to the City Clerk's office with my Public Comment Letter on Item #15 for this Monday's (18th) meeting --- could you please confirm that the letter will be in Monday's City Council packet? Thanks, --Alex Alex Giovannotto Vittoria Management, Inc. Direct: 650-980-1900 Main: 650-328-7480 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Alex Giovannotto <alex@vrent.com> Date: Fri, May 15, 2026 at 9:51 AM Subject: Letter Submission re: Item #15 (Retail Vitality and Zoning) To: <city.clerk@paloalto.gov> Cc: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@cityofpaloalto.org> Hi City Clerk's Office, Please find attached my public comment letter regarding Item #15 (Retail Vitality and Zoning) for this Monday's (May 18th) City Council Meeting. Thank you, --Alex Giovannotto This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast (continued on next page) Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, My family are Palo Alto residents and own a long-vacant building at 451 University Avenue, at the far end near Kipling Street. We finally have a great prospective tenant to fill this space that offers AI-based health screening. This is a modern personal service that has proven highly popular among residents of downtown London and Stockholm, and soon in New York City. However, presently in Palo Alto, our University Avenue (GF) zoning has not kept pace with newer personal service uses, and as a result, their service does not fit into any of the definitions. Please consider the following narrow and precise definition as the 10th entry in the “Personal Services” list for the University Avenue (GF) District [the underlining highlights the operative terms]: Health screening, including biometric body scanning, imaging, or other health testing services directly serving the public, so long as no medical treatment and not primarily fulfilling outside medical orders. The Existing Permitted “Personal Service” Uses in the GF Zone: For context, below are the current allowed Personal Services in the University Avenue GF zone (items A - I), with the addition of this new item (item J): (114) “Personal service” means a use providing services of a personal convenience nature, and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto, including: (A) Beauty shops, nail salons, day spas, and barbershops; (B) Self-service laundry and cleaning services; laundry and cleaning pick-up stations where all cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done elsewhere; and laundry and cleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, so long as no cleaning for any other station is done on the same site, provided that the amount of hazardous materials stored does not at any time exceed the threshold which would require a permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) of this code; (C) Repair and fitting of clothes, shoes, and personal accessories; (D) Quick printing and copying services where printing or copying for the particular service is done on site, so long as no quick printing or copying for any off-site printing or copying service is done on the same site; (E) Internet and other consumer electronics services; (F) Film, data and video processing shops, including shops where processing for the particular shop is done on site, so long as no processing for any other shop is done on the same site; (G) Art, dance or music studios intended for an individual or small group of persons in a class (see “commercial recreation” for other activities); and (H) Fitness and exercise studios, or similar uses, in a space having 5,000 square feet or fewer of gross floor area (see “commercial recreation” for uses exceeding 5,000 square feet). (I) Learning centers intended for individual or small group settings, including tutoring, standardized test preparation, language classes, after-school programs, cooking classes, and similar uses. (J) Health screening, including biometric body scanning, imaging, or other health testing services directly serving the public, so long as no medical treatment and not primarily fulfilling outside medical orders. WHAT IS AI-BASED HEALTH SCREENING? • Customers walk in and receive a full body scan using the latest visual scanning technology • A massively detailed 3D model of your body is generated • Their AI-based software analyzes the model and a staff member with proper medical training explains the results • If a previously unknown health concern is discovered, on exit the customer is handed clear documentation to bring to their preferred healthcare provider • Total time: in-and-out in less than an hour WHY HAS AI-BASED HEALTH SCREENING BECOME SO POPULAR? • This new AI-technology works very well: About 1 in 10 tests discovers a previously unknown health concern. In particular, the tech is amazing at detecting early-stage skin cancer. • They have solved the historic barriers to mass participation in preventative health: The service is non-invasive, convenient, priced reasonably, and delivered in an attractive, welcoming facility. • In Europe, they have already performed over 10,000 AI-based health screenings. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BENEFITS? This service would advance the economic vitality of the University Avenue (GF) zone by strongly aligning with key objectives: • Showcase high technology: As the birthplace of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto should lead, not be left behind, in the new wave of technology-based personal services offerings. • High pedestrian activity: Filling this long empty space with a very popular service would be a major boost to foot traffic and dynamism at University Avenue’s sleepy far east end. • Regional draw: This unique flagship service will draw customers from across the Bay Area, many who have not experienced University Avenue’s offerings for some time. • Evening vitality: Their operating hours and demand for the service will ensure strong pedestrian traffic from morning through the evening. • Façade and Pedestrian Visual Experience: Their beautiful, transparent, high-tech façade design would be a fine addition to the University Avenue streetscape. I thank you for the effort to modernize the GF zoning code, and for the outreach to the business community for ideas to bring enhanced vitality to downtown Palo Alto. Sincerely, Alex Giovannotto From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - May 15, 2026 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:32:39 PM Attachments:RE Need more bike racks on Ramona street.msg RE East Meadow Circle Box Truck.msg FW Crossing guard on Louis and North California.msg RE Subject Urgent Meeting Required Unit Conditions Medical Harm City Oversight and Reimbursements.msg RE Public Comment FY 2027 Gas Utility Rate Proposal Affordability Concerns.msg RE Subject Urgent Meeting Required Unit Conditions Medical Harm City Oversight and Reimbursements.msg image001.png image002.png RE Bike lanes on East Meadow Dr Fabian.msg RE Concerns about converting the Cubberley Pavilion to a theater.msg RE Rash lesions and other symptoms.msg RE Historic Place Designation.msg RE Will Palo Alto Go Purple for BTS in 3 weeks Tampa Just Did - and the Results Were Stunning. .msg RE URGENT Failed Mitigation Property Damage and Safety Hazard 67 Tulip Lane.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 May 15, 2026. Respectfully, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:rachel heller To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:14:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon council members, My name is Rachel Miller and I live in Downtown North. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. This site is right next to the California Ave. Caltrain station - perfect for dense housing. The addition of new neighbors in this location would be a boon for the businesses in the California Ave. area, including the Mollie Stones that would be right downstairs! Those that complain about the impact on parking in this area always ignore the new multi-story parking garage at Sherman Ave. and Birch St. that is never full, even on Saturday nights and farmers market days. In particular, the disabled parking on the ground floor of the garage is never full and very convenient to California Ave. I know because I often have lunch with my 85 year old mother at Joanie's Cafe and her access is fine. Let's get this great new housing project built! Thank you for your consideration, Rachel Miller This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s l Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:14:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Veenker and City Council, I proudly applaud recent actions by the city to bring new housing online, especially new housing near transit, jobs, and retail/services. I especially support new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I fully support either proposal, option #2 reflects a strategic negotiation by the city - which we should honor. This project reflects the future and will create an ideal transit-oriented neighborhood. Residents could live a healthy, joyful car-fee or car-light lifestyle (as I do as a downtown resident). Housing at this location would provide new customers for Cal Ave businesses. Putting these units housing near Palo Alto's job centers (i.e., the Research Park and Stanford) would reduce area-wide traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. Tell our children that the community that raised them wants them here. Revitalize Cal Ave in a meaningful way. Show the rest of the Bay Area that Palo Alto is ready to lead and be innovative on every front, including on housing. Thank you for your consideration, Amie Ashton From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Pigman, Sophie Cc:bcartwright@padailypost.com; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Council, City; Vargas- Aguilera, Elisa; Hartley, Craig; Kaminski, KJ; City Mgr Subject:Ongoing Harm, Gatekeeping, Retaliation, and Failure to Protect Residents at the Opportunity Center Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:11:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Sophie Pigman, City Manager’s Office, City of Palo Alto Cc: Vicki Veenker, Greer Stone, Palo Alto City Council Ms. Pigman, I want to be very clear: I am not humiliated by the message I sent earlier. I am struggling because the City of Palo Alto, Abode, and the systems that were supposed to protect residents have pushed me to a point of severe distress. None of this had to happen. The article published today only further confirmed to me that the City of Palo Alto is working in coordination with Abode to control the narrative surrounding the Opportunity Center and the conditions residents are actually living in. The article is inaccurate. It repeats talking points that do not reflect the lived experiences of many residents here, including myself. Residents were not universally offered safe or comparable housing, despite what was represented publicly. I live in a unit identified in the City’s Notice of Violation for mold, water intrusion, and habitability concerns, and the only “replacement” I was offered was another unit associated with similar concerns. I also believe Braden Cartwright has acted in a manner that protects Abode rather than residents. In 2022, he wrote about the chemical death on the fifth floor of this building. I have written to him repeatedly asking what chemical exposure was involved and what his reporting uncovered, and he has never responded to me. I recently submitted a Public Records Act request for ordinances, reports, communications, and records related to this property because I no longer trust the information being selectively provided to the public. I tried to work with the City of Palo Alto. I tried to work with you, Sophie. Instead, from my perspective, I have experienced obstruction, minimization, retaliation, and negligence. This pattern goes back to your involvement during your time with LifeMoves. One of the clearest examples was the flea infestation situation. On September 11, I submitted an incident report to Abode warning about the cat situation connected to the nearby LifeMoves property. I even offered to personally help coordinate trap-and-release assistance through nonprofits so the situation would not escalate into what I described at the time as a “petidemic.” Instead, the property was boarded up and fenced off within approximately 24 hours, leaving the cats displaced into the surrounding neighborhood exactly as I warned would happen. The result was widespread flea exposure affecting residents and animals throughout the area. My own dog, who suffers from anemia, became extremely ill and nearly died. Residents of the Opportunity Center were blamed, while the warnings I provided beforehand were ignored. Every time I raised concerns, I felt humiliated, dismissed, or treated as though I was exaggerating a problem that later became undeniable. I still have not received reimbursements related to that situation. What concerns me most, however, is the ongoing gatekeeping. Gatekeeping has been the defining pattern throughout all of this. Residents are blocked from receiving help, information, services, oversight, and outside intervention unless it is controlled through Abode or parties aligned with Abode. People are discouraged from speaking openly. Outside agencies are filtered through management. Vulnerable residents are treated as though they are incapable of advocating for themselves. Information is withheld. Narratives are managed. Complaints are minimized until they become impossible to deny. I have repeatedly watched residents be prevented from accessing support services, disability- related assistance, in-home services, medical advocacy, and meaningful intervention. I have personally experienced retaliation and hostility for documenting conditions and helping other residents understand their rights. The City’s own Notice of Violation confirms serious conditions exist in this building, including mold, water intrusion, and unpermitted work. Yet instead of transparency and protection for residents, what many of us have experienced is pressure, intimidation, unlawful detainers, selective narratives, and attempts to silence concerns. I would also like to note again that the Notice of Violation is not publicly posted in the building. I have already notified the City about this issue. From my understanding, residents have a right to know about serious habitability and code enforcement findings affecting the property where they live. The fact that the Notice of Violation is not visibly posted only further contributes to the perception that information is being controlled rather than transparently shared with residents. Is anyone actually going to intervene regarding any of this, or is the City simply going to continue accepting and repeating Abode’s narrative while residents continue suffering? Accountability matters. It’s ironic that the residence of the opportunity center are constantly defending themselves due to an accurate and misleading statements by Abode. We are expected to be accountable. City officials are expected to be accountable. Especially elected ones. I have notified elected officials because they are elected to represent the people of this city, not to protect organizations from scrutiny while vulnerable residents suffer. At this point, three reporters have contacted me regarding conditions connected to the Opportunity Center and the treatment of residents. I intend to provide documentation, timelines, photographs, incident reports, communications, and supporting records reflecting what residents have actually experienced. From this point forward, I intend to continue documenting, reporting, and bringing public attention to the harm, despair, unsafe conditions, displacement, retaliation, and deaths connected to the Opportunity Center and the failures by both the City of Palo Alto and Abode to adequately protect residents. Rebecca Wolf Unit 205 Opportunity Center of Palo Alto 650-384-3855 From:Steven Atneosen To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 11:34:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, We live in the College Terrace neighborhood of Palo Alto. Please actively support new housing at the Mollie Stone’s site. Though we support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing and provide a more welcoming and pedestrian- oriented storefront for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the City, which should be honored. This project reflects the kind of future we would like to see in Palo Alto’s transit-oriented neighborhoods. We strongly support housing near transit because Palo Alto has an opportunity to evolve into a more sustainable, accessible, and community-oriented city. Concentrating housing near Caltrain, California Avenue, and neighborhood-serving retail allows more people to live close to work, schools, restaurants, parks, and daily necessities without depending on long car commutes. This reduces congestion and emissions while strengthening local businesses and creating more vibrant streets and public spaces. Importantly, successful cities around the world have shown that walkable, bicycle-friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods consistently outperform car-centric development patterns. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generate stronger local commerce because businesses benefit from increased foot traffic, more frequent visits, and active street life. By contrast, excessive parking requirements consume valuable land, increase construction costs, discourage housing creation, and undermine the density that supports thriving neighborhood retail. The Mollie Stone’s project represents an opportunity for Palo Alto to move toward a more modern and economically resilient model of urban planning—one more aligned with successful European-style “15-minute cities,” where residents can comfortably access daily needs by foot, bicycle, or transit. Palo Alto already has the foundations for this vision; projects like this help bring it to life. We hope the Council will support option #2 and continue prioritizing thoughtful transit- oriented housing that strengthens both our community and our local economy. Thank you for your consideration, Steven Atneosen and Caroline Dahllof atneosen@hotmail.com From:Mert Dikmen To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2 Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 11:30:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon council members, my name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park. Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods. I support all projects increasing housing and retail footprint throughout the town not just in existing commercial corridors but everywhere. I urge you to consider removing as many restrictions as possible from holding back Palo Alto from growing. Thank you for your consideration, Mert Dikmen This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Raybould, Claire Subject:156 California Avenue Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 10:50:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and council members, I believe this site is an excellent place to add housing in the Cal Ave area. So I am pleased and want to congratulate council members Lauing and Stone for working with the applicant to reach a new plan for the site that is mutually agreeable with the participants. I am aware that there are probably areas in the negotiation and litigation discussions that I am not aware of. But I want to support the process that Ed Lauing, Greer Stone and the applicant have brought to a compromise solution. I encourage you, therefore, to add this site (lot B) to the housing element sites inventory and allow the B.R. 2 proposal to move forward for public review and discussion. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Ron Campbell To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Support for expansion of Mitchell Park pickleball courts Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 10:22:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission and the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at MP. I’ve lived in south PA for almost 40 years, about 2 blocks from Mitchell Park. My family has enjoyed MP as our neighborhood park for years and years. A few years ago, we were exposed to pickleball through the CPA ‘Enjoy’ pickleball classes and then followed those with a PAPC “Just Beginning” introduction to pickleball at MP. I’ve been playing regularly since with hundreds of players of all ethnicities and backgrounds, and age ranges from less than twelve to the mid-eighties. As a result, I’ve met and developed new friendships with dozens. We’ve also developed a group of local neighbors that are now playing regularly. Pickleball at MP has become a major part of my physical activity and social engagement. A unique benefit that MP pickleball offers is that it’s a welcoming, physical activity with extensive social engagement and is available on a drop-in basis. Most other physical activities require advance scheduling and logistical coordination. While I can always find a game at MP, due to its recent popularity there are now sometimes extensive waits and most of the clinics/events offered are over-subscribed. Having taken advantage of the many offered PAPC events has also helped me to get engaged with the volunteer opportunities and increased my engagement in the community. I encourage you to please support the expansion of this wonderful facility and these capabilities at Mitchell Park. Thank you for your consideration, Ron Campbell Ashton Ave From:Lisa Steinback To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Concern about proposed conversion of tennis courts to pickleball at Mitchell park Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 8:07:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I hear that the City of Palo Alto is again considering converting Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into 6-8 Pickleball courts. This will only leave 2 tennis courts in all of Mitchell Park and those are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. I'm very concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 and 4, there will be many very negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents. There will also be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents if any other Palo Alto tennis courts are converted to Pickleball courts, please instead build new pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities (see attachment) Negative impacts of converting existing tennis courts to pickleball courts includes: Tennis Players will be displaced from Mitchell Park or any other converted courts and need to find other tennis courts in the City to play on. On peak days/times of day it is already nearly impossible to find tennis courts in the City of Palo Alto. This will make that even worse. In recent years, the City of Palo Alto has allowed more tennis courts to be used for City Sponsored, Kids Summer Tennis Camps, making it extremely difficult for residents to play tennis for entire weekdays in Palo Alto over a 2+ month period during summer. More court conversion would make that issue worse. There are currently 15 pickleball courts in Mitchell Park and so many people come to use those courts there is no available parking for Palo Alto residents who want to use the park in other ways --- This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report picnic, play catch etc. More Pickleball courts will mean even more people come to play Pickleball and an already bad parking problem will be made even worse. The Magical Bridge Playground is an amazing inclusive area of the park that is used by neurodivergent people and the loud noise created by the pickleballs hitting the rackets and large groups of people standing around cycling on and off courts can trigger severe discomfort, distress and anxiety in neurodivergent people. The new 50 unit housing complex at 525 Charleston is geared towards neurodivergent folks and is only a 6 minute walk from the Mitchell park tennis courts. Given the proximity of this new development, more not fewer people going forward will be going to Mitchell Park who are very sensitive to the kinds of noise that pickleball makes and adding 6-8 more courts to the already 15 will greatly increase an already distressing sound. Neighbors of Mitchell park gave feedback in 2025 that they could hear the pickleball noise at their homes which could in the long run reduce their property values and result in lower property tax revenue that the City receives. Please look instead for a location where pickleball courts could be newly built (see attachment) instead of taking away existing services that the City of Palo provides its residents --- tennis courts, parking, library access, park enjoyment for all. Thank you, Lisa Steinback, 299 Creekside Dr., 24-year resident of Palo Alto and avid tennis player From:Zhang Cheng To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Please Keep the Tennis Courts at Mitchell Park Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 8:04:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, My name is Felicity, and I am a 3rd grade student at Fairmeadow. I love playing tennis with my family. My sister, my mom, my dad, and I all play together at Mitchell Park tennis courts. Tennis is one of the favorite things our family does together. I understand that many people enjoy pickleball, and I think it is good for the city to support different sports. But I hope you will not convert more tennis courts into pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. There are already many pickleball courts there, but only a few tennis courts. If more tennis courts are removed, it will become very hard for kids and families like mine to find a place to play tennis. Tennis helps children exercise, learn discipline, make friends, and spend healthy time outdoors. Please consider finding another location for more pickleball courts instead of removing more tennis courts. I hope both sports can grow without taking away spaces from tennis players and families. Thank you for listening to my thoughts. Sincerely, Felicity Zhang This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Jin Pan To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Mitchell Courts Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 7:50:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I hear that the City of Palo Alto is again considering converting Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into 6 to 8 Pickleball courts. This will only leave 2 tennis courts in all of Mitchell Park and those are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. I'm very concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 & 4, there will be many very negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents. There will also be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents if any other Palo Alto tennis courts are converted to Pickleball courts, : please instead build new pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities. Negative impacts of converting existing tennis courts to pickleball courts includes: Tennis Players will be displaced from Mitchell Park or any other converted courts and need to find other tennis courts in the City to play on. On peak days/times of day it is already nearly impossible to find tennis courts in the City. This will make that even worse. In recent years, the City of Palo Alto has allowed more tennis courts to be used for Kids Summer Camps, making it extremely difficult for adult residents to play tennis for entire weekdays in Palo Alto over a 2+ month period during summer. This makes that issue worse. There are currently 15 pickleball courts in Mitchell Park and so many people come from neighboring communities to use those courts there is no available parking for Palo Alto residents who want to use the park in other ways --- go to the library, use the playground, attend a summer concert, picnic, play catch etc. More Pickleball courts will mean even more people come to play Pickleball and an already bad parking problem will be made even worse. There is a need, OK, but let's not "rob Peter to pay Paul". Please look instead for a location where pickleball courts could be newly built instead of taking existing services from residents --- tennis courts, parking, library access, park enjoyment for all. Thank you, 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 Jin Pan From:Shane Lunny To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Need MORE Pickleball courts at Mitchell Park‼ Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 7:14:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Clearly there is a disconnect between what the Community wants and what is available. Once again today I did not get to play Pickleball due to lineups waiting on Courts while ALL the Tennis courts while EMPTY! Time for Change! Shane Lunny Stelling Drive Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone From:Lisa Van Dusen To:Lisa Van Dusen Cc:Council, City; Vicki Veenker; gstone22@gmail.com; georgeglue@gmail.com; Julie Lythcott-Haims; pat@patburt.org; Pat Burt; Ed Lauing; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Andrade, Alex; Planning Commission Subject:JOIN US Sat 5/16>>PUBLIC BENEFIT: Pop-Ups in the POPOS - "held in Common" at Plaza Ramona (250 University Avenue) Downtown Palo Alto Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 2:52:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Public Benefit / POPOS / Public People and esteemed City Council members, City Manager and Staff and community leaders, Thanks for being part of the Public Benefit / POPOS Public! I am happy to report that I was awarded a City of Palo Alto Public Art Program ArtLift Grant to continue my Public Benefit art project. This phase involves public-facing ACTIVATIONS in the POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces) that are playful, surprising, and participatory. You are invited to join me and guest artist, Angela Sanders, for held in Common - a participatory artwork taking place this Saturday, May 16: The details are here and in the flyer below: held in Common Saturday, May 16, 11:00 am and 3:00 pm - Stop by - it will only take a few minutes to participate. Plaza Ramona - 250 University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto (between University and Hamilton, Bryant and Ramona), a POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Space) - Note that the restaurant, Ettan, has an outdoor dining space in part of the Plaza It’s happening! We are activating the POPOS - together. Hope to see you there with friends, families, and other members of the Public. It will be fun! Of course, please reach out with any questions or feedback. Love your ideas! Your presence is an act of civic imagination! Cheers and THANK YOU! Lisa Lisa Van Dusen lisa@lisavandusen.com | 650-799-3883 lisavandusen.com | paloaltopopos.org Instagram @lisavandusen LinkedIn Begin forwarded message: From: Palo Alto Public Art Program <denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov> Subject: Join Us Saturday: "held in Common" at Plaza Ramona (250 University Avenue) Date: May 13, 2026 at 7:52:31 PM PDT To: lisa@lisavandusen.com Reply-To: denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov     This Saturday: held in Common at Plaza Ramona held in Common Guest Artist: Angela Sanders Saturday, May 16, 2026 11:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m. Plaza Ramona, POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Space) 250 University Avenue, Palo Alto held in Common is a participatory artwork that invites passersby to pause and leave a single word on a piece of second-hand cloth in response to the prompt: "What would you like this space to feel like or hold?" The collected fabric fragments will later be hand-sewn into a larger textile work. Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS is a citywide series of playful, site-specific pop-up activations by artist Lisa Van Dusen, unfolding across Palo Alto’s POPOS - Privately Owned Public Open Spaces. The project brings underused public benefit spaces to life through temporary, participatory encounters, from tours and performances to creative experiments and moments of surprise. This is funded by the ArtLift Grant Program, Palo Alto Public Art Program. A past POPOS activation led by artist Lisa van Dusen. See Calendar Listing CONTACT US Elise DeMarzo Public Art Program Director 650.617.3517 elise.demarzo@paloalto.gov Nadya Chuprina Public Art Program Coordinator 650.329.2227 nadya.chuprina@paloalto.gov  Denise Laxen di Zazzo Communications and Artist Studio Program Coordinator 650.617.3506 denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov Joseph Saxe Project Manager joseph.saxe@paloalto.gov   paloalto.gov/publicart Palo Alto Public Art Program | 1313 Newell Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:carol little To:Council, City Subject:Flock cameras Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 2:39:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I serve on the PARC commission but am writing this email as a resident. I am writing to ask that you turn off the Flock Cameras in our City. I was opposed to having them installed originally and remain opposed to them, particularly in light of the breach of security within our city system (as reported in San Jose Spotlight). Please shut the cameras down and end our contract with Flock. They are unreliable as gatekeepers, and in all likelihood will provide future ways for other states/cities to access Our system. Respectfully yours, Teresa Morris This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Cheryl G. Kushida To:papc.secretary@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Please do not convert remaining 4 tennis courts into pickleball courts Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 2:08:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear sir or madam, My kid (high school varsity) enjoys playing with their Palo Alto resident friends at these tennis courts. But as it is, getting on the courts is impossible because there's a long line most of the time. And some people get angry sometimes, and ask as if we're residents. The point is, you're allowing a brand new viral sports to just take over pre-existing already overburdened facilities. Why not help our pickleball friends find a good home for them -- they're so many, so noisy, causing so much traffic and parking woes -- I am sure our friends can find underutilized blacktop at public schools on weekends, or church parking lot on weekdays, build new facilities for their use. They don't have to take over tennis -- we've been around since the 12th century, we have history, grand slams, and kids going to D1 colleges on full athletic scholarships. Pickleball has none of that -- but let's invite our friends to build somewhere that doesn't encroach on another well loved sport. Kind regards, Cheryl This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Liu Helen To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Regarding to proposal to convert Mitchell Park tennis courts 3 and 4 into pickleball courts Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 1:38:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto City Commission, I am player of both pickleball and tennis ball. I writing to formally oppose the proposal to convert Mitchell Park tennis courts 3 and 4 into pickleball courts. Currently, Mitchell Park has 15 pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts. Converting two more would create a staggering imbalance, effectively eliminating community tennis at this location. This decision disproportionately harms our youth, who are the primary demographic learning and practicing tennis. For adolescents, tennis is a vital vehicle for physical health and social development; reducing these spaces directly limits their opportunities for growth and healthy engagement. Furthermore, tennis courts offer superior versatility. While pickleball players can utilize tennis courts for practice, pickleball-specific courts are physically unusable for tennis. Converting these multi-use assets into single-use facilities is an inefficient and irreversible use of public land. Finally, this conversion will trigger a displacement effect. Forcing Mitchell Park tennis players to Rinconada Park will cause systemic overcrowding, making it difficult for all residents to find court time. We support the expansion of pickleball, but it must not come at the expense of our youth or the balanced development of our recreational community. There are alternative locations for new courts that do not require dismantling existing, essential tennis infrastructure. We urge the Commission to reject this conversion and preserve these courts for the benefit of the entire community. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Helen Liu From:James Lloyd To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty Subject:public comment re item 12 for the 5/18/26 Council meeting Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:36:21 AM Attachments:Palo Alto - 4103 Old Trace Road - HAA Letter - CC.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment in support of item 12 for the 5/18/26 Council meeting, the proposed 16-unit housing development project at 4103 Old Trace Road, which includes one unit affordable to moderate- income households. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ May 14, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 4103 Old Trace Road By email: Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov; George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov; Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov; Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; city.council@PaloAlto.gov Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org; CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org; Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 16-unit housing development project at 4103 Old Trace Road, which includes one unit affordable to moderate-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), and AB 130. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to lot size, setback, street width, and site depth. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from environmental review under AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will increase the city’s tax revenue; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3 Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:Jenny Lin To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:pickleball conversion at Mitchell Park: opposition points Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:23:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i TL;DR: I oppose converting any existing Palo Alto tennis courts into pickleball courts, and I especially oppose the proposed Mitchell Park conversion next to AchieveKids because of the location’s noise, school-impact, traffic, parking, and tennis-access concerns. Dear Parks and Rec Commission: I am writing to oppose the proposed conversion of the Mitchell Park tennis court next to the AchieveKids Palo Alto campus into pickleball courts. AchieveKids is a specialized school serving children and young adults with complex learning, developmental, behavioral, communication, and mental-health needs, making the surrounding sound environment especially important. Pickleball is not simply a quieter or smaller version of tennis. It produces a sharp, repetitive paddle-ball “pop” that can occur hundreds of times per court per hour. In a location immediately adjacent to the school, that type of impulsive and repetitive noise is disruptive to children during the school day, particularly in classrooms, therapy spaces, outdoor areas, and settings where communication, attention, and regulation are important. The City should also consider the broader impact of converting tennis courts. Palo Alto tennis courts are already limited and in high demand, especially lit and publicly accessible courts. Removing existing tennis capacity to create more pickleball capacity shifts the burden from one user group to another rather than solving the underlying facilities issue. Other cities have faced litigation, settlements, restrictions, and reversals after pickleball courts were placed too close to sensitive uses and noise impacts were not adequately addressed in advance. Boise recently settled pickleball-related litigation and converted courts at two parks back to tennis-only use. Newport Beach and Newport, Rhode Island have also faced lawsuits over pickleball noise from public courts. Palo Alto should not wait for similar conflicts before taking these concerns seriously. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report increasing the number of players, rotations, spectators, traffic, parking demand, and hours of continuous play. That intensification is inappropriate next to AchieveKids and is also inconsistent with preserving tennis access for residents. For these reasons, I ask the Recreation Department to reject the proposed conversion and preserve the existing tennis courts. If the City wants additional pickleball capacity, it should identify new or dedicated pickleball locations rather than converting existing tennis courts, particularly courts next to schools or other sensitive uses. Sincerely, Jenny Lin Appendix 1. Acoustical Society of America, “Cities Turn to Zoning to Stop Pickleball Noise Controversies” Describes pickleball’s sharp, impulsive sound and estimates approximately 900 popping sounds per court per hour. https://acoustics.org/cities-turn-to-zoning-to-stop-pickleball-noise-controversies/ 2. Acoustical Society of America, “Pickleball Noise Raises Health Concerns for Neighbors Living Near Courts” Discusses concerns associated with prolonged exposure to repetitive pickleball noise. https://acoustics.org/pickleball-noise-raises-health-concerns-for-neighbors-living-near- courts/ 3. World Health Organization, “Noise” Includes classroom-noise guidance stating that noise levels should be below 35 dB(A) for good teaching and learning conditions. https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/noise 4. Mallory & Keehn, “Implications of Sensory Processing and Attentional Differences Associated With Autism in Academic Settings” Discusses how sensory and auditory stimuli can affect engagement and educational performance for students with ASD. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8430329/ 5. Williams et al., “Prevalence of Decreased Sound Tolerance (Hyperacusis) in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis” Finds decreased sound tolerance is common among autistic individuals. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8349927/ 6. City of Boise, “City of Boise Settles Lawsuit, Pickleball Courts at Two City Parks Transitioning Back to Tennis Only” Boise states that, following a legal settlement, pickleball courts at two parks were closed and transitioned back to tennis-only use. https://www.cityofboise.org/news/parks-and-recreation/2025/september/city-of-boise- settles-lawsuit-pickleball-courts-at-two-city-parks-transitioning-back-to-tennis-only/ 7. Los Angeles Times / Daily Pilot, “Lawsuit claims pickleball is making Newport park’s tennis courts too noisy” Reports that Newport Beach was sued over pickleball noise from public courts near a residence. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/tn-dpt-me-0330-noise-lawsuit-20160330- story.html 8. Newport This Week, “City of Newport Sued Over Pickleball Noise” Reports litigation against Newport, Rhode Island regarding pickleball noise from public courts. https://www.newportthisweek.com/articles/city-of-newport-sued-over-pickleball-noise/ 9. City of Palo Alto, Parks and Recreation Commission materials, “Court Usage and Joint Use Courts,” Sept. 27, 2022 Notes tennis-user feedback that lit tennis courts are crucial and in high demand, and that Mitchell Park tennis courts are the only available lit courts in South Palo Alto. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/parks-and-recreation-commission/agendas-minutes/2022-agendas-and- minutes/09.2022/court-usage-and-joint-use-courts-staff-report-w-attachment-a- 09.27.22.pdf From:Thalia Anagnos To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Concerns about additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:01:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I am a 47 year resident of Palo Alto and a longtime tennis player. I have served as an officer of the Palo Alto Tennis Club, the coordinator of the Palo Alto Junior Tennis tournament for 4 years, and a captain of USTA teams for many years. You are well aware that the demand for tennis courts in Palo Alto is quite high, especially on weekends, after school, and in the evenings. My impression is that the popularity of tennis and the demand for tennis courts continues to grow. I play 3 to 4 days a week and see lots of young people and families out on the public courts learning the game, in addition to the long time regulars such as myself. It is also important to note that over the years the number of tennis courts in Palo Alto has gone down. Three courts at Mitchell Park were converted to pickleball. Four courts (2 at Rinconada and 2 at Mitchell) have been reserved for City sanctioned lessons and thus are not available during prime tennis demand. Two courts at Fletcher were converted to basketball courts when the school was reopened. Recent policy changes at the Palo Alto Unified School District has changed the availability of the high school courts for USTA, which then pushes demand onto the park tennis courts. one of the courts at Gunn High School is always looked and should not be included in any count. Sometimes all of the courts at Gunn are locked. I should also add that though tennis courts at Greene are listed in the count of total courts available in Palo Alto, they are unplayable. They are cracked blacktop (not proper tennis court finish) and slippery, would need to be resurfaced to be available tennis courts for public use. I attended the August 26, 2025 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission at which the issues of managing the demand for tennis courts, particularly by USTA teams from out of town, as well as the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report request to add pickleball courts in Palo Alto were discussed. I applaud the Parks and Recreation Commission for developing a USTA policy that provides access to all tennis players in the Bay Area, but also builds in a priority for players from Palo Alto who are actually supported those tennis courts with their taxes. I am concerned that the City of Palo Alto is again considering converting tennis courts #3 and #4 at Mitchell Park into 6-8 pickleball courts. As was discussed in detail on August 26, 2025, this will only leave two tennis courts at Mitchell Park and those are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. It is unclear to me why Palo Alto is favoring one sport over the other. Any solution should consider the needs of and impacts on both groups. I have additional concerns that the offer of $100K by the Palo Alto Pickleball Club to add more pickleball courts, may be interpreted only as $100K to convert the courts at Mitchell Park, rather than $100K to build additional pickleball courts elsewhere in Palo Alto. I'm very concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 and 4, there will be many negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents. There will also be negative impacts to City of Palo Alto residents if any other Palo Alto tennis courts are converted to Pickleball courts. Please instead build new pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities. The parking at Mitchell Park is insane on a weekend. I usually have to park in the neighborhood across Middlefield Road one or two blocks from the park. Adding more pickleball courts will just increase the problem. Please look instead for a location where pickleball courts could be newly built instead of taking away existing services that the City of Palo provides its residents --- tennis courts, parking, library access, park enjoyment for all. Thank you for your consideration, Thalia Anagnos Palo Alto Resident From:Monlux, Merry Subject:You"re Invited! City of Mountain View State of the City on May 19 Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 10:58:59 AM Attachments:image001.png 2026 State of the City - Save the Date (2).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. On behalf of Mayor Emily Ann Ramos, please see invitation attached and below to the City of Mountain View’s State of the City on Tuesday, May 19th. Please RSVP at your earliest convenience. Best, Merry Monlux, CMC Assistant City Clerk City Clerk’s Office 650-903-6649 | MountainView.gov Facebook | Instagram | X (formerly Twitter) | YouTube | AskMV Please note that email correspondence with the City of Mountain View, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From:Martin Balestie To:Council, City Subject:Critical Infrastructure: PFAs, secondary treatment, WDS modeling, cybersec for wtps/wwtps, BNR, energy and water tradeoffs (recent hires/area managers/most eng & science majors: env/chem/mech/civil/cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy) Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 10:53:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi! Nice to touch base! Hope all is well! Just a short email (hope it makes it through). I'm helping get the word out as regards up and coming webinar series, i.e. PFAs, intro to secondary treatment, water distribution system modeling (AWWA 6.1), cybersecurity for water and wastewater plants, BNR, cooling energy and water use tradeoffs, continuing funding and more. Feel free to pass along/forward to possibly available/interested parties/eng heads/area managers/recent hires. Applies to almost all eng/science/EPC areas: env/chem/mech/ civil/ cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy. Will be glad to redirect to registration links! Always happy my side to support engineering/education, recommended practice, student mentoring, industry/global outreach and much more. Global and digital go hand in hand! Have a nice midweek and beyond. Stay safe, healthy and happy! Best of greetings from way down south "el Sur" ... Tschusssssssssssss!! Martin Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! Microorganisms and PFAS Remediation: Practical Insights for Small Water and Wastewater Systems Date: May 21, 2026 Description Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” are persistent contaminants that pose growing challenges for small water and wastewater systems. This presentation explores how aquatic microorganisms, particularly biofilms growing on submerged plants such as Vallisneria americana, respond to PFAS exposure. By examining both field and controlled studies, the session highlights how PFAS affects microbial communities and discusses the potential for certain bacteria to contribute to PFAS transformation or remediation. Participants will gain practical knowledge on microbial processes, monitoring considerations, and how biological approaches may support PFAS management in small systems. Presenter: Dr. Dong Hee Kang, Morgan State University. Nonpoint Source Pollution, Understanding the Leading Cause of Water Quality Impairment Date: May 19, 2026 Description: Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States, affecting over 85% of impaired rivers and streams and 80% of lakes. Unlike point sources, NPS pollution comes from diffuse runoff—rain and snowmelt carrying nutrients, sediments, pathogens, and chemicals from agriculture, urban areas, construction sites, and septic systems into water bodies. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus cause eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, and hypoxic “dead zones,” such as those in Lake Erie and the Gulf of Mexico, threatening drinking water, ecosystems, and local economies. Under the Clean Water Act, most nonpoint sources remain largely voluntary and not federally enforceable. This webinar reviews key best management practices (BMPs), including nutrient management, cover crops, riparian buffers, green infrastructure, and constructed wetlands, along with emerging tools such as precision agriculture, machine learning watershed models, and smart stormwater systems. It concludes by emphasizing the need for coordinated action to address climate change, urbanization, and funding gaps to protect water resources. Presenter: Timothy Byrd, Baltimore County Dept. of Public works and Transportation Wastewater Secondary Treatment Date: May 26, 2026 Description: Join us for part 1 of our two-part webinar on wastewater secondary treatment. This one-hour webinar is designed to train wastewater operators, utility board members, and municipal decision makers on secondary treatment and the role it plays in wastewater treatment. We will learn about the principles behind secondary treatment, discuss the activated sludge process and the associated components, and how to manage the various variables associated with activated sludge. Whether you're new to wastewater operations, managing day-to-day operations or overseeing infrastructure investments, you'll gain practical insights into this crucial treatment stage. Learning Objectives: - Introduce secondary treatment - Learn about the most common secondary treatment process, activated sludge - Understand components of activated sludge Presenter: A.J. Barney, University of New Mexico Introduction to Water Distribution System Modeling (Part 2) Drinking Water Date: May 28, 2026 Description: Water distribution system (WDS) hydraulic models are tools often used by engineers to perform complex hydraulic calculations during the design phase of a project. However, these models may also be used by system staff to improve knowledge and operations of their system, aid knowledge transfer, analyze system vulnerabilities, plan for future development, and troubleshoot problems in emergency scenarios. This webinar covers introductory topics related to WDS hydraulic modeling including what a hydraulic model is and why it is useful, how the model works, and an overview of model development. Learning Objectives: What hydraulic models are and why they are useful How hydraulic models work, including a brief history of early modeling efforts and the current state of modeling How to develop a model including key steps such as selecting modeling software, creating a network, adding node and link information, running simulations, and checking model predictions against reality Presenter: Steven W.H. Hoagland, Research Assistant Professor, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! Introduction to Cybersecurity and Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants Date: June 4, 2026 Description: To raise awareness among utility workers, leaders, board members, and council members about the current threat of cyberattacks, this training event will introduce participants to cybersecurity tactics, vulnerabilities, common cyberattack methods, and the physical security aspects of cybersecurity. This workshop will include discussion of the Missouri Water Safety and Security Act, and we’ll feature a tabletop exercise designed to engage facilities in discussions that examine their current cyber-resilience. Trainers: Michelle DeHaven and John Colclazier, Wichita State University CEUs: This training is approved for 5.0 Renewal Training Hours for Drinking Water, Distribution, and Wastewater by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. [] Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal for Wastewater Utilities Free BNR Webinar Series (4/6) Date: June 9, 2026 Join the Environmental Finance Center for a free BNR webinar series on Activated Sludge and Nutrient Removal. Attend any of the remaining five sessions, each worth 1 CEU! Participate in the discussion and engage with other wastewater professionals. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! Energy & Water Efficiency (corporate webinar) Energy- and Water-Efficient Operation of Cooling Towers (1.0 PDH) - Date: June 11, 2026 Adiabatic Heat Rejection 101: Engineering Tradeoffs Between Dry and Evaporative Cooling (1.0 PDH) Date: July 16, 2026 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Small Wastewater System Funding Series - Syracuse University Successfully securing and managing federal funding for publicly owned and decentralized wastewater treatment systems is no small task, especially with shifting program priorities and uncertainty about future allocations. This no-cost webinar series from the Capacity Collaborative will guide participants through the entire funding process: where to find nationally available funding, how to craft competitive proposals, and how to stay in compliance through project completion. Designed for small wastewater systems, each session focuses on a step in the funding application and management journey, equipping participants with tools and knowledge to increase their chances of funding success. Workshops and webinars are complimentary under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! James C. Young Project - Ken Schifftner Consulting Air Pollution Control - Balestie & Balestie Ingenieros www.facebook.com/industrialwastewater - www.PocketGoogle.com - www.DigitalProspection.com - www.MartinBalestie.com - www.GalopeApproach.com - www.TrumpetBible.com UNIVERSITY MENTOR University of Maryland: serving a third consecutive term as Computer Science Mentor Iribe Initiative Program https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-Peer-Alumni-Mentoring-Agreement-Fall-2021-signed.pdf uc davis University of California, Davis (College of Engineering ENG 003 Introduction to Engineering Design Showcase Evaluator): volunteered highly technical feedback to a full one third of 45 presented student teams although initially scheduled to review just five projects https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/Evaluator%20Assignments%20%26%20Team%20Info%20%28Sp22%29%20U%20California%20Davis.pdf University of Michigan: Chemical Engineering Mentoring Platform https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-umich-chemical-engineering-mentor-ucan-chemical.pdf Penn State University: Engineering Design 100 Climate Resilience and Adaptation Design December 2025 https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/penn-state-engineering-design-100-december-2025-invitation.pdf p.s.: My good friends, my best friends computers NEVER fail to fail! You may receive duplicates of this message/others as at times I having email snafus/bounces. Feel free to get back to me ad lib, either via balestie@umich.edu and/or cc.: Martin Balestie < answers@engineeringfundamentals.com> (1) 917 300 3024 (on and off NEW NUMBER ). From:Don Chin To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:In support of Pickleball Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 9:42:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Officials, I’m a Palo Alto resident. I’m writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Since retiring in 2025, I found the sport of pickleball and the opportunities offered for volunteering and social engagement profoundly compelling. Not surprisingly, many others have as well. As a result the courts at Mitchell Park are brimming with attendees, resulting in a demand for more court space. I hope the city officials can respond positively, by providing more courts at Mitchell Park. It is especially important to have the new courts located close to the existing ones, to let attendees move freely between the courts. This makes the many social benefits possible. Thank you for caring about residents of Palo Alto. I live on Christine Drive in the Palo Verde neighborhood. -Don Chin Sent from my iPhone From:John Williford To:Council, City Subject:Concerns about Cubberly Proposal Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 9:27:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members: I am very concerned about the proposal to spend millions of dollars to convert Cubberly gym to a Theater. -I’ve been dancing at Cubberly for more than a decade, and closing it for dancing will affect me and the more than 100 people who dance in a close community there each week. There is no reasonable alternative in the proposal. We already have theaters at Lucy Stern and Mountain View. This proposal would cost a lot of money and only harm the many people who rely on Cubberly for an important part of their social lives. Please turn it down. John Williford Sent from my iPhone From:Gem Fong To:Council, City Subject:Re: Mitchell Park Courts Date:Thursday, May 14, 2026 3:08:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I hear that the City of Palo Alto is considering converting Tennis courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into 6 to 8 Pickleball Courts. This will leave only 2 tennis courts which are used mostly for lessons sanctioned by the City of Palo Alto. I am very concerned that if the City of Palo Alto goes through with the conversion of Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 & 4, there will be many negative impacts to the residents of Palo Alto. Tennis players will be displaced from Mitchell Park and have to find other tennis courts in the city to play on. On peak days/times it's nearly impossible to find tennis courts in the city. Moreover noise pollution created by the pickleballs hitting the racket make neighboring residents uneasy due to its distressing sound. Thus I appeal to the City of Palo Alto please instead build new Pickleball courts that are located away from currently used facilities. Thank you, Gem Fong 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 From:Cameron Lee To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Howard, Adam; PlayingFields Subject:Please Preserve Mitchell Park Tennis Courts and Explore Dedicated Pickleball Alternatives Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 11:47:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I am writing as a Palo Alto resident to express my strong concern about the potential conversion of Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into additional pickleball courts. I am writing from the perspective of someone who enjoys both tennis and pickleball, and spend equal time playing both sports I recognize that pickleball is popular and that the City is trying to respond to demand. However, converting existing tennis courts is not the right solution. Mitchell Park already has a significant pickleball presence, and removing two of the remaining tennis courts would further reduce access for tennis players, worsen existing park congestion, and create additional impacts for nearby residents and other park users. Mitchell Park is one of Palo Alto’s most heavily used public spaces. It serves tennis players, pickleball players, families using Magical Bridge Playground, library patrons, children in camps and lessons, people attending summer concerts, and residents simply trying to enjoy the park. Adding more pickleball courts at the expense of existing tennis courts would intensify competition for parking and space in an area that already feels overburdened during peak times. The tennis courts are already difficult to access at many times of day, particularly when courts are reserved for lessons, camps, or organized programming. If Courts 3 and 4 are converted, only two tennis courts would remain at Mitchell Park, and those are often unavailable to the general public. This effectively displaces many resident tennis players and pushes them to an already limited supply of courts elsewhere in the City. I am also concerned about the noise impacts of expanding pickleball further at Mitchell Park. Pickleball generates a distinct and repetitive sound that carries differently than tennis. This is especially relevant given the proximity of Magical Bridge Playground, nearby homes, and the new housing development at 525 Charleston, which is intended in part to serve neurodivergent residents. For some individuals, persistent pickleball noise and the crowd activity associated with court rotation can be genuinely disruptive and distressing. I can speak from experience, that the presence of pickleball courts overwhelms the acoustic experience of being at the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report park. Expanding from the current number of pickleball courts to even more courts in this location risks making Mitchell Park less welcoming for other users. This should not be framed as tennis versus pickleball. Both are valuable recreational activities, and both deserve thoughtful support. But meeting demand for one sport should not come by eliminating access to another, especially in a park where parking, noise, and shared-use pressures are already significant. I urge the City to preserve the existing tennis courts at Mitchell Park and instead explore alternatives for pickleball expansion that do not require removing active tennis facilities. Dedicated pickleball courts in a more appropriate location, with adequate parking, buffering, and distance from sensitive uses, would be a more balanced and durable solution. Palo Alto should be expanding recreational access, not solving one shortage by creating another. Thank you for your consideration, Cameron Ghergherehchi - Palo Alto Resident, Tennis & Pickleball Player From:John To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Save tennis courts Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 9:42:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. No more conversion of Mitchell Park tennis courts into pickle courts!!! From:Bruce Arthur To:Council, City Cc:pabacpaloalto@googlegroups.com Subject:PABAC Motion on the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 7:34:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast On May 7th, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee met and passed the following motion: PABAC MOTION: (Paul Goldstein) moved, seconded by (Jane Rosten) PABAC recommends the City Council adopt the Final 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, with the following changes: 1. Policy and Programmatic Amendments a. Amend SI-1.9: Street Closure Policy: On page 107 and on Appendix C: Amend SI- 1.9 description to include the following language: Clarify Comprehensive Plan Policy T-4.1 with PABAC’s recommended language: “Keep all neighborhood streets open as a general rule. Street closures may be considered when such closure will enhance safety or will increase use of active transportation modes.” b. Bicycle Friendly Street Design: In the Final Plan’s Policies and Programs section (3.4): Include a new policy that reads: In accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.5 (When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users), include a directive that the City should affirm that all City streets—not only designated bikeways—should be bike friendly streets to the extent possible. This includes exploring speed limits, traffic calming, restriping, and parking removal on non-bikeway streets to accommodate cyclists whose origins/destinations lie outside the designated network. c. Class IV and Class I Implementation Guidance: In the Final Plan’s Policies and Programs section (3.4): Include a new policy that reads: The City should implement Class IV separated bikeways and Class I multi-use paths adjacent to roadways with caution. Evaluation must prioritize mitigating potential turning conflicts at driveways/intersections (especially for e-bikes) and ensuring facilities do not introduce new hazards that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Enhancement of Education (Program CC-1.4): Rewrite CC-1.4 (Bike Education Program) on page 104 and on Appendix C to read: The City should take further steps to develop and partner with groups to advertise and carry out bike safety and education classes in the city, including classes oriented towards children, older adults, and non-English speakers. Include driver education to encourage safer driving behavior, including in the presence of bicycles. e. Removal of Program CE-1.10: On page 102 and on Appendix C, remove reference to "Bike Racks on Buses" as VTA’s Wheels On The Bus program is not currently being implemented. 2. Project-Specific Modifications a. Project SB_19 (Alma Street Separated Bikeway South): Rewrite the project description to read: Evaluate the feasibility of a two-way separated cycle track on Alma Street from San Antonio Road to E. Meadow Drive. And remove the project from the Final Plan’s Near-term project list. b. Project SB_20c (San Antonio Road Separated Bikeway): Amend the project description and scope to focus instead on a joint planning effort with the City of Mountain View to develop a high-capacity facility serving the Caltrain Station, connecting through to the San Antonio Shopping Center via Pachetti Way and California Street. 3. Any Typos, Technical Corrections, and Formatting VOTE: The motion passed with 12 in favor, 0 against, and 1 abstention. Members voting in favor: Alan Wachtel Bill Zaumen Boris Foelsch CHAIR Bruce Arthur Cedric de la Beaujardiere Eric Nordman Jane Rosten VICE CHAIR Ken Joye Nicole Rodia Paul Goldstein Penny Ellson Robert Neff Members Opposed: None Member Abstaining: Art Liberman From:Ayla Bell To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Say YES to Community with more Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 7:26:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. There is no better example of how to build community than the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I went from having a handful of long-term friends from college to having hundreds of friends I see every week not only on the courts but also in Palo Alto grocery stores, in restaurants, and at performances. Please say "Yes" to community! Sincerely, Ayla Bell Greenmeadow Way This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Dave Claudino To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 6:20:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council, I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. As you have heard many times before, Pickleball is much more than a sport – it is also a very social activity which integrates our community across cultural/ethnic backgrounds, age groups, etc. - people who otherwise would not naturally meet or interact. When I retired 2 years ago, I was fully prepared for my “life after work” with one exception: I had a blind spot regarding a replacement for my daily social interactions with work colleagues, many of whom were also close friends, and most of whom lived in other countries. One month after retiring, after hearing stories about Pickleball at Mitchell Park, I figured I’d give it a try… and the rest is history. On the first day that I showed up as a beginner, I was welcomed, embraced, and encouraged, with introductions to others who got me started in my first games. I’m a literal example of the motto “Arrive as a stranger, leave as a friend.” The physical and mental health benefits have far exceeded my expectations, and thanks to the open play at Mitchell Park, I have many new friends that I now spend time with off the courts - friends from diverse backgrounds who I otherwise would not have met, and I now lead volunteer efforts in giving back to our community (Senior Games, Rotary event, Getting Started sessions, Mitchell Park neighbor relationships, …). Pickleball has been an invaluable addition to my life, with significant physical and mental benefits, not to mention the overall positive community engagement and impact. This “Pickleball Magic” occurs as a result of having a sufficient number of courts at the same location, where one can show up alone and quickly rotate in games. This dynamic changes significantly during the peak playing hours with long wait times, or with a small number of courts in distributed locations. There should be no question that the number of Palo Alto residents served per unit space for Pickleball far exceeds any other activity, has tremendous physical and mental health benefits, and very effectively integrates our diverse community. Sincerely yours, Dave Claudino 40-year Waverley Street resident (Midtown Palo Alto) From:Heather Clancy To:Council, City Cc:Kandikuppa, Nishita Subject:4103 Old Trace Rd. Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 6:11:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear council members, As a resident of Old Trace Rd. I am concerned about the development plan being proposed. This is not simply a matter of housing production; it is a matter of maintaining the integrity of adopted planning policies and ensuring fair and lawful treatment of existing residents. The subdivision map 25PLN-00298 is not compliant with California Government Code Section 66474(b)(d)(g). Help me understand why the applicant has not been required to correct their map. -The City has clearly confirmed that the project site is located within the RE zoning district, which is intentionally designed and maintained as a low-density, large-lot residential area with a base unit density of 2. -The land use policy for this area policy L1.2 states that undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway is retained as open space, with allowances made for very low intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. -The site has a recorded special set back of 53’ along Arastradero. For 50 years this has been enforced by the city. The proposed subdivision creates parcels that are noncompliant with RE zoning. Approval of such a map would directly conflict with state law, which mandates consistency between subdivision design and local land use regulations. If lot sizes violate RE zoning → map must be denied. The committee members expressed opinions at the meeting held on March 5 and April 29, 2026, that “This development as proposed is incompatible with this location”. Yet no substantial modifications have been required to bring the subdivision of this 1 acre lot into alignment with applicable laws and policies. The county and City has both the authority and the obligation to enforce its zoning code and uphold the planning framework that residents rely upon. Even under California’s pro-housing laws:-The City is not required to approve a project that rewrites its zoning code through a subdivision map.-If a project fails objective standards or legal prerequisites, the City can deny, condition, or require redesign.-State housing laws (SB 330, HAA, Density Bonus, SB 130) all share a core rule: They protect compliant projects—notnoncompliant projects. Please consider denying the application as is. This lot can provide much needed housing without changing the landscape per se. Stuffing 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 this lot will create potentially 44 very frustrated residents in this peaceful neighborhood. The applicant brings 1 small unit for moderate income housing. This parcel can provide 1 unit moderate income housing with a simple legal lot split. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter, Heather Clancy From:John Kelley To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:PA-ADUs-PAPTC --- RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #2 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 5:59:08 PM Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PAPTC re Proposed ADU amendments 2026-05-13 -1720--with attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. TO: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #2 “Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters in Titles 16, 18, and 21 to Address Changes in State Law and Direction from City Council Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2603-6064 (Staff Report) DATE: May 13, 2026 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION Palo Alto should build upon its ADU successes by allowing ADUs to become “21st century starter homes.” The PTC should support a streamlined version of attachment C to the Staff Report that would (a) increase the maximum size of ADUs to at least 1,200 sf and (b) enable separate conveyance of and financing for ADUs. The PTC should also recommend that the Palo Alto City Council (City Council) direct City Staff (a) to ensure that any invoices for or payments of municipal impact fees be based on current state law, (b) to refund impact fees unfairly assessed on ADUs in recent years, (c) to cease forcing homeowners to “use up” local zoning development rights to build “66323 Units” under state law, and (d) to engage in much greater community outreach. Please see the attached letter. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley From:Phil Mast To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:A TheatreWorks Supporter’s Perspective On The Pavilion Conversion To A Theatre (5/18 Meeting, Agenda Item 13) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:34:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am a Barron Park resident and a longtime supporter of TheatreWorks. My wife and I have had season tickets for more years than I can remember. However, after reviewing the proposal to convert the Cubberley Pavilion into a theatre space, I am writing to urge the Council to reconsider this plan. While I support the arts, and TheatreWorks in particular, I do not believe this conversion serves the best interests of the city or its residents for several reasons: Redundant Artistic Value: As a frequent attendee, I’ve looked closely at how this new venue would improve the TheatreWorks experience. The reality is that there would be no noticeable difference. Watching a production at the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is fundamentally equivalent to watching it at a converted Pavilion. We are essentially proposing a lateral move rather than a step forward. The Critical Gym Shortage: It is no secret that Palo Alto faces a persistent shortage of indoor recreational gym space. Our Palo Alto parents don't want to drive their children to neighboring cities just to participate in soccer, volleyball, and other basic sports activities. Efficiency of Existing Infrastructure: Even with the proposed new recreation center at Cubberley, keeping the Pavilion as a gym helps ensure that we meet current and future athletic demands. The Pavilion is already a heavily used, functional asset for our youth and adult sports programs. Fiscal Responsibility: Converting a high-utilization gym into a theatre is estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars. As a taxpayer and an arts supporter, I find it difficult to justify such a significant expenditure for a project that provides no tangible benefit to the theatre-going experience while simultaneously stripping the community of much-needed athletic space. 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 I strongly encourage the Council to preserve the Pavilion as a gymnasium. Let’s focus our resources on solutions that address our city's genuine deficit in recreational space rather than duplicating existing theatre facilities at a massive premium. Thank you for your consideration of this. Sincerely, Phil Mast Barron Park Resident and Longtime TheatreWorks Supporter From:Chenchen Irene Zhang To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam Subject:Request for Parking and Infrastructure Audit Before Additional Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:32:54 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members and Parks and Recreation Committee, I am writing to express concern regarding the proposal to convert two additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park into pickleball courts. Mitchell Park was originally designed as a shared community space supporting a wide variety of recreational and community activities. The park currently serves residents through its library, soccer field, open grass areas, tennis courts, tai chi groups, dance groups, picnic tables used for family gatherings and birthday parties, and the Magical Bridge Playground to name a few. It is one of Palo Alto’s most important multi-use parks and is heavily utilized by residents of all ages. A few years ago, the City converted three tennis courts into 13 pickleball courts and also added two standalone pickleball courts. Since then, the increased concentration of pickleball activity has created substantial pressure on the park’s infrastructure, particularly parking and restroom capacity. During peak hours—especially Friday afternoons and weekend afternoons—I have frequently observed: - the parking lot reaching full capacity, - long lines of cars circling while searching for parking, - vehicles parked illegally near curbs and turns,(please see attached picture below) - increased congestion and unsafe navigation conditions for both drivers and pedestrians. The strain on park infrastructure is already visible today. Due to restroom capacity limitations, additional portable restrooms were added near the Magical Bridge Playground area. While appreciated as a temporary measure, they also illustrate that the current facilities are no longer adequately supporting peak park usage. During warmer months, odors and congestion around these temporary facilities further affect the overall park experience for families and visitors. These impacts affect not only pickleball users, but also families visiting the playground, library patrons, children attending sports activities, seniors participating in tai chi or dance groups, and residents using the park for community gatherings. Converting two additional tennis courts into 8 pickleball courts would likely intensify these existing problems significantly. In addition to ongoing concerns regarding noise, further expansion could create serious traffic flow, parking, and safety challenges that would negatively impact all other user groups sharing the park. Before any further court conversion is considered, I respectfully request that the City conduct a comprehensive audit and impact study of the current conditions at Mitchell Park, including: - parking utilization, - traffic circulation and safety, - restroom capacity, - pedestrian safety, - and overall infrastructure strain during peak periods. In particular, observations should be conducted during: - Friday afternoons, - Saturdays, - and Sundays, when usage and congestion are at their highest. I believe it is important for the City to fully evaluate the cumulative impacts of the previous pickleball expansion before moving forward with additional conversions. Mitchell Park has historically been valued as a balanced and welcoming multi-use community space, and any future expansion should carefully consider how increased activity levels may affect the overall accessibility, safety, and experience of all park users. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to the Palo Alto community. Sincerely, Chenchen Zhang Sent from my iPhone From:Ali Vahedi To:Council, City Subject:Friday Night Cubberley Ballroom Dance Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:10:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Cirty Council Members, This is Ali Vahedi, a software engineer. I have been participating in Friday/Saturday Night Cubberley Ballroom Dance for the last ~12 years. Did not have any real dancing experience when I started. Dancing has become an enjoying hobby at later stage of my life, especially after I lost my job. Dancing at Cubberley is managed diligently by people who care for the community. On average attendees are more than 100 each Friday night, from all walks of life, culturally, financially, ..... The charge of $10 per night, which covers teaching sessions and social dance, is affordable for many people. Needless to add, the venue is used by many sports teams, especially the young generation. Please consider keeping the Ballroom as is. Thanks aliavah@yahoo.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Evelyn Chan-Cox To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Support for Additional Pickleball Courts Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 2:58:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I have lived in Palo Alto for 35 years, and am writing in strong support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I tried pickleball for the first time about a year ago (at 60 years of age) and it is already hard to imagine now what my life would be without it. Pickleball is a sport where friends and strangers, young and old, beginner and advanced can have fun together. This new passion has brought a renewed sense of pride and belonging to a larger community. It is wonderful to experience! Additional pickleball courts are needed and will make a positive impact on our community and city. Sincerely yours, Evelyn Chan-Cox Old Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Dave Garr To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Thanks so much...and a request Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 12:51:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council and Parks & Rec, I've lived 5 of my 6 decades in Palo Alto. Thanks for making it such a fantastic place to live and raise a family. I currently live at 561 Madison Way, Palo Alto, 94303. I am retired and find myself battling loneliness. Playing pickleball at Mitchell Park is perhaps the best way I've found to alleviate my loneliness -- both the camaraderie and the exercise. But unfortunately most of the time I go to play, there is a wait to get on the courts. And then, after one game, four people put their paddles down to take the court, and I have to find new partners and wait for another court to open up. I would love to have more pickleball courts at Mitchell. I would happily donate money to get them. Thanks for everything you've done, Dave This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:kwlukenat@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley dance pavilion Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 11:20:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To: The Palo Alto City Council My husband and I have been dancing at Cubbery Pavillion for over 10 years. We’ve had many dance lessons there and danced regularly on Friday and Saturday nights. It’s such a wonderful group of dancers and a great venue. I hope it can continue as a ballroom dance pavilion for many years to come! Thank you! Katherine Williford Sent from my iPhone From:E Pirrotta To:Council, City Subject:Comments on 4103 Old Trace Road development plan Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:30:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council I urge you to approve the tentative map to allow the subdivision of 4103 Old Trace Road. The proposed development is an excellent use of the land and is a good solution for improving affordable housing options. Please ensure that the plan for these proposed homes maintain deed-restricted household income levels. Thank you Elizabeth Pirrotta From:David Coale To:UAC; Council, City; Abendschein, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad; Hodge, Bruce; Bret Andersen; Luong, Christine; Debbie Mytels; Sven Thesen; Kurotori, Alan; Lait, Jonathan Subject:New gas hookups in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:15:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi SCAP, UAC members, and others, Several years ago, reach codes were put in place to support electrification and to reduce our gas use. Today, we find that 1/3 of new homes have a gas connection. I find this quite alarming! While most of these new gas hookups are to support gas cooking and therefore have a relatively small GHG footprint, there are other impacts that need to be addressed. 1) The city is essentially installing stranded assets that will have to be removed later on. The cost for removal will be borne by the ratepayers at the time. This is unfair. The full cost of decommissioning the gas line to these homes should be paid up front by the homeowner/builder to be fair to the rest of the ratepayers. 2) In addition, the homes that choose to skirt the intent of the reach codes will likely be strong holdouts when the gas lines are decommissioned, therefore impeding the process of gas-line branch trimming and causing even more cost and delays to the existing ratepayers. To address this, as mentioned above, any new gas connection should pay the full cost of decommissioning that gas line up front. In addition, the homeowner/builder should sign a notarized statement saying they understand that the gas service in Palo Alto will end in the not too distant future, and that certain gas appliances will no longer be available in the future due to Air District rules. Also, there should be a section stating that they completely understand the health problems associated with natural gas use in the home. While this might sound somewhat extreme, this is actually protecting the city when the gas service is terminated. It is also in line with the current practice for gas service suspension, in that the applicant must sign a statement, and have it notarized, saying they fully understand the gas suspension and associated cost should they decide to reconnect to the City’s gas service. And finally, since the gas service in Palo Alto will be terminated at some point, can the City say we are no longer making any new gas connections to a terminated service? To be sure, the City would not be banning gas, as a determined homeowner could install a propane tank for any gas service they wanted, as long as they follow the existing codes, but at some point, it does not make sense to add new services to a service that will be ending. Sincerely, David Coale From:LWV Palo Alto Special Voter Toolkit to help navigate the June 2 election To:Council, City Subject:Voter Toolkit: June 2 Primary Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:07:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Special Edition: June 2 Primary Palo Altans, it's time to be heard! Received your ballot but still have questions about the candidates—especially in the crowded governor’s race—or the local Measure before making your choices? Read the nonpartisan election information prepared by the LWV of Palo Alto's Voter Services Team. We do not support, nor oppose, any political party or candidate. Measure B: The Future of Palo Alto Schools The only measure affecting Palo Alto residents is Measure B – Palo Alto Unified School District Parcel Tax Renewal. Pros and Cons: Read the unbiased analysis prepared by the Pros/Cons Team at the Palo Alto League. League Position: After careful study, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto is in favor of Measure B. 61 Candidates for Governor on the Ballot?! Yes, the field is crowded—but you can make sense of it. Candidate Statements: Start with the Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide (page 8). Gubernatorial Candidate Forums: Hear leading candidates discuss issues that matter to you: SEIU-USWW (1/10/26): SEIU-USWW Gubernatorial Candidate Forum Equality California (3/2/26): California's LGBTQ+ gubernatorial forum Tri Valley Democratic Club (3/16/26): TVDEMS Governor Endorsement March Nexstar (4/23/26) CBS at Pomona (4/28/26) NBC/Telemundo (5/6/26) (see timestamps on issues) CalMatters Voter Guide: Check each candidate’s experience, key endorsements, major donors, and summaries for other statewide offices like Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Insurance Commissioner. Vote Timing Tip: Some candidates have dropped out since ballots were printed. To make sure your favorite candidate is still running, consider voting closer to the end of May and vote in person at a ballot drop-off box or vote center. Insurance Commissioner Candidate Forum Learn which candidate is best addressing critical issues such as the loss of fire and homeowners’ insurance in California: Watch Here Easy Voter Guidefrom the League of Women Voters California Education Fund Easy Voter Guide - CaVotes by the LWVCEF Tips for Voting Voting late? Vote in person at a ballot drop-off box or vote center if casting your ballot during the last week. Learn why. Read recommendations from the Attorney General Bonta and Secretary of State Weber to ensure your vote is counted. New or newish voter? Brush up on how to vote with LWV's Easy Voter Guide. Vote by June 2—your vote matters! Have questions or need more information? Reach out to the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto at contact@lwvpaloalto.org. We’d love to hear from you! Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Chris Schremp To:Veenker, Vicki Cc:Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City; Robert Marinaro; Christine Schremp; McDonough, Melissa; Bulatao, Eric Subject:Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 6:28:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, I am writing to you directly because my attempts to engage with the City Council and the OSV Ad-Hoc Committee have been met with silence and inaction. I have sent multiple emails and photos documenting hazardous conditions on East Meadow Drive, Fabian Way, Louis Road, East Meadow Circle (and more), including safety near-misses and public health violations. Not one of these council members has acknowledged receipt of these concerns. This is a fundamental failure of their duty to the tax-paying residents they were elected to represent. Furthermore, recent media coverage and direct observations in our neighborhood highlight a severe misdiagnosis of this crisis by City leadership: 1. The "Community Ties" Myth The City consistently claims that its leniency is based on individuals having "ties to our community." However, a recent KPIX | CBS News Bay Area segment featured an OSV resident who explicitly admitted he migrated from Sacramento to Palo Alto specifically because our city is so "accommodating." This confirms that Palo Alto has become a destination for individuals from across the state who are taking advantage of our refusal to enforce parking and sanitation laws while neighboring towns have successfully cleared their streets. 2. Choice vs. Necessity The narrative that these occupants are universally destitute is demonstrably false. We are regularly observing OSVs being used as "commuter pads" by individuals who leave for the day in brand-new BMWs, Teslas, and $80k SUVs. These occupants are using our residential streets during the week to shorten their commutes to places as far as Livermore, treating Palo Alto as a rent-free, unregulated storage facility. This is not only a homelessness issue; it is a lifestyle and financial choice being subsidized by Palo Alto taxpayers. 3. Misunderstanding the Objective In the same KPIX segment (at the 3:15 mark), you state that "if people are removed from their RVs, then we have a different type of homelessness problem." This indicates a profound misunderstanding of our position. We are not asking the City to remove people from their vehicles. We are asking the City to remove the vehicles from our streets and bike lanes. These individuals are more than welcome to live in their RVs —they simply need to do so in facilities built for that purpose, rather than using our neighborhoods as unregulated RV parks. 4. The Burden of Inaction While you and the Council members on the Ad-Hoc Committee live in neighborhoods protected by RPP districts and strict enforcement, the residents of my neighborhood bear the burden of abandoned garbage, blocked bike lanes, and safety hazards. transient vehicle dwellers over the safety and rights of Palo Alto tax payers and homeowners. As Mayor, I expect you to bring accountability to this process. We are looking for immediate enforcement of existing codes and an end to the "destination" status Palo Alto has cultivated for OSVs. I look forward to a response that acknowledges these concerns and outlines a concrete timeline for clearing our residential streets. Regards, Chris Schremp On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 9:57 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Council Members Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl, I am writing to follow up on my previous two emails. As of today, I have received no response from any of you. This silence is a troubling indication of how the City views its responsibilities to tax paying residents facing the significant disruption, hazards and costs associated with OSVs in our neighborhoods. The lack of engagement from the Ad-Hoc Committee suggests a significant disconnect between your deliberations and the reality in our neighborhood and on our streets. It is not lost on the residents of our neighborhood that none of the three members of this committee reside in the areas currently bearing the brunt of the OSV migration. A few things to note: Some committee members reside in neighborhoods like Old Palo Alto that are effectively "immunized" from this crisis through Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts and strict 2-hour enforcement. In other words, these neighborhoods have somehow managed to put specific laws into effect that prevent OSVs from ever occupying their streets. Why can we not do the same across the rest of Palo Alto, and why can we not do it now? While your streets are protected by the full weight of the Municipal Code, our streets are being treated as unregulated overflow lots. This creates a two-tiered system of governance where some residents enjoy clear, safe streets, while others are told that enforcement is "too complex." Because you are not personally impacted by the abandoned garbage, the blocked bike lanes, or the safety hazards we report daily, there appears to be a total lack of urgency. Representation requires ensuring that the protections afforded to your own streets are applied equitably across the city. Geographic isolation is not an excuse for the abdication of your duties to our neighborhood. If the "legal fears" regarding OSV enforcement are as significant as staff claims, why do they not hinder enforcement in the RPP zones near some of your own homes? We are asking for Enforcement Equity. We expect the same level of street clearance and safety that you receive on your own residential blocks. We are living with this hazard today and have now reached out multiple times for a plan of action. I look forward to a prompt response that addresses why our neighborhood is being denied the standards of enforcement enjoyed by other neighborhoods across Palo Alto. Regards, Chris Schremp On Sat, May 9, 2026 at 1:50 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Council Members Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl, I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence regarding Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) in our neighborhoods. As of today, I have received no response from any of you to my last email regarding a plan to address this crisis. In the time since my last email, the situation has deteriorated further. We are now seeing amounts of garbage and debris abandoned on our streets by these occupants (see attached photographs from Friday on Fabian Way). This has moved beyond a parking dispute and now constitutes a formal Public Nuisance under California Civil Code § 3479-3480 and a public health hazard under the California Health and Safety Code. The City’s failure to act is no longer acceptable. While staff have previously cited "operational constraints" and "legal fears" as reasons for non-enforcement, the City cannot selectively waive its mandatory duty to maintain safe, sanitary, and accessible public streets for its tax-paying residents. I am disappointed and disturbed by the lack of action and the City's apparent choice to prioritize the interests of non-residents over the safety of our neighborhoods. What more do we need to do to compel the City to perform its mandatory duty to protect our streets and support the requests of tax paying residents? The current policy of inaction is an abdication of the City's responsibility to the citizens who put you in office. You are leaving us no choice but to consider taking additional formal actions based on California state and county codes and laws to ensure the safety and sanitation of our neighborhood is restored. I ask for a prompt response detailing the City’s immediate plan to clear the current waste and prevent further hazardous obstructions on our residential streets. Chris Schremp From:ceavalos.00@gmail.com To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Opposition to Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:42:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of pickleball courts at Mitchell Park at the expense of our community tennis courts. As a regular player at Mitchell Park, I am deeply concerned that converting two of the four remaining tennis courts into eight pickleball courts will essentially eliminate community tennis play at this location. Mitchell Park is a vital resource for our local tennis community; both my daughter and I take classes there, and it would be a significant loss for our family and many others if these facilities were further reduced. With 15 pickleball courts already available at Mitchell Park, the current balance is already skewed. Reducing the tennis courts to just two—which are heavily used for lessons and classes—leaves virtually no space for community members to play. Furthermore, this change will inevitably put more pressure on other local facilities like Rinconada Park, making it even more difficult for residents to find available court time. While I understand the growing interest in pickleball, it should not come at the cost of established tennis programs and community access. I urge the Commission to consider alternative locations for pickleball expansion that do not require the removal of existing tennis courts. Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the tennis community. Cristian Avalos From:Beverly Brockway To:Council, City Cc:Beverly Brockway Subject:adding additional pickleball courts Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:16:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Committee and the City Council: As a citizen of Palo Alto for over 25 years, I have been impressed by the City’s ability to grow, change and meet the needs of the community while still keeping the “Palo Alto character.” I am an Olympian and sports have always been central to whom I am. In my 80’s to be able to add another sport and new friends of all ages is not only remarkable but wonderful. I can wake up at 6 AM, grab some breakfast, my paddle and head to the courts to play. There will always be people to play with…often strangers and players of different skill levels. They manage to fit me in and I often have a new friend before I leave. If I have a call from my husband, they understand that I need to leave and accommodate this. My eyesight is not the greatest due to macular degeneration. Many younger people also have various eye issues. The tennis court/pickleball lined courts are a nightmare for us. To simplify the courts by changing the lines to dedicated pickleball can be not only an amazing gift to current players but opens the gates for more residents with eye problems to play. Can we make the saying: Once a pickle baller, always a pickle baller, never former, never past unless we pass on. I sincerely hope you will help the pickleball community grow and thrive. Beverly Brockway 1960 Olympic US Alpine Ski Team From:Steven Prothero To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Cc:papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 4:50:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council: I'm a longtime resident of Palo Alto, and I strongly support creating additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Pickleball is good fun and exercise, and I've made some nice friends in the welcoming pickleball community at Mitchell Park. I was playing there regularly a few times a week. Sadly, I hardly ever play pickleball anymore, because the courts have become so overcrowded that one usually spends more time waiting for a court than playing. I don't mean to displace tennis players -- I used to be one -- but in Mitchell Park it is easy to see that while the pickleball courts are usually overutilized the adjacent tennis courts are usually underutilized. There are almost always empty tennis courts while the pickleball courts are overflowing. I think it would be a more efficient use of our limited space, and better serve more people, if we could convert two more tennis courts into eight more pickleball courts. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Steven Prothero Midtown Palo Alto 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:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:The incredible true story of Palo Alto"s Dawn Redwood Tree - read and be astounded Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 3:04:37 PM Council Members - A couple of you mentioned to me that you wish you had known about the April 24th sign unveiling event on this trees 77th birthday. I am sorry you missed it - I was told you all had been invited and would have loved to see you there. This wasn’t a City sponsored gathering, though our Urban Forester Peter Gollinger helped me with it and a few City staff attended. Here are 3 photos and the amazing tree's backstory. Enjoy - Winter Dellenbach Waverley St. side of post office DAWN REDWOOD: ASTOUNDING, HISTORIC, INSPIRING The Dawn Redwood tree at the downtown post office has great historic importance for our City. It is not coincidental that this tree, an ancient deciduous species sometimes referred to as a living fossil, was planted at our post office on Arbor Day, March 7, 1949 as was noted on a small wooden sign. In 1941 a paleobotanist in central China discovered a strange fossilized tree he assumed was long extinct. He named it Metasequoia glyptostroboides. In 1943, a botanist heard of an unusual tree growing in a remote Sichuan village. After making an arduous trek he found the small village whose inhabitants had built a little temple at the trees base. The botanist judged the Metasequoia glyptostroboides. Finally in 1948 it was a third scientist who made the connection between the fossil and the village Dawn Redwood. He made the difficult trek into wet remote valleys of south-central China to try to find more trees. He succeeded, but found fewer than 1,000. The species was at risk of extinction. Chinese and American scientists knew immediate action was needed or the ancient species could be lost forever. In 1949 they jump-started a global effort to save Dawn Redwood. Seeds and cuttings were sent internationally to governments, community organizations and individuals to plant and nourish. One made it to Palo Alto to be planted on Arbor Day 77- years ago. California now was home to all three of earths Redwood species, Sequoia sempervirens (coastal redwood) and Sequoia giganteum (giant sequoia), and Metasequoia glyptostroboides (dawn redwood) Forty million years ago Dawn Redwood thrived in California, Greenland and Asia. Based on the fossil record it’s believed to have been among the most abundant trees in North America. In China the tree has become a national point of pride, second only to the Panda as a conservation icon. Though now protected in the wild under Chinese law it remains at risk, categorized as an endangered species. Dawn Redwood thrives in waterlogged soil, bogs and swamps. As the smallest of the three redwood species, typically it grows between 50 and 60 feet tall, but sometimes reaches 160 feet with a trunk 7 feet in diameter. Given Dawn Redwoods need for ongoing water, regular irrigation will always be essential for the tree’s survival. New sign about to be reveiled - made by our Parks Dept. New sign unveiled: Dawn Redwood (Metasequoia glyptostroboides) Planted on Arbor Day, March 7, 1949. Part of a worldwide effort to save the species from extinction. 10 tree huggers needed to encircle her. From:Marion Parr To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Cc:Howard, Adam Subject:Please preserve the remaining four Mitchell Park tennis courts for tennis Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 3:01:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ParkRec.Commission@paloalto.gov parkrec.commission@paloalto.gov City.Council@paloalto.gov, papc.secretary@gmail.com Adam Howard (Adam.Howard@paloalto.gov) Dear Palo Alto Parks and Rec Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the PA Pickleball Club’s proposal to convert two additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park into single-use pickleball courts. Currently, Mitchell Park has 15 pickleball courts and only four tennis courts. Reducing the tennis courts to two would effectively end any tennis playing for the community at Mitchell because, although the proposal suggests leaving Courts #1 and #2 for tennis, those courts are dedicated to lessons and classes, leaving no space or time for regular people to play tennis. Furthermore, Mitchell Park and Rinconada Park are the only public parks in Palo Alto with lighted courts (4 at MP, 5 for public use at Rinconada). So, this proposal would leave only seven lighted public tennis courts in the entire city, significantly limiting options for play in the evening for all Palo Alto tennis players. Rather than further reducing the number of tennis courts at Mitchell Park, I suggest the City consider the following alternatives for new pickleball courts: - Look at converting Mitchell Park utility spaces: Convert the handball courts (hitting wall), the Tai Chi space, and/or the area under the pergola; - Look at Cubberly Community Center courts: Convert two of the six courts at Cubberly into 6–8 pickleball courts. This would balance the player load across multiple parks and reduce the noise impact on residential areas, as Cubberly has fewer surrounding homes. Additionally, Cubberly is located right next to a fire station, which has a practical benefit given the higher rate of injuries associated with pickleball. I ask that the City preserve the remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park and explore these 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 alternative options to meet the growing demand for pickleball. Thank you, Marion Parr From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:I’m Heading Back to Washington, D.C. This Week Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:00:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council,, After a busy but refreshing week in our community, I’m headed back to Washington with renewed purpose and energy, and with gratitude for our extraordinary community. In the days ahead, we’ll vote on several measures related to law enforcement, military construction and Veterans Affairs funding, and a possible war powers resolution. War Powers This week, I will push with my colleagues to bring another War Powers Resolution to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote, to restore the mandate of Article I of the Constitution: only Congress may declare war. As this war–which some euphemistically call a “ceasefire”–continues to cost America dearly in lost lives, livelihoods, resources, and reputation, the President still fails to articulate a single achievable strategic objective. We see what asymmetric warfare: how the world’s most powerful fighting force can win literally every military battle, but fail to achieve any desired outcome–and can even make matters worse, e.g., the Strait of Hormuz. Months later, Iran’s brutal regime remains in power, Iran harbors hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium and hundreds of centrifuges, and it prevents the world access to a critical shipping lane. U.S. consumers have begun to pay the price– literally, at the pump and grocery store check- out–that has more severely burdened our allies. Congress must reassert our constitutional role. Feeding Our Community Last week, I met with Coastside farmers like John and Luca Giusti, Bob Marsh and BJ Burns, who shared the brutal impacts of rising costs, labor shortages, water access, and other great challenges of our local family farms. Their work feeds our families, strengthens our economy, and preserves the Coastside’s character. Washington has found plenty of money to subsidize corn for ethanol, and yet the House just approved a Farm Bill that does little for many of our Coastside growers of specialty crops. At the very least, Congress must get out of farmers’ way, by eliminating many obstacles —such as tariffs, overbearing immigration enforcement, and war-inflated gas prices—to Hearing–and Seeing–The Next Great Generation I spent much of the last week engaged with young adults–in a gym full of students at Half Moon Bay High, in college classrooms where superstar college interns like Ananya Sharma and Ved Valmiki presented their research projects, or at Moffett Field, talking to young recruits. Amid all of the cynicism and negativity in our public discourse, those conversations inspire me, and renew my sense of hope. Our next generation has ample evidence to feel frustrated and pessimistic about our world, yet I continue to hear about their commitment to make it better–through service, with sacrifice, and yes, by learning from our mistakes. At Menlo College, we celebrated this year’s Congressional Art Competition. Students responded to the prompt: “What does the United States of America’s 250th anniversary mean to you?” Dozens took up that challenge—in a uniquely challenging moment for our nation– offering perspectives that created an engaging, thought-provoking tapestry of America. Thank you to our young artists who shared their creativity, and their vision of America. Congratulations to Serena Yip, a student at Saratoga High School, whose work will find its way to our Nation’s Capitol, where hundreds of thousands of visitors will enjoy it with us. Photo Finish A day on the Coastside isn’t complete without a visit to the beach. At Pacifica’s landmark “World’s Most Beautiful” Taco Bell, we found all the great fruits of civilization: Baja Blasts, a fabulous beachfront view, overpriced merch, and the epic fusion of two great cuisines: the Mexican pizza. I look forward to keeping you updated on this week in Washington on my social media. Make sure you follow us on Facebook, Instagram, X, Bluesky, TikTok, and YouTube for the latest. With gratitude, Sam U.S. Representative for California's 16th Congressional District Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Myo Thein To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Support for Pickleball Courts expansion Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:55:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto (in Charleston Garden), and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I spent more than 8 hours every week at the Court and built friendship with numerous people over the last two years. I've met people from 15 to 85 years old, and the love for the sport is real. It truly is a community home for people who live in Palo Alto like me as well as citizens from nearby cities. Sincerely yours, Myo Thein Montrose Ave, Charleston Garden From:Clay, Nicholas To:Matt Morley; Rob Fleeup; jhernandez@milpitas.gov; SCHOONOVER, JASON – Fire Chief; Christina Turner; Farley, Craig@CALFIRE; Kimbra.McCarthy; Jones, Brian; Shikada, Ed; Lindsey, Stephen; jennifer.maguire@sanjoseca.gov; Sapien, Robert; jgrogan@santaclaraca.gov; TORRES, RUBEN – Fire Chief; TKirby@sunnyvale.ca.gov; dpistor@sunnyvale.ca.gov; gengeland@losaltosca.gov Cc:Lee, Otto; Arenas, Sylvia; Duong, Betty; Ellenberg, Susan; AbeKoga, Margaret; greg.bozzo@cityofgilroy.org; dion.bracco; tom.cline@cityofgilroy.org; terence.fugazzi@cityofgilroy.org; zachary.hilton@cityofgilroy.org; EXT.carol.marques; kelly.ramirez@cityofgilroy.org; cmontano@milpitas.gov; gbarbadillo@milpitas.gov; EXT.Evelyn.Chua; hlien@milpitas.gov; wlam@milpitas.gov; EXT.Mark.Turner; EXT.Miriam.Vega; Yvonne Martinez Beltran; soraida.iwanaga@morganhill.ca.gov; marilyn.librers@morganhill.ca.gov; Emily.Ramos@mountainview.gov; chris.clark; Alison.Hicks; Ellen.Kamei; john.mcalister; Lucas.Ramirez; pat.showalter@mountainview.gov; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; District1; District2; District3; District4; District5; District6; EXT.Sally.Meadows; llang@losaltosca.gov; EXT.Pete.Dailey; jweinberg@losaltosca.gov; District7; District8; District9; District10; Lisa Gillmor; AGonzalez1@SantaClaraca.gov; rchahal; khardy; kpark@santaclaraca.gov; sjain@santaclaraca.gov; kcox@santaclaraca.gov; mayorklein@sunnyvale.ca.gov; mehlingercouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; cisneroscouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; srinivasancouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; sellcouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; changcouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; lecouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; Williams, James; Mills, John; D"Arcy, Nicole; Cabano, Michael; Matt Morley; Rob.Fleeup@cityofgilroy.org; jhernandez@milpitas.gov; SCHOONOVER, JASON – Fire Chief; Christina Turner; Kimbra.McCarthy; Jones, Brian; Shikada, Ed; Lindsey, Stephen; Maguire, Jennifer; Sapien, Robert; jgrogan@santaclaraca.gov; rtorres@santaclaraca.gov; Tim Kirby; dpistor@sunnyvale.ca.gov; gengeland@losaltosca.gov; Clay, Nicholas; dion.bracco; CityCouncil@milpitas.gov; citycouncil@morganhill.ca.gov; Councilmembers; Council, City; matt.mahan@sanjoseca.gov; Rosemary.kamei@sanjoseca.gov; Pamela.campos@sanjoseca.gov; anthony.tordillos@sanjoseca.gov; David.cohen@sanjoseca.gov; Peter.ortiz@sanjoseca.gov; Michael.mulcahy@sanjoseca.gov; Doan, Bien; Domingo.candelas@sanjoseca.gov; pam.foley; George.casey@sanjoseca.gov; mayorandcouncil@santaclaraca.gov; council@sunnyvale.ca.gov Subject:Emergency Ambulances Services (4/3) Letter Response Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:03:04 PM Attachments:EMS Agency Response to City Managers and Fire Chiefs_May 11_2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City managers and fire chiefs, Thank you for the engagement regarding the development of updates to the EMS system. Please find our attached response. We look forward to engaging with Mr. Kirby and Mr. Shikada soon regarding this matter. Best Regards, Nick Clay Director | Chief Emergency Medical Services Agency County of Santa Clara Direct: (408) 794-0610 | Cell: (669) 721-3141 Email: nicholas.clay@ems.sccgov.org Website: https://ems.santaclaracounty.gov/home This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Page 1 of 4 May 11, 2026 Dear City Managers and Fire Chiefs of Santa Clara County: Thank you for the April 3rd letter from city managers (Santa Clara County City Managers’ Association, SCCCMA) and fire chiefs (Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs’ Association, FCA) and the March 24th letter from the FCA. We appreciate your input into the redesign of the county’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system in anticipation of the release of the upcoming Request for Proposals (RFP) for 911 Ambulance services. As you know, the EMS Agency has been engaging stakeholders to seek such input for well over a year now, including direct outreach to each of your organizations. Thank you for sharing your input and providing us with the opportunity to clarify misconceptions and respond to your concerns. The development of a structured, tiered ambulance response, where low-acuity patients receive low-acuity responses and high-acuity patients receive rapid, high-acuity responses, is not only becoming an industry standard of practice, but it is paramount to operating an efficient, effective, and equitable EMS System. Over the past two years, the EMS Agency has worked to modify the EMS System to better clarify when a Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance can be deployed. That said, there are times when a BLS ambulance is closer to an emergency and will provide a faster response than an Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance. At such times, it may be necessary for a fire department paramedic to accompany the patient to the hospital. In 2025, 2.5% of all transports had a firefighter/paramedic accompany a BLS ambulance, and the participating fire engines were out of service for about 33 minutes per instance (Figure 1 has a breakdown by fire department). In November 2025, the EMS Agency deployed the Mobile Area Routing and Vehicle Locating System (MARVLIS) Unit Recommendation Tool at County Communications. This software has allowed for better management of BLS ambulances, reducing the number of times that a firefighter/paramedic has had to accompany a patient on a BLS ambulance by 16%. Emergency Medical Services Agency 700 Empey Way San José, California 95128 (408) 794-0600 ems.santaclaracounty.gov Page 2 of 4 Figure 1 Firefighter/Paramedic Accompanied a BLS Ambulance, 2025* (Time Left Scene to Back in Service) Gilroy 113 occurrences 26 minutes Milpitas 39 occurrences 41 minutes Morgan Hill (CAL FIRE) 74 occurrences 37 minutes Mountain View 104 occurrences 32 minutes San Jose 1377 occurrences 32 minutes Santa Clara 157 occurrences 34 minutes Santa Clara County Fire Department (includes South Santa Clara County Fire District) 624 occurrences 37 minutes Sunnyvale *Based on patient care record data submitted by each fire department We recognize that the use of firefighter/paramedics on a BLS ambulance can place a financial burden on fire departments. However, as you are aware, each department receives an annual payment from the Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) ambulance provider for the provision of ALS care (except Sunnyvale) and for the delivery of Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) services, currently totaling $7.3 million a year, to offset the costs associated with this burden. Additionally, the EOA provider is required to replenish all fire departments’ disposable medical supplies that are used during these calls. Since the beginning of the current EOA agreement in 2011, fire departments have received over $90 million for the provision of advanced life support care (Figure 2 has a breakdown by fire department). Figure 2 EOA Payments to Fire Departments, FY 2026 $134,937.44 $145,197.93 $280,135.37 $128,096.27 $193,597.25 $321,693.52 $93,202.62 $96,798.62 $190,001.24 $150,393.52 $241,996.56 $392,390.08 $2,138,095.76 $1,839,173.83 $3,997,269.59 $191,293.97 $290,395.87 $481,689.84 Department* $453,317.16 $1,016,385.55 $1,469,702.71 $212,979.98 N/A $212,979.98 *Includes area formerly served by the South Santa Clara County Fire District Page 3 of 4 Activations of Standard Dispatch Orders (SDO) 10 and 11 (low ambulance availability) have been trending downward, from 737 activations in 2023 (for a total of 1,232 hours, lasting an average of 101 minutes per activation) to 570 activations in 2025 (for a total of 542.8 hours, lasting an average of 57 minutes per activation). Also in 2025, only 1% of all ambulance responses took longer than 20 minutes for Urban Code 3 (lights and sirens) requests for service. It is important that, as partners in the EMS System, we work from a shared understanding of the current state, so that we can effectively design the future state, being mindful of the meaningful improvements that have been made in recent years, even as additional progress is sought. As noted in your correspondence, the existing 911 ambulance agreement was modified in 2020 (7th Amendment) to reduce late response penalties to the EOA ambulance provider, aligning them with late response penalties to fire departments. At the same time, per zone penalties for noncompliance were nearly doubled. In addition, the 7th Amendment also allowed for exemptions to late response penalties for first responders; such exemptions were utilized by fire departments for 4,103 late responses in 2025. In preparation for the upcoming 911 Ambulance RFP, the EMS Agency, in partnership with the County Public Health Department, has updated the county’s response time zones (Emergency Response Zones, ERZs). The existing five (5) ERZs were established in 1995 based on the county’s population at that time. The ERZs have been redrawn, and a sixth zone has been added, based on EMS system response volume and considerations including the Healthy Places Index (HPI). The new ERZs isolate the impacts of high-volume areas, like downtown San Jose, and force increased compliance in traditionally underserved areas of the county. The new zones also maintain a high-density population designation (currently referred to as “urban,” which will be referred to as “metro” in the upcoming RFP), encompassing 98% of the calls-for- service. This model will require an increased level of ambulance deployment to achieve and maintain response time compliance. Your correspondence erroneously states that the 12- minute response-time standard will be eliminated in the upcoming RFP. This is not true. The 12-minute response-time standard will be enforced, liquidated damages will be levied for response-time underperformance, and the Contractor will also be required to submit corrective action plans that include increasing ambulance deployment and changes to deployment hours strategies. In the meantime, liquidated damages, which were paused in the 9th Amendment (April 2024), will be reactivated in the next 60-90 days. Furthermore, the upcoming 911 Ambulance RFP contemplates that first-responder agreements will be structured to ensure that they align with applicable laws and have formal contractual parameters. A central goal of the redesign of the county’s EMS system is to return to an optimally performing system that does not require the use of SDOs to augment or supplement the system. In any case, the use of SDOs is intended to be temporary. Page 4 of 4 By design, an RFP for 911 Ambulance services is exclusive. If the County were to design a non-exclusive system, any qualified ambulance provider could respond to calls, including any private ambulance provider. Not only would this likely negate the need for fire department ambulance transport, but it would also create a significant level of instability in the system, as there would be no structured ambulance standards to enforce. An EOA enables the County to establish and enforce performance standards while providing equitable ambulance response through the efficient, effective movement of ambulances throughout the county. Thank you again for your correspondence. We appreciate your input and the opportunity to clarify misconceptions and respond to your concerns. Yours in health, Nick Clay EMS Agency Director / Chief cc: Honorable Otto Lee, President Board of Supervisors; Supervisor, District 3 Honorable Sylvia Arenas, Vice President, Board of Supervisors; Supervisor, District 1 Honorable Betty Duong, Supervisor, District Two Honorable Susan Ellenberg, Supervisor, District Four Honorable Margaret Abe-Koga, Supervisor, District Five City Councils – All Signatory Cities James R. Williams, County Executive John P. Mills, Deputy County Executive Nicole D’Arcy, MD, EMS Agency Medical Director Michael Cabano, EMS Agency Assistant Director From:Miller, Julianna To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Mitchell Park Tennis Courts Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:53:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out and express my concerns regarding the recent proposal to convert two more tennis courts at Mitchell Park into pickleball courts. As an avid tennis player who frequently enjoys playing at these courts, I find this proposal particularly disappointing. Currently, there are already 15 pickleball courts available at Mitchell Park, while only four tennis courts remain. Further reducing the number of tennis courts would make it increasingly difficult for tennis players like myself to find available playing time and continue enjoying the sport we love. I certainly appreciate the growing popularity of pickleball and understand the need to accommodate all community members. However, I hope you will consider the importance of maintaining a fair balance between the facilities for both sports. Preserving the remaining tennis courts is crucial for those of us who rely on them as one of the few accessible places to play. Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective. Best regards, Julianna Miller, CFP®, AWMA™ VP- Financial Consultant | Menlo Park Branch NMLS # 1953198 CA Insurance # 4060227 Tel 650 614 2004 | Fax 800 934 4415 800 El Camino Real, Suite #100, Menlo Park, CA 94025-4875 Schedule a Meeting Your referral to friends and family gives me the opportunity to positively shape the financial future of someone you care about. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc CA Insurance Agency License #0B27845 Where applicable, investors should consider carefully information contained in the prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus, including investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. You can request a prospectus by visiting Charles Schwab or calling Schwab at 800-435-4000. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investment returns will fluctuate and are subject to market volatility, so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed or sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Unlike mutual funds, share of ETFs are not individually redeemable directly with the ETF. Shares are bought and sold at market price, which may be higher or lower than the net asset value (NAV). Investment Products: Not FDIC-Insured | No Bank Guarantee | May Lose Value Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Trust Bank, and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. are separate but affiliated companies and subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation. Investment products are offered by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Member SIPC). Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. does not solicit, offer, endorse, negotiate or originate any mortgage loan products and is neither a licensed mortgage broker nor a licensed mortgage lender. Home lending is offered and provided by Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Equal Housing Lender. Rocket Mortgage, LLC is not affiliated with The Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, or Charles Schwab Trust Bank. Deposit and other lending products and services are offered by Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Member FDIC and an Equal Housing Lender, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, and Charles Schwab Trust Bank, Members FDIC. Unless otherwise stated, Schwab does not endorse third-party sites or the products and services you might find there. Warning: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate email system is subject to archiving, monitoring and/or review by Schwab personnel. Classification: Schwab Internal From:abby bradski To:Council, City Subject:Thank you Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:16:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City council members, Thank you for all your hard, thoughtful work before making the decision to not close Churchill. I hope that Paly students feel your concern, love and protection with crossing guards in place and the move forward on creating a quiet zone at all the crossings. If you had closed Churchill and even one death occurred because an ambulance couldn't reach someone in time or someone was killed or injured because of the increased congestion the closing caused, it would be unbearable for all of us. Thank you for making the safest decision. I hope PAUSD steps up their efforts supporting mental health. It is needed. In the meantime, the guards continue to be successful. My saddness over the suicides continues but hopefully the deaths stop. Thank you again, Abby Bradski This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Bullion, Shelby To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Mitchell Park Tennis Courts Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:43:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I hope this message finds you well. As a dedicated tennis player and a proud resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed conversion of the Mitchell Park tennis courts into additional pickleball courts. I believe it is crucial to maintain a fair balance so that everyone in our community can enjoy access to their preferred sports. At present, there are 15 pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts remaining in the park. Further reducing the tennis courts to just 2 would be a real tragedy for tennis enthusiasts. These courts at Mitchell Park are not only vital for those of us who play regularly, but they also contribute to the broad spectrum of recreational opportunities that make Palo Alto such a vibrant city. Losing more tennis courts would severely limit options for many residents who depend on these public facilities for exercise, social connection, and community engagement. I urge you to consider the needs of the entire community and to preserve the existing tennis courts at Mitchell Park. Exploring alternative solutions that accommodate both tennis and pickleball players—without sacrificing one for the other—would help ensure that our city remains inclusive and supportive of diverse interests. Thank you for your time and your dedication to fostering a welcoming environment in Palo Alto. I look forward to seeing how the council approaches this important issue. Best regards, Shelby Bullion Best, _____________________ Shelby Bullion, AWMA™ Vice President - Financial Consultant | Menlo Park, CA NMLS ID #2405686 CA Insurance License #4258327 Schedule an Appointment with Shelby Bullion Tel 650 614 2017 | Work Cell 650 512 4036 Fax 800 934 4415 800 El Camino Real, Suite #100, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. CA Insurance Agency License #0B27845 NOTICE: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate email system is subject to archiving, monitoring and/or review by Schwab personnel. Where applicable, investors should consider carefully information contained in the prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus, including investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. You can request a prospectus by visiting Charles Schwab or calling Schwab at 800-435-4000. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investment returns will fluctuate and are subject to market volatility, so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed or sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Unlike mutual funds, share of ETFs are not individually redeemable directly with the ETF. Shares are bought and sold at market price, which may be higher or lower than the net asset value (NAV). Investment Products: Not FDIC-Insured | No Bank Guarantee | May Lose Value Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Trust Bank, and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. are separate but affiliated companies and subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation. Investment products are offered by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Member SIPC). Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. does not solicit, offer, endorse, negotiate or originate any mortgage loan products and is neither a licensed mortgage broker nor a licensed mortgage lender. Home lending is offered and provided by Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Equal Housing Lender. Rocket Mortgage, LLC is not affiliated with The Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, or Charles Schwab Trust Bank. Deposit and other lending products and services are offered by Charles Schwab Bank, SSB, Member FDIC and an Equal Housing Lender, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, SSB, and Charles Schwab Trust Bank, Members FDIC. Unless otherwise stated, Schwab does not endorse third-party sites or the products and services you might find there. Warning: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate email system is subject to archiving, monitoring and/or review by Schwab personnel Classification: Schwab Internal From:John Melnychuk To:Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Shikada, Ed; Federal Railway Admistration; Stephanie Anzia Subject:Quiet Zones - technology beyond Quad Gates - FRA opinion, Stephanie Anzia Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:04:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Thanks to you, to your fellow Councilors and for helping us to approve Quiet Zone construction on an expedited basis. We are grateful for the hard work of Manger Shikada, our Transportation Department staff, and staff who help us organize our budget, also. A great team effort! I followed up with Eric S. Walker, Rail Safety Inspector at the FRA this morning. He confirmed that unapproved technology would need to be proved safe and reliable at an FRA Pueblo, CO test facility. https://railroads.dot.gov/FRA-transportation-technology-center He estimated it would be a minimum of "several years” before the results of such testing would be available. Mr. Walker has traveled by rail in Europe and Egypt, so he has eyewitness knowledge about rail safety approaches outside of the USA. He raised other concern about the practical aspects of the rolling gates - - would they impede evacuation for a trespasser in the railway, and would their presence make it more difficult for first responders? - if helpful, would they be reliable? - if approved for use in some locations, would the be suitable for our geography? We do have available a national rail expert, Stephanie Anzia. She is a railway engineer in Colorado and she unofficially advised the Mayor of Atherton about how to approach installation of Quiet Zones more than 14 years ago. Ms. Anzia is one of five accredited experts advising the FRA regarding Quiet Zones. She expressed willingness to speak with yourself, or other City Councillors so as to provide an overview of her experience of getting these Quiet Zones installed. Thanks so much, John Melnychuk and Melinda McGee Fairmeadow, Palo Alto From:Chris Schremp To:Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Council, City; Robert Marinaro; Christine Schremp; McDonough, Melissa; Bulatao, Eric Subject:Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:58:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl, I am writing to follow up on my previous two emails. As of today, I have received no response from any of you. This silence is a troubling indication of how the City views its responsibilities to tax paying residents facing the significant disruption, hazards and costs associated with OSVs in our neighborhoods. The lack of engagement from the Ad-Hoc Committee suggests a significant disconnect between your deliberations and the reality in our neighborhood and on our streets. It is not lost on the residents of our neighborhood that none of the three members of this committee reside in the areas currently bearing the brunt of the OSV migration. A few things to note: Some committee members reside in neighborhoods like Old Palo Alto that are effectively "immunized" from this crisis through Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts and strict 2-hour enforcement. In other words, these neighborhoods have somehow managed to put specific laws into effect that prevent OSVs from ever occupying their streets. Why can we not do the same across the rest of Palo Alto, and why can we not do it now? While your streets are protected by the full weight of the Municipal Code, our streets are being treated as unregulated overflow lots. This creates a two-tiered system of governance where some residents enjoy clear, safe streets, while others are told that enforcement is "too complex." Because you are not personally impacted by the abandoned garbage, the blocked bike lanes, or the safety hazards we report daily, there appears to be a total lack of urgency. Representation requires ensuring that the protections afforded to your own streets are applied equitably across the city. Geographic isolation is not an excuse for the abdication of your duties to our neighborhood. If the "legal fears" regarding OSV enforcement are as significant as staff claims, why do they not hinder enforcement in the RPP zones near some of your own homes? We are asking for Enforcement Equity. We expect the same level of street clearance and safety that you receive on your own residential blocks. We are living with this hazard today and have now reached out multiple times for a plan of action. I look forward to a prompt response that addresses why our neighborhood is being denied the standards of enforcement enjoyed by other neighborhoods across Palo Alto. Regards, Chris Schremp On Sat, May 9, 2026 at 1:50 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Council Members Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl, I am writing to follow up on my previous correspondence regarding Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) in our neighborhoods. As of today, I have received no response from any of you to my last email regarding a plan to address this crisis. In the time since my last email, the situation has deteriorated further. We are now seeing amounts of garbage and debris abandoned on our streets by these occupants (see attached photographs from Friday on Fabian Way). This has moved beyond a parking dispute and now constitutes a formal Public Nuisance under California Civil Code § 3479-3480 and a public health hazard under the California Health and Safety Code. The City’s failure to act is no longer acceptable. While staff have previously cited "operational constraints" and "legal fears" as reasons for non-enforcement, the City cannot selectively waive its mandatory duty to maintain safe, sanitary, and accessible public streets for its tax-paying residents. I am disappointed and disturbed by the lack of action and the City's apparent choice to prioritize the interests of non-residents over the safety of our neighborhoods. What more do we need to do to compel the City to perform its mandatory duty to protect our streets and support the requests of tax paying residents? The current policy of inaction is an abdication of the City's responsibility to the citizens who put you in office. You are leaving us no choice but to consider taking additional formal actions based on California state and county codes and laws to ensure the safety and sanitation of our neighborhood is restored. I ask for a prompt response detailing the City’s immediate plan to clear the current waste and prevent further hazardous obstructions on our residential streets. Chris Schremp From:Joy Zhang To:Council, City Cc:papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:More pickball courts are very much needed Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:55:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Pickleball has become an essential part of our family's daily life. I play pickleball often and my kids like to play as well. However, due to the drastic increase of pickleball players young and old, we don't have enough courts. Pickleball has brought so much joy as well as mental and physical benefits to our family and our community. I'd deeply appreciate if you could support us by creating additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Sincerely yours, Joy Zhang Midtown This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu To:Council, City Subject:Does Mollie Stone"s project violate daylight planes for College Avenue R-1 properties? Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:49:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. May 12, 2026 I will be unable to attend the May 18 City Council meeting regarding the Mollie Stone's project. But I would like one question to be answered: Does the Builder's Remedy allow a developer to override Palo Alto's city ordinance regarding the 10-foot/45-degree daylight plan for R-1 properties? It appears that city code sections 18.13.040 and 18.20.040 require that the R-1 daylight plane regulations apply to this project. The now 12-story Cambridge parking lot tower would violate the daylight plane regulations for at least the four R-1 properties on College Avenue closest to Park Blvd. That tower would have to be reduced to 6 stories to comply. If the regulations apply, then it is the duty of the City to ensure that the property rights of these R-1 properties owners are protected, and the project must be modified to address this situation. Mike Forster 420 Stanford Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike@mikeforster.net From:marilynstocker To:Council, City Subject:4103 Old Trace Road Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:31:21 AM Attachments:Denial request for 4103 Old Trace.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Request to disapprove the tentative map for the subdivision at 4103 Old Trace Road The proposal to build 9 houses plus 7 jadus at 4103 Old Trace Road will create a dangerous vehicular “bottleneck” at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Arastradero. This intersection is the only exit for the residents of 3 dead end streets: Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird Lane. It is a busy intersection with poor visibility due to shadows created by shady trees on Arastradero and road curvature, to see cars and e- bikes that travel east at 35 mile an hour or more. The developer claims that the road that bisects the proposed development will give another egress, however that narrow road would be inadequate to accommodate their 32 cars plus the 58 or more from residents of the existing 3 dead end streets (Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird lane) in an evacuation. The height of the proposed 2 story houses, their fences and plantings that back onto Arastradero will further interfere with visibility. The plan for 9-2 story dwellings, plus adus, plus an internal roadway provides inadequate parking. The excess cars will be forced to park on the narrow streets of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane, decreasing visibility at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane. As it is, the curvature of Old Trace Road south of Mockingbird Lane impedes visibility without additional parked cars. We know from past experience, that cars parked on Old Trace Road, and Mockingbird Lane made it unsafe for residents to walk, for emergency vehicles to turn into Mockingbird Lane, for disabled residents to be picked up from their homes, and for children to bike safely. We are not on a bus route that serves Palo Alto, and adjacent towns. This 2 lane section of Arastradero is the main car, bike and walking route for Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills students in the Palo Alto school district, who attend Gunn High School, Fletcher Middle Powered by Mimecast School, and Bowman private school during the week and for 2 synagogues and 2 churches on Saturdays and Sundays. This proposed development faces the large campus on Stanford Industrial Park land, which prior to the pandemic had 4000 VMWare employees, many who used Arastradero linking Foothill Expressway and 280. During peak commuting hours it was difficult for residents of the above mentioned 3 streets, to safely exit or enter Old Trace Road. This campus, now under new ownership is in the process of revitalizing buildings for future increased use. Marilyn Stocker, 880 Mockingbird Bird Lane Request to disapprove the tentative map for the subdivision at 4103 Old Trace Road The proposal to build 9 houses plus 7 jadus at 4103 Old Trace Road will create a dangerous vehicular “bottleneck” at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Arastradero. This intersection is the only exit for the residents of 3 dead end streets: Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird Lane. It is a busy intersection with poor visibility due to shadows created by shady trees on Arastradero and road curvature, to see cars and e- bikes that travel east at 35 mile an hour or more. The developer claims that the road that bisects the proposed development will give another egress, however that narrow road would be inadequate to accommodate their 32 cars plus the 58 or more from residents of the existing 3 dead end streets (Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird lane) in an evacuation. The height of the proposed 2 story houses, their fences and plantings that back onto Arastradero will further interfere with visibility. The plan for 9-2 story dwellings, plus adus, plus an internal roadway provides inadequate parking. The excess cars will be forced to park on the narrow streets of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane, decreasing visibility at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane. As it is, the curvature of Old Trace Road south of Mockingbird Lane impedes visibility without additional parked cars. We know from past experience, that cars parked on Old Trace Road, and Mockingbird Lane made it unsafe for residents to walk, for emergency vehicles to turn into Mockingbird Lane, for disabled residents to be picked up from their homes, and for children to bike safely. We are not on a bus route that serves Palo Alto, and adjacent towns. This 2 lane section of Arastradero is the main car, bike and walking route for Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills students in the Palo Alto school district, who attend Gunn High School, Fletcher Middle churches on Saturdays and Sundays. This proposed development faces the large campus on Stanford Industrial Park land, which prior to the pandemic had 4000 VMWare employees, many who used Arastradero linking Foothill Expressway and 280. During peak commuting hours it was difficult for residents of the above mentioned 3 streets, to safely exit or enter Old Trace Road. This campus, now under new ownership is in the process of revitalizing buildings for future increased use. Marilyn Stocker, 880 Mockingbird Bird Lane Request to disapprove the tentative map for the subdivision at 4103 Old Trace Road The proposal to build 9 houses plus 7 jadus at 4103 Old Trace Road will create a dangerous vehicular “bottleneck” at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Arastradero. This intersection is the only exit for the residents of 3 dead end streets: Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird Lane. It is a busy intersection with poor visibility due to shadows created by shady trees on Arastradero and road curvature, to see cars and e- bikes that travel east at 35 mile an hour or more. The developer claims that the road that bisects the proposed development will give another egress, however that narrow road would be inadequate to accommodate their 32 cars plus the 58 or more from residents of the existing 3 dead end streets (Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird lane) in an evacuation. The height of the proposed 2 story houses, their fences and plantings that back onto Arastradero will further interfere with visibility. The plan for 9-2 story dwellings, plus adus, plus an internal roadway provides inadequate parking. The excess cars will be forced to park on the narrow streets of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane, decreasing visibility at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane. As it is, the curvature of Old Trace Road south of Mockingbird Lane impedes visibility without additional parked cars. We know from past experience, that cars parked on Old Trace Road, and Mockingbird Lane made it unsafe for residents to walk, for emergency vehicles to turn into Mockingbird Lane, for disabled residents to be picked up from their homes, and for children to bike safely. We are not on a bus route that serves Palo Alto, and adjacent towns. This 2 lane section of Arastradero is the main car, bike and walking route for Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills students in the Palo Alto school district, who attend Gunn High School, Fletcher Middle School, and Bowman private school during the week and for 2 synagogues and 2 This proposed development faces the large campus on Stanford Industrial Park land, which prior to the pandemic had 4000 VMWare employees, many who used Arastradero linking Foothill Expressway and 280. During peak commuting hours it was difficult for residents of the above mentioned 3 streets, to safely exit or enter Old Trace Road. This campus, now under new ownership is in the process of revitalizing buildings for future increased use. Marilyn Stocker, 880 Mockingbird Bird Lane The intersection of Old Trace Road and Arastradero, the site of the proposed development, is the only exit for the residents of 3 dead end streets: Old Trace Road, Old Trace Court and Mockingbird Lane. It is a busy intersection with poor visibility of on-coming cars and e-bikes that travel east at 35 mile an hour or more. The plan for 9-2 story dwellings, plus adus, plus an internal roadway provides inadequate parking. The excess cars will be forced to park on the narrow streets of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane, decreasing visibility even more. Since there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, we must walk or run on the street for daily exercise, for visiting our neighbors, for walking our dogs. We know from past experience, that cars parked on Old Trace Road, and Mockingbird Lane made it unsafe for residents to walk, for emergency vehicles to turn into Mockingbird Lane, for disabled residents to be picked up from their homes. We are not on a bus route that serves Palo Alto, and adjacent towns. It takes 20-30 minutes to walk to El Camino to catch a bus. This section of Arastradero is the main car, bike and walking route for Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills students in the Palo Alto school district, who attend Gunn High School, Fletcher Middle School, and Bowman private school during the week and for 2 synagogues and 2 churches on Saturdays and Sundays. This proposed development faces the large campus on Stanford Industrial Park land, which prior to the pandemic had 4000 employees, many who used Arastradero linking Foothill Expressway and 280. During peak commuting hours it was difficult for residents to safely exit or enter Old Trace Road. From:Jan Cole To:Council, City Subject:Crossing Guards issue and input Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:00:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, As a long time Palo Alto resident, I would like to provide some important input regarding the proposal to decrease crossing guards. ( Note: my kids are young adults and no longer in the school system ) Although the article published in the Friday May 8th Daily Post reported that “ none of the crossings are high injury locations”, I would like to point out an extremely important issue which occurs at the N. California Ave. and Newell Road intersection by Greene Middle School which should be considered in these discussions. I live only a few houses away from that intersection and use it frequently when walking, driving, cycling, and walking my dog. 1. This particular intersection is one where throughout the day cars often do not slow down or stop at the stop signs, especially from either direction on N. California. 2. Given that so many students exit this area at the same time at the end of school, it would be prudent to be aware of this information. My fear, and the reason that I am making the effort to contact the council and city manager about the behavior of the drivers at this stop sign, is that if there is not a crossing guard present at this intersection, a student either on a bike or walking will be hit by a car and injured. Given how fast the cars frequently drive through this intersection while completely disregarding the stop signs, beyond injury there could even be a fatality. I don’t think this is what the council, the PAUSD, or the police want to happen. As well, one can only imagine the potential for lawsuits from parents of an injured child due to the absence of a crossing guard at this busy intersection. Please forward this concern to the appropriate personnel who are negotiating and planning the future of the crossing guard at this particular intersection. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you. A concerned resident, Jan From:Meilani Hendrawidjaja To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Cc:Meillani Hendrawidjaja Subject:Objection to Pickleball Court Expansion at Mitchell Park Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:35:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Honorable Members of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission, I am writing to express my concern regarding the Commission’s plan for the pickleball court expansion at Mitchell Park. My concerns centered on persistent issues of noise pollution, limited parking, traffic safety, and the incompatibility of a large sports facility with the surrounding environment—including a public library, a special education school, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition to those concerns , I would like to highlight the growing scarcity of tennis courts in our city. Many residents rely on these courts for recreation, fitness, and community connection, yet access has become increasingly limited. The conversion of existing tennis courts to pickleball courts—without adequate replacement or expansion of tennis facilities—exacerbates this problem and creates unnecessary competition between user groups. A balanced and inclusive approach to recreational planning must consider the needs of all residents, not just the fastest-growing sport. In light of these issues, I respectfully urge the Council and Commission to: Suspend all approvals until a comprehensive, independent study of noise and traffic impacts is conducted, with special attention to the library and neighboring residents and schools. Provide a transparent and detailed rationale for supporting the expansion, specifically addressing the concerns raised by residents. Commit to a more inclusive and deliberative process that considers alternative locations better suited for pickleball, without compromising existing quiet-use facilities, residential harmony, or access to tennis courts. Decisions of this scale must reflect thoughtful planning, community input, and a commitment to equity and transparency. Thank you for your attention and continued service to our community. Sincerely, Meilani Hendrawidjaja Palo Alto Resident since 2010, near Mitchell Park Tennis Player at Palo Alto public courts since 2018 From:Deepti Vijaykumar To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Diwali children"s book | Indian-American author | Gift to City of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:35:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and city of Palo Alto, Hope this email finds you well and wonderful. I am an Indian origin children's book author living in Columbus, Indiana, USA. Here is my first and only book : Fall brings the Festival of Lights I will be in the Bay Area between May 22nd and June1st 2026. I would be delighted to visit you to give you a copy of my book as an early Diwali gift. Please let me know if you are open and available for it. My vision for the book was to capture the uniquely magical American experience of the Indian festival of Diwali, so that Indian-American children feel represented and other American children get to easily partake in their Indian friends festivities. My mission now is to take it all over America and give back to individual communities through the sales of the book. Hope to hear from you soon! Thanks for everything you do for your city! Best regards, Deepti Vijaykumar TEDx speaker | children's book author | non-profit leader | TV appearance 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:Niu Niu Zhang To:Council, City Subject:Please Keep Churchill Crossing Open Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:15:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Councilmembers, As both a resident of the Southgate neighborhood and a physician who has cared for patients experiencing suicidal ideation, I appreciate the seriousness and urgency of this issue. Every loss of a young life is heartbreaking, and the community’s desire to act is deeply understandable. At the same time, the available evidence does NOT strongly support closing the Churchill crossing for one year as the most effective intervention. Research in suicide prevention does support restricting access to highly lethal means. However, the strongest evidence is for comprehensive and permanent measures such as physical barriers, fencing, or grade separation — not temporary closure of a single crossing while multiple nearby crossings remain open. Churchill is one of several crossings in the area, and only a minority of the recent tragedies occurred there. A temporary closure risks creating major unintended consequences, including increased traffic congestion, delayed emergency response, and greater danger to the many students who bike and walk along already heavily impacted roads such as Embarcadero. Importantly, the current security presence at the crossings appears to have been effective in preventing additional deaths, while preserving safe neighborhood access. Expanding mental health outreach, maintaining trained personnel at crossings, and pursuing long-term infrastructure solutions would better align with the available evidence than closing a single crossing temporarily. I respectfully ask the Council to keep Churchill open and continue pursuing interventions that maximize both suicide prevention and overall community safety. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Niushen Zhang, MD This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Clinical Associate Professor of Neurology Stanford University From:Kenneth Streib To:Council, City Subject:Thanks Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 9:04:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thanks so much for exploring options to keep Churchill open. Traffic is already very slow on El Camino, we don't want it any slower, more crowded or more dangerous. Thanks, Ken Streib This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Francesca Lieb To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:CONCERNS VOICED for Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Tuesday, May 26th 7pm Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 8:55:49 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, We are writing to express our strong concern regarding the proposal to convert Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into additional pickleball courts. Mitchell Park already has a significant allocation of space dedicated to pickleball, with 15 pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts remaining. Converting Courts 3 and 4 into six or eight more pickleball courts would effectively eliminate Mitchell Park as a viable location for community tennis play. While Courts 1 and 2 may remain available for lessons and classes, that does not address the needs of the broader tennis community. Recreational players, families, seniors, and local residents rely on Mitchell Park for regular public play. Reducing the number of tennis courts from four to two would make it extremely difficult for community members to access courts, especially during evenings and weekends. This proposal would also create a ripple effect throughout Palo Alto’s tennis facilities. Players displaced from Mitchell Park will be forced to seek court time at other locations such as Rinconada Park, increasing competition for already limited tennis court availability across the city. We understand and appreciate the growing popularity of pickleball, and we support providing space for both sports. However, the current balance at Mitchell Park is already heavily weighted toward pickleball. Further conversion of tennis courts would disproportionately impact the tennis community and reduce recreational opportunities for many residents. We respectfully urge the City to preserve Courts 3 and 4 for tennis use and seek alternative solutions that maintain fair access for both tennis and pickleball players. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 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 Francesca Lieb Gregory Lieb Sofia Lieb Tullia Lieb 1709 Waverley Street, Palo Alto From:Chia-Ming Alex Chang To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Respectfully Urging Reconsideration of the Mitchell Park Court Conversion Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 8:53:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Commissioners and Council Members, I am a Palo Alto resident who plays and values both tennis and pickleball. I am writing to oppose the proposed conversion of Tennis Courts 3 and 4 at Mitchell Park into eight pickleball courts. Mitchell Park already has 15 pickleball courts and only 4 tennis courts. Reducing tennis to just two courts would effectively end community play, push displaced players onto an already- crowded Rinconada, and severely restrict the youth lessons that my third-grader and many other local children rely on. I support pickleball's growth, but conversion is a zero-sum response to a growth problem. The right answer is to expand total capacity, not redistribute the existing shortage. Four additive alternatives the Commission should pursue instead: 1. Build new pickleball courts at underutilized sites. A pickleball court is roughly a quarter the footprint of a tennis court — it fits where tennis cannot. 2. Add tennis courts at Greer Park. This will relieve pressure on Mitchell and Rinconada and create a more geographically distributed network. 3. Upgrade lighting at existing courts. High-efficiency LED lighting will expand playable hours citywide for both sports without requiring new land. 4. Develop a 5-to-10-year Racquet Sports Master Plan. Rather than relitigating individual court allocations each cycle, the City needs a systemic forecast to address the growing demand for both sports. Mitchell's 15-to-4 balance already generously accommodates pickleball. Please vote against further conversion and direct staff to pursue these additive alternatives. Thank you. Chia-Ming This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Margaret Heath To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Railroad Crossing Access Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 5:09:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members, Please do not close the Churchill railroad crossing to vehicular traffic. Maggie Heath College Terrace This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Star Teachout To:Council, City Subject:HRC process and treatment of Allyson Rosen Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 4:55:30 PM Dear city council members, Since it has already been made public in The Daily Post—and I did not find a public apology during the 4 May council meeting—I want to express my sadness over how Allyson Rosen was treated in the nomination process for the HRC. I am a Gunn acquaintance of Allyson and have never found her to be rude, harsh, nor unreasonable when disagreeing. This exposure reflects negatively on our city council in a time when we need to bolster not break down public trust in our institutions. A city council member cannot control messages coming from citizens criticizing applicants, nor is it forbidden to ask friends for opinions, but voicing agreement with those inputs without doing one’s own work is irresponsible and disrespectful to our democratic process. It invites and reinforces cronyism. With or without staff help, leaders with integrity and a commitment to serving (everyone) evaluate candidates to the best of their ability in a neutral fashion. Recommendations are made within the context of fairness and respect for its citizen applicants, and with our local government’s ethical expectations in mind. Those involved in this behind the scenes chat are talented Democrats who could be putting their activism and skilled voices towards a higher purpose. Instead, they are playing a political game that ends up damaging our school board, our city council, and our democracy. It also diminishes the image of women in leadership roles. I hope Councilmember Lythcott-Haims will apologize publicly for her lack of professionalism. I listened to some of the candidate interviews, and it was actually pretty apparent that Allyson did not have the same level of experience that others demonstrated. So, this error in judgement was wasted on a candidate who probably wasn’t going to make the cut anyway. Respectfully, Star Teachout From:Edwin Ho To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Support for adding additional Pickleball courts at Mitchell Park Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 4:27:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto and am writing in support of the proposal to create eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I am retired and have been playing at the Mitchell Park courts regularly since 2021. In my experience, additional courts are greatly needed to help relieve the daily overcrowding situation. Although the current 14 courts can accommodate up to 64 players at a time, there are often an additional 60 or more people waiting for a court during peak hours. The situation is further impacted when instructional classes occupy the two courts near the library. Adding eight more courts would significantly reduce wait times, improve access for current players, and allow even more residents to participate in Palo Alto’s growing pickleball community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Ed Ho 905 Amarillo Ave This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Barbara Tisdale To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Additional Pickleball Courts Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 4:18:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I started playing pickleball when I retired a few years ago. It has enabled me to remain active, make new friends, stay physically and mentally healthy and have a sense of belonging in a wonderful community. Pickleball is becoming increasingly popular, and the creation of additional courts should be a priority for our community. Sincerely yours, Barbara Tisdale Roosevelt Circle This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Ed Anderson To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Pickleball Club Palo Alto Subject:Mitchell Park Pickleball Court Expansion Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 3:05:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I am an 82-year-old resident of Palo Alto who has been playing pickleball at Mitchell Park for the last 5 years, and I am writing in support of creating additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Spending time at these courts has become an important part of my life as a retiree. It is a gathering place for people who want to exercise, socialize, compete, and volunteer. The Palo alto Pickleball Club organizes clinics, round robins, and other social events for players at every level, and those who benefit from these events tend to eventually become volunteers themselves – a virtuous circle of social activity. As the courts have become overcrowded at certain times of the day, and over weekends, creating additional courts on adjacent underused tennis courts just seems like a natural next step for the city to take for its residents. Sincerely, Ed Anderson Palo Alto, University South This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Jason Peery To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Pickleball courts! Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 3:02:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec and City Council: I can't imagine better use of any additional Mitchell Park land than to create more pickleball courts. This game has proven incredibly powerful in terms of creating/strengthening bonds in this community, improving mental health, and improving physical strength among aging citizens. There is no single activity in Palo Alto, to my knowledge, resulting in more friendships and connections than the sport of Pickleball, due to the offering currently in place at Mitchell Park. Because of its popularity, there is a huge demand for more courts, which are badly needed. Many people end up having to wait to play due to so many trying to use the limited number of courts currently. This location is a perfect spot, shielding residents from noise and providing central access for players all over the city. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Dick Peery, Mimi Peery, Jason Peery, Lisa Peery 2200 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Leland To:United Nations Cc:Kangethel1@un.org; rwm836@gmail.com; United Nations; Council, City; World Food Program USA Gabriella Morris Subject:UNGM947141, 1st PROTOTYPE Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 2:50:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The UM947141 Project reflects what the UN ASSOCIATION from Oakland has designed and gifted to our UNHABITAT PRGM in NAIROBI. The photo was taken in Centennial Plaza & Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza and intended to share what our Old Ravenswood Community did for the UN in 1945. This UNBLUE DESK ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE from our POS, Distribution point, 2050 Cooley Ave, daily and located between market and bank from building 1733. Items can also be acquired by way of special dedicated acct. being setup for EFT. Please telephone 650 461 0276 for additional info. (emergency alt # 650 518 4029) press key #2 to expedite quick messaging and leave best contact info. Please frwd to attention of Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez during his visit to Kenya and also frwd to Habitat Director General ASAP and other supporting interest. SIGN ...LELAND D/T/L 05 11, 1445 hrs/gmt, 250 Hamilton P/A 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 may not be readily available due to other emergency communication priorities with KI6AWN, Mtn View in such case place incoming priority calls on standby) From:Fernando Costa To:Council, City Subject:Support for Urban Forestry programs Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 2:36:43 PM 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 Fernando Costa, and I have been a volunteer with Canopy for over 8 years. I am writing to express my support for continued funding for urban forestry programs, including Canopy’s partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Trees provide enormous benefits to our community by helping reduce heat, improving air quality, and creating healthier, more beautiful neighborhoods. Urban forestry programs also strengthen community involvement and help protect public health and the environment for future generations. I encourage the City Council to maintain full funding for these important programs so Palo Alto can continue investing in a greener and more sustainable future. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Fernando costa This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Keisuke Yamaguchi To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Mitchell Park Pickleball/Tennis Court Proposal Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 2:19:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council, I live in Palo Alto and am writing as a parent and local resident who values both tennis and pickleball. Our family benefits greatly from Mitchell Park. We play pickleball there, and we also use the tennis courts regularly. My son takes weekly tennis lessons at Mitchell Park with an experienced local coach, and the courts are one of our go-to neighborhood sports facilities, close enough for us to reach by bike. I strongly support the continued growth of pickleball in Palo Alto. Pickleball has created a wonderful community, and Mitchell Park has become an important gathering place for many players. At the same time, I am concerned about the proposal to replace two tennis courts at Mitchell Park with additional pickleball courts. My concern is not about tennis versus pickleball. Our family plays and values both. My concern is that further concentrating pickleball activity at Mitchell Park may not be the healthiest long-term path for the sport or for the broader community. Mitchell Park is already a well-known destination for pickleball. Adding more courts there will likely attract even more players from across the area, which may simply recreate the same capacity and crowding challenges at a larger scale. Instead, I would encourage the City to look for an alternative location where additional dedicated pickleball courts could be created. That would give players more choices, help develop local pickleball communities in other neighborhoods, and reduce pressure on Mitchell Park without removing tennis courts that are actively used by families, juniors, coaches, and recreational players. I appreciate the difficulty of balancing growing demand for pickleball with continued access to tennis. I hope the City can support pickleball’s growth in a way that expands access across Palo Alto rather than further concentrating demand at one already-busy site. Thank you for your consideration. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Sincerely, Keisuke Yamaguchi 3247 Kipling St. Palo Alto From:Butch Hazlett To:Council, City Subject:Do not close Churchill train crossing. Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 2:17:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please vote NO to closing Churchill ave train crossing at Alma street. This would be a big mistake and cause potential great harm to pedestrians and bike traffic if thousands of more cars are forced onto Page Mill blvd and Embarcadero ave as well as Palo Alto side streets everyday. The strategy to curb suicidal death with guards monitoring the train traffic is working and is a better option to mitigate danger. Thank you, W Hazlett Professorville resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Tracy Mallory To:Council, City Subject:lower population growth expected Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 1:44:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. TWIMC, Until recently a resident of south Palo Alto and now aware of massive potential housing projects that will overwhelm current residents with traffic and reduced access to services(are they still waiting for one(?!) fire engine at Mitchell park?), it seems to me that bay area governments need to be more proactive. It's no longer my direct problem, but as one that dislikes being forced to accept things that appear misguided or at least less-than-good-for-me, I'd like to see a few of CA's state-wide and regional housing goals revisited in light of what seems to be substantially reduced population growth. I may be wrong about this, but I think there should be more push-back at the bay-area government level on the housing growth requirements. Regards, Tracy Mallory Danvers, MA (formerly Greenmeadow, PA) From:Samit Ranjan To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:Time to hear us as it will effect our voting behavior in next elections Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 1:11:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear members of the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission and City Council: I live in Palo Alto, and am writing in support of creating eight additional pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. This is the best utilization of all the public space one can think off . We have about 5000 people playing at the pickleball court while all the 51 tennis courts do not have 5000 people playing . How is it fair that 5000 people get crammed into a small place while all the resources are given to the 51 unutilized courts . Please understand we represent about 7500 voters in Palo Alto and this will be our number one topic when it comes to voting in every election . Thanks Sincerely yours, Samit Ranjan Middlefield Road This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:James Lloyd To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty Subject:public comment re item 7 for tonight"s Council meeting Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 12:56:16 PM Attachments:Palo Alto - 3781 El Camino Real - HAA Letter - CC.pdf CalHDF v LCF - compressed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment letter regarding item 7 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 183-unit housing development project at 3781 El Camino Real, which includes 23 units affordable to low-income households. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ May 11, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 3781 El Camino Real By email: Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov; George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov; Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov; Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; city.council@PaloAlto.gov Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org; CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org; Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), SB 330, and AB 130 when evaluating the proposed 183-unit housing development project at 3781 El Camino Real, which includes 23 units affordable to low-income households. Under the HAA,1 a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides a certain percent of the total units to lower-income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).2) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA. However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law. 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) The City’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed. CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project any proposed waivers and concessions. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will increase the city’s tax revenue; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2 of 3 CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:Alison Vanegeren To:Council, City Cc:papc.secretary@gmail.com Subject:more pickleball courts needed at Mitchell Park Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 12:53:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I live in Palo Alto and I strongly support creating more pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. I play pickleball often at Mitchell Park, and it is very healthy for me physically and mentally. Unfortunately, I always have to wait for a court, sometimes for half the time I'm at the courts, which is a frustrating waste of time. I would play even more and enjoy it even more without all the wasted time. Please create more courts ASAP! -- Alison Van Egeren This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast