Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-15 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: 6/15/2026 Document dates: 6/8/26 – 6/15/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:sharon c To:Council, City; Council, City Subject:SB 79 Half Size Option + Targeted Upzoning Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 11:54:31 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 thank you for approving last week's half-size ordinance re: SB79, and ask that you please approve it again at tonight's council meeting. Without this, full SB 79 becomes effective in two weeks with no local control whatsoever. Secondly, I ask that you review targeted areas to upzone such as the California Avenue business district and other commercial corridors within the city where high density housing makes sense. Please do not put established residential neighborhoods like Evergreen Park, Downtown and San Antonio at risk for upzoning - established neighborhoods designed for low density housing should maintain the characteristics that enable them to function well. Instead, create new neighborhoods with proper infrastructure to support high density living. The combination of half-size option plus targeted upzoning is not just good planning policy — it is also a good compliance strategy with regard to HCD. The city cannot wait till the next deadline. 1) Approve the half-size option to maintain local control. 2) Be proactive and work on the targeted upzoning in order to be in compliance with HCD. thank you, Palo Alto resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Beth Guislin To:Council, City Subject:2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 11:54:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please do not approve the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in its entirety. In a recent reconfiguration of Middlefield from University to the northern city border, city staff concluded Middlefield was not wide enough to include bike lanes. Beth Guislin Resident, Middlefield Rd This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Fred Balin To:Council, City Subject:CC 6/15/26: #23 Temp Ordinnances: Reaffirm Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 11:40:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council members, Thank you for your late-night diligence on this item at your June 1 meeting and for staff’s clarifications in the interim, delineated in its supplemental report. The result is a positive solution, a good compromise among competing perspectives. Reaffirm, without hesitation, tomorrow (Monday) night your unanimous approval of this timely package of temporary and interim ordinances. Thank you, Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Rita Vrhel To:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 Cc:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 10:14:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. OK Folks...... again, my main complaint was having my name included on emails and petitions to the City Council, etc. without my permission. That problem has been solved. a simple ask would have avoided my complaint. my name was probably culled from a campaign donation list as many of the people who have responded have worked on similar political ssues. I appreciate the additional education your emails have provided as i did not realize: 1. the extent of the problem 2. the lack of City involvement leading to a reasonable solution Agree the City spends excessive amounts of money on Consultants. Robert...sound like everyone agrees you are doing a wonderful job filling a void and keeping the issue front and center. Congratulations to you for doing this. The amount of work involved, i know, is tremendous. My best to all Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Monday, June 15, 2026 at 10:06:14 AM PDT, Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Thank you Lydia...for providing additional insight. the issue is complex and has not been addressed adequately by the City Council....what else is new? and i do realize business owners perspectives, esp. with a trailer/rv permanently parked in their customer spaces or in front, is very different than my prespective. My main complaint was the inclusion of my name without my permission. that should never occur...... my best Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Monday, June 15, 2026 at 04:42:20 AM PDT, Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Dana Dahlstrom To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Rita Vrhel Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 10:10:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Rita, Many street dwellers indeed are gainfully employed, but whether or not they are is irrelevant to the issue of their abusing public space for private benefit. Plainly, the city government's job is to craft good ordinances and see they're enforced fairly— not meddle with prices of housing or anything else. Those prices are wholly due to economic forces, and of course many cannot afford to live here. Probably none of my extended family could. What do they do? Live somewhere else. If people can't make ends meet here and leave, the supply of their labor will dwindle until demand raises its price to equilibrium. Services they provide will be more expensive. What government should prevent is disorder in which we incentivize people to violate laws so that we can pay them less for their work. There are many places in our state and country to live and work lawfully and with dignity and pride, not on the street as a nuisance to the community. Dana From:Rita Vrhel To:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 Cc:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 10:06:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thank you Lydia...for providing additional insight. the issue is complex and has not been addressed adequately by the City Council....what else is new? and i do realize business owners perspectives, esp. with a trailer/rv permanently parked in their customer spaces or in front, is very different than my prespective. My main complaint was the inclusion of my name without my permission. that should never occur...... my best Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast On Monday, June 15, 2026 at 04:42:20 AM PDT, Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Joyce To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Richard Willits; David Hanzel; Summa, Doria Subject:Addendum added in horror Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:56:54 AM Attachments:image-8.png.webp CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Inline image Dear Honorable City Council Members, I am sorry to bother you again-- but-- I have just been reminded that this deadly cancer of a building is currently under review to be built at the corner of Loma Verde and the Bayshore Freeway--abutting a residential neighborhood!!! 3350 West Bayshore Road EIGHT STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 261 UNITS AND TWENTY-FIVE THREE-STORY TOWNHOMES!!!!! Please please include this--thing--in your discussion tonight. Please do your best to make it impossible to construct this ---abomination. I am sure you would also be horrified to have this monstrosity metastasize around the corner from your home!! Please-- dear friends and representatives-- please-- deliver us from this evil. With respect and gratitude, Joyce Schmid From:Ann Balin To:Summa, Doria Cc:Jo Ann Mandinach; lydiakou@gmail.com; Rita Vrhel; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Wang Chuan; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Boyd Smith; Smith Lund; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:55:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Yes Robert is doing an excellent job. Sent from my iPhone On 15 Jun 2026, at 09:13, doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> wrote:  I think Robert is doing a great service to the city. This is a very difficult problem and understanding the magnitude of the problem is the first step to solving the problem. Doria Summa (650) 867-7544 Mobile On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:07 AM Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote:I too am glad to be on this list and am grateful for all the effort that's been expended to compile and update the OSV list. Just think how much the city would be paying a consultant to do this. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 4:42 AM Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor- aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E- Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E- Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Justine Burt To:Council, City Subject: Join us tomorrow for the weekly Palo Alto weekly summer community bike ride! Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:50:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear esteemed City Council members, Please consider joining us tomorrow evening or next Tuesday evening to bike the new protected bike lanes in the safe cocoon of a group ride. Details below. Thank you! Justine Burt Community Bike Rides Tuesdays in June, next one June 16 Meet: 5:45pm at California Ave and El Camino Real (leave at 6:00pm sharp!) Route: head south on the wonderful protected bike lanes of El Camino, stop at Celia’s Mexican restaurant for an appetizer platter, continue riding south to Eagle Park (arrive around 7pm) then head back north on El Camino to Cal Ave. (9 miles roundtrip) RSVPs appreciated From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Jo Ann Mandinach Cc:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍; Rita Vrhel; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:24:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. These emails have curbed the insane amount of fecal matter being dumped into our storm drains, as well as several other issues - rv tenants smoke marijuana in building entrances and act aggressively when asked to move, RV tenants steal electricity from small businesses, and aggressive, loose dogs run up and down the street and even into the back of our business. I have also witnessed violence and domestic violence amongst rv tenants - as well as an about 16 year old girl living with her 20-something boyfriend who was being picked up by numerous middle aged men through out the day, then getting dropped off a couple hours later with bags of clothes or snacks - can only assume what was happening there. And when police attention was brought to this, they would just move to a new location where they had anonymity. By trying to avoid vilifying these people, you are also completely ignoring what is actually happening. Are they all guilty of these behaviors? No, but they still live among the people who are. It seems like something nobody deserves to deal with. Why isn't it the city's responsibility to ensure everyone's safety and a decent quality of life? Turning a blind eye won't help, but if that is your prerogative, so be it. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:07 AM Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote:I too am glad to be on this list and am grateful for all the effort that's been expended to compile and update the OSV list. Just think how much the city would be paying a consultant to do this. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 4:42 AM Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:doria s To:Jo Ann Mandinach Cc:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍; Rita Vrhel; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:14:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I think Robert is doing a great service to the city. This is a very difficult problem and understanding the magnitude of the problem is the first step to solving the problem. Doria Summa (650) 867-7544 Mobile On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:07 AM Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote:I too am glad to be on this list and am grateful for all the effort that's been expended to compile and update the OSV list. Just think how much the city would be paying a consultant to do this. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 4:42 AM Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:John Seltzer To:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍; Jo Ann Mandinach Cc:Rita Vrhel; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:12:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The information available to the public states that the City of Palo Alto spent $27 million dollars on consultants in 2025. On Monday, June 15, 2026 at 09:07:43 AM PDT, Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote: I too am glad to be on this list and am grateful for all the effort that's been expended to compile and update the OSV list. Just think how much the city would be paying a consultant to do this. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 4:42 AM Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e- mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government- funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 Cc:Rita Vrhel; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:07:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! I too am glad to be on this list and am grateful for all the effort that's been expended to compile and update the OSV list. Just think how much the city would be paying a consultant to do this. On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 4:42 AM Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. It’s just build baby build and displacement and disruption. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e- mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government- funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Chris Schremp To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Robert Marinaro; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Christine Schremp; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Chris Schremp; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Loren Brown; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen Subject:Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 8:33:42 AM Attachments:image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mr. Shikada and Members of the OSV Ad-Hoc Committee, I am writing to express my profound disappointment and frustration regarding the June 14 Palo Alto Online article, "Around Town: Downtown obstructions, conflicts at the curb." Reading this piece feels like a calculated slap in the face to tax-paying residents outside of the downtown core. Specifically, the article contains a passage that is completely false, highly misleading, and entirely detached from the reality on our streets: "Palo Alto staff have ramped up efforts to tow violators and provide services to unhoused individuals. That’s according to a new report from City Manager Ed Shikada, which cites the city’s recent successes in reducing impacts and improving compliance with local laws. Conditions have been improving over time and demand for towing due to noncompliance has decreased, the report states." To claim that "conditions have been improving" and that "demand for towing has decreased due to compliance" is a complete fabrication. The true metric driving this report is resident exhaustion, not compliance. I, along with many of my neighbors, have intentionally stopped sending daily photos of abandoned trash, blocked bike lanes, and hazardous intersections because, quite frankly, it is not our job to act as the City's unpaid code enforcement watch. If the City Manager’s office is interpreting a drop in 311 reports as a "success story," you are misdiagnosing the situation entirely. The actual conditions on the ground demonstrate a severe failure of management, characterized by an increase in OSVs, zero visible towing enforcement, and escalating impacts: The Migration In Plain Sight: Because enforcement is non-existent, OSV occupants have grown increasingly bold. They are not leaving Palo Alto; they are simply migrating from industrial fringes directly onto previously unaffected residential streets, including Ames, Ross, Louis, and Colorado. Immediate Public Hazards: Vehicles are now actively establishing parking on Fabian Way directly in front of the Blue Condos and frequently on East Meadow Drive right in front of Ramos Park. They are physically blocking portions of the sidewalks and the bike lanes, creating immediate safety hazards for neighborhood families and children using the park. The City is proudly boasting about micro-managing downtown delivery trucks and restaurant parklets, proving that it possesses the tools and the operational capacity to manage curb space when it chooses to do so. Yet, when homeowners paying upwards of $50,000 a year in property taxes ask for basic code enforcement to protect our streets, we are handed a public relations narrative claiming victory while our infrastructure is openly compromised. I ask that Mr. Shikada join our scheduled meeting this week, and I am opening this meeting up to the other impacted residents whom I have added to this email thread. Quite frankly, I am exhausted from attempting to navigate the City's broken operational and communication channels. If your objective for this meeting is simply to assure us that everything is moving in a positive direction and to ask for our continued trust in your upcoming pilot programs, let me save us all the time: there is no reason to meet. If that is the path the City chooses, I am prepared to cancel the meeting and investigate alternative avenues to force the City into action. I look forward to confirmation of Mr. Shikada's attendance and the final logistics for our meeting. Regards, Chris Schremp Palo Alto Resident On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:57 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you. 4:00 PM on June 16th works for me. Ahead of our meeting, I have been reviewing upcoming Council agendas and noticed that the OSV update is no longer explicitly listed. Am I missing something? Have you or members of the committee walked our specific neighborhood recently? I have intentionally stopped sending daily photos of abandoned trash, blocked bike lanes, and hazardous intersections because, frankly, it is not my job to act as the City's unpaid code enforcement. However, I hope my lack of emails has not given the committee the false impression that conditions have improved. Quite the contrary: the problem is actively worsening. Because of the City’s continued lack of enforcement, OSV occupants have grown increasingly bold and are migrating onto more streets. We are now seeing encroachments creeping onto Ames, Ross, Louis, Loma Verde, and East Meadow. My growing concern is that the Committee and the Council are playing a "wait and see" game, operating under the assumption that impacted homeowners will eventually get exhausted and stop pushing for resolution. Please be assured that we will not. I look forward to our discussion to hear how the committee plans to address this expansion before your update to the full Council. Thanks, Chris Schremp Palo Alto Resident On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 12:12 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Chris, I am out of town through the weekend. So, given your schedule, Tuesday the 16th is the soonest I could meet. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2026 10:12 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks Ed. Do you have other availability next week - maybe on Friday? If not, how about the following week. I'd like to ensure our meeting is with the tnire Ad Hoc committee - including yourself. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 7:42 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thursday the 11th? I am not in town that day but the other committee members may be able to meet with you. Ed Get Outlook for iOS From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 6:37:15 PM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed sorry I need to reschedule as I have a work conflict that has popped up. Can we meet following Thursday after 3 pm PT? On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 4:05 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Schremp, This meeting is confirmed at 4 pm on June 4 . The meeting room is the community conference room right off the city hall lobby. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:08 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed, Thank you for the candid follow-up and for setting such clear expectations regarding the current status of the ad hoc committee’s work. I appreciate your transparency, and I would still very much like to take you up on your offer to meet. Let’s lock in June 4th at 4:00 PM. Please let me know if you prefer a call or a specific meeting location. While I understand that a formal plan has not yet been presented to the full Council, I believe a conversation would be highly productive to help me better understand the specific roadblocks the committee is navigating. In particular, I would like to use our time to explore a few key areas: 1. The Committee Process and Transparency You noted that presenting a plan to the full Council is the standard protocol and first step for an ad hoc committee. I would like to better understand how this process works behind the scenes before that June 17th update. Specifically: How does the committee decide which solutions are viable enough to present to the full Council? What criteria are being used to evaluate these options? Crucially, how can tax-paying residents who are directly impacted influence this framework before it is finalized and brought to the council? 2. The "Roadblocks" and the Safe Parking Search You mentioned encountering significant hurdles, including finding no new sites for safe parking from any organization. I would like to understand the specific criteria the City is using and what has caused these outside organizations to decline. 3. The Scope of City Responsibility From a resident and taxpayer perspective, a core question we are grappling with is why the Council feels a mandate to secure alternative housing or parking solutions before enforcing existing local laws. Given that evidence—including recent public media coverage—shows many of these OSV occupants have migrated from all over California simply because Palo Alto is highly accommodating, they do not possess local ties or civic loyalty to our city. Why is the City prioritizing absorbing this statewide demand over its primary obligation to protect local neighborhood safety and infrastructure? 4. Precedent in Other Neighborhoods I would also like to learn how the City successfully overcame these exact legal and operational obstacles to enact strict parking ordinances and protections in other parts of Palo Alto (such as Old Palo Alto). Understanding how those barriers were navigated elsewhere would shed light on why the same standard of enforcement cannot be applied to our neighborhood today. I appreciate you taking the time to meet before your presentation to the full Council. I look forward to a constructive discussion on the 4th. Best regards, Chris Schremp On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:49 AM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Schremp, Thank you for specifying your expectations for the meeting we offered. In response I will clarify that we will not be presenting any “concrete, detailed plan” on the OSV issue. So you may not find a meeting productive at this time. The ad hoc committee has not presented any plan to the full council which is the first-step, and standard protocol, for the ad hoc committee process. You have heard us say publicly that while we have reduced the OSV count overall, we are frustrated at road blocks we have encountered including finding no new sites for safe parking from any organization. That was one of the solutions we investigated for reducing the OSV population. We are intending to give an update to council before council break in June which starts on June 17. If you choose to meet before the ad hoc presentation to council we can meet after 4pm on June 4th. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 8:53 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. +Robert Marinaro who would like to join as well Ed, Thank you for offering to meet. I am available on either June 3 or June 4 after 3:00 PM PT. Please let me know which date works best for your schedule. While I am happy to sit down with you, I want to be entirely transparent about my expectations for this meeting: I am only interested in discussing a concrete, detailed plan with immediate timelines to resolve this enforcement failure. The situation is actively deteriorating and migrating further into our neighborhoods. In addition to our previous concerns, we are now experiencing new escalations: Fabian Way: OSVs are now establishing parking directly in front of the Blue Condos. East Meadow Drive: Vehicles have now set up in front of Ramos Park, actively blocking portions of the sidewalk and the bike lane, creating an immediate safety hazard for families and children using the park. As a resident paying more than $50,000 per year in property taxes, it is incredibly frustrating to feel forced into acting as the unpaid neighborhood watch for the City. Taxpayers are fulfilling their end of the social contract; we expect the City to fulfill its obligation to maintain the safety, accessibility, and sanitation of our public infrastructure. I look forward to seeing your actionable strategy when we meet. Regards, Chris Schremp On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 10:26 AM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thanks Chris. LMK when your schedule allows a meet-up in June. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 8:26 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Cc: Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non- Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed - thanks. I am traveling the next few weeks but would love to meet with the council members in early June if that works. On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 2:10 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Chris, We definitely hear you on all the issues you regularly recap here for us. And we are working on the OSV issue diligently each week. If you like, the ad hoc members are happy to meet with you in person to discuss any of the items you raise here in more detail. Let me know and I can set it up. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:58 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non- Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of 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:Joyce To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Richard Willits Subject:Reduced Height Limit Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 8:28:10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! RE: Temporary reduction of building height near transit Dear Honorable City Council Members: Please also consider halving the heights of the monstrosities currently planned for Fabian Way and East Charleston when you consider temporarily reducing the maximum height of new buildings near transit hubs tonight. We in the southeast end of town also need to be rescued from the increased congestion currently wished on us in compliance with state laws, if those buildings are built and filled. And there is another potential outcome that needs to be recognized. The projections of increased population and jobs incorrectly made years ago by the State have not come to pass. The giant buildings the state is compelling us to build may not be rentable. It is worth noting that even the more attractive condos built months ago along Bayshore Freeway are still begging for buyers. So an alternate result of this invasive building could be half-empty buildings that could be prime candidates to become slums generating filth and crime-- even a worse outcome than the overcrowding, traffic and overwhelm of infrastructure that will result if the buildings are filled. Please do not abandon us in the southeastern end of Palo Alto. We are also Palo Altans-- and we also need your help and relief. Thank you for reading this. Respectfully, This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Joyce Schmid 3428 Janice Way From:Jack Farrell To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Public Comment on 6/15 Council meeting, Item 23 Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 6:25:31 AM Attachments:June 15 Palo Alto SB 79 Urgency Ordinance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, Please find attached YIMBY Law's letter of comment for Item 23 of Palo Alto's June 1st City Council meeting. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2025! YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 6/15/2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: SB 79 Compliance, Agenda Item 23 To the City Council of Palo Alto, YIMBY L aw is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element L aw. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law is prepared to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced. Under the false pretense of an “emergency”, this Council is contemplating illegal urgency ordinances that would immediately susp end SB 79’s transit-oriented development standards from going into effect in Palo Alto. This “emergency” is nothing more than SB 79 going into effect on July 1 and is self-made, as the Council has continued consideration of the items twice this year without any opportunity for public comment. Now that time has run out, the staff are recommending urgency ordinances that are clearly out of compliance with state and even the City’s own law. The City Council should reject the staff ’s recommendation to adopt the urgency ordinances and instead follow the law and use the normal legislative process to consider the ordinances. This will give Palo Alto’s residents the appropriate time to consider and comment on these ordinances, including whether blanket suspension of SB 79 makes sense for the City, as it works towards meeting its state-mandated housing production goals. An urgency ordinances is only allowable where it: contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use p ermits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, any interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence on the record… CA Gov Code § 65858(c), emphasis added. The urgency findings contained in the draft ordinances are so sparse and without evidence as to be utterly meaningless. The threat is unnamed, uncertain, and inappropriate to justify obstruction of a state housing law addressing the statewide housing crisis. Stating vaguely that projects that might endanger historic resources or “result in increased demands on public infrastructure” poses no certain threat to public safety. The “threat” cannot be certain or immediate when you don’t know what the threat is, can identify no local regulations that it violates, and will last for an uncertain period. PMC 2.04.270, the only referenced section of local regulation, also calls for specific explanations of the threat to “the public peace, health or safety.” The draft ordinances identify no specific threat to the public peace, health, or safety for a reason: there is none. It’s pure speculation to say that historic resources will be impacted at all. Sp eculating that a project might use SB 79 does not present an immediate threat sufficient to authorize an emergency ordinance, according to state law and Palo Alto’s own regulations. Notably if there were actually projects in process, the law grants stricter protections against denying them. Because the draft urgency ordinances would pre-emptively deny all such projects within the affected areas, the protections are likely triggered automatically. California Courts have already weighed against this kind of blatant obstruction. The findings for urgency ordinances, especially where they would preclude multifamily housing, must cite “specific significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact upon the public health or safety that would result from continued development approvals, and objective, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions on which that impact is based”. Hoffman St., LLC v. City of W. Hollywood, 179 Cal. App. 4th 754, 771 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Specifically for the Hoffman case, a blatant finding that affordable housing created a current and immediate threat was rightly dismissed as insufficient justification for an urgency ordinance. The prospect of slightly less wealthy people b eing able to afford living in Palo Alto is not the threat you think it is. At least not as far as the law is concerned. SB 79’s passage followed a string of reforms at the state level to address a systemic, ongoing shortage of housing across the state. YIMBY Law has sued to enforce many of those reforms, and remains very well prepared to continue that work. Any section of the alternatives before you which institute urgency ordinances without substantial evidence to the immediacy they sp eak to must be discarded. We urge you to follow the law and adopt an alternative plan or allow SB 79 to come into effect as intended, within the City. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY L aw From:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 To:Rita Vrhel Cc:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 4:43:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Rita, Robert has permission to include me on his email list. I appreciate his tremendous efforts keeping us informed whereas the city has not. Furthermore, he lives in the community where they are impacted as well as has insights and knowledge of mom and pop businesses that are impacted by these RVs. Many are not friendly nor are they understanding to those just trying to conduct their businesses. To the rest of Palo Alto- the Palo Alto city council needs to have a policy to ban RVs parked in neighborhoods and get them into their “affordable” housing sites. I view this as a failure of the city council who fails at being able to insist on affordability and instead has been virtue signaling and increasing costs to it residents. Mom and pop businesses are the souls of our community and they have been struggling with voicing their concerns and the impacts they’re dealing with. Why are these problems not in the wealthier monopolized areas in town, such as the Stanford Research Park, or hospital grounds, and why is this only happening in SOUTH Palo Alto???? I don’t see the wealthier mega corp businesses having an issue with RV parkers. Why is it not enforced by the city whereas it can be enforced by corporate mega businesses using city dollars supported by taxing residents as well? There is a failure supporting and addressing impacts to areas in south Palo Alto and simply a total failure of rational development of the built environment and budgeting of safety personnel, training and necessary equipment. ~ lk ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 10:51 PM Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Rita Vrhel To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 11:17:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Robert has removed my name from this list. thank you. How many other people have their name on this list without their permission? just wondering. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 10:51:27 PM PDT, Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking- street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low- level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft- heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Rita Vrhel To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:Re: South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 10:51:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Robert... could you please take my name off this email as it implies I am bothered by these trailers. In fact it is just the opposite. I see these as hard working individuals who likely serve the needs of Palo Alto residents by working in restaurants, doing yard work, construction work or housekeeping. These are vital jobs. The fact that they can not afford housing in the Bay Area is a complex situation; one not of their making. I could not afford to live here if i had not bought my house in 1984. I wish the City Council would help, not vilify, these individuals. I understand business owners could be bothered by the presence of "permanent" homes on the streets in front of their businesses. Individuals who are noisy, dirty, leave trash, not have proper bathroom facilities in their unit, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast or create a public nuisance can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is sad that in our Country, people who want to work must live in cars or trailers and be harrassed for being less fortunate than you or me. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 On Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 06:03:03 PM PDT, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking- street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E- Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low- level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft- heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 From:Alan Wachtel To:Council, City Subject:Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Approval (Jun 15 meeting, Agenda Item 24) Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 8:54:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Members of the Council: I'm writing to you as a long-time member of the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). The updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) that will be presented for your approval at this meeting reflects the enormous time and effort that have gone into it. It has many good points, and staff and consultants deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts, but there also areas where room remains for significant improvement. At its May 7 meeting, by a vote of 12-0, with one abstention, PABAC approved a series of policy and programmatic amendments and project-specific modifications to the BPTP. These changes have been set out in Attachment B to your agenda. Of eight proposals, city staff agrees with four and recommends against four. I urge you instead to adopt all eight of PABAC's carefully considered proposals and to direct staff accordingly to incorporate them into the final BPTP. Here, I'll draw your attention particularly to changes b and c. Change b, Bicycle Friendly Street Design The draft plan's proposals for bicycle infrastructure are limited almost exclusively to designated bikeways. But even the most optimistic scenario, in which the Complete Vision Network is fully built out at some distant future date, would provide bikeways on only about half of City streets. Yet cyclists will still have a significant need to travel on most of the remaining non-bikeway streets, because their origins and destinations cannot always lie on designated bikeways. As long ago as 1978, Caltrans's "Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California" found that "Probably the most important effort that could be undertaken to enhance bicycle travel would be improved maintenance and upgrading of existing roads that are used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated." PABAC therefore recommended that the plan include a directive for the City to affirm that all City streets--not only designated bikeways--should be bike friendly streets to the extent possible, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.5, which already states, "When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users." Staff maintains that the City's Complete Streets Policy addresses this concern, but the BPTP fails to even This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report on the subset of designated bikeways. This is a very significant omission. Furthermore, a policy of improving non-bikeway streets, as well as adding bikeways, could be carried out proactively, not only when constructing or modifying roadways. This approach would help to make the City more bicycle-friendly everywhere, in both the short and long term, efficiently and at relatively little cost. The Council should accept PABAC's recommendation. Change c, Class IV and Class I Implementation Guidance The plan's emphasis on Class IV separated bikeways and Class I multi-use paths should be replaced by a more balanced approach. While Class I and Class IV bikeways can be valuable facilities that many bicyclists perceive as safer and more comfortable, they can also present design issues that should be considered carefully before deciding to install them. In particular, these facilities can complicate turning conflicts at intersections and driveways, which are the most common cause of bike-car collisions. Such conflicts have already become more acute with the increasing popularity of higher-speed e-bikes. In addition, these bikeways are more expensive and use more right-of-way than other alternatives. Car-bike collisions between intersections, on the other hand, which separated facilities might arguably help to protect against, are already relatively infrequent (as the BPTP itself shows). PABAC has discussed these questions several times at great length, but neither the BPTP nor staff reports have chosen to reflect the complexity of this issue. PABAC, though, concluded for its part that "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." This is a careful and measured approach that continues to afford all options due consideration. Staff's response is that "The City’s commitment to a Safe Systems Approach as well as best practices and use of context-sensitive designs will address this concern." But the Safe Systems Approach and context-sensitive design, unfortunately, do not always accord these concerns sufficient attention. And even if you were to contend, for the sake of argument, that they do, that would at most render this recommendation superfluous, not contradictory. There is no downside, and there could be substantial benefit, for the Council to adopt PABAC's sensible recommendation. Respectfully, Alan Wachtel Palo Alto From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because I have found a good solution to be making money for the city of Palo Alto California and that would be to turn our utilities i... Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 7:40:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent from my iPhone From:John Kim To:Council, City Subject:Mollie stones towers parking considerations Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 7:30:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! I am a resident on Park blvd one block away from the development. Only as many units should be built as can accommodate on site parking. It is imperative that enough parking is factored into the development. Not enough parking could result in these headaches : 1. Tower residents jockeying for street parking in the neighborhood, adding congestion. 2. Unexpected vacancies to tower residences because the unit doesn't come with parking. See recent article in Mercury News about the tower with vacancies See recent article link.... https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2026/06/06/are-californians-ready-to-give-up-their-cars-a- san-jose-apartment-tower-put-that-to-the-test/ Only as many units should be built as can accommodate on site parking. - John Kim This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Robert Phillips To:Council, City Subject:SB79 Item Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 7:20:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: On second reading, please vote to approve the measure on SB79 that you voted for on June 1. Thank you, Bob Robert Phillips Rolewisphillips@gmail.com This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Annette Ross To:Council, City Cc:Annette Ross Subject:Urgency Ordinance Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 6:42:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. First, thank you for your June 1st vote to adopt an ordinance to modify SB79, allowing Palo Alto to implement the 50 percent limits until 2032. Second, the purpose of this communication is to urge you to pass the Urgency Ordinance at the second reading on Monday, June 15 (or at a later date if the second reading gets moved for some reason). Annette Ross Palo Alto From:Fred Balin To:Council, City Subject:CC 6/15/26: #23 Temp Ordinnances: Reaffirm Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 6:07:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council members, Thank you for your late-night diligence on this item at your June 1 meeting and for staff’s clarifications in the interim, delineated in its supplemental report. The result is a positive solution, a good compromise among competing perspectives. Reaffirm, without hesitation, tomorrow (Monday) night your unanimous approval of this timely package of temporary and interim ordinances. Thank you, Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Farias, Belle From:Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2026 6:02 PM To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex Subject:South Palo Alto Business Concerns - - Parking/Transportation Crisis in South Palo Alto Attachments:RV Inventory_09Jun26.xlsx; Impacts to the Community_23May26.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto OSV Ad Hoc Committee, We, the tax-paying residents and especially the businesses of Palo Alto would like you to specifically respond to the parking concerns caused by OSVs parking on our south Palo Alto streets. As you are well aware many residents and businesses have voiced their concerns to the City Council and City employees via Council Meetings, e-mails, and personal conversations over the last year and beyond and have only gotten lip service in return, if anything. As referenced in the handful of e-mail messages that I have received and attached below, many businesses in our City have been and continue to be significantly impacted. All attempts to effect meaningful change has fallen on deaf ears. I can understand the City employees being bound by the current regulations in place. They cannot make the rules they can only follow the rules. You, the City Council, make the rules, you are the ones that can either modify regulations or create new regulations that can help Palo Alto businesses. 2 I was recently thinking about that big Medline warehouse fire in Tracy the other day that started several days ago and is still burning. If a big fire like that started on one of these impacted streets (e.g. East Meadow Circle, Faber Place, Embarcadero Way) the fire department would be hard pressed to get immediate access to the fire. As I stated in my last OSV count (6/9/26) there are currently 143 OSVs on our streets with 39 on East Meadow Circle alone and the numbers are increasing! As of now we do not even see the OSV issue on the Council’s calendar. What is the plan to remove these OSVs sooner rather than later. The silence is deadly. Here are the businesses reference below would would like the courtesy of a meaningful response: • Perspectives in Wood, 2417 Embarcadero Way (John Seltzer - woodgood@pacbell.net) • Palo Alto Glass, 4085 Transport St. (Bill McLane - Bill@PaloAltoGlass.com and Marguerite Poyatos - marguerite@paloaltoglass.com) • Polares Medical, 1072 East Meadow Circle (Taryn Sanford - tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM) • Victor Aviation, 2417 Embarcadero Way (Victor Sloan - vic52@victor-aviation.com) • California Self Storage, 2425 Embarcadero Way, (Nancy Ellickson - nellickson@gmail.com) Regards, Bob Marinaro *********************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************** Begin forwarded message: From: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Date: June 11, 2026 at 8:36:25 PM PDT To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Reply-To: John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> Hello Bob I have a custom woodworking business (Perspectives In Wood) Located at 2417 Embarcadero Way. We build furniture and cabinets. 3 For well over a half a year I have been trying to get the city of Palo Alto (Traffic division) to paint the curbs, adjacent to our driveways red, so that delivery trucks, bringing materials to my shop, can physically get in and out to delivery lumber that I use in my business. The other tenant in the building is Victor Aviation. They have the same access problem with delivery trucks not having access to deliver and pick-up aircraft engines etc. ALL I get from the city is lip service. Most of the time the RVs park so close to the driveways, the delivery trucks are not able to make the turn, in addition to the fact that they physically block the "line of sight" plane of cars exiting our driveways. Were there to be a fire emergency, there's no way a fire engine could make the cramped turn into the driveways. You're more than welcome to stop by my shop, please call first. Thank you John Seltzer 650-400-2187 cell ********************************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail Attached *********************************************** On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:37 PM, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net> wrote: Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big bucks putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. 4 Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. ********************************************* Separate Earlier E-Mail From John Seltzer Attached *************************************** 5 6 7 8 9 ************************************************************************************ * * * *************************************************************** On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de- escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! 10 Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) 11 12 On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 13 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. 14 As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically- correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses 15 Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager 16 PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** *********************************** Separate E-Mails From Taryn Sanford (Polaris Medical on East Meadow Circle) *************************************** These bullet points where from a conversation I had with Taryn on 4/15/26 17 Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs #########################12/3/2025 ################1/28/2026 ############################4/9/2026 #######5/8/2026 #######6/9/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 16 17 3 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19 1 1 200 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 20 21 22 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 29 1 0 0 0 1 20 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 Total:220 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 Palo Alto City Council: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: rmarinaro@mac.com, Cell: 650-269-5936 Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Ventura Area RV Inventory_09Jun26 6/15/2026 12:25 PM OSV IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY 5/23/26 6:46 PM • Steal water • Steal electricity • Dump trash in street • Dump trash is business dumpsters including large items (mattresses, etc.) • Dump waste in sewers and in bushes • Obstructing egress to the point of several reported accidents (on E. Meadow Circle) • Preventing deliveries to back loading docks • General safety concerns especially for women • Blocking traffic such as when vans double park for waste removal • Take up needed parking spaces for businesses and other facilities – they also reserve parking spaces adjacent to their OSVs using chairs, cones, etc. • Intimidate business/institution customers & students • Noticeable increase in crime in OSV dense neighborhoods • Liability issues associated with children playing on private property adjacent to OSVs • OSV slide-outs blocking bike lanes and impeding traffic flow • Inhibits business owners and property managers from leasing vacant properties • Decreases property values which in turn decreases property taxes and revenue to the city • Discourages property development • General blight and reduction of quality of life for tax-paying residents and businesses • Services such as food trucks that once came by for lunch no longer stop by (E. Meadow Circle) • Financial - - Additional costs incurred by businesses: o Additional utility costs o Installation of locks on dumpsters o Installation of cameras and security monitoring systems o Installation of barriers (bollards with chains across driveways, gates, etc.) o Installation of audio systems to inconvenience OSV dwellers (Faber Place) o Additional trash pickup costs and additional burden to business owners who have to properly sort out trash from recycled materials File: Impacts to the Community_23May26.docx From:Yasmeen Butt To:Donna Armanasco Cc:Sam LaPlaca III; Planning Enforcement; pamediation@housing.org; pdsdirector; City Attorney; 5pd@paloalto.gov; Building; PlannerOnDuty; info@housing.org; Council, City; info@balegalaid.org; info@tenantstogether.org; 4fairhousing@housing.org; consumer@da.sccgov.org; housing@housing.sccgov.org; info@hud.gov; tips@paloaltoonline.com; news@paloaltoonline.com; Shikada, Ed Subject:housing@housing.sccgov.org Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 5:50:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Code Enforcement Team, I am requesting that you open a formal case regarding ongoing and escalating noise disturbances from the upstairs unit occupied by resident Greg. These disturbances violate Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 and my right to quiet enjoyment under California law. Despite three months and 14 days of repeated complaints to my property manager (including a formal complaint submitted on June 14, 2026 and multiple prior reports), no effective action has been taken. The issues have actually worsened since the tenant returned from a 3–4 week absence. Key ongoing problems include: - Early morning loud music (on June 14 at approximately 5:00 AM the volume was deliberately increased after I politely asked for it to be lowered, and continued for ~10 minutes while the resident refused to open the door) - Late-night ball throwing/banging against walls and floor - Persistent floor tapping and stomping (management previously promised to install rugs or sound-dampening measures, which were never implemented) - All day long television noise on extremely high volume. Day and night A neighboring resident (Dave) has independently confirmed the noise and has personally complained to Greg multiple times. I have also been informed by neighbors that the previous tenant vacated the building specifically due to ongoing noise and shouting from this same unit. Management has housed this tenant for over 12 years despite these long-standing issues. I have attached my formal complaint submitted to the property manager today. Please open a case and advise on the next steps the City will take. I am available for any inspection or to provide additional documentation. Thank you, Yasmeen Butt Dear CM Property Management Team, (Donna Armanasco) I am writing to formally document and escalate ongoing noise disturbances from the upstairs apartment occupied by resident Greg. This complaint serves as a follow-up to previous noise reports I have submitted through the portal and other channels, which have not resulted in effective resolution. A copy of this documentation is also being provided to Donna for her records. RECENT INCIDENT — JUNE 14, 2026 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 morning at approximately 5:00 AM, loud music was played at full volume from the upstairs unit. I went upstairs to politely request that it be turned down. Instead of complying, the volume was increased and remained at high levels for approximately ten minutes. The resident refused to open the door or respond to my request. A neighboring resident, Dave (who shares proximity and has also been impacted), has independently confirmed that he hears the music clearly and has personally complained to Greg about the noise on multiple occasions. ADDITIONAL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS • Ball-throwing at night: The resident has recently begun repeatedly throwing or bouncing a ball against the walls and/or floor at night, producing loud, repeated banging and impact sounds that are highly disruptive to sleep. • Floor tapping / stomping: He is frequently heard tapping or making impact sounds on the floor. During the rental process, management represented that rugs or appropriate floor coverings would be installed in the upstairs unit to mitigate sound transmission. This measure does not appear to have been implemented (or is insufficient), as the tapping sounds continue unabated. • Pattern of noise: Loud music and other activities occur at unreasonable hours, including early mornings and late nights, in clear violation of the lease's implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and applicable noise standards. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT Greg was away from the building for approximately three to four weeks. During his absence, the noise issues largely subsided. Since his return, the disturbances have resumed and become significantly worse than before. When I rented this apartment, I was given representations that the building and unit provided a quiet, peaceful environment suitable for living and working. The persistent and unaddressed noise issues have directly contradicted those representations. Previous complaints have not led to meaningful intervention or lasting improvement. REQUESTED ACTIONS I respectfully request the following actions be taken promptly: 1. Written Acknowledgment: Confirm receipt of this complaint in writing within 24–48 hours, and log it formally in my tenant file. 2. Immediate Tenant Contact: Contact the upstairs resident (Greg) without delay to address the ongoing lease violations regarding excessive noise, quiet hours, and respect for neighbors. 3. Enforcement & Mitigation: Take all appropriate steps under the lease and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to enforce quiet enjoyment, including issuing formal warnings or notices to the tenant, requiring the installation of effective sound- dampening measures (rugs, padding, or other mitigation as previously discussed), and documenting violations. Resolution Timeline: Provide me with a clear, written timeline for resolution, including specific steps and deadlines (e.g., sound mitigation installation within X days). 5. Documentation: Ensure this matter is thoroughly documented and that I receive copies of any notices or communications related to it. This situation has become untenable. I have been patient and have followed proper channels through previous complaints. I expect prompt, concrete action to restore my right to quiet enjoyment of my home. If meaningful progress is not made, I will have no choice but to pursue additional remedies, including contacting the City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement or exploring other legal options available to tenants under California law. Thank you for your immediate attention to this serious matter. Yasmeen. On Mar 11, 2026, at 11:33 AM, Donna Armanasco <donna@cmpmi.com> wrote: Hi Yasmeen, I'm sorry you were woken up by the TV early this morning, I understand how frustrating that is, especially at that hour. I'll be reaching out to Greg today to address the noise and remind him about being mindful of the volume, particularly during late night and early morning hours. I'll remind him of the building's quiet hours and expectations regarding disturbances. Thank you for letting me know so I can follow up on it. Regarding the repairs and mail key, the contractor has been notified. Since you have his contact information, you're welcome to schedule directly with him for a time that works best for you, and I will also check in with him today to make sure these items get taken care of. Please let me know if the noise continues and we'll keep working on getting it resolved. Donna Armanasco CA DRE #02337031 CM Property Management Inc. 1800 Hamilton Ave, Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 377-2676 www.CMPMI.com On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:59 AM Yasmeen Butt <yasmeen.manadus@gmail.com> wrote: Donna, its 4am and greg is playing is television on full volume. It woke me up. And he wouldn't turn it off. I am frustrated. And i feel lied to. You said no one lived upstairs but now I am stuck with a stubborn man who is loud and impolite. If the issue doesn't resolve in the next 24 hours then I will take this noise complaint to the city. Secondly you never sent any one for the repairs and the mail key. I am extremely disappointed in the service by CM property. Please fix these issue before the end of this week. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2026, at 4:55 PM, Yasmeen Butt <yasmeen.manadus@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, I appreciate it. On Mar 9, 2026, at 4:53 PM, Donna Armanasco <donna@cmpmi.com> wrote: On it . . . Donna Armanasco CA DRE #02337031 CM Property Management Inc. 1800 Hamilton Ave, Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 377-2676 www.CMPMI.com On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 4:52 PM Yasmeen Butt Hi Donna, Thank you for setting this up. I ll look forward to hearing from Joe. Btw, the upstairs neighbor is very loud. His television has been on full volume since yesterday. I went upstairs and politely asked him to bring the volume down. He said he has a hearing problem so he can’t help it. It’s very disturbing. The television is on all day every day until late at night. Any ideas how to help the situation? Best Yasmeen. On Mar 9, 2026, at 4:45 PM, Donna Armanasco <donna@cmpmi.com> wrote: Hi Yasmeen, Thank you for using the portal to send in your maintenance requests. See below email, I sent to our vendor Joe. He will contact you to schedule these fixes. The company is: A Classic Contractor 408-499-5338. If you don't hear from him soon, you can now reach out to him, since I sent him the work order. Thanks! Donna Armanasco CA DRE #02337031 CM Property Management Inc. 1800 Hamilton Ave, Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 377-2676 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Donna Armanasco <donna@cmpmi.com> Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 4:42 PM Subject: 225 Manzanita - To Do's new tenant To: A Classic Contractor <aclassiccontractor@yahoo.com> Hi Joe, Can you contact our new tenant Yasmeen at 916-596-8660 to schedule these repairs? 1. Kitchen ceiling fan does not work/turn on (picture below) 2. Bathroom door doesn't shut/lock 3. Kitchen window screen repair 4. Bedroom window screen repair 5. Outside storage closet - Keys missing - install new code lock - provide code to tenant and property management 6. Mailbox key missing - provide new key to tenant and property management will you confirm you received this email and let me know if there is anything you won't be fixing? Thank you! Donna Armanasco CA DRE #02337031 CM Property Management Inc. 1800 Hamilton Ave, Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 377-2676 www.CMPMI.com From:doria s To:Council, City Subject:Item 23, on Consent Calendar Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 5:45:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Thank you for your hard work on June first in coming to "yes" unanimously (with two recusals) on the best way to comply with SB79. Please vote the same way tomorrow evening on the second reading! Enjoy your well earned hiatus. Best regards, Doria Doria Summa (650) 867-7544 Mobile From:Magic To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for your action in response to SB79 Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 5:45:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Councilmembers, Thank you for voting last week to take a considered approach to meeting the mandates of SB79. The quantity and type of building allowed under this measure will have substantial repercussions for the lives of current and future Palo Altans and for those beyond our borders. In a world of growing volatility and complexity, these are becoming ever more difficult to accurately foresee. I appreciate your recognizing this with your commitment to careful analysis and planning. While I trust the good intentions of many who advocate stridently for housing, I’ve yet to see compelling evidence that bowing to the sweeping permissions of SB79 will yield benefits equal to those of the more discriminating alternative you’ve embraced. In the absence of such evidence advocacy is worthless in formulating sound policy. We find incontrovertible evidence for this in the tube wells of Bangladesh—ardently advocated by many to prevent diarrheal diseases that often ended in infant death—which produced what the World Health Organization calls "the largest mass poisoning in history." Thank you again for your caution as you determine the future of our community and its impacts on the world beyond, and thank you for considering these views. With appreciation, David Schrom This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report From:Tina Peak To:Council, City Subject:Support the 50% SB79 Ordinance Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 4:56:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Please support the 50% ordinance. We need to stop the incessant growth of the city. Every new building and resident adds more pollution and destruction of the environment. There are already 68,000 people living here in Palo Alto. We have inadequate roads, urban parks and recreational space and need to add to the electrical grid to plan for the future. Continued population growth worsens these issues and allows no time to work on solutions to our problems. Please serve the community and vote for less construction by supporting the 50% SB79 ordinance. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Tina Peak This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Sterling Watson To:Council, City Subject:Cal Ave Walkers and Cyclists Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 4:38:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council We live near Cal Ave and often walk and cycle there to shop, eat, people watch, and get to our next destination. Cal Ave is by far the best way for cyclists to get between the Cal Ave underpass and destinations on the west side of El Camino. I understand there may have been some issues with a small minority of cyclists not being courteous and going too fast. I think the right solution would be to continue to allow cyclists to use Cal Ave and add some changes to improve safety for all. Eliminating access for cyclists would force cyclists to Cambridge Ave which is a less safe and convenient option at this time. Make some changes to the roadway as suggested by city staff including traffic calming to slow cyclists. Put in signage stating a safe speed limit. Consider having some staff at known trouble times if any to enforce safety. Require bikes to be walked during busy times such as the Farmer's Market, Thursday Live, etc. Have some staff to help enforce this during events. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Nancy Traube To:Council, City Subject:SB 79 Half-Sized Buidings Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 3:31:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I want to thank the city council members who voted for the half-size buildings in Evergreen Park Neighborhood. I know we need more housing, however, a six story building next to my house or on the block is not reasonable. I have spent 30+ years paying for my house in this wonderful neighborhood and hope you will continue to vote for no more than 3 story buildings in the single family home area. Thank you, Nancy Traube This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Adopt Urgency Ordinance SB79 Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 3:30:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone and Council Members, Thank you for your conviction on June 1st in passing urgency ordinance SB79. I urge you to approve item number 23 on the consent calendar June 15th. In doing so you will show Palo Altans that you are undeterred by obstacles not in our town’s best interest. Please continue your careful stewardship in supporting a thoughtful process to better serve residents, renters, home owners and businesses. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Scott O"Neil To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:SB-79 Comment, Item#23 Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 2:16:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Councilmembers and City Staff, I want to call your attention to my Op-Ed in Palo Alto Weekly on 6/12/2026. In it, I argue the case generally that the city is on-track to a mistake that denies the city much-needed housing, in contradiction of the values our shared history embodies. That letter was written in my individual capacity, as is this one. In this letter, I want to elaborate on the Op-Ed by focusing in detail on the vulnerabilities I see in the ordinances. I hope the city chooses to change course and modestly narrow the applicability of the ordinances. Their justification improves immensely if the city merely excludes the handful of applicable streets where the city is already planning for housing. That is a small change, and making it could avert a great deal of expense and headache. Pedestrian Safety The ordinance discusses pedestrian collisions with bikes and vehicles as the reason for the urgency ordinance for the 50% threshold change. This is thin because: Not all streets in the SB-79 area even allow vehicles. Ramona and California Avenue do not. Urgency is speculative, not ripe. If an urgency ordinance is actually ever needed, it would be in the context of an actual project. Right now the cities concerns are speculative and hypothetical, and therefore nonurgent. Projects take years from proposal to building, even with streamlining. This creates plenty of time for appropriate bike and pedestrian improvements. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Urgency ordinances are much faster than building projects. Fewer than three months elapsed between availability of the transit maps on April 8 2026 (when the city says it became possible to act on this issue) and the urgency ordinance appearing on consent on June 15 2026. The Housing Accountability Act allows denial of projects with clear safety impacts. The city can deny projects with clear safety impacts, whether or not SB-79 goes into full effect. Indeed, the city could be using safety impacts -if they existed- to deny the 10+ projects comprising thousands of units that came in within a short window via the Builder’s Remedy. To date, the city has never made any such assertion, most notably including in the case of the Mollie Stone’s towers which the city approved with guidance from staff that the project could not be denied. The city is already considering banning bikes on California Avenue. This policy change being in the pipeline further undermines the urgency justification. The city is already planning comparable density in the El Camino Focus Area. This is another area where the urgency justification is fatally flawed. The inclusion of areas that obviously have no need for urgent action creates risk. Even if the city’s health and safety arguments were valid somewhere, they could not use that to make obviously unrelated policy changes in this urgency ordinance, such as adjusting library funding. Similarly, Palo Alto cannot use potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts to motivate an urgency ordinance including California Avenue or Ramona. This not only invite lawsuits in specific locations, it may create severability risk. Map and HCD Guidance Availability The argument that the city only had since April 8 to enact the ordinance creating the urgency is weak: Other maps have existed longer. There has been plenty of information for a policy debate to occur on the record using publicly available maps such as this one, which has been available since at least October 2025. The reason the transit maps blocked the rest of the decision is unclear. If there is a reason a simple geospatial analysis was ever insufficient in the public record, I am not aware of it. It has always been obvious that Palo Alto’s fixed-rail transit stations would qualify for SB-79 based on plain reading of the law, which was designed to apply to Caltrain. There was never any room for MTC or HCD to decide otherwise. “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.” §65912.156 (n) Similarly, the HCD guidance cited is discussing factors never in doubt. The applicability of SB-79 to Santa Clara County, Palo Alto’s stops, et cetera was always clear. Accordingly, other cities made decisions much earlier. Mountain View chose its SB-79 strategy in January, for example, despite the complication of added light-rail. More generally, if these maps were actually necessary to choose a path forward on SB-79, we would expect to have seen far more jurisdictions saying so and using urgency ordinances. If Palo Alto has to take this argument before a judge, do they have an answer to why the map availability issue so narrowly effected our fine city without touching our neighbors? Taken together, the justification for urgency seems pretextual. Palo Alto was simply late making a decision that could have been made half a year earlier, which is not a reason for an urgency ordinance. Infrastructure Discussion The infrastructure considerations raised in the June 1 meeting which might otherwise support urgency are in conflict with other city findings. Specifically, the Planning Director reported: What we would want to make sure that we have that SB79 doesn't really give us the time to do is make sure that the infrastructure that would support future development is available to the city. For instance our water resources, how that is fed through the city network and where it is available and how it can support development is something that we need to study to ensure that we have enough water pressure to support development. … if we start seeing more and more of these [taller buildings] it begins to put a strain -it may begin to put a strong- on our fire resources apparatus necessary to provide emergency services to taller buildings... The assistant city attorney confirmed: ...the concerns are basically what Director Lait spoke to which is just the capacity of the City’s infrastructure to serve higher density housing in these areas.” And later added in response to a follow up about the areas planned for high densities specifically: ...while [areas planned for high density] have been designated for higher densities in terms of being suitable locations, in each of these cases, for example the housing projects the city council has seen in the past month, utility staff and public works staff have grappled in each case with being able to handle storm water load and other utility loads that are necessary in each case. These are not the written justification in the ordinance, yet were presented to Council as the reasons for the urgency ordinance. This is what the Council was relying upon in their discussion about the matter of urgency. Notably, while pedestrian collisions are cited in the language of the ordinance, this factor was not even brought up. Adopting the urgency ordinance on that basis is problematic: Contradicting Housing Element on Infrastructure and gross RHNA: The Housing Element and associated EIR found no significant impacts with up to 6,086 new units. The Housing Element explicitly states that Palo Alto’s existing infrastructure is not a barrier to development. We are 3.5 years into the planning cycle and the city is nowhere close to the 6,086 units. Pipeline and RHNA Status: The city has a significant pipeline, but it mostly comprises builder’s remedy units which are not recurring. Almost halfway through the planning cycle the city has been only permitting around a hundred units per year creating an enormous progress gap. Taken together, the city cannot project anywhere close to meeting RHNA, which leaves a great deal of planned capacity the city is simply not on- track to utilize. Contradicting Housing Element on Stormwater: The conflict on stormwater is very specific. The Housing Element says: “"While no significant infrastructure constraints exist citywide, localized constraints are possible depending on a site's proximity to existing utility and service lines and whether additional connections or upgrades to those lines would be necessary. These types of improvements would typically be the responsibility of the property owner/developer." Moreover, the Mollie Stone’s project the attorney was referring to is larger than what SB-79 allows at full density. Funding Offsets: Palo Alto’s development and impact fees are very high, meaning development creates funding for improving safety. Developer Responsibility: The city is largely raising issues that are a developer’s burden to mitigate, according to the Housing Element. Deniability: As stated above, projects which create specific unmitigable public safety issues can be denied even under the Housing Accountability Act. HCD Review Gap It is unclear if the city has submitted this ordinance for review by HCD on the timeline required by law. §65912.160(d)(1)(A) creates a requirement that “At least 14 days prior to adoption of an ordinance pursuant to this section, the local government shall submit a draft ordinance to the department. The staff report says the ordinance will be transmitted to HCD if approved, but if the adoption date is to be second reading on June 15, then the deadline for transmission to HCD would have to have been June 1. The new provision in the supplemental report seems to have been created too recently for this 14-day notice to have occurred. Risks The problems above and the connection to the discussion of the issue on June 1 create numerous risks to the city: The city has been threated with lawsuits by YIMBY Law and CalHDF. These could well prevail, overturning the ordinances. A developer could file an SB-79 compliant project in early July, prepared to assert in court that the ordinance is illegal and SB-79 is the law of the land in Palo Alto without the 50% cut. If HCD believes the ordinances are illegal, they could refer a case to the Attorney General. Finding that infrastructure does not support housing contradicts the Housing Element, which risks HCD determining that the Housing Element needs to be updated and reviewed. See §65585(i)(A)(1). The city’s best path to avoiding the implication that the Housing Element is out of date and newly-discovered constraints to housing exist, is to decide they were always hypothetical and therefor back away from the urgency ordinance. This ordinance falls under HCD’s direct SB-79 direct oversight powers under §65912.160, and HCD might decide it is illegal, either because it was not provided in time or on other merits. Conclusion To speak candidly, I’m not a lawyer, and I doubtful all of my points above are right. However, I have to be wrong on an awful lot of points for this to look sound. The last time I saw something that looked this way was when I was co-leading Palo Alto Forward’s housing element advocacy. HCD did not agree with Palo Alto Forward on everything or even most things, but nor did they need to. So it is here. I’m sure the Council can, in an hours’ discussion and with a modest amendment, arrive at a set of exempted streets that most are comfortable with. If they do, this would save the city potential staff time and expense. They would provide more timely much-needed housing to those who need it, including affordable housing. They would provide California Ave with more much-needed customers and revitalization. They would provide our schools with needed students. They would live up to the spirit behind of our history on affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. -Scott O’Neil, writing for myself. From:Sally Heaton To:Council, City Subject:Urgency ordinance Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 2:12:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council I am writing to support the passage of the Urgency Ordinance, Item 23 on the consent calendar on the agenda for the June 15 council meeting. I fully support your vote of June 1 to pass the Urgency Ordinance, and look forward to your passing of the second reading. Thank you William Heaton 2345 Bowdoin Street Palo Alto Sent from my iPad From:david@drak.com To:Council, City Subject:Please stop playing games with housing Date:Sunday, June 14, 2026 1:52:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Honorable Council Members— The tower complex proposed at the Mollie Stone’s in an unmitigated disaster on many levels (height being the biggest issue and parking a major problem). In my view this disaster is largely self-induced by an obstructionist council. We absolutely need to increase density and vitality in areas like California Avenue and by not providing a reasonable path for developers, the city is getting saddled with outrageous projects and losing it authority to apply state guidelines appropriately. Please stop screwing around. The State’s rules for transit areas are arbitrary and do not reflect the facts on the ground. There are clear regions along Cal Ave itself and along Park towards Fry’s suitable to much higher density and taller construction. There is also a low-rise residential neighborhood, Evergreen Park, the is very much not suitable to tall buildings. Similar for University Avenue. The State’s “radius” rules around train stations don’t make any sense locally. Please prevent the State’s arbitrary rules from coming into full force and quickly come up with some reasonable solutions so they aren’t necessary. The council spends too much time on small points with unending discussion and misses the big ones. For example, we might all quibble, but 6-8 stories along California Avenue with supporting parking would be far superior to the proposed Mollie Stones towers or whatever madness might ensue if the state's arbitrary rules take full effect. Stop quibbling and get something done. Best Regards, This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report David Matheson 280 Oxford Palo Alto From:Fred Krefetz To:Council, City Subject:Half-size option for SB 79 Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 7:13:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I urge you to vote for the half-size option related to SB79. Thank you, Fred Krefetz 225 Emerson St. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:efilseth@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Support the 50% SB79 Ordinance Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 5:53:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Please support the 50% ordinance. There are 68,000 people living here in Palo Alto. To serve them, the City needs the time to plan intelligently where its taller buildings, the infrastructure needed to support them, and mitigation of community impacts make the most sense. Regards, Eric Filseth This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Firth Griffith To:Council, City Cc:Yuqing Li Subject:Urgency Ordinance on SB79 Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 5:01:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: I support the passage of the Urgency Ordinance to reduce SB79 by 50% allowing the city to delay full implementation of the law for six years while the city pursues an alternative compliance plan. Thank you. Firth Griffith & Yuqing Li 2149 Yale St. Palo Alto CA 94306 From:Laura To:Council, City Subject:Urgency Ordinance Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 4:48:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, As College Terrace resident since 1996, I urge you to support the passage of the Urgency Ordinance. Thank you, Laura Forrest From:Andrea Wald To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: City Council"s decision to replace El Camino AT field with more AT Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 4:40:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Resending with correct email for city council. Andrea ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Andrea Wald <waldmba@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 4:37 PM Subject: City Council's decision to replace El Camino AT field with more AT To: <citycouncil@paloalto.gov> Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone and council members, I believe that "recycling" of the old AT from El Camino field was promised. I'm wondering how FieldTurf will handle this as there are no known recycling facilities in CA. They could possibly ship the material to Texas, where it will be incinerated, but I'm not privy to what you contracted with the vendor. Just wanted to share some very new info about how TenCate handles recycling of their artificial turf product. I'm pretty sure its the same story with FieldTurf, although they have never officially said they have a recycling facility in the US. In a recent meeting of the Foothill-DeAnza community colleges school board one of the board members asked the consultant about the promise to recycle their old AT field. His response was totally different from a slide that was presented almost two years ago to the Fremont Union High School District school board members guaranteeing the old AT from 12 fields would be recycled. Note - repurposing is not recycling and the smaller pieces that might have been sold at a very low price for dog parks, batting cages, etc. will eventually end up in landfill. Verde Design’s Devin Conway has changed his storyline about recycling since his FUHSD presentation. Listen to 5 minutes of the 6/8/26 FHDA board meeting from timestamp 2:15:52 - 2:20:45 https://www.youtube.com/live/MdJ5QUrRUDI?si=xY6-F2tZ8nSsrz_y&t=8152 Check out the TenCate website where they talk about a "pilot" to recycle artificial turf. All the AT needs to be trucked to Louisiana, infill removed and supposedly recycled, and the blades and backing then shipped to Exxon Mobil in Texas where it will be incinerated. The incineration process is expensive, uses lots of water and energy and is harmful to the environment. https://turfrecycling.us/#theprogram Bottom line - artificial is not something that can easily be recycled nor do I believe it ever will be. I'm looking forward to the pilot of the natural grass field to commence and done with the true intent of using the best product and methods to achieve the best possible results! This way you will no longer need to deal with and believe misinformation provided by vendors that are mostly interested in their bottom line! Andrea Wald From:Malcolm Slaney To:Council, City Subject:SB 79 Urgency Ordinance Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 4:20:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I heartily disagree with SB 79. Housing is important, but the state passed a sledge hammer. I live in College Terrace and large buildings are completely at odds with our small lots and cottages. I understand the Urgency Ordinance that is before the city council on June 15th is a step to slow this process down. Please do all you can to preserve our neighborhoods. - Malcolm Slaney 20 year resident of Yale Street From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Subject:Funding for KNOW YOUR NEIGHBOR Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 4:07:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member, Could you increase funding for neighborhood get togethers? Our neighborhood hosts a picnic only once a year with 160 people in attendance. The funding offered by the City helps with only half the cost. Since we largely recruit our BPCs from the annual picnic, a more generous amount will only improve emergency preparedness. Connie Kettendorf AdobeMeadow Neighborhood Association From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:Support SB 79 Implementation! Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 1:37:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council, I write against the emergency ordinance and in support of SB 79 implementation. As a downtown resident, I want new neighbors to strengthen our community. New housing units will not create dangerous conditions, per the analysis in our Housing Element (which studied the impacts of and provided mitigation measures for almost 7,000 new housing units). What if SB 79 can actually help with difficult issues we are dealing with as a city, such as: Lack of missing-middle housing South Palo Alto residents complaining of "unit dumping" and the need for a more equitable distribution of units where they belong -- near transit, retail, and job centers Cal Ave, ECR, and University Ave needing more customers spending money where they live Lack of density to support and expand our transit system Our 3:1 jobs housing ratio that means 30,000+ cars driving into our city each day with the associated traffic, and resulting air, noise, and climate pollution Full implementation of SB 79 will mean: More neighbors enjoying all that our amazing downtowns have to offer Additional progress in meeting our RHNA housing goals Support for our "Pro-Housing" designation application with the state Additional tax revenue (from more dollars spent locally to increased property values) to support a strong budget Let's meet our housing, transit, and climate crises head on and study ways to successfully implement SB 79 rather than stop it with a legally dubious emergency ordinance. Thank you, Amie Ashton 236 Middlefield From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:Bike Plan - Cal Ave (or alternative) Bike Route Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 11:44:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Veenker and Honorable City Council, I write in support of the 2026 Bicycle and Transportation Plan! I am so happy to see this at the finish line after years of work. Like many residents, I was excited to see staff's recommendation for improvements to Cal Avenue to make it exciting, interesting, and fun for all users of the space. We were disappointed to hear the much-reviewed "slow bike" concept, which best balanced the needs of our entire community, was eliminated from consideration at Council's June 1 meeting based on perceived dangers from a few bad e-moto-drivers (note: e-moto drivers represent a small percentage of total "bike" traffic on Cal Ave and injuries are not reflected in the city data provided over the last 2 years to PABAC). We ask you to reconsider your decision as there is no alternative safe route that can be easily/quickly implemented. Please reinstate staff's proposed California Avenue plan, consistent with the bike route in the Bicycle and Transportation Plan. The slow-bike lane pavement treatments, signage, separation, and connections proposed by staff are appropriate and create a safe experience for the community of Cal Ave users. Cal Ave connects directly to the train station, Alma bike/ped underpass, and the Park Bike Blvd; it is essential to keep it open for bikes and safe for peds. Further, many students use Cal Ave as a way to get to Green Middle School, Walter Hays Elementary, and Paly. Neighborhoods like Southgate and College Terrace are located far from their designated schools and Cal Ave is part of a safe routes strategy. If implementing staff's plan is not possible: Immediately plan infrastructure improvements to Cambridge (or other alternative route) before closing bicycle access to Cal Ave. Note however, this is not easily done. Alternative primary routes have already been exhaustively considered and disregarded due to disconnection, lack of access to destinations and shopping, and needed removal of parking. Additionally, Cambridge Ave has many driveways and entrances to parking lots, which are accident points. Sherman Ave and Grant Ave are not direct connections. Alos, relegating bikes to another street will decrease foot traffic from people on bikes who stop at Cal Ave businesses. We cannot move forward with prohibitions or half-solutions that put more road users in danger. Let’s make Cal Ave safe for everyone, consistent with staff's June 1 recommended improvements, or immediate study infrastructure improvements for an alternative route. This will be great for our community and consistent with our stated values that bikes are welcome in Palo Alto. Thank you for your service to all of us! Amie Ashton From:Robert Neff To:Council, City Subject:Endorse approval of new Bike-Ped Transportation Plan - Item 24 June 15. Date:Saturday, June 13, 2026 8:41:14 AM June 13, 2026, Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to endorse approval of the 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), item 24 on the June 15 agenda. The BPTP brings a needed update to network planning in Palo Alto, especially in quantifying the goal of a low-stress bicycle network. The final version of the plan incorporates strong suggestions made to the draft plan from Council, PTC, and PABAC to align near term projects with that overarching goal. (The idea of quantifying the level of discomfort, or “traffic-stress” in bicycle trips, and evaluating all components of a trip is actually new in bike network planning since the development of the earlier 2012 BPTP.) There are many proposed programs and projects in the plan. All are needed. – I look forward to protected bike lanes on Meadow, a new undercrossing near El Dorado, upgrading Cowper to a bike boulevard, including a signalized crossing at Embarcadero, and development of the Bryant/Meadow intersection for better safety at high traffic times. The addition of E-bike strategy is timely. The staff report mentions the PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee) Reform activity coming to council in fall, 2026. As a member of PABAC, I participated in the input to staff from PABAC on June 4, but I want to emphasize that this reform will need City Council attention to determine the best way to guide Active Transportation (and perhaps all Transportation) programs and projects with city staff. I think our current structure with Council guiding staff, PTC reporting to Council, and PABAC reporting to staff is not optimal, but that is a discussion for another time. Please approve this plan on June 15. Thank you for your work for our city of Palo Alto. Robert Neff Emerson near Loma Verde Palo Alto Member of PABAC From:Paul B Goldstein To:Council, City Subject:Item 24, June 15 Meeting, 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 9:52:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable members of the City Council, I urge you to approve the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. This is a good plan and represents a lot of hard work and public input. I would like to commend the staff of the Transportation Department, and in particular, Ozzy Arce, for their dedication and responsiveness to public comment. As a long-term resident of Palo Alto and long-time member of PABAC, I have seen this plan mature and improve throughout its development. I have one specific comment: Many of the near-term projects call for separated bicycle lanes. I urge you to proceed with caution. Although these projects seem attractive, the intended benefits can often be achieved using other, time-tested and much cheaper approaches. Separated bike lanes use a lot of right-of-way and present special safety problems at intersections and driveways. I look forward to this plan's approval and to seeing Palo Alto become an even better place to walk and bicycle. Respectfully, Paul Goldstein Emerson Street From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:June 2026 Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 9:08:21 PM BOOK SALE NEWSLETTER THIS WEEKEND AT CUBBERLEY Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES Saturday June 13 Main Room Members' Early Sale 9am - 11am Main Room General Sale 11am - 4pm Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Music Pop Up Sale 10am - 2pm Sunday June 14 All Rooms 1pm - 4pm 4000 Middlefield Road Palo Alto NE corner of the Cubberley Community Center (650) 213-8755 www.fopal.org Maps and Directions More information on the sales Donate your used books, DVDs, &c ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO ALTO LIBRARIES Main Room In our Main Room, prices are way below what used book stores charge. Hardcover books start at $3 and softcover books start at only $2. NO NUMBERS WILL BE ISSUED FOR NON-MEMBERS FOR THIS SALE. IF YOU ARE NOT A FOPAL MEMBER SIMPLY SHOW UP AT 11AM. Please note that due to crowding during the first two hours of the Book Sale, no strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be brought into the Main Room. This is for the safety of shoppers and volunteers alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins out and shoppers are welcome to bring these items into the sale. Children's Book Sale The Children's Room is located in the portable next to the soccer field near Greendell School. It is entirely filled with children's books and toys. You'll find picture books, school age fiction and non-fiction, fiction for teens, award winners, non-English titles, CDs and DVDs, and books for parents and teachers, many for 50 cents or $1. Strollers are welcome in the Children's Room at any time. Bargain Books in H-2 The Bargain Room is located in Rooms H-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley main campus, between our Main Room and Middlefield Road. On Saturday, paperbacks are $1, hardcovers are $2, and children's books are 50 cents each. The room also contains many records, CDs, and DVDs at $1 each. On Sunday, the room opens at 1 pm and all prices are half off. Or, save even more on Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable bags from us for $4/ea (or bring your own grocery-size reusable bag) and stuffing them with any items in the room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at $5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE! Library News The Library's big news for June is the Summer Reading Program, which started on June 1 and runs until August 1 so you do still have time to start and make progress! The theme is "Oceans of Possibilities" and you can read more about it and register from the library's web site. You can find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner from the Palo Alto City Library Blogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader. You could find out about other things by subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per month, more usually one. There is also the Library's events calendar that has a lot besides when the Library is closed. -Frank McConnell Members' Early Sale This Month This month is a Members' Early Sale in our Main Room which means some early openings on Saturday for FOPAL members. At 8am, members can pick up tickets for early admission to the Main Room. Non-members can also join at this time. Expired memberships can also be renewed. Bringing your membership card can help us find you in our database but is not required. At 9am, the Main Room opens to Life Members and Sponsors. At 10am, the Main Room opens to other Members. At 11am, the Main Room opens to everyone (as usual, but the line will probably be shorter than usual). The Bargain Room and Children's Room open at their usual times. There's more info on our web site. -Frank McConnell Magazines Hi FOPAL supporters, We wanted to let you know that Magazines is going to focus presentations at each monthly sale. This month the area of focus is National Geographic. Remember those days when countries and experiences were depicted in glossy magazines with in-depth descriptions driven by science and geography with a view to inform you? Well, we have a collection of old and new so if you're planning a family trip, wouldn't it be great to prepare with an issue that discuss the places you may be visiting and/or the flora and fauna of the area? Even if you're not traveling, you could learn about places you've always had an interest in or heard of but have yet to visit. Come check it out at the next sale. There will also be standing "Collectibles" and "Other" arrays of magazines (ie, old Life, Fortune and other interesting historical issues). As your curator, I always find something of interest in these sections to read for great value pricing. -Glen Sato Home & Crafts Hello, summer! School's out; time for arts and crafts, for kids and the whole family. Don't forget Father's Day, June 21st; we have some terrific books that Dad will surely like. Here's a sampling of our offerings for the coming lazy days: Floral Arts brings us Roses: Inspiration for Practical Gifts, Crafts and Displays. Back by popular demand in Fabric Arts is Stitch & Bitch: The Knitter's Handbook by Debbie Stoller. Another gem, The Golden Thread: How Fabric Changed History. We feature Quilting the World Over, which presents unique quilts based on Tahitian, Japanese, African and other worldly methods. On the Beauty and Fashion shelf look for Art Deco Hair: Hairstyles from the 1920's & 1930's, plus a slew of fashion and costume design titles, from Victorian to the present. On the Home shelves there's a collection of home essays, including Simply at Home, The Perfectly Imperfect Home, and A Room of Her Own. In home maintenance you'll find One Year to an Organized Life and Cheryl Mendelson's Home Comforts: The Art and Science of Keeping House. For Dad and the kids try Treehouses by Peter Nelson. Planning a kitchen remodel? Don't miss all the kitchen ideas and styles. In regional and international design we have books ranging from Modern Retro to Cabin Style, and from Scandinavia to India. There's something for everyone to read and learn this summer! eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Antiques & Collections This month, you'll find the weighty book, World Furniture: An Illustrated History, edited by Helena Hayward. We also have several books on glass, including New Glass: Stained Glass for the Age of Handmade Houses, and Contrasts: A Glass Primer by Vicki Halper. In the toy category, we received The Top: Universal Toy / Enduring Pastime by D. W. Gould. Another interesting item is Turned Chessmen: For Collectors, Players, and Woodworkers by Mike Darlow. Don't miss these and other titles for your collecting reference. eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Poetry O wondrous June! our lives should be like thee, With such calm grace fulfilling destiny. First we will travel far away to Wales, From whence the poet Dylan Thomas hails, Then on to other poets getting raves, Like the prolific writer Robert Graves, Or read of Life envisioned by the girls, And find the bits of wisdom in their pearls. https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html -Mandy MacCalla Children's Room Ready for summer? Here it comes! Our Activity section is filled with summer entertainment for children and families, at home or "on the road." The shelves are overflowing with games for all levels, from travel-size classics to 4-ft. floor puzzles. We also have a large selection of paper-and-pencil puzzle books and maze collections, including some from Playmobil space set. For older kids you'll find boredom-busters in our cookbook, music, and coloring bins. If this were December, we'd say we have loads of "stocking stuffers"--little toys and trinkets that would be perfect to tuck into a summer travel bag or camp backpack. For learning and reviewing, you can look "near or far" with two microscope sets and a telescope, plus lots of flashcards and workbooks (including Beast Academy and math contest collections). Finally, just for fun, explore our shelves and tables packed with graphic novels featuring many popular series and singletons, all priced to sell. Beginning Readers offers a record number of Mo Willems Elephant and Piggie books-- paperbacks, hardbacks, and collections of three books in one. There are also many inexpensive sets of paperbacks for early readers to keep them learning all summer. On the Giftable Hardbacks shelves, the award winners section is overflowing, as is the display shelf next to poetry, with folk and fairy tales. Look for a number of Pete the Cat titles on a shelf below the award winners. Check out the Picture Books bins and table for Ladybird Books' classic collection of tales (23 small books); many Little Golden Books titles in good condition; Paw Patrol single story small hardbacks; Peanuts single story small hardbacks; single story books of tales from the Odyssey; and multiple copies of books like Ferdinand, Make Way for Ducklings, and Madeline. Non-fiction offers several "collections" displayed on the table as you enter the section, along with fascinating individual volumes scattered on the various shelves. Browse the Non-fiction section and find a new interest! In School-age Fiction it's Fantasy Jackpot Month. Our shelves are filled with Harry Potter and the Rick Riordan and Brandon Mull series. For fans of Erin Hunter's Warriors series, we have books from all the collections including two special Warriors gift books. Due to space constraints, we've had to reorganize our fantasy area, and you'll now find the Rick Riordan Presents series, authored by various writers, shelved against the far wall with general sci-fi and fantasy. In our classics area fans of author Enid Blyton will find two large boxed collections as well as many individual books. We have two beautifully illustrated copies of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. And check out our special read-aloud Little House on the Prairie. -Carolyn Davidson Children's Vintage June marks the beginning of summer with long days that provide plenty of time for reading! How about celebrating Juneteenth with one of our featured Black illustrators - John Steptoe, Jerry Pinkney or Donald Crewes - or settle back and enjoy a little something by Alice and Martin Provensen or Bill Peet. If illustrations aren't your thing, try some history. We have an entire shelf full of history books (We Are There, Landmark and others) that will teach you about the way the world was and perhaps how we got to where we are today. Or add to your Doctor Dolittle collection with some of the more obscure titles (Garden, Circus, In the Moon). And of course, our firmly established selection of vintage games and toys, including a vintage Viewmaster and reels, a couple of Fuzzy Willy magnetic faces and a very cute decorated tin, perfect to hold vintage what-nots! See shelf pictures at <https://fopalbooks.com/kids.html>. -Chloe Judaica Browse the Judaica section for books on the Jewish religion and culture including editions of the Torah and other basic texts, Kabbalah, Jewish history, the Holocaust, memoirs, Israel, Jewish Women, the Jewish American Experience and other related subjects. Special this month - Uncomfortable Conversations with a Jew Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation Israel, the embattled land: Jewish and Palestinian women talk about their lives Beyond Proportionality: Israel's Just War in Gaza When Boxing Was a Jewish Sport God Wears Lipstick: Kabbalah for Women Letters for Life: Guidance for Emotional Wellness from the Lubavitcher Rebbe Eminent Jews : Bernstein, Brooks, Friedan, Mailer The Jew Store: A Family Memoir Most fiction with Jewish themes will be found in Modern Literature/Classics or Current Fiction. Books entirely in Hebrew are shelved in the European Languages section. Shelf photos at https://fopalbooks.com/judaica.html -Charlotte Epstein, Judaica Section Manager Philosophy As you probably know when you are looking at books at FOPAL we only have the books we sell as someone has donated them to us. Usually in Philosophy when we have large donations they are of philosophers, Aristotle or Dewey for example. However, this month we received something quite different, a large donation of books on many different philosophical topics, all in excellent condition. So my advice for June is to enjoy browsing, who knows what you might find. -Nigel Jones Humor This month we have the two books that are considered to be the best of the New Yorker Magazine. In perfect condition we have The Complete New Yorker with eight DVDs and The Complete Cartoons of the New Yorker with two CDs. In contrast we have three books on comedians considered by many as the best ever, the Marx Brothers. And then in fiction we have three volumes of collected works by Wodehouse plus individual titles and almost all of David Sedaris. -Nigel Jones Computers The computer shelves are stuffed this month. The AI/ML/NLP section is especially full with books relevant to current systems. There are interesting new-to-us works on the database shelf, the graphics shelf, and the little-known Game Programming area. Java, Python, Math and network tech sections are all full, come and browse your special interests. -David Cortesi Science Fiction and Fantasy The Science Fiction and Fantasy shelves are packed this month, thanks to a donation of a massive collection. It will take several months to get through this flood. This month I'm featuring the Dragonlance series, Star Wars, Star Trek (the original series), and Star Trek (the New Generation). These are long runs with many titles I seldom see, so bring your want lists. The big series haven't chased all the other stuff away, there's still a good selection of recent and vintage general books too. -Rich McAllister Self Help FEATURED-many 'Popular on Amazon' books: Hawaiian Rebirth; What's Your Problem?; It's Not You; Think Faster Talk Smarter; How to Listen, Hear and Validate; Better Small Talk; The Mind Illuminated; 12 Step Workbook of Overeaters Anonymous; The Book of Alchemy; US-Getting past You & me to build a more loving relationship; Chop Wood Carry Water- how to fall in love with the process of becoming great; The Art of Letting Go; Alchemy. PLUS 4 other shelves of 'Popular on Amazon=' books. Due to the large number of New Arrivals, I've already put some of them in the appropriate 'sub-section', especially Relationship, Addiction, Grief/loss and Inspiration, so look there if the subject interests you. Also, check out the large subsection on CREATIVITY. Most books are $2-3 dollars so it's worth taking home what catches your eye! Happy Browsing, -Marnie History A deluge of new used books, especially in normally underrepresented areas! There are some good quality books on Latin America and Africa, and a whole shelf on Indian topics. For the more academically inclined, there is a good selection of historiography, including some from the library of Robert Conquest, late of Stanford. If the current political situation is getting you down, there are many volumes on US history that tell how we got through problems in the past. -Lin McAllister Mitchell Park Library Store Just a reminder that we are open for business during all library hours. Our special display this month is TRAVEL just in time to help you with your vacation planning. Happy traveling and we hope that our books add to your travel adventures. -From all the Mitchell Park Volunteers Collectibles We have some of the hottest models that you have ever seen for sale cheap! That's Right! For only $5 to $8 you can get a '29 Ford Model A Roadster model, a LeBaron Chrysler model, a '32 Ford Sedan model plus many more! -Henry Ford Junior Junior Junior Junior Jr. Cameras This month: 2 Pentax K-1000 for as little as $35 each, a beautiful polaroid camera that is too cheap (sorry inexpensive) to legally mention the price in an email, some Canon Powershots and more! -Sir Lens-A-Lot Bargain Room The Bargain Room is stuffed to the gills, overloaded, bursting at the seams. Overflowing sections: Mystery, Children's, Hardcover Fiction, Computers, Self Help, Magazines, Travel, Fiction Trade Paperbacks, Vintage... Full Sections: DVDs, Essays, Education, Sociology, Sheet Music, Poetry, The West, Foreign Languages, Reference, Judaica, Sports, Art, Business, Sets, Science Fiction, Games, Music, CDs, Vinyl, Psychology... -The Boogie Woogie Frugal Boy From Company B Maps Unfortunately we have no word from Mapman Crothers this month. He was last seen driving a snowcat into the Rockies. The good news? He had plenty of late 1970s era maps with him. -Danny Torrance Donations We accept donations on Monday through Friday from 3-5 pm in the Main Room, and on Saturday with extended hours from 1-5 pm. But we close to donations in the week before the sale so that we can prepare the Main Room for the sale, which means that we are closed for donations from Sunday June 7 through Sunday June 14. Please hold your donations until Monday June 15. Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us. Also look at that page if you need to bring us a donation larger than six boxes or outside our usual donation times, it has information on scheduling appointments and requesting a pickup. In addition to books, vinyl, DVDs, CDs, toys, etc. We now accept the following types of donations: Cameras Tools Watches Clocks Typewriters See our full list of accepted donations at fopal.org/donate. Suggestions? We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org. This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcoming books sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than to send you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply with the words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text. From:Xintian Lin To:Council, City Subject:SB 79 Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 7:10:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, Thank you for your support of the half-size building proposal for the downtown area. This option will result in fewer traffic and privacy concerns compared to the full-size, six-story alternative. Please continue your efforts to make Palo Alto a better place to live. Sincerely, Xintian Lin This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:SC To:Council, City; Council, City Subject:Vote in Favor of SB 79 Half Size Option Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 5:58:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Thank you for voting for the SB79 half size option on June 1st. I hope you will vote in favor of this option again at the Monday, June 15th meeting. There is no question Palo Alto needs more housing. Voting for this option will give city planners time to thoughtfully plan and implement infrastructure changes to maintain safe, efficient roads as traffic, parking, pedestrian and bicycle impacts grow across the city. The 10 Builder's Remedy projects already in development throughout Palo Alto will already place significant demands on our city's infrastructure including utilities capacity (ex: gas, electric, water pressure for fire suppression). Thoughtful infrastructure planning will ensure the safety of our bike boulevards and our many neighborhood Designated Safe Routes to School throughout Palo Alto for elementary, middle and high school kiddos. As I understand it, voting in favor of this option doesn't preclude developers invoking the State Density Bonus Law to build above the half-size baseline providing they include sufficient affordable housing units - which is a goal I think we all agree is very important. We need thoughtful planning to grow smart as we welcome our new neighbors. Please vote in favor of the half-size option again at the June 15th meeting. thank you, sharon Resident of Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:David Ball To:Council, City Subject:Comply with SB 79--quit messing around Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 5:44:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Esteemed councillors-- There's no urgency that requires us to skirt the requirements of SB 79. It's long past time to plan to comply with SB 79 by upzoning appropriate areas of Palo Alto. Just look at the tiny bit of life that has come back from Zareen's. We need more of that! This is the dullest college town in the entire world--the strip of El Camino that abuts Evergreen park (where I've lived for almost 20 years) is unbelievably moribund. A jacuzzi store and two mattress stores? WTF? Let’s stop treating new housing as a threat and start viewing it as an investment in a sustainable, walkable, and welcoming community. There's no way my kids can afford to live here unless they become bankers. We need more housing options if we want an economically diverse and vibrant community with artists, young people, care workers, etc. Hell, the Grateful Dead started here--can you imagine if we had actual world-changing artists who could afford to live here? Half sizing projects is not a plan but a reaction. And we have had lots of time and still can’t make a plan. Mountain View has done a great job building modern and attractive high-rise buildings along commercial corridors. I'm sure you'll hear from lots of whiny NIMBY types who want to pull up the ladder now that they've got theirs. Or maybe their parents lived here and they've been grandfathered in. But we need more affordable housing, and the state requires it. Do your jobs. DB This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Mary Miller To:Council, City Subject:June 15 city council vote input Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 5:10:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, As a Cal Ave area resident I fully support the Palo Alto City Council plan to use an option in SB 79 to allow only half-sized buildings (e.g. three stories instead of six) until at least 2032. Thank you, Mary Miller 2145 Birch St This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:Gamelandia Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment on SB 79 Emergency Measures - June 15 2026 meeting Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 3:42:08 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 as the owner of Gamelandia, a small independent business on California Avenue. Like many local merchants, our success depends on Palo Alto continuing to grow into a vibrant, walkable community where people can live, work, and spend time. I urge the Council to reject the proposed SB 79 emergency measures and remove Item 23 from the consent calendar for full public discussion. A decision with lasting consequences for the future of our neighborhoods and commercial districts deserves open deliberation. A seven-story mixed-use building along a major commercial corridor served by transit is not a skyscraper. It is housing for families, ground-floor retail space for new businesses, and an opportunity to create the kind of vibrant, walkable neighborhood where people can live, work, shop, and gather. That is exactly the kind of incremental growth that strengthens communities like California Avenue. In my view, these emergency measures are not primarily about thoughtful planning. They are a final attempt to extend a decades-long pattern of resisting and delaying the housing growth our community urgently needs. Rather than confronting the housing challenges that have been growing for decades, this proposal would simply postpone inevitable change until 2032, leaving Palo Alto behind neighboring communities that are adapting to SB 79 without emergency measures and positioning themselves for continued economic growth and vibrancy. Additionally, by reducing project scale while leaving underlying development costs largely unchanged, these measures risk making smaller studio units more economically attractive to developers than one- and two-bedroom units that better serve working families. SB 79 did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the predictable consequence of decades of restrictive local land use policies entrenched across communities like Palo Alto that failed to keep pace with the region's housing needs. As jobs, wealth, and demand for housing grew, opportunities for new multifamily housing did not. Prior City Councils and administrations had repeated opportunities to gradually expand multifamily housing, but too often chose delay, compromise, or inaction. Greater state involvement became increasingly inevitable as local governments failed to address the region's growing housing shortage. This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report For local businesses, this is not an abstract planning debate. Housing policy is economic policy. We need customers who can live nearby, and we need employees who can afford to work here. As a small business owner, I see talented people forced into long commutes because living anywhere near California Avenue is simply out of reach. More housing and stronger neighborhood business districts are not competing priorities. They are deeply interconnected. The Bay Area has changed dramatically over the last fifty years, and our housing policies must evolve with it. Rather than making one final effort to postpone inevitable change, Palo Alto should embrace the opportunity to shape housing growth in a way that strengthens our neighborhoods, supports local businesses, and builds a more sustainable future for the entire community. Sincerely, Berry Hatfield Owner, Gamelandia -- GAMELANDIA Text Us: 650-382-2528 Find Us: 290 California Ave, Ste A, Palo Alto, CA 94306 W: www.gamelandia.fun E: info@gamelandia.fun From:Michael Eager To:Council, City Subject:SB78 half-size option Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 3:05:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council -- Thank you for your vote on June 1 to adopt the half-size plan allowed in SB78. I encourage you to vote in favor of this plan when it receives a second reading. I am concerned that SB78 and the other state housing measures will create a chaotic and disorganized environment to Palo Alto's detriment. We need a plan for housing growth, not a patchwork quilt of disproportionately large building stuck in the midst of otherwise suburban neighborhoods. -- Michael Eager From:Richard Stolee To:Council, City Subject:Bicycle plan on California Ave Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 1:21:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto Mayor and City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Please Reject a Bike-Free Design for California Avenue Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, On behalf of the College Terrace Residents’ Association, we urge the Council to reject a bike-free design for California Avenue. The safety of our children is our top priority. California Avenue is an important route for students and families in our neighborhood. It provides a direct, car-free connection to schools, Caltrain, the Alma bike/ped underpass, Park Boulevard, and local businesses. Any alternative that moves kids on bikes off a car-free street and onto streets with cars makes them less safe. We understand the concern about fast-moving e-bikes, e-motos, and reckless riding. California Avenue should feel safe and comfortable for pedestrians. But a blanket bike ban is not proportionate to the problem. The concern is unsafe riding and illegal or non- compliant motorized devices, not responsible low-speed bicycle access. A bike ban could create a larger safety problem than the one it is intended to solve. The risk cars pose to children on bikes is far more serious than the risk people on bikes pose to pedestrians on a car-free street. If existing rules are not being enforced, a new ban is unlikely to stop reckless riders. It may simply remove responsible riders from an important safe route. The City should use actual safety data and target the behavior causing concern. A better approach would keep California Avenue open to bicycles as a slow, shared street while focusing on unsafe speed, reckless riding, and illegal e-motos. Clear “slow down” and “watch for pedestrians” signs, pavement markings, design features that encourage slow riding, and targeted enforcement during crowded events such as the Farmers’ Market This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report and Thursday Live would address the actual concern without removing a safe route for children and families. California Avenue should remain a slow, safe, shared car-free street for people walking and biking. Please do not remove an important safe route for our children, commuters, and neighborhood residents. Sincerely, Richard M Stolee, President College Terrace Residents’ Association From:David Coale To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Lo, Ria Subject:Bicycle Safety and Access on California Avenue Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 9:11:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I support the Staff proposal for bike access on California Avenue, as presented at the City Council meeting on June 1, but let’s take a detailed look at the problem and solutions. The Problem There is a legitimate concern about bicycle speeds on California Avenue and the potential for conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. While some riders—particularly on e-bikes— may be traveling at unsafe speeds, the issue appears to involve a relatively small number of riders rather than the bicycling community as a whole. The City's goal should be to improve safety while preserving bicycle access and connectivity. Potential Solutions 1. Implement the Staff-Proposed Traffic-Calming Design Staff previously developed roadway markings and design elements intended to slow bicycle traffic and improve safety for all users. Because this solution has already been designed and funded, it should be given an opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness before more restrictive measures are considered. Physical design changes are often among the most effective ways to influence user behavior and could reduce speeds without eliminating bicycle access. 2. Implement Bicycle Speed Limits A bicycle speed limit applicable to all cyclists would address the safety concern in a fair and consistent manner. Any bicycle traveling at excessive speed, regardless of type, can create safety risks for pedestrians. While the Palo Alto Police Department has indicated that staffing limitations make active crossing guards, security personnel, or other educational outreach programs. Although these individuals would not issue citations, they could help communicate expectations, encourage compliance, and raise awareness during an initial implementation period. Concerns Regarding a Bicycle Ban The proposal to prohibit all bicycles on California Avenue appears to be a response to concerns about a limited number of unsafe riders. However, banning all cyclists because some riders travel too fast may be disproportionate to the problem being addressed. California Avenue is an important bicycle corridor. It is part of the City's bicycle network, serves Safe Routes to School users, and provides a direct connection for CalTrain users. Many e-bike riders operate responsibly and contribute to broader transportation goals by reducing automobile trips. In addition, an alternative route on Cambridge Avenue would require substantial improvements before it could safely accommodate diverted bicycle traffic. Potential improvements may include bicycle lane designation and markings, wayfinding, parking modifications, and dedicated funding. Community Observations Based on observations reported by Council Members and community members, the number of riders traveling at excessive speeds appears to be relatively small. This suggests that targeted safety measures may be more appropriate than a complete prohibition on bicycle access. There have also been concerns raised by some merchants regarding cyclist behavior and its impact on businesses. However, it is worth noting that past concerns regarding the closure of California Avenue to automobile traffic were eventually followed by broad recognition that the pedestrian-oriented environment has benefited the district. Any future decisions should carefully balance business interests, public safety, and transportation access. Recommended Path Forward I encourage the City to consider a phased approach: 1. Implement the staff-proposed bicycle traffic-calming design and evaluate its effectiveness. 2. If additional measures are needed, introduce speed-management and educational enforcement efforts, potentially using temporary third-party personnel. 3. If safety concerns persist, explore targeted restrictions on e-bikes or operating behaviors, while evaluating the legal and operational feasibility of such measures. 4. Only consider rerouting bicycle traffic if a safe and fully developed alternative route is first established on Cambridge Avenue, including necessary infrastructure improvements and funding. 5. Continue requiring cyclists to dismount during high-pedestrian events, such as the Farmers' Market and special community events, with additional education or event staffing as needed. Conclusion The City can improve pedestrian safety on California Avenue without eliminating an important bicycle connection. A measured, data-driven approach that prioritizes traffic calming, education, and targeted enforcement should be fully evaluated before implementing a complete bicycle ban. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David Coale From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - June 12, 2026 Date:Friday, June 12, 2026 8:59:35 AM Attachments:RE Subject Urgent Reconsideration of the Buena Vista Utility Upgrade Project.msg RE The Opportunity Center.msg RE 311 request.msg RE Pedestrian Safety Accessibility Issue in Midtown (Overgrown Right-of-Way).msg RE Ineffective enforcement of RV parking on East Meadow.msg RE 33 Encina Ave-Opportunity Center Mold.msg image001.png image002.png FW Public Comment Policy Services Committee Barking Dog Enforcement.msg Re May 8 City Council meeting item 14.msg Re Comments on June 8 Cubberley Item 14 vote on the Ballot Measure and Advisory Resolution.msg Re Traffic Lights Out At Page Mill El Camino Friday June 5 2026.msg FW Was Action Item re Bike Free Nor Cal. properly agendized.msg Importance:High 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 June 12, 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:Andy and Malda Blomkalns To:Council, City Subject:Letter Opposing Proposed Bicycle Path in Chimalus Drive Greenbelt Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 10:00:21 PM Attachments:Final 6-11-26 Bicycle Opposition PDF.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please find the attached document with a letter formally opposing the bicycle path in Chimalus Drive Greenbelt. Regards, Andra ************************************************** Letter Opposing Proposed Bicycle Path in Chimalus Drive Greenbelt 06-11-2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to proposed priority bicycle path in the Chimalus Drive greenbelt / water district easement Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am a resident of Chimalus Drive writing to express strong opposition to the proposed priority bicycle path in the greenbelt / water district easement behind the homes on Chimalus Drive in Barron Park. Partial synopsis of objections: 1) This objection is limited to the greenbelt alignment, not to the overall Plan. 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 2) The Plan’s own emphasis on utilizing existing streets for bicycle routing states, “delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term”, is itself prime evidence of ill-suited, unnecessary, and untimely priority routing need for a bicycle boulevard in the greenbelt. 3) Three adjacent, parallel, proximity close bicycle routes are not required in any residential area. New construction funding no doubt can be found for a higher priority need. 4) The Plan’s designation of existing Hansen as a future prime bicycle artery toward Alma and the railroad crossing obviates the new construction need of a bicycle boulevard in the adjacent Chimalus greenspace. 5) Reasonable, desired, and common subdivision and city planning design tenets do not provide public access to both sides of residential properties. Forcing a rare exception to that convention for the Chimalus greenspace would unquestionably ruin in many ways this quiet desirable neighborhood. 6) The most serious concern, the residents purchased these properties with the expectation that their backyards would remain private and safe and would not be converted into a public corridor. 7) The City Council is respectfully requested to remove or defer this Chimalus bicycle segment from the near-term implementation. The prioritization methodology should be adjusted for the Plan. 8) Chimalus resident and design staff engagement should occur before design or funding decisions are finalized. Thank you for your consideration. Andy Blomkalns 714 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 rents1938@gmail.com 504-453-9788 CC: Mayor, City Manager, all Council Members Letter Opposing Proposed Bicycle Path in Chimalus Drive Greenbelt 06-11-2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to proposed priority bicycle path in the Chimalus Drive greenbelt / water district easement Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am a resident of Chimalus Drive writing to express strong opposition to the proposed priority bicycle path in the greenbelt / water district easement behind the homes on Chimalus Drive in Barron Park. Partial synopsis of objections: 1) This objection is limited to the greenbelt alignment, not to the overall Plan. 2) The Plan’s own emphasis on utilizing existing streets for bicycle routing states, “delivering safe, comfortable, and familiar routes in the near term”, is itself prime evidence of ill-suited, unnecessary, and untimely priority routing need for a bicycle boulevard in the greenbelt. 3) Three adjacent, parallel, proximity close bicycle routes are not required in any residential area. New construction funding no doubt can be found for a higher priority need. 4) The Plan’s designation of existing Hansen as a future prime bicycle artery toward Alma and the railroad crossing obviates the new construction need of a bicycle boulevard in the adjacent Chimalus greenspace. 5) Reasonable, desired, and common subdivision and city planning design tenets do not provide public access to both sides of residential properties. Forcing a rare exception to that convention for the Chimalus greenspace would unquestionably ruin in many ways this quiet desirable neighborhood. 6) The most serious concern, the residents purchased these properties with the expectation that their backyards would remain private and safe and would not be converted into a public corridor. 7) The City Council is respectfully requested to remove or defer this Chimalus bicycle segment from the near-term implementation. The prioritization methodology should be adjusted for the Plan. 8) Chimalus resident and design staff engagement should occur before design or funding decisions are finalized. Thank you for your consideration. Andy Blomkalns 714 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 rents1938@gmail.com 504-453-9788 CC: Mayor, City Manager, all Council Members From:Art Liberman To:Clerk, City; City Mgr Cc:Council, City Subject:What about the Public Hearing> Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 9:03:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I received a notice in the mail of a PUBLIC HEARING: "Proposed Water, Wastewater and Refuse Rate Changes" scheduled for 5:30 PM on June 15th. It is not on the City Council agenda that was just published by the Clerk? What is the status? From:jfleming@right-thing.net To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Subject:FW: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 6:31:51 PM Attachments:image005.png image006.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Jon Lait, Five weeks ago, I asked a member of your staff for the following information (see the email thread below): AT&T failed to start work on their new 1661 Page Mill Road cell tower by April 1st, causing the permit to expire. Has AT&T requested a new permit? And, if so, has AT&T paid for this new permit? I see that she is now on vacation through July 5th. Hence, I would appreciate it if someone else from your office would answer the questions I’ve asked. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151 From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:53 PM To: 'Kandikuppa, Nishita' <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov> Cc: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Subject: RE: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272) Thanks, Nishita. I look forward to learning where things stand with AT&T’s application/permit. I’ve CCed United Neighbors’ lawyer on this email. (You met Ariel at the ARB’s first consideration of the 1661 Page Mill facility.) He is much more conversant with procedure than I am. Thanks and best, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151 From: Kandikuppa, Nishita <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:10 AM To: jfleming@right-thing.net Subject: Re: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272) Hi Jeanne, Thank you for your emails. I am coordinating with the applicant team and the issuer of the encroachment permit (Public Works Engineering) to determine if any extensions were requested. I will follow up with you once I have an update. Best, Nishita Nishita Kandikuppa Associate Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 838-2806 | nishita.kandikuppa@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov Note: I will be out of office on vacation from 06/12 through 07/05. From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:43 AM To: Kandikuppa, Nishita <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov> Subject: FW: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Nishita, I just want to be sure you received my email below. It has a follow-up question on the 1661 Page Mill facility. Thanks and best, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151 From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 12:15 PM To: 'Kandikuppa, Nishita' <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov> Subject: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272) Hi Nishita, Thank you again for the information. As I think it over, I have a follow-up question. Specifically, the AT&T encroachment permit for 1661 Page Mill (which United Neighbors’ attorney received via public records request) a) is dated January 30th, and b) has a stated start date of April 1st. The permit states: "This permit/lease* shall expire if work on the encroachment described within does not commence within sixty (60) days of the date of approval, or by the anticipated start date as indicated above, whichever is later." Given that AT&T has not started work, causing the permit to expire, has AT&T requested a new permit? And, if so, has AT&T paid for this new permit? Thanks and best, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151 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 23, SB 79 ordinances, for the 6/15/26 Council meeting Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 3:04:14 PM Attachments:Palo Alto - Joint SB 79 letter - 11 Jun 2026.docx.pdf 7-17-23 Letter Urgency Ordinances and Ministerial Approval of Housing Projects (2).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, Californians for Homeownership and the California Housing Defense Fund submit the attached comment letter (and referenced communication from the California Attorney General) regarding agenda item 23 for the 6/15/26 Council meeting, the City’s proposed ordinances temporarily exempting the City from the provisions of SB 79. 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/ Jun 11, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 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; Re: SB 79 Ordinances Dear City of Palo Alto, Californians for Homeownership and the California Housing Defense Fund submit this letter in regard to the City’s proposed ordinances temporarily exempting the City from the provisions of SB 79. We appreciate staff taking the time to develop an implementation plan for this landmark law. However, the City may not use urgency or interim ordinances to temporarily exempt the City from SB 79, nor may it implement objective standards that effectively prohibit the density required by state law. Furthermore, the City cannot use SB 79’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption to implement its proposal as written. The City is proposing two interim/urgency ordinances to implement SB 79, in addition to temporary ordinances. These ordinances do not comply with state law, as discussed infra. SB 79 is not a sudden emergency requiring an urgency ordinance Per Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b), ordinances will not be effective for 30 days after adoption unless necessary to preserve the public peace, health, or safety of the City and the City Council adopts by a four-fifths majority a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency. The Palo Alto City Charter similarly requires ordinances are not effective “until the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption . . .” (Palo Alto City Charter, Appendix A, Section 2.04.330, subd. a.) Zoning ordinances are also required to be referred to the Planning Commission prior to adoption absent any emergency justification. (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.80.080-18.80.090.) The State Supreme Court has ruled that “the nature of the ordinance itself will . . . be determinative, and where a sudden emergency has arisen, a statement of the nature of the urgency finds proper place to support the declaration.” Ex parte Hoffman (1909) 155 Cal. 114, 120. SB 79 was signed into law in October 2025, giving the City almost nine months before its effective date of July 1, 2026 to enact an ordinance preserving the public health and safety of its residents. This was ample time; had there been an immediate and urgent threat to the public health and safety of residents, the City would have enacted an ordinance more quickly. The City cites “unanticipated strain on public infrastructure and cause additional points of conflict between vehicles and bicycles or pedestrians in the effected [sic] areas” to justify the use of an urgency ordinance. The many years that project entitlement and construction requires provides more than adequate time to plan for any potential traffic. Furthermore, the Legislature has already found that, “Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion.” (emphasis added) (Gov. Code, § 65912.155, subd. (c). New development will also bring substantial new revenue to the City that offsets any strain on infrastructure, because underutilized development sites are reassessed at much higher valuations. Similarly, the City is not justified in its reliance on city code section 2.04.270(d), which allows for ordinances to be introduced and adopted at the same meeting as an “emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety …” The City cites the need to preserve historic resources to justify the reliance on this code section. However, debatable concerns about historic preservation do not rise to the level of an emergency regarding public peace, health or safety. The City also cited the need to wait for guidance from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and also the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). However, there was never any confusion as to what the result was going to be: Palo Alto was going to need to plan for its Caltrain stations to be Tier 1 TOD stations, as required by the plain language of SB 79. Other parts of the state have more complicated implementations of the law, with bus rapid transit, multiple commuter rails using the same station, etc. Palo Alto does not have these complications. Additionally, we would like to draw the City’s attention to the attached July 17, 2023 letter from the California Attorney General regarding the use of urgency ordinances in response to state housing laws. The letter reiterates the requirements from statute and caselaw that the legislative findings must establish a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that is current and immediate; local jurisdictions must provide evidence documenting the immediacy of the threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and local jurisdictions must make these findings with enough specificity to support an adverse impact. In other words, there is a high bar for the use of urgency ordinances. The letter states specifically that urgency ordinances “must comply with the substantive requirements of state housing laws and cannot be used in an attempt to circumvent substantive legal requirements.” Given the extremely thin findings and complete lack of evidence that the City has presented to justify these urgency ordinances, it is clear that the City has not met the requirements discussed in the Attorney General’s letter. The City therefore may not use urgency ordinances to adopt an SB 79 implementation ordinance. The City’s Use of an Interim Ordinance is Unlawful In addition to adopting its SB 79 ordinance as an urgency ordinance, the City is adopting it as an interim ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858 in order to take illegal shortcuts in adopting this ordinance. Section 65858, subdivision (a) provides: Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city and county, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time … As discussed supra, just as SB 79 poses no risk to “public peace, health, or safety” it also poses no risk to “public safety, health, and welfare.” In fact, the Legislature has found the contrary to be true. (See Gov. Code, § 65912.155.) Furthermore, the interim ordinances are not being done to prevent a particular type of use from being developed in an area where the City intends to plan for a different type of use, as is required by the law. (Gov. Code § 65858, subdivision (a).) It is not as though the City is seeking to prevent the development of noxious industry in an area where it is planning for residential. Instead, the City is simply resisting a State-mandated level of residential density. Finally, each ordinance states, “... this ordinance would not have the effect of denying any approvals needed for the development of projects containing multifamily housing.” This is simply untrue. There are applicants ready, willing and able to submit applications for multifamily development as soon as SB 79 goes into effect on July 1, 2026. The purpose of these ordinances is transparently to prevent multifamily development and worsen the state’s housing crisis. The City may therefore not use interim ordinances to skip legally required steps in the adoption of an SB 79 implementation ordinance. The City Retains the Power to Prevent Health & Safety Impacts The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) allows the City to deny a proposed housing development project if it “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” (Id. at subds. (d), (j).) As multifamily housing development projects, SB 79 projects are subject to the HAA. If a situation ever arose that presented a true threat to public health and safety as defined by the HAA, the City could use the power of that statute to lawfully deny a proposed development. Given the backstop provided by the HAA, there is no justification for the City to use interim/urgency ordinances based on supposed health and safety impacts. The Proposed Envelopes Will Not Accommodate the Required Density The City has proposed dramatic envelope controls (in both the urgency/interim ordinances of agenda item 17 and in the temporary ordinances of agenda item 18) on parcels adjacent to lower-density zoning, including a height limit of 16 feet with a sky exposure plane extending at a 45 degree angle from this point. Of note, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (c)(1) the City must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed objective standards do not physically preclude the applicable densities. The only evidence the City offers is a sample massing diagram (Slide 17) which shows that on a 60’ x 100’ lot it is possible up to 1.75 FAR with 3 stories. This also demonstrates that on smaller lots this is likely not possible. The City's proposal also does not displace all underlying zoning standards, with the result that projects must contend with a variety of development standards (e.g. lot coverage, offstreet parking, objective design standards, etc.) that will have the effect of reducing density beyond what was shown in the single slide on massing diagram. We are therefore still concerned that the proposed standards will physically preclude the development of the required density.  Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d), the California Department of Housing and Community Development must evaluate whether or not the City’s implementation ordinance will physically preclude residential development at the required densities. It is doubtful that the City can produce the required preponderance of the evidence, given the degree to which the proposed (and underlying) objective standards will constrain development, particularly on smaller lots adjacent to lower-density zoning districts. The City’s Proposal is Ineligible for SB 79’s CEQA Exemption The City is proposing to exempt its proposal from CEQA pursuant to SB 79’s CEQA exemption in Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (c)(2). However, the City’s proposal is ineligible for this exemption. SB 79 provides an exemption from CEQA for cities fully implementing SB 79 or which had permissive enough zoning codes for the Legislature to authorize a temporary delay in SB 79’s effect. The CEQA exemption is not for cities to upzone in order to make themselves eligible for an exemption. Such an upzoning is not an implementing ordinance of SB 79 like an Alternative Plan or codification of the standards in section 65912.157. It is a separate council action being taken to avoid the provisions of SB 79. The Legislature made a policy judgement that compliance with the provisions of section 65912.157 were to be exempt from CEQA. It made no such judgement that an attempt to evade the provisions of section 65912.157 were to be equally exempt from CEQA. The City therefore may not use SB 79’s CEQA exemption for its proposal and must otherwise comply with the provisions of CEQA. ⧫ ⧫ ⧫ For these reasons, we urge the Council to reject the urgency/interim ordinances; to direct city staff to restart the ordinance adoption process; and to comply with CEQA. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey Californians for CalHDF Homeownership \ July 17, 2023 To: All Cities and Counties in California Dear Colleagues: In recent years, the Legislature has passed several laws responding to California’s housing crisis by mandating that local governments ministerially approve proposed housing developments under certain circumstances. Such laws include (but are not limited to) Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) (Gov. Code §§ 65852.21, 66411.7), which took effect January 1, 2022, and addresses lot splits and duplexes in single-family zoned neighborhoods, and Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011), which takes effect July 1, 2023, and addresses affordable housing permitting on commercial zoned land. Following the enactment of SB 9, some local jurisdictions enacted “urgency zoning ordinances” aiming to restrict or impose additional requirements on projects that were otherwise subject to ministerial approval under SB 9. Interim urgency ordinances provide a procedural tool to quickly respond to an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, and do not circumvent the substantive requirements of state housing laws such as SB 9 or AB 2011. This guidance reminds local jurisdictions of the strict state law requirements that apply to the enactment of urgency ordinances. The Attorney General encourages local jurisdictions to review their existing urgency ordinances for validity, and properly implement California’s housing laws moving forward. Analysis A. Legal Requirements for Urgency Ordinances 1. “Current and Immediate Threat to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare” Under limited emergency circumstances, local jurisdictions may pass urgency zoning ordinances that prohibit projects and land uses that conflict with a city’s planning or zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65858, subds. (a)-(c); see also 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter All Cities and Counties in California July 17, 2023 Page (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860, 869.)1 An urgency ordinance is initially valid for only 45 days, but can be extended for a total of two years, subject to the requirements discussed below. (§ 65858, subds. (a), (b).) To be valid, urgency ordinances amending zoning regulations must be supported by written legislative findings that “there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.” (§ 65858, subd. (c).) Failure to make the showings required by Section 65858 renders an urgency ordinance invalid as a matter of law. (California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365.) Urgency ordinances must be adopted by a four-fifths vote. (§ 65858, subds. (a), (b).) The legislative findings must establish a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that is current and immediate. (§ 65858, subd. (c); Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1410.) Courts have generally found that the immediacy requirement is satisfied in “situations where local agencies were faced with immediate threats of development.” (Id. at p. 1419, citing 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860; Conway v. City of Imperial Beach (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 78; Metro Realty v. County of El Dorado (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 508.) Urgency ordinances are intended to be limited “to situations where an approval of an entitlement of use was imminent.” (Building Industry, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1418–1419; accord California Charter Schools Assn., supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 370; Crown Motors v. City of Redding (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 173, 179–180 [a pending permit application would constitute an immediate threat because, absent an urgency ordinance, the permit at issue would have been approved within 30 days].) Local jurisdictions must provide evidence documenting the immediacy of the threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park, Huntington Park enacted an urgency ordinance that temporarily barred development of new charter schools while the City considered amending its zoning code. (California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365.) Huntington Park claimed that new charter schools would increase traffic and prevent the development of commercial tax- generating properties, which posed an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (Id. at p. 366.) As evidence for its claim, Huntington Park proffered “at least five inquiries” it had received requesting charter schools and “several serious sit down discussions” it had conducted with charter school representatives. (Id. at p. 369.) Upon reviewing this evidence, the Court concluded that “mere inquiries, requests, and meetings do not constitute a current and immediate threat within the meaning of [section 65858,] subdivision (c).” (Id. at p. 371.) Local jurisdictions are therefore required to show an actual imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and make specific supportive factual findings. An urgency ordinance that is not supported by a sufficient showing of an immediate threat to public safety, health, or welfare is invalid as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 365.) 1 Statutory references that follow are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. All Cities and Counties in California July 17, 2023 Page An urgency ordinance’s findings must also document the nature of the threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter, the County justified its urgency ordinance by showing that a proposed amendment to the general plan would create a new 140,000-person community in a county of only 65,000, and that an urgency ordinance was needed to preserve a countywide vote on the proposed amendment. (216 Sutter Bay Associates, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 864.) The Court of Appeal in Sutter Bay held that the County’s showing that the amendment “could alter—in a radical and fundamental manner—the current way of life for Sutter County residents” satisfied the findings required by Section 65858. (Id. at p. 868.) By contrast, statements about the uncertainty of implementation of a new state housing law or generalized concerns about visual or aesthetic standards are insufficient to support an urgency ordinance. 2. Extension of Urgency Ordinance Beyond Initial 45 Days: “Objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” An urgency ordinance that “has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing,” defined as one- third of the total square footage of the project, is subject to additional requirements upon its extension. (§ 65858, subds. (c), (h).) Such ordinances may not be extended beyond the initial 45 days except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence in the record, of a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety,” which is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” existing at the time that the urgency ordinance is adopted. (§ 65858, subd. (c)(1)). The findings must further demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative that would mitigate or avoid the adverse impact “as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect,” than the urgency ordinance. (§ 65858, subd. (c)(3).) In addition, a city must “issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance” at least ten days before its extension. (§ 65858, subd. (d).) This provision applying to urgency ordinances that would deny multifamily housing development would likely apply to interim ordinances responding to SB 9 and AB 2011. SB 9’s provisions allowing for duplexes would entail multifamily development and AB 2011 is specifically directed to multifamily housing. Local jurisdictions must make these findings with enough specificity to support an adverse impact. In Hoffman Street, LLC. v. City of West Hollywood¸ developer petitioners sought a writ of mandate against West Hollywood for enacting an urgency ordinance that barred petitioners from developing a condominium project. (Hoffman Street, LLC. v. City of West Hollywood (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 754.) West Hollywood’s urgency ordinance, which limited permitting in certain zones to increase density and affordability, was based on the claim that “‘the significant unmet need for smaller affordable housing units [is] posing a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare.’” (Id. at pp. 760–761.) The Court noted that the requirements for urgency ordinances limiting multifamily development under subsection (c)(1) of section 65858 are “more extensive and more specific than the findings required upon the adoption or extension of any interim ordinance.” (Id. at p. 771.) The Court held that West All Cities and Counties in California July 17, 2023 Page Hollywood’s findings “failed to identify ‘a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.” (Id. at p. 772, emphasis added.) West Hollywood’s findings also “failed to identify any ‘written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions’ on which such an impact would be based.” (Ibid., citing § 65858, subd. (c)(1).) Therefore, the findings supporting an urgency ordinance extension that affects multifamily housing must be specifically targeted to the issues arising on particular parcels that create the adverse public health and safety impact. B. Recently Enacted State Housing Laws Limiting Local Discretion Urgency ordinances provide a procedural tool to respond to current and immediate public health and safety threats, but they do not provide an avenue to avoid the substantive application of relevant state law. The passage of laws like SB 9 and AB 2011 does not, in and of itself, pose a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Accordingly, the enactment of such a law generally cannot — standing alone — support an urgency ordinance. As described below, California’s housing laws generally empower local jurisdictions to regulate or deny projects on a case-by-case basis based on specific health or safety grounds, without an urgency ordinance. For example, SB 9 expressly allows local agencies to deny permits upon written objective findings addressing public health and safety and AB 2011 allows jurisdictions to exempt some parcels from its requirements under specified conditions. Urgency ordinances are unsupportable when public health and safety concerns arising from a permit application can be addressed without an urgency ordinance. 1. SB 9 SB 9, which took effect on January 1, 2022, enacted Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. Together, these sections allow property owners to build duplexes on single-family lots and split single-family lots in two. Importantly, both sections expressly bar SB 9’s application to potentially dangerous areas such as very high fire hazard severity zones, special flood hazard areas, and earthquake fault zones. SB 9 incorporates these safety exemptions from SB 35, another housing law requiring ministerial approval of some housing applications that was passed in 2017. (§§ 65852.21(a)(2), 664117(a)(3)(C) [incorporating the requirements of § 65913.4, subds. (a)(6)(B)-(a)(6)(K)].) a. Section 65852.21 (Duplexes) Government Code section 65852.21 provides that proposed housing projects of two residential units located on a single-family residential zone will be reviewed ministerially, without discretionary review, if they meet specific criteria, such as being located within a city. (§ 65852.21.) Local jurisdictions may impose on such projects objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards, defined as standards devoid of “personal or subjective judgment by a public official” and that “are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (§ 65852.21, subd. (i)(2).) All Cities and Counties in California July 17, 2023 Page Local jurisdictions may deny housing project applications under SB 9 if they make a “written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact … upon public health and safety or the physical environment.” (§ 65852.21, subd. (d).) Central to this power to deny is the “specific, adverse impact,” which is defined by Government Code section 65589.5 as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed completed.” (§ 65589.5, subd. (d)(2), incorporated by reference in § 65852.21.) In light of the fact that section 65852.21 authorizes local jurisdictions to deny individual duplex applications based on findings that the project would have an adverse impact on health and safety or the environment, an urgency ordinance seeking to restrict all such projects across the board cannot be justified. b. Section 66411.7 (Lot Splits) Government Code section 66411.7 requires local jurisdictions to ministerially review requests to split urban single-family lots into two approximately equal parcels, if those lots meet specific requirements. (§ 66411.7.) Lots created in this manner shall be exclusively for residential purposes. (§ 66411.7, subd. (f).) Local jurisdictions may impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards on such projects unless such standards “physically preclude[e] the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.” (§ 66411.7, subd. (c)(1)(2).) As with duplexes, local jurisdictions may deny requests to split lots when the relevant official makes written objective findings that the lot split would have a specific and adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment. (§ 66411.7, subd. (d).) Thus section 66411.7, like section 65589.21, offers local jurisdictions a case-by-case instrument for preserving their public health, safety, and physical environment and there can be no justification for an urgency ordinance with a broad exemption. 2. AB 2011 AB 2011 requires ministerial review for affordable housing projects located in commercial zones. Specifically, it provides ministerial approval for two types of projects: (1) projects that provide entirely (100%) affordable multifamily housing and are in an urban infill area that is zoned commercial (§ 65912.114), and (2) projects that provide mixed-income housing, with a certain percentage of affordability, and are located along commercial corridors in urban infill areas (§ 65912.124). Like SB 9, AB 2011 is not applicable in potentially dangerous areas such as very high fire hazard severity zones, special flood hazard areas, and earthquake fault zones. (§§ 65912.111, subd. (e), 65912.121, subd. (g).) Like SB 9, these sections accomplish this by incorporating the requirements of section 65913.4, subdivisions (a)(6)(B) through (a)(6)(K). In addition, AB 2011 provides specific requirements to assess and mitigate environmental hazards. (§§ 65912.113, All Cities and Counties in California July 17, 2023 Page subd. (c), 65912.123, subd. (f).) Also, a local jurisdiction may exempt parcels from AB 2011 if it makes available other replacement parcels for development, at specified densities and subject to other provisions of AB 2011, and makes findings that the replacement results in no net loss of total zoned capacity or zoned capacity for affordable units and affirmatively furthers fair housing. (§§ 65912.114, subd. (i), 65912.124, subd. (i).) AB 2011 delayed operation of its provisions for nine months, which provided local jurisdictions ample opportunity to utilize this exemption before applying AB 2011 to project applications. All these provisions allow jurisdictions to protect public health, safety, and physical environment, provided that they contribute to increasing California’s housing supply and affirmatively further fair housing. A generalized urgency ordinance in response to AB 2011 is unnecessary. C. Conclusion Where state housing laws expressly authorize local governments to deny specific proposed projects based on health and safety concerns, as SB 9 does, or exempt specific properties from its ambit, as AB 2011 does, it is unclear how the high bar for an urgency ordinance can be satisfied. The mere fact that a state law provides for a ministerial — as opposed to discretionary — review process does not, standing alone, establish the type of immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare required to justify an urgency ordinance. Further, an interim urgency ordinance is a procedural tool to expeditiously adopt local regulations pending a city’s contemplated plan adoption or zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance must comply with the substantive requirements of state housing laws and cannot be used in an attempt to circumvent substantive legal requirements. Local jurisdictions are urged to review any existing urgency ordinances for compliance with the requirements of section 65858, and repeal urgency ordinances that do not comply with these standards. Where needed, jurisdictions are encouraged to use their existing authority under state housing laws to review individual projects on health and safety grounds, rather than enacting overly broad and legally unjustifiable urgency ordinances. If implementation of a ministerial housing approval statute poses an immediate, current, and substantiated public health and safety threat, local legislative bodies must make the requisite written findings to justify an urgency ordinance. Given that such an ordinance likely would impact multifamily housing, findings supporting an extension must also satisfy the heightened standards applicable under Section 65858(c)(1)-(3) of establishing “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” Developers, property owners, and permit applicants are advised that jurisdictions with insufficiently supported urgency ordinances are vulnerable to legal challenge under existing case law. Sincerely, ROB BONTA Attorney General From:John Seltzer To:Robert Marinaro; Marguerite Poyatos Cc:Nancy Ellickson; Bill McLane; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 2:38:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Having attended a City Council meeting a number of months ago, when the RV issue was on the docket to be discussed, some City Council member mentioned the cost of putting up signage related to the proposed no parking-street sweeping. In my allocated 2 minutes of addressing the City Council, I brought up the fact that the EXISTING SIGNAGE pertaining to a 72 hour parking limit was not being enforced. The City went ahead and spent big buck putting up the street sweeping signage. I also commented that the City rents space to the Audi dealership to store cars at the Palo Alto Airport, when that space could be utilized for additional off-street RV parking. Being a small business owner here in Palo Alto for over 40 years, unlike the City of Palo Alto, I don't have the luxury of inefficiency. On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 08:09:40 AM PDT, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e- mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From:Robert Marinaro To:Marguerite Poyatos Cc:Lester Wong; Nancy Ellickson; Bill McLane; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; Cally Mei; Diana Ma; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:12:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Marguerite and Lester, Thank you very much for your feedback. This is most helpful. The more information we share the better. Regards, Bob Marinaro On Jun 11, 2026, at 12:05 PM, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Thank you, City of PA. Appreciate it! Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com On Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 11:05 AM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: They are towing today. Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978 – 2026 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2026 08:09:26 To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>; George Lu <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>; Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>; Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>; Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>; Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>; John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>; Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>; Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>; Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>; Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>; David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>; Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>; Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>; T Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>; Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>; Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>; Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>; K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>; Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>; Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>; Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>; woodgood@pacbell.net <woodgood@pacbell.net>; Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>; Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>; Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>; Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>; Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>; Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>; Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>; Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>; Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>; Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>; Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>; Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>; Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>; Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com>; Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>; Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>; Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; Douglas Moran <dbmoran@gmail.com>; Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>; Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>; Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>; Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>; Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>; Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>; Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; Cassandra Paige <Acacia@dividendhomes.com>; Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>; Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>; Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>; Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <gu_zt@yahoo.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>; Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>; Taryn Sanford <tsanford@polaresmedical.com>; Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>; Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>; Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@sofia.edu>; Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>; Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>; Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>; Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>; Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>; Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>; Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>; Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>; Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>; Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>; Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>; Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>; Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>; Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>; Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>; Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>; Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>; Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>; Charleston Village HOA <scottepetersen@gmail.com>; Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>; fred@bockmann.com <fred@bockmann.com>; geoff.wong@usa.net <geoff.wong@usa.net>; Jsydow@comcast.net <Jsydow@comcast.net>; Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com June 2026 View this email in your browser. In this Issue Coming Up: mark your calendar! Message from our President Advocacy Report LWVPA Updates & Events Board Meeting Highlights Volunteer Opportunities Where to Find June 2 Results Take Action! Events & Activities ICYMI: Video Archive Links From:LWV Palo Alto VOTER To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA June VOTER: defending democracy summer is just getting started! Join us! Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:04:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Coming up! J U N E - No Board Meeting 25-28: LWVUS National Convention - Columbus, OH J U L Y - No Board Meeting 17-18-19: Good Trouble 2! A U G U S T - No Board Meeting 8: LWVUS - Unite & Rise 8.5 17: LWV Night at the Valkyries Game! 25: Board Retreat & Meeting S E P T E M B E R - TBD: LWV Candidate & Issue Forums N O V E M B E R 3: ELECTION DAY Message from our President More than 30 members attended the LWV Palo Alto’s AnnualMeeting on May 31 at the Lucie Stern Center Community Room. Members elected four director candidates to the board, including President and 2nd Vice President. The new board appointed 6 director candidates for one-year terms. All the 2025-2026 board agreed to stay on for 2026-2027 and two new board appointees were added, increasing our board membership from 13 to 15! The new board is shown below with term ending dates. “E” or “A” indicates the person was elected or appointed at the Annual Meeting. Elected Directors Lisa Ratner, President/Advocacy (2026-2027) E Liz Kniss, 1st Vice President (2025-2027) Hannah Lu, 2nd Vice President/Vote Services E Julie Cardillo, Secretary (2025-2027) Sunny Dykwel, Membership (2025-2027) Nancy Bell, Roster Manager (2026-2028) E Mary Nemerov, Fundraising Chair (2026-2028) E Directors Appointed for 1-year terms: Nancy Shepherd, Parliamentarian (2026-2027) A Laura Bajuk, Communications (2026-2027) A Steve Levy, at large (2026-2027) A Erika Buck, at large (2026-2028) A Micheline Horstmeyer, at large A Aline Yu, at large A The budget was approved. Members voted to adopt the LWV Program for 2026-2028 “Responding to a Constitutional Crisis: Democracy Under Siege” with six focus issues: Voting Rights, Election Protection, Individual Liberties, Immigration, and the Presidency. Members requested that they be updated on actions of LWV and our local league relating to protection of immigrants who reside in the United States. Members agreed local action on national issues relating to immigration and individual rights would be important. Members agreed to continue our local program focus issues of affordable housing for all, climate/natural resources, local campaign finance reform, and gun violence prevention. League members who recently passed on were honored: Virginia Debs and Mary Alice Thornton. Five of our board members will attend the LWV annual convention at the end of June. Delegates were directed to vote for proposals to: Update the LWV Immigration position to protect immigrants residing in the U.S. Update the LWV Privatization position to enable state and local leagues to resist the privatization of public goods including health care, and Adopt a new position on Religious Nationalism, which will enable Leagues to advocate the separation of church and state in such issues as funding of religious schools. Board and budget committee member Steve Levy reminded us that completing our League work in the coming election year will depend on successful fundraising, since membership dues do not cover our expenses. Generous donations last year meant we had money to fund our civic engagement programs of voter services and events that give residents the knowledge and confidence to engage and advocate in their communities. Our continued financial stability will depend on donations from members and the public to support our League’s education and advocacy work through election cycles. Look for a fund- raising request from us this month and please - give generously. - Lisa Ratner, President Advocacy Report NATIONAL Press Releases | League of Women Voters A federal court in New Hampshire struck down the state’s anti-voter law enacted in 2024, declaring it unconstitutional. Plaintiffs included LWV Alabama and LWV and a coalition of civil rights organizations. HB 1569 created some of the strictest registration requirements in the nation and, among other things, required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. The court ruled that citizenship could be verified by allowing eligible voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. Removing that method was unconstitutional. Read the decision here. The US Supreme Court, in a shadow docket decision, allowed Alabama to use a congressional map the Court had declared in 2023 an illegal racial gerrymander for the state’s 2026 election cycle in a ruling less than six months prior to the General Election. LWVUS and LWV Alabama criticized the ruling as weakening democracy, bringing unnecessary chaos close to the election: “Our democracy is weakened when voters lose confidence that elections will be conducted fairly, transparently, and competently.” The Leagues called on Alabama to ensure every voter receives direct notification of their new districts, election dates, and instructions for verifying registration claims and polling locations. STATE LWVC cheered passage in the state senate of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 (CVRA of 2026). Sponsored by the California Democracy Partnership (LWVC is a member) the CVRA updates the 2002 California Voting Rights Act to add new protections against voter discrimination and bolster our democracy under threat from federal attacks. Explainer: California Voting Rights Act of 2026 STAY INFORMED! Follow LWV press releases. LWVPA Updates & Events LWV Palo Alto Annual Meeting - Sunday, May 31, 2026 Highlights of Matt Moreles' Speech Matt started working at the ROV in 2024, in the wake of Bush v. Gore, facing technical challenges with paperless touchscreen voting, a contentious presidential election and contemplated sweeping changes to the election processes. Similar challenges exist today. It feels very different, but we must acknowledge and deal with challenges to staff and volunteer safety, such as suspicious parcel training. We need to proactively combat mis- and disinformation. We are proud of what we’ve done in this county. Our staff is dedicated, our drop boxes are secure, we check the seals every day and employ chain of custody controls. Between elections we check our voter records, ensure each piece of technology is inspected and tested, and reset for the current election. The voting tabulation system is in a separate, air-gapped private network, not connected to the Our electronic pollbook system needs to be internet connected to ensure folks do not vote in more than one location. Santa Clara County has an office dedicated to cybersecurity. They do threat monitoring and we share information with other election offices in other states about the threats they are seeing, such as suspicious IP addresses. We work with the U.S. Postal Service, and really promote our drop boxes - the usage rate is skyrocketing. Typically 90% of people vote by mail, but now at least half are coming in through drop boxes. People like the service. We follow strict chain of custody rules. We have 110 drop boxes throughout the county. Santa Clara County has a long tradition of county supervisors and administrators extremely dedicated to voting resources. Our county has resources that not all counties in the state have. Some counties have trouble with drop boxes because of the perception that they are politicized. More resources at the state level would help level the playing field among counties. We moved to the Vote Center model in 2020. It provides more hours and more services than the precinct center model, offering more languages and accessibility services, such as curbside voting for disabled voters. It's positively impacting voter turnout. Overall, voter turnout and in-person voting is higher in Vote Center counties for the demographic below age 55 - the Vote Center model is something young voters respond well to. Voting at a Vote Center is a social event for college-age voters, so we are adding capacity to reduce the length of lines rather than open another Vote Center. We are not recruiting for election observers but do encourage observers. We work closely with other agencies for strategic contingency planning, but citizen observers are not part of that at this point. We start counting ballots when we receive them but cannot announce the results until the polls close. We do a manual audit of the results and have 30 days to complete that audit. We have two groups to address helping non-English speaking voters: the Language Access Advisory Committee and the Voter Education and Outreach Coalition. We are developing an app for young people to use to register to vote. Matt is not aware of any real danger that the post office will not deliver mail ballots this year. There is a proposed rule, and the comment period has not passed. The proposed rule would deal with providing voter lists to check against our voter list. LWVPA Board Meeting Highlights At its May meeting, the board approved Motions to: Ratify April 30 letter to the city council regarding affordable housing. The letter urges the council to follow the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) recommendations for development around the downtown transit station (the “Gateway”), which presents a unique opportunity to comply with SB 79’s goal of locating affordable housing near existing transit stations. Endorse, and direct our delegates to the national convention to vote for, the National Popular Vote Resolution. The board also discussed: Voter Services activity, including tabling at community events, outreach to high school youth to facilitate pre-registration for 16-17-year olds, and pre-planning for candidate forums in early fall for PAUSD school board and city council races. Potential league involvement in upcoming Good Trouble Lives On events in July, including possibilities for collaborating with local advocacy and faith-based groups to build on last year’s celebration of the Voting Rights Act and address current attacks on the VRA. Anticipate new board member for 2026-2028 to work on membership team with members, recruit new members, and maintain our membership roster. The board will next meet on August 25. We will have a board retreat preceding the meeting. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. –Julie Cardillo, Secretary Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! New Volunteer Opportunities! Our League is gearing up for the November midterms. You can make a difference by volunteering to assist with the candidate forums, by volunteering to join the Pro/Con team which will address the many November ballot propositions or our Advocacy Team which will communicate the League’s position on ballot measures through community outreach events. Our national league is sponsoring the August 8 Day of Action and is a partner in the July 17-19 Good Trouble 2 weekend. We are also looking for volunteers to help organize 1) “Good Trouble Lives On” July 17-19 honoring John Lewis and the Voting Rights Act, and 2) an August 8 Day of Action responding to threats to our democracy. Some ideas include voter registration events, teaching about the dangers of a state voter ID initiative on the November ballot, the history of civil and voting rights in small group discussions in people’s living movies about our rights (“Selma” or “Thirteen”), a community celebration or a candlelight vigil. Recordings of trainings can be found on mobilize.org under Good Trouble Live On. Please let us know if you are interested in participating in any of these actions by sending an email: contact@lwvpaloalto.org. Want to put your technical and/or design skills to work to support the League? We would love volunteers to help update our website and help with our online fundraising appeal! Contact Mary Nemerov at mabunem@gmail.com. Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. What Happened in the June 2 Election? PRIMARY ELECTION FOLLOW-UP Did they get my ballot? Track it at BallotTrax Who's ahead? View Election Results | RoV | Co. of Santa Clara What is taking so long? KPIX - Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters explains why it takes so long to count ballots Take Action! Use Your Voice. Contact your Members of Congress; reach their offices by phone or email at: SEN. ALEX PADILLA | SEN. ADAM SCHIFF | REP. SAM LICCARDO (16th District) | Find your CA state representative ACLU Protesters’ Rights (for attending a protest, rally, or other demonstration. Know your rights: Protest Safety Guidance Use this ACLU form to call for an end to the ICE operation in our cities, oppose further funding, and a transparent investigation. Events & Activities NEW VIDEO: LWV San Jose/Santa Clara Big Money in Politics Undermines Democracy May 21, 2026 ​ ​What can be done? One solution could be Seattle’s successful Democracy Voucher program, a public campaign financing model. ​ In 2015, Seattle voters supported an initiative to launch a Democracy Voucher program, a first-of-its- kind small donor campaign financing system that gives every eligible Seattle resident four $25 vouchers to contribute to the local candidates of their choice. Our speaker was Spencer Olson, former Communications Leader for Seattle’s Honest Elections Seattle campaign. He described why the Democracy Voucher program initiative was developed by the community and what it has accomplished since its inception. He also shared lessons learned for other cities considering a similar program. The 2026 National Convention will take place June 25 through June 28 in Columbus, OH. Find information here. LWVC FUNDRAISER: LWV NIGHT AT CHASE CENTER: VALKYRIES vs WINGS Monday, August 17, 2026 at 7:00pm | Chase Center, San Francisco Your $100 ticket includes a $50 tax-deductible donation to the LWV California, preferred seating with fellow League members, opportunity to go courtside, and League messaging on the scoreboard and Jumbotron. Optional: 5pm happy hour at Splash Sports Bar (next to Chase Center). Details & ticket link ICYMI: Video Archive of Past Events 2.24.26: Immigration, Congress and Common Sense - Can Everyday Americans Move Action Forward in These Times 10.4.25: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2.25: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9.25: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Jensen, Christopher To:Mark Shull Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:RE: Was Action Item re: Bike Free Nor Cal. properly agendized? Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:16:31 PM Attachments:image001.png Dear Mr. Shull: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The agenda description for the item in question included: “Public Space Design Concept for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue.” This description meets the Brown Act’s requirement for a “brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed.” (Gov. Code section 54954.2(a)(1)(A).) The proposed mixed-use path that the Council discussed is a component of the Public Space Design Concept, as discussed in the staff report and shown in Attachment D. We appreciate your concerns regarding outreach to cyclists. City staff will continue to work with cyclists on cycling access issues around Palo Alto, including areas in and around California Avenue. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney Office of the City Attorney (650) 329-2171 Christopher.Jensen@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From: Mark Shull <shull.mark@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:51 PM To: cityattorney@paloalto.gov; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Jensen, Christopher <Christopher.Jensen@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Was Action Item re: Bike Free Nor Cal. properly agendized? &nbsp; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I do not think the action item passed 6-1 on to "direct staff to provide a bike free design" was properly noticed, given it represents a major issue, and is a reversal of this and previous Council decisions. The entiretyof the notice was: "Outdoor Activation Standards, Pre-Approved Pa i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR I do not think the action item passed 6-1 on to "direct staff to provide a bike free design" was properly noticed, given it represents a major issue, and is a reversal of this and previous Council decisions. The entirety of the notice was: "Outdoor Activation Standards, Pre-Approved Parklet Plans and Public Space Design Concept for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue; and FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Sign Code to Streamline Permitting of Signs in Conjunction with a Parklet; CEQA Status - Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section" I receive the City's automated Council Agendas, monitor them, and look for meetings related to biking in particular. This agenda notice made no mention of biking, yet council members made it clear in their first comments that bike lanes were a key issue they planned to discuss. i was not alone. No one from the Palo Alto active biking community attended the meeting, and it is clear on the online bike forum that members did not know it was about bikes. According to the California Attorney General's Brown Act guide, "the purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting." The notice above did not meet this test, as evidenced by zero attendance from the biking community. And while notices are necessarily short, this one could have easily added "and bike lanes." For these reasons I do not believe the Agenda provided sufficinet or fair notice, and the action item vote on Item #5 "to direct staff to provide a bike free design" is likely not valid. Please let me know if this objection is in the correct form or needs to be resubmitted. Also, if it is, please let me know your decision, and the reasons for it. Thaks, Powered by Mimecast Mark Shull 2020 Tasso Street Palo Alto 301-466-9836 From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Lester Wong Cc:Robert Marinaro; Nancy Ellickson; Bill McLane; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; Cally Mei; Diana Ma; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:05:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, City of PA. Appreciate it! Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com On Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 11:05 AM Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com> wrote: They are towing today. Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978 – 2026 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2026 08:09:26 To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>; George Lu <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>; Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>; Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>; Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>; Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>; John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>; Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>; Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>; Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>; Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>; David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>; Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>; Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>; T Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>; Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>; Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>; Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>; K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>; Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>; Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>; Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>; woodgood@pacbell.net <woodgood@pacbell.net>; Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>; Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>; Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>; Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>; Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>; Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>; Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>; Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>; Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>; Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>; Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>; Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>; Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>; Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com>; Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>; Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>; Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; Douglas Moran <dbmoran@gmail.com>; Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>; Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>; Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>; Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>; Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>; Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>; Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; Cassandra Paige <Acacia@dividendhomes.com>; Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>; Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>; Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>; Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <gu_zt@yahoo.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>; Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>; Taryn Sanford <tsanford@polaresmedical.com>; Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>; Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>; Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@sofia.edu>; Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>; Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>; Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>; Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>; Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>; Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>; Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>; Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>; Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>; Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>; Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>; Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>; Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>; Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>; Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>; Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>; Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>; Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>; Charleston Village HOA <scottepetersen@gmail.com>; Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>; fred@bockmann.com <fred@bockmann.com>; geoff.wong@usa.net <geoff.wong@usa.net>; Jsydow@comcast.net <Jsydow@comcast.net>; Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year— some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:Lester Wong To:Marguerite Poyatos; Robert Marinaro Cc:Nancy Ellickson; Bill McLane; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; Cally Mei; Diana Ma; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Lester Wong Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 11:05:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i They are towing today. Lester Wong | Vice President O: 650.813.9999 ext. 22 | C: 650.720.8455 4067 Transport Street | Palo Alto | CA 94303 Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978 – 2026 A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2026 08:09:26 To: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>; George Lu <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>; Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>; Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>; Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>; Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>; John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>; Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>; Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>; Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>; Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>; David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>; Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>; Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>; T Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>; Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or- builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>; Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>; Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>; K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>; Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>; Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>; Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>; woodgood@pacbell.net <woodgood@pacbell.net>; Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>; Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>; Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>; Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>; Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>; Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>; Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>; Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>; Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>; Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>; Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>; Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>; Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>; Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com>; Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>; Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>; Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; Douglas Moran <dbmoran@gmail.com>; Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>; Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>; Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>; Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>; Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>; Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>; Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; Cassandra Paige <Acacia@dividendhomes.com>; Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>; Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>; Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>; Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <gu_zt@yahoo.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>; Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>; Taryn Sanford <tsanford@polaresmedical.com>; Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>; Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>; Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@sofia.edu>; Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>; Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>; Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>; Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>; Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>; Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>; Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>; Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>; Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>; Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>; Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>; Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>; Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>; Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>; Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>; Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>; Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>; Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>; Charleston Village HOA <scottepetersen@gmail.com>; Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>; fred@bockmann.com <fred@bockmann.com>; geoff.wong@usa.net <geoff.wong@usa.net>; Jsydow@comcast.net <Jsydow@comcast.net>; Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com> Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob's OSV Count (5/22/26) Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year— some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:Henry Childs To:Council, City Subject:Urgent Demand for RV Enforcement & Permanent Bans on East Meadow Drive Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 9:55:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I want to start off by saying I am a voter. And banning “vanlording” is one of my top issues. I am writing to file an official grievance regarding the severe and growing proliferation of oversized recreational vehicles (RVs) and unregulated street dwelling in my community. As a resident who rents a condo on East Meadow Drive, I am witnessing firsthand a dramatic decline in neighborhood safety, cleanliness, and property value. The situation on East Meadow is a significant safety concern. These oversized vehicles are now routinely parking adjacent to our neighborhood city parks, areas specifically designed and heavily utilized by local children. This creates immediate blind spots for traffic and fundamentally compromises a space meant for youth recreation. Furthermore, this unregulated encampment is actively degrading local property values and quality of life. Neighbors are faced with the continuous threat of trash accumulation, potential fire hazards, and the compounding anxiety of unmonitored street dwelling right outside our doors. While I am aware that the Council recently took legislative steps to ban detached trailers and outlaw the exploitative practice of "vanlording," passing these ordinances means nothing without swift, aggressive enforcement. The current reality on East Meadow proves that the 72- hour parking limit is not being meaningfully enforced, allowing these vehicles to remain stationary fixtures of our residential streets. I see the Van Lords just rotate the vehicles out and then drive them back in to “abide by the law”. It is a joke. It is not working! As a taxpayer and resident of Palo Alto, I urge the City Council to take the following actions: 1. Direct Immediate, Target Enforcement: Task Community Service Officers and the Palo Alto Police Department to actively enforce the 72-hour limit, issue citations, and tow non-compliant oversized vehicles on East Meadow Drive and around our public parks. 2. Implement Permanent Bans: Accelerate the implementation of citywide overnight parking bans for oversized vehicles on residential streets to permanently protect our neighborhoods. 3. Investigate Violations: Actively investigate the vehicles on East Meadow for unlawful "vanlording" operations and health hazards, ensuring the maximum $500 fine is levied This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report against violators. Our neighborhoods and parks should be safe, clean environments for residents and children. I look forward to your prompt response detailing how the City plans to restore order and safety to East Meadow Drive. From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Nancy Ellickson; Bill McLane; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26) Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 8:09:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi all, As I expected, the same RV has not moved for a third week, despite it being a street sweeping day. That means the RV hasn't moved in at least six weeks. It will be interesting to see if this repeated violation is enforced today. I was also correct in my assumption that other RVs will see there is no enforcement and will follow suit. Last week, another huge RV failed to adhere to the street sweeping rules and nothing happened. It seems like enforcement was only implemented for the first few weeks of the street sweeping. I know plenty of employees on these streets have had their cars towed, but now it seems like RVs are again getting a free pass. After my last email, I received a response from Eric Bulatao directly that in part stated: "The decision not to tow the vehicle was based on the circumstances encountered by officers on scene. At the time, there was an occupant inside the RV who refused to exit voluntarily. Officers attempted to gain compliance through communication and de-escalation efforts; however, the individual remained inside the vehicle. After evaluating the situation, the officers and I agreed that towing the vehicle would have required a significant escalation, including the potential use of force to remove the occupant from the RV. When officers make decisions that potentially involve the use of force on an individual, one of the primary considerations is the severity of the violation involved. In this case, the underlying offense was a parking violation. Given the low-level nature of the offense, we did not believe it was reasonable or justified to forcibly enter the vehicle and remove the occupant solely to facilitate a tow for street sweeping purposes." So to my understanding, if the RV owner refuses to exit their vehicle or move the oversized vehicle, nothing will be done. This is highly disappointing, considering the hoops the businesses on these streets jump through to ensure they follow the rules. Hopefully something is done today or else I see this following the pattern we have seen before: inaction from the City of Palo Alto, as well as a lack of support for the businesses that pay property tax. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: All I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total. Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain! Bob Marinaro Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26) On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile) from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year— some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce. Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area on Geng Rd. I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly. Best, Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Adding to this. I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all. Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area. The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window. While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach. Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's inability to act. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing. The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation. The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences. As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand! And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us! So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it! Regards, Bob Marinaro Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside! Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.) Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say! Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs? Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood! Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks! Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood! Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal! -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:Pat Markevitch To:Council, City Subject:Item 13 - Palo Alto UWMP Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:59:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council Members: Please accept and incorporate into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC. Having reviewed this material, we are convinced the information from SFPUC is wrong and will trigger unnecessary and huge rate hikes to all customers of SFPUC. Thank you. Pat Markevitch Downtown North From:Art Liberman To:Council, City Subject:The BPTP lacks Wayfaring Signs on Bicycle Boulevards Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 7:51:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am an avid cyclist and a member of PABAC. However, I write this note only for myself. The vote of PABAC to support the BPTP update was not unanimous. I abstained because the plan was missing an important element, ‘Wayfinding’ signs identifying Bicycle Boulevards. In the absence of a Wayfinding signage on Bicycle Boulevards, I could not in good conscience give my support to the 2026 BPTP Update. The 2026 BPTP plan is structured around low stress neighborhood streets and specifically around Bicycle Boulevards. The reason is to enhance the safety of cyclists and increase the number of cyclists. I strongly support this approach. However, the current 2026 BPTP update does not include a plan for creating and placing ‘Wayfinding’ signs along Bicycle Boulevards to identify them. The summary for a recommended plan for Wayfinding, CE-1.9 [on page 102 of the 2026 BPTP] does not mention placing Wayfinding signs on Bicycle Boulevards. The plan states the importance of Wayfinding signage multiple times. The following makes this very clear: “A bicycle boulevard is recognizable based on the Wayfinding traffic calming treatments such as detached sidewalks and curb extensions.” [ BPTP Plan, page: 48 ] Seeing “Wayfinding” signage is how a cyclist and motorists, would know whether a street where cyclists are riding is a bicycle boulevard. This is important for the safety of the cyclists. Many more cyclists and motorists would know if they are on a bicycle boulevard if they saw a Wayfinding sign with that information, rather than by accessing a 130-page pdf document. The need for Wayfinding sign has been mentioned numerous times by members of PABAC. Another member of PABAC said that "if Wayfinding signage is listed as a separate program in the BPTP, it will not get done or not get done properly." The new BPTP provides us with an opportunity to create Palo Alto Wayfinding signs and place them on bicycle boulevards NOW rather than “developing a Wayfinding signage program.” Wayfinding is mentioned each time Transportation officials asked the community for feedback at workshops and focus groups. The following is from the BPTP plan: 1. Under Phase 1: [BPTP, page 38] Visioning Community Engagement. The plan states under ' Key Themes from Phase 1': “Emphasis on high -quality design, including comfort, aesthetics, Wayfinding and shade.” 2. Under Phase 2: [BPTP, page 39] 'Needs and Concerns Community Engagement.' The plan states under Key Themes from Phase 2: “Enhance sidewalk continuity, Wayfinding and placemaking” 3. Under Phase 3: [BPTP, page 40] 'Recommended Projects & Programs.' The plan states, under Key Themes from Phase 3, that followed the workshop at the Mitchell Park Community Center: “Support was strong for safety improvements, pedestrian features, bike boulevards, quick-builds, and Wayfinding" I asked Ozzy Arce, the Office of Transportation official who has worked most closely with Kittelson consultants in creating the 2026 BPTP Update, about the Wayfinding signage. In response, he said that Wayfinding would be a separate program. This means that it would: a) need to be proposed and approved, b) be assigned its own engineering manpower, and c) would require more community outreach, more studies, more meetings, and more fundng. If you adopt the 2026 BPTP, please require Transportation to place Wayfinding signs on Bicycle Boulevards. I thank the Council members for their service to the citizens of Palo Alto. Arthur Liberman From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Dave Stellman; Josiah Josiah; Roland Reese; Rosalie Cook; Franco Campilongo; Maico Campilongo Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis: Focus on Three Condominium Complexes - - Bob"s OSV Count (6/9/26) Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 5:04:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bob, thank you for all your hard work doing these well-documented compilations. "We are really getting tired of inaction, of kicking the can down the road. We are tired of all these smiley face PR photos in the media, while the difficult issues of the day persist." Re the inaction, have you gotten any feedback from anyone, especially those on the Oversized Vehicles Impacts and Services Ad Hoc Committee Councilmember Ed Lauing (Chair) Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Thanks. On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 4:28 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Please find attached my most recent OSV Count (6/9/26) that, unfortunately, shows that the upward trend of OSVs on Palo Alto streets is continuing. Since reaching a low point of 131 OSV on 3/29/26 the numbers have been gradually creeping up and we are now at 143. Additionally, I am seeing new OSVs moving into the area most recently on Ross Rd. (in a quiet residential neighborhood) and on Fabian Way. As you can see from the photos below I have focussed this update on three condominium complexes that have been heavily impacted by these OSVs. All three of these complexes have brought their concerns to the City Council and the Council refuses to address the issue. We have been in a holding pattern since October 2025 on this issue and nothing has been public on the Council calendar. What are the next steps? What are you doing to remove these OSVs from our streets now? More are moving into our south Palo Alto Neighborhoods and they are becoming more brazen and have a sense of empowerment knowing the City is unwilling to take a hard line on them. And how about these many residents that live in these condominiums? What is your response to them? I’ve been told that residents have had to go out and knock on their door at 11:30 pm to turn off their generator because of the noise. Council - what do you tell these residents? And there have been many questions about the lack of enforcement. So the regulations say they have to move their vehicles at least 1/2 mile every 72 hours. How is this verified? Businesses have told me that there is no way many of these OSVs move their vehicles 1/2 mile. Maybe they move their vehicle to the other side of the street to comply with the every other side of the street street sweeping rules, but some of these OSVs have squatted on these same streets for multiple years. Do we have to expend our energy to document license plates along with time stamped photographs. The City should be doing this. And… the burden of proof should be with the OSV dwellers. Make them prove that they moved their vehicle to comply with lame ordinance. And… how are we preventing new OSVs from moving to Palo Alto? The short answer is that we are not! We are really getting tired of inaction, of kicking the can down the road. We are tired of all these smiley face PR photos in the media, while the difficult issues of the day persist. The time for action is NOW! Regards, Bob Marinaro East Meadow Circle - - Currently 39 OSVs on this street East Meadow Circle - - The Echelon Condominiums are behind the redwood tree East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums - - I can’t imagine looking out my window and seeing this! Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Imagine having this out your front door day in and day out! Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:Notice - Adopted LAFCO Budget and Work Plan for FY 2027 Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 5:01:01 PM Attachments:Notice - Adopted FY2027 LAFCO Budget with Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To: County Executive, City and Special District Managers, Other Officials/Staff and Stakeholders Please see attached memo regarding adopted LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Thank you, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Dave Stellman; Josiah Josiah; Roland Reese; Rosalie Cook; Franco Campilongo; Maico Campilongo Subject:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis: Focus on Three Condominium Complexes - - Bob"s OSV Count (6/9/26) Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:32:21 PM Attachments:RV Inventory_09Jun26.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Please find attached my most recent OSV Count (6/9/26) that, unfortunately, shows that the upward trend of OSVs on Palo Alto streets is continuing. Since reaching a low point of 131 OSV on 3/29/26 the numbers have been gradually creeping up and we are now at 143. Additionally, I am seeing new OSVs moving into the area most recently on Ross Rd. (in a quiet residential neighborhood) and on Fabian Way. As you can see from the photos below I have focussed this update on three condominium complexes that have been heavily impacted by these OSVs. All three of these complexes have brought their concerns to the City Council and the Council refuses to address the issue. We have been in a holding pattern since October 2025 on this issue and nothing has been done to remedy this chronic issue. And… we do not see any planned discussions with the public on the Council calendar. What are the next steps? What are you doing to remove these OSVs from our streets now? More are moving into our south Palo Alto Neighborhoods and they are becoming more brazen and have a sense of empowerment knowing the City is unwilling to take a hard line on them. And how about these many residents that live in these condominiums? What is your response to them? I’ve been told that residents have had to go out and knock on their door at 11:30 pm to turn off their generator because of the noise. Council - what do you tell these residents? And there have been many questions about the lack of enforcement. So the regulations say they have to move their vehicles at least 1/2 mile every 72 hours. How is this verified? Businesses have told me that there is no way many of these OSVs move their vehicles 1/2 mile. Maybe they move their vehicle to the other side of the street to comply with the every other side of the street street sweeping rules, but some of these OSVs have squatted on these same streets for multiple years. Do we have to expend our energy to document license plates along with time stamped photographs. The City should be doing this. And… the burden of proof should be with the OSV dwellers. Make them prove that they moved their vehicle to comply with lame ordinance. And… how are we preventing new OSVs from moving to Palo Alto? The short answer is that we are not! We are really getting tired of inaction, of kicking the can down the road. We are tired of all these smiley face PR photos in the media, while the difficult issues of the day persist. The time for action is NOW! Regards, Bob Marinaro East Meadow Circle - - Currently 39 OSVs on this street East Meadow Circle - - The Echelon Condominiums are behind the redwood tree Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs #########################12/3/2025 ################1/28/2026 ############################4/9/2026 #######5/8/2026 #######6/9/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 16 17 3 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19 1 1 200 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 20 21 22 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 29 1 0 0 0 1 20 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 Total:220 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 Palo Alto City Council: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: rmarinaro@mac.com, Cell: 650-269-5936 Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Ventura Area RV Inventory_09Jun26 6/15/2026 12:49 PM East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums East Meadow Circle - - Echelon Condominiums - - I can’t imagine looking out my window and seeing this! Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Fabian Way at the corner of E. Charleston: Charleston Village Condominiums - - Gateway to many South Palo Alto Neighbohoods Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Imagine having this out your front door day in and day out! Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave: Acacia Townhomes - - Where Bad Actor #1 has on the order of 6-7 of his approximately 12 vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood From:Da Ta To:Jensen, Crystal Cc:UTL-Customer Service; Guerra, Emily; Council, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; Park, Richard Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8 Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:29:08 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image007.png image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png image012.png image010.png image011.png image010.png image011.png This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization. i Thank you for stopping the 48-hour disconnection notice. However, this dispute still remains unresolved, and we still have not received answers to our questions in writing. If there is any problem with the questions, or if anything is unclear, please say so in writing. Leaving voicemail messages and asking for callbacks instead of answering our questions in writing is not acceptable. We have repeatedly asked for written answers and written documentation, and we expect CPAU to address the substance of this dispute in writing. Please provide a complete written response to the outstanding questions so this dispute can be properly reviewed and resolved. Regards, Darya Taheri Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2026, at 16:42, Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov> wrote:  Hi Darya, Our Credit and Collections Department added a dunning lock on your account until 6/30/26 to resolve this matter. I’m following up to the voicemail that I left you yesterday. Can you please call me back at your earliest convenience so that we can discuss your account. I can be reached at 650-329-2547. Thank you, Crystal Jensen Manager, Utilities Customer Service City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650.329.2547 M: 650.885.8350 E-mail: Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:14 AM This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; Guerra, Emily <Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov> Subject: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. This dispute is still not resolved. Today I received a 48-hour disconnection notice at my door demanding payment of $675.25 by 4:30 PM on 06/03/2026n (see attached screenshots). This directly conflicts with your written statement that my account has been placed on hold, that no additional late fees will be assessed, and that service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while this matter remains under review. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. The disputed back-billing amount remains under review. Please confirm in writing today that: 1. the 48-hour disconnection notice is rescinded and void, 2. the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved, 3. no disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity will occur based on the disputed back charges, and 4. the $675.25 amount on the notice is itemized, including what portion is current undisputed charges and what portion relates to the disputed back-billing amount. CPAU Rule 9 states that utility service will not be disconnected for non-payment of a disputed bill during investigation or review by CPAU, and that the non-disputed portion remains due and payable. That is exactly what we are doing. CPAU also previously stated in writing that this account was on hold during the escalation process. If this 48-hour notice was generated in error, please say so clearly in writing today and confirm that the account has been coded to prevent disconnection while the dispute remains under review. For the record, this dispute is not resolved, and we expect immediate written confirmation. Regards, Darya Taheri On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 09:18:30 AM PDT, Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Thank you for your email and partially answered questions. It still does not resolve this dispute. You missed to respond to a couple of our questions, so we will ask again. 1. You mentioned the backcharging defined in rules and regulation but you failed to answer why the amount you are back charging us exceeds the 500$ limit stated in the rules and regulations? Rules and regulation 11.1 “…Where a Customer has been undercharged or overcharged for metered Service, the date and cause of which can be reliably established by CPAU, the retroactive billing adjustment (back bill or refund shall not exceed three years. The maximum bill adjustment for undercharges shall be $500 per Account, per incident” 2. Why does your bill not comply with California law, PCU 394.4.(e)? On a side note, our legal counsel advised us that as long as your bill does not comply with California law, it is not enforceable and will not hold up in court. 3. Why were we never informed about the broken meter? We only found out when you put a “Misc debit $509.80” charge on the April 2026 bill and we had to contact support to find out what that means. On a side note, that is a very unfriendly practice towards your customers. Your rules and regulations also defines in 11.1 that the customer shall be notified of the reason of the over or undercharge with the date and cause! 4. Why did you give us contradicting information about the timeline when the meter was broken? We have one email that states it was broken before we moved in and another that says you only encountered the broken meter in February. Please confirm that to your best knowledge the meter was in working condition for the last tenant until they moved out and as unbelievable at it sounds must have broken just when we moved in! 5. Why did you charge us 18$ something a month for admin for nine months, when you clearly did not admin or maintain the meter or checking on the bill? If any of our questions are not clear or you do not understand them please let us know. Just ignoring to answer is not acceptable. For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response. Regards, Darya Taheri On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 04:58:00 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Darya, We apologize for the delay in responding to the questions outlined in your email. Below is a detailed response addressing each item. 1. Due to the adjustment period spanning approximately eight months and limitations within our billing system, we are unable to generate one corrected billing statement that reflects actual monthly meter reads. Any revised statement produced by the system would display estimated monthly reads and the associated therm usage only. In addition, our standard monthly statements do not include the rate change information requested. As a result, a corrected statement would not provide the level of detail you requested. 2. In place of a revised detailed billing statement, we prepared a spreadsheet outlining the monthly quantities and applicable rates used in our calculations. Our billing structure includes two usage tiers that apply across both winter and summer rate periods, and the spreadsheet identifies the allowance applicable to each tier. This document is attached for your review. 3. A service notification was created by me on February 18, 2026 (Service Notification #30446449). During the subsequent field investigation, our technician, Johnny Mulato, determined that the meter was not registering properly and was stuck. Based on this finding, the affected billing period was identified as May 2025 through February 2026. 4. As part of my role as a Billing Specialist, I review meter reads flagged by our billing system as exceptions. An exception occurs when a meter read falls outside the expected usage parameters established from the historical usage profile associated with the meter. Identical or unusually low reads over multiple billing periods may result from several factors, including periods of non-usage, seasonal consumption patterns, weather-related changes, or meter malfunction. In February 2026, the meter was replaced as part of the City’s transition to AMI meters, which allow for remote reading capability. During the replacement process, the technician conducted a meter test to confirm proper operation and determined that the existing meter was stuck. The Billing Office was then notified so that an estimate of unrecorded historical usage could be completed. With respect to your account specifically, because you are a newer tenant, we did not have sufficient usage history tied to your occupancy period to perform a customer-specific historical comparison. Consistent with our established procedures and governing regulations, the estimate was therefore calculated using available historical consumption data from 2024. While we recognize that gas usage can vary significantly depending on household occupancy, appliance configuration, and individual usage habits, the estimate was calculated in accordance with the guidelines currently in place. That said, we are willing to review your most recent 12-month usage history to determine whether any additional adjustment to the current charges may be appropriate. 5. Utility Rules and Regulations – Rule 11 provides the following: CPAU may bill the Customer for the undercharge based on an average bill. The bill will be computed based on an estimate of the Customer’s consumption during a prior month in the same season or on the consumption in the same period of the prior three years.” Please also refer to Attachment A: Rule and Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) Attachment A: Rule and Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) UPDATED and CLEAN Additionally, your account has been placed on hold during this escalation process. No additional late fees will be assessed, and service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while this matter remains under review. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Emily Guerra Customer Service Specialist Utilities Customer Service 650-329-2161 Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:32 AM To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL- Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Guerra, Emily <Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you for your email. It still does not resolve this dispute. Your responses to date have not been helpful because they continue to leave key questions unanswered. Referring us repeatedly to management by phone instead of providing written answers and documentation is not an adequate response. At this point, our concern is not simply about clarification. We are questioning the validity and enforceability of this charge. CPAU has still not provided a valid corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to our account, the rates applied, and how the total amount was calculated. “Misc debit $509.80” is not a sufficient corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute. Your latest email also introduces yet another explanation of the defect period. Earlier communications stated that 2024 historical usage was used and that the meter was considered stuck over a broader period, while your latest email now states that the meter was determined to have been stuck specifically from our move-in date of May 30, 2025 through February 19, 2026. CPAU still has not explained how that defect period was determined, why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation, or why we were never informed of the meter problem at the time. These shifting explanations do not resolve the dispute. And it would be an almost unbelievable coincident that the meter just broke when we moved in. CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. We paid those monthly service charges throughout our tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to us through retroactive estimated billing. CPAU has also failed to answer our written questions regarding the legal basis for this charge, including how the amount exceeds the $500 maximum undercharge adjustment stated in Rule 11. Stating that management has decided the back bill will stand is not a substitute for providing the bill, records, and legal basis we have repeatedly requested. We do wonder why the bill you sent us does not comply with PCU 394.4.(e) standards for consumer issued bills and why you do not follow your own “Rules and Regulations”, so please refer to the exact laws that make a charge “Misc debit $509.80”, without any possibility for us to recalculate the amount, a valid charge. We do not consider this dispute resolved. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill only. Any attempt to enforce collection of the disputed amount without first providing a valid corrected bill and the requested written documentation will be treated as an improper collection effort. Please provide, in writing: 1. A valid corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied 2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation 3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced 4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation 5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge Please also confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity. If CPAU continues to pursue collection without providing the requested written response and supporting documentation, we escalate this matter to the appropriate City officials and we will preserve all available legal remedies. For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response. Regards, Darya Taheri On Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 11:03:04 AM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hello Darya, I called and left a message and am following up with an email. During the process of upgrading our meters with AMI technology, we identified that some meters in the field were not recording usage properly. As part of this initiative, we worked with our gas shop to locate and physically inspect meters that showed signs of abnormal or no usage to determine whether they were stuck or malfunctioning. Through this review, we confirmed several meters were indeed stuck, which required us to address the associated back-billing accordingly. I do understand your concern regarding usage from 2024, which would not apply to your account, as you moved in on May 30, 2025. I reviewed this situation with my manager, Crystal Jensen, who advised that the current back bill would stand. However, after a full year of actual meter usage has been collected, we will be able to reassess the account and make any necessary adjustments at that time. For your specific account, the meter was determined to have been stuck from your move-in date May 30, 2025 through the date of inspection and meter exchange on February 19, 2026. I have also copied my manager and Specialist Emily, who processed the calculation, should you require any further assistance. Sincerely, Lorraina Alvarez Customer Service Specialist Lead Utilities Customer Service (650) 329-2161 | lorraina.alvarez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:47 AM To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL- Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Richard, Thank you for your response. It still does not resolve my dispute. Your latest message states that when the meter replacement was reported in February 2026, CPAU then reviewed the prior readings and found that the meter had been showing the same reading around the time my tenancy at this address began. However, CPAU still has not answered my key questions or provided a valid corrected bill. I am requesting a written response, not just a referral to management by phone. Please provide: 1. A legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied, and how the total amount of $509.80 was calculated 2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation 3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced 4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation 5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive estimated billing. At this time, “Misc debit $509.80” is not a valid corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute. This charge remains disputed. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. Please confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity while I await and review the requested documents. If CPAU cannot provide a valid corrected bill and the supporting records and legal basis for this charge, then the disputed back-billing amount should be withdrawn from the account. Regards, Darya taheri On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 11:18:33 AM PDT, Park, Richard <richard.park@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Darya, Thanks for your patience in this matter. When our meter reader reported that the gas meter needed to be replaced back in February 2026, that’s when it triggered us to review your past meter readings. We found that it was reporting the same meter reading (Read:130) around the time that your started utility services. Regarding your other inquiries and requests, you will need to speak with management for further assistance. Please give us a call at 650-326-2161 and ask for Crystal. An extension has been placed on your current invoice with a new due date of 5/31/26. Thank you, RICHARD PARK Customer Service Representative Customer Services Utilities (650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:44 AM To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Richard, Thank you for your response. It does not resolve my dispute. At this stage, I am requesting the records, calculations, and legal authority necessary to evaluate CPAU’s position, because your explanations to date remain incomplete and not fully reconciled. Your prior adjustment document states that the meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, that back-billing was made effective starting June 2025, and that 2024 historical usage was used to calculate the charge. Your latest response states that the issue was identified only in early 2026 and that the meter was replaced on February 25, 2026. Please explain how CPAU determined that the meter had been stuck since March 2025 if the issue was not identified until early 2026, and why repeated unchanged readings over many months did not trigger earlier investigation. Please also provide a legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied, and how the total amount was calculated. CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive estimated billing. In addition, please explain why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my tenancy, given that I was a new tenant and may have had different occupancy and usage patterns than any prior occupant. Please also explain how the total charge of $509.80 complies with Rule 11’s maximum undercharge adjustment of $500 per account per incident, including whether CPAU contends that the Utility Users Tax is outside that cap and the legal basis for that position. Please provide, in writing: 1. The legit corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied 2. The full worksheet or spreadsheet used to calculate the charge 3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced 4. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on 5. A detailed explanation of why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my tenancy This charge remains disputed. Pending receipt and review of the requested materials, please confirm that the disputed amount will remain on hold and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity. Best regards, Darya Sent from my iPhone On Apr 28, 2026, at 14:26, UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@paloalto.gov> wrote:  Dear Ms. Taheri, Thank you for your letter regarding the gas back-billing charge on your account. We appreciate you bringing your concerns to our attention and the opportunity to respond. Below are responses to the items you requested: 1. Records regarding identification and repair of the meter Our records indicate that the gas meter serving your residence was identified as not registering usage accurately during a routine review in early 2026. A field investigation was subsequently conducted, and the meter was repaired/replaced shortly thereafter. Please see service record below: 2. Notification and timing of billing correction We understand your concern regarding the timing of notification. In this case, the issue was not confirmed as a stuck or non-registering meter until the field investigation was completed. As a result, corrected billing was not issued until after the condition was verified and sufficient data was available to calculate usage. We acknowledge that earlier communication would have been preferable and are reviewing this matter internally. 3. Use of historical usage for billing calculation Because the meter was not accurately recording consumption during the affected period, it was necessary to estimate usage. This estimate was based on available historical consumption data for the service address, which may include prior periods, to approximate typical usage patterns in accordance with standard utility billing practices. 2024 historical consumption was used for the calculation as it was the lesser consumption of the prior three years. 4. Legal and regulatory basis for back-billing Utility billing adjustments of this nature are governed by applicable municipal code and utility regulations, which allow for the correction of under-billed accounts when metering inaccuracies are discovered. These provisions permit utilities to recover charges for unbilled service within a defined timeframe, even if the issue is identified after the fact. We can provide the specific code references upon request. Thank you, RICHARD PARK Customer Service Representative Customer Services Utilities (650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:35 AM To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Dehlinger, Michael <Michael.Dehlinger@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Richard, I am formally disputing the gas back-billing charge of $509.80 on my account 30131069. Your adjustment document states that the gas meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, and that back-billing was made effective starting June 2025. We moved in on May 31, 2025. If City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) knew, or had reason to know, that the meter was stuck in June 2025, then I should have been notified promptly, the meter should have been repaired promptly, and billing should have been corrected at that time. Instead, no clear notice or explanation was provided, and the charge was not imposed until April 2026. The right to back-bill does not justify delayed maintenance, delayed repair of a known stuck meter, or failure to communicate with the customer. CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter, and any failure to timely repair, notify, or bill correctly should not be shifted to me retroactively. I also dispute the use of 2024 historical usage as the basis for calculating my bill. My account should not be charged based on estimated usage from a prior period or prior occupant pattern rather than my actual metered consumption. Please provide in writing: 1. Records showing when CPAU first identified the stuck meter and when it was repaired or replaced 2. An explanation of why I was not notified promptly and billed correctly once the issue was known 3. An explanation of why 2024 historical usage was used to calculate charges for my account 4. The legal and regulatory basis for applying this back-billing despite delayed notice and delayed correction Until this dispute is resolved, please place the charge on hold and apply no late fees, penalties, or collection activity. Given the delayed notice, the apparent failure to timely address the stuck meter, and the use of prior historical usage rather than actual consumption, I request that this back-billing charge be removed from my account. Regards, Darya Taheri On Monday, April 13, 2026 at 03:15:30 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Darya, Thank you for your message. We’ve attached the details of the back billing adjustment made on your gas meter due to the register being stuck. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, RICHARD PARK Customer Service Representative Customer Services Utilities (650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 9:35 AM To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Utilities, I am disputing the additional debit/extra charges under misc charge (Debit) recently added to my utility bill for Account Number: 30131069 Due Date: April 8. I was told these charges relate to a broken gas meter, but I have not been given any clear written explanation or documentation showing how you calculated an amount of over $500. My interaction with customer support was also not helpful, and no proper information was provided. Please provide in writing: 1-A full breakdown of the amount charged 2-The exact billing period covered 3-The method used to calculate this amount 4-Evidence that the meter was faulty, including any inspection, repair, or replacement records 5-Copies of any prior notices or communications sent to me about this issue 6-The legal or contractual basis for charging this amount retrospectively. Until this is properly explained, I request that the disputed amount be placed on hold and that no late fees or collection action be taken. I am keeping a written record of this dispute and all related communications. Regards, Darya Taheri Email: darya.taheri@gmail.com Phone: 650-799-9657 Sent from my iPhone From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org Subject:Recap: Status of Federal and Regional/Local Actions Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:05:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, City Manager, and welcome to the City's new City Attorney, Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the City. The following is a recap of key federal, regional, and local actions that affect how air traffic changes — and the resulting noise — are managed, and that are directly impacting your constituents. Recap: Status of Federal and Regional/Local Actions Wishing all a great Summer, Sky Posse Palo Alto From:lisa kelly To:Council, City Subject:Opposing the bike path extension behind houses on Chimalus Dr Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 3:24:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Council Members, In the 35 years we’ve owned our house on Chimalus Drive, we have been strongly impacted by the culvert installation behind our house, and the Plating Factory behind our house. Now this proposal to extend the bike path into the green area behind our house seeks to further threaten our privacy, security, comfort, and home value. “Bike path” always sounds like something we all want to support, but this particular extension is unnecessary, and it will have a major effect on us. Please fulfill your pledge as city council members to protect us, our quality of life, and our finances. Sincerely, Lisa Kelly 632 Chimalus Dr ____________ Lisa Kelly (she/her) lisa@kellys.org This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report From:Mark Shull To:cityattorney@paloalto.gov; Shikada, Ed; Jensen, Christopher Cc:Council, City Subject:Was Action Item re: Bike Free Nor Cal. properly agendized? Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:51:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I do not think the action item passed 6-1 on to "direct staff to provide a bike free design" was properly noticed, given it represents a major issue, and is a reversal of this and previous Council decisions. The entirety of the notice was: "Outdoor Activation Standards, Pre-Approved Parklet Plans and Public Space Design Concept for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue; and FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Sign Code to Streamline Permitting of Signs in Conjunction with a Parklet; CEQA Status - Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section" I receive the City's automated Council Agendas, monitor them, and look for meetings related to biking in particular. This agenda notice made no mention of biking, yet council members made it clear in their first comments that bike lanes were a key issue they planned to discuss. i was not alone. No one from the Palo Alto active biking community attended the meeting, and it is clear on the online bike forum that members did not know it was about bikes. According to the California Attorney General's Brown Act guide, "the purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting." The notice above did not meet this test, as evidenced by zero attendance from the biking community. And while notices are necessarily short, this one could have easily added "and bike lanes." For these reasons I do not believe the Agenda provided sufficinet or fair notice, and the action item vote on Item #5 "to direct staff to provide a bike free design" is likely not valid. Please let me know if this objection is in the correct form or needs to be resubmitted. Also, if it is, please let me know your decision, and the reasons for it. Thaks, Mark Shull 2020 Tasso Street Palo Alto 301-466-9836 From:Ali Sapirman To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Re: Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79 Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 1:39:09 PM Attachments:Follow up_ Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79 Implementation in Palo Alto.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council, Please see the attached follow up letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's decision on how to implement SB 79. -- On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:53 AM Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> wrote: Reupping this letter for tonight's council meeting. On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:58 PM Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> wrote: Dear Mayor and City Council, Please see the attached letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's decision on how to implement SB 79. -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: – Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79 Implementation Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please accept this as a follow-up to our May 4, 2024 letter regarding SB 79 implementation in Palo Alto and a specific response to the Council's discussion at its June 1 meeting, where it ultimately voted up staff-proposed SB 79 suspension ordinances despite almost unanimous opposition in both written and verbal public comment received before and at the meeting. Specifically, we were alarmed that two talking points at the meeting seemed to carry significant weight in leading the Council to support voting up the staff-proposed "interim" ordinance and to bring the "urgency" ordinance forward on June 15. New SB 79 Housing Would Not "Strain" Public Infrastructure The only rationale pointed to by staff, the City Attorney, and council members to support the staff-proposed "urgency" SB 79 ordinance (which requires findings that the ordinance addresses an imminent public health or safety issue) was that the additional housing allowed by SB 79 would "strain" the City's public infrastructure. This is absurd, particularly in the areas of the City (such as California Ave, El Camino Real, the Downtown Housing Plan Assessment Area, etc.) that would have been subject to SB 79 under Councilmember Lythcott-Haim's amendment that the Council voted down. The City's own Housing Element underscores that "as a primarily urban and developed community, Palo Alto is well-served by existing infrastructure systems" and that new housing development will require only "minor upgrades." See Section 3.9 of Housing Element. Further, the City's Housing Element emphasizes that Palo Alto's development impact fees/capacity fees "are among the highest in the region" for new multi-family housing developments. See Introduction of Chapter 4 of the Housing Element. Specifically, the Housing Element notes that Palo Alto currently collects nearly $80,000 per unit in development impact and capacity fee charges. These fees are collected in addition to extensive on- and off-site improvements the City requires new developments to comply with, including robust stormwater control requirements, adjacent roadway improvements, and sewage collection and treatment requirements. See Tables 4-13 through 4-18 of Housing Element, as well as pp. 4-76 through 4-78. We have included with this letter the cited excerpts of the Housing Element for the City Council's reference. Simply put, it is a complete fallacy to say any new housing allowed by SB 79 would put a strain on the City's infrastructure, which is already well-built and for which the City would collect millions in impact fees to improve as new SB 79 housing went under construction. If anything, new housing in Palo Alto will generate funds to further improve and make more resilient an already well-built infrastructure system. As such, the City cannot credibly adopt an "urgency" ordinance suspending SB 79 on the grounds it would "strain" public infrastructure. The City's PHZ Program Is Not a Credible Alternative to SB 79 At multiple points in the June 1 meeting, certain members of the Council labelled Councilmember Lythcott-Haims' proposed amendment to the staff-proposed SB 79 ordinances — which would have allowed SB 79 to go into effect in areas of the City already zoned or planned for higher-density housing — as "spot zoning," but then also argued that the increased density of SB 79 wasn't necessary because developers can always propose to use the City's "PHZ" program. These members of the Council should know that the City's PHZ program is just as much of a spot zoning program, if not more so, than SB 79. The City's PHZ program "allows" developers to propose site-by-site rezoning in exchange for a commitment to build on-site affordable housing. It involves detailed community benefit negotiations between the developer and City, takes years to complete, and provides no upfront certainty to the developer as to whether the City Council will ultimately vote to approve the rezoning. The City's Housing Element characterizes the PHZ program as involving "lengthy legislative processes that have reduced predictability compared to a ministerial application review." See p. 4-22 of the Housing Element. Though SB 79 does not offer outright ministerial review, it affords not only sensible density near transit, but a significantly more predictable path to approval for developers and is exactly the type of program the City's Housing Element purports to support to "convey increased development potential in the City's multi-family and commercial zones." With it clear that new housing would not strain the City's public infrastructure and that the City has no meaningful alternative to offer that would allow for the sensible transit-oriented density and predictable entitlement pathway offered by SB 79, there is no basis for the Council to move forward with the SB 79 urgency ordinance. Further, there is good reason for the Council to revisit its first read decision to vote up the "interim" ordinances without Councilmember Lythcott-Haims' amendments that would allow SB 79 to go into effect in areas of the City already zoned or planned for high-density residential. We hope the Council will take this into consideration at its June 15 meeting. In solidarity, Ali Sapirman Advocacy & Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition From:Chris Schremp To:Lauing, Ed Cc:Robert Marinaro; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Subject:Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 12:58:35 PM Attachments:image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you. 4:00 PM on June 16th works for me. Ahead of our meeting, I have been reviewing upcoming Council agendas and noticed that the OSV update is no longer explicitly listed. Am I missing something? Have you or members of the committee walked our specific neighborhood recently? I have intentionally stopped sending daily photos of abandoned trash, blocked bike lanes, and hazardous intersections because, frankly, it is not my job to act as the City's unpaid code enforcement. However, I hope my lack of emails has not given the committee the false impression that conditions have improved. Quite the contrary: the problem is actively worsening. Because of the City’s continued lack of enforcement, OSV occupants have grown increasingly bold and are migrating onto more streets. We are now seeing encroachments creeping onto Ames, Ross, Louis, Loma Verde, and East Meadow. My growing concern is that the Committee and the Council are playing a "wait and see" game, operating under the assumption that impacted homeowners will eventually get exhausted and stop pushing for resolution. Please be assured that we will not. I look forward to our discussion to hear how the committee plans to address this expansion before your update to the full Council. Thanks, Chris Schremp Palo Alto Resident On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 12:12 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Chris, I am out of town through the weekend. So, given your schedule, Tuesday the 16th is the soonest I could meet. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2026 10:12 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks Ed. Do you have other availability next week - maybe on Friday? If not, how about the following week. I'd like to ensure our meeting is with the tnire Ad Hoc committee - including yourself. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 7:42 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thursday the 11th? I am not in town that day but the other committee members may be able to meet with you. Ed Get Outlook for iOS From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 6:37:15 PM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed sorry I need to reschedule as I have a work conflict that has popped up. Can we meet following Thursday after 3 pm PT? On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 4:05 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Schremp, This meeting is confirmed at 4 pm on June 4th. The meeting room is the community conference room right off the city hall lobby. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:08 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed, Thank you for the candid follow-up and for setting such clear expectations regarding the current status of the ad hoc committee’s work. I appreciate your transparency, and I would still very much like to take you up on your offer to meet. Let’s lock in June 4th at 4:00 PM. Please let me know if you prefer a call or a specific meeting location. While I understand that a formal plan has not yet been presented to the full Council, I believe a conversation would be highly productive to help me better understand the specific roadblocks the committee is navigating. In particular, I would like to use our time to explore a few key areas: 1. The Committee Process and Transparency You noted that presenting a plan to the full Council is the standard protocol and first step for an ad hoc committee. I would like to better understand how this process works behind the scenes before that June 17th update. Specifically: How does the committee decide which solutions are viable enough to present to the full Council? What criteria are being used to evaluate these options? Crucially, how can tax-paying residents who are directly impacted influence this framework before it is finalized and brought to the council? 2. The "Roadblocks" and the Safe Parking Search You mentioned encountering significant hurdles, including finding no new sites for safe parking from any organization. I would like to understand the specific criteria the City is using and what has caused these outside organizations to decline. 3. The Scope of City Responsibility From a resident and taxpayer perspective, a core question we are grappling with is why the Council feels a mandate to secure alternative housing or parking solutions before enforcing existing local laws. Given that evidence —including recent public media coverage—shows many of these OSV occupants have migrated from all over California simply because Palo Alto is highly accommodating, they do not possess local ties or civic loyalty to our city. Why is the City prioritizing absorbing this statewide demand over its primary obligation to protect local neighborhood safety and infrastructure? 4. Precedent in Other Neighborhoods I would also like to learn how the City successfully overcame these exact legal and operational obstacles to enact strict parking ordinances and protections in other parts of Palo Alto (such as Old Palo Alto). Understanding how those barriers were navigated elsewhere would shed light on why the same standard of enforcement cannot be applied to our neighborhood today. I appreciate you taking the time to meet before your presentation to the full Council. I look forward to a constructive discussion on the 4th. Best regards, Chris Schremp On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:49 AM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Schremp, Thank you for specifying your expectations for the meeting we offered. In response I will clarify that we will not be presenting any “concrete, detailed plan” on the OSV issue. So you may not find a meeting productive at this time. The ad hoc committee has not presented any plan to the full council which is the first-step, and standard protocol, for the ad hoc committee process. You have heard us say publicly that while we have reduced the OSV count overall, we are frustrated at road blocks we have encountered including finding no new sites for safe parking from any organization. That was one of the solutions we investigated for reducing the OSV population. We are intending to give an update to council before council break in June which starts on June 17. If you choose to meet before the ad hoc presentation to council we can meet after 4pm on June 4th. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 8:53 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. +Robert Marinaro who would like to join as well Ed, Thank you for offering to meet. I am available on either June 3 or June 4 after 3:00 PM PT. Please let me know which date works best for your schedule. While I am happy to sit down with you, I want to be entirely transparent about my expectations for this meeting: I am only interested in discussing a concrete, detailed plan with immediate timelines to resolve this enforcement failure. The situation is actively deteriorating and migrating further into our neighborhoods. In addition to our previous concerns, we are now experiencing new escalations: Fabian Way: OSVs are now establishing parking directly in front of the Blue Condos. East Meadow Drive: Vehicles have now set up in front of Ramos Park, actively blocking portions of the sidewalk and the bike lane, creating an immediate safety hazard for families and children using the park. As a resident paying more than $50,000 per year in property taxes, it is incredibly frustrating to feel forced into acting as the unpaid neighborhood watch for the City. Taxpayers are fulfilling their end of the social contract; we expect the City to fulfill its obligation to maintain the safety, accessibility, and sanitation of our public infrastructure. I look forward to seeing your actionable strategy when we meet. Regards, Chris Schremp On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 10:26 AM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thanks Chris. LMK when your schedule allows a meet-up in June. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 8:26 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Cc: Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non-Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ed - thanks. I am traveling the next few weeks but would love to meet with the council members in early June if that works. On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 2:10 PM Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov> wrote: Chris, We definitely hear you on all the issues you regularly recap here for us. And we are working on the OSV issue diligently each week. If you like, the ad hoc members are happy to meet with you in person to discuss any of the items you raise here in more detail. Let me know and I can set it up. Ed Lauing Councilmember Ed.Lauing@Palo Alto.gov Office: 650-329-2571 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:58 AM To: Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: OSV Issues: Public Nuisance, Health Hazards, and Continued Non- Response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of 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:Cedric de La Beaujardiere To:Council, City Subject:EFF on Flock Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 10:19:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Council Members, In light of the many people who made public comments at Monday's Council meeting asking for covering and more carefully auditing the FLOCK camera systems, I thought you may be interested in these timely related articles by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, a digital rights nonprofit) on the many mundane warrantless searches of the FLOCK databases which amount to mass surveillance. Even if Palo Alto itself may not be conducting such warrantless searches, it may be contributing it's surveillance data to other, less scrupulous agencies. Lots of articles to choose from, pick the issue closest to your heart... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network- surveil-protesters-and-activists https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/effecting-change-get-flock-out-our-city https://www.eff.org/press/releases/coalition-urges-california-revoke-permits-federal-license- plate-reader-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/more-license-plate-reader-mission-creep-school- residency-verification-background https://www.eff.org/press/releases/lawsuit-challenges-san-joses-warrantless-alpr-mass- surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/license-plate-surveillance-logs-reveal-racist-policing- against-romani-people Thank you as always for your service to the city. Thank you as well for your unanimous decisions Monday in support of the health of the rivers under SFPUC's jurisdiction. Regards, Cedric de La Beaujardiere This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Tech Strategy Initiative To:Council, City Cc:Veenker, Vicki Subject:Invitation: MSC | Stanford Dinner Reception –Tech Strategy Initiative (July 2, 6.30 p.m.) Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:56:39 AM Attachments:260605_MSC_TSI_Invitation_Reception_Stanford.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks. i Dear Mayor Veenker, On behalf of Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, and Dr. Colin Kahl, Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, we are pleased to extend a personal invitation to a dinner reception held on the occasion of the Tech Strategy Initiative’s inaugural meeting in Silicon Valley (attached). It will take place on July 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., and will feature remarks by Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. We would be honored to welcome you to this occasion and kindly ask you to RSVP at your earliest convenience via the link provided in the invitation. Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, The MSC Team Munich Security Conference Karolinenplatz 3 | 80333 Munich, Germany E tsi@securityconference.org Website | | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | YouTube | Threads | Newsletter | Bluesky | WhatsApp Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz gGmbH Geschäftsführer: Dr. Benedikt Franke, Sara-Sumie Yang Eingetragen im Handelsregister B des Amtsgerichts München unter HRB 191372 This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report July 2, 2026 TSI Dinner ReceptionInvitation The Munich Security Conference (MSC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University cordially invite you to a dinner reception on the occasion of the inaugural MSC Tech Strategy Initiative meeting. The Initiative aims to anticipate technological advances that remain beyond the horizon and their strategic, geopolitical implications. For its first convening, the Initiative gathers at the heart of global innovation: Silicon Valley. The evening will feature remarks by Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, and bring together members of the MSC and FSI communities alongside regional friends and partners. We look forward to welcoming you to an evening of reflection, dialogue, and meaningful exchange. Wolfgang Ischinger Colin Kahl Chairman | MSC Director | FSI Venue Bechtel Conference Center at Encina Hall Stanford University Campus Date July 2, 2026 (6.30 p.m. - 9.30 p.m.) Dress Code Casual attire Kindly RSVP at your earliest convenience via the following link: https://securityconference.org/tsi-dinner-reception/ Please direct any questions to: tsi@securityconference.org @MunSecConf www.instagram.com/munsecconfwww.facebook.com/MunSecConf Image Source: Jason Doiy / Getty Images TSI Dinner Reception From:Jeff Dean To:Council, City Subject:Chimalus backyard bike path Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:50:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I was disappointed to see a budget line item for a proposed Chimalus Bikeway. Constructing a bike path behind our homes would provide direct access from El Camino Real to our backyards, raising concerns about privacy and security. It would also result in the loss of trees and greenery that help screen the buildings in Stanford Research Park. I urge you to carefully consider at the potential impacts of this project before moving forward. Thank you for your consideration. Jeff Dean, 710 Chimalus This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Bill Kelly To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Proposed Bike Path Extension Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 6:42:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I sent this 4 years ago and am adamantly opposed to a bike path. Because of the council’s failure to provide an adequate state plan for housing, We the residents of Chimalus will pay a personal price if this bike path is approved for your lack of adequate planning. We will have to live with the two proposed Builder’s Remedies that are working there way through the system on either side of Matadero Ave and we will now see the destruction of many old trees and have a vangancy problem that never existed, because you as a council did not do your job. Please stop this bad decision! And save our trees! Bill Kelly 632 Chimalus Drive Begin forwarded message: From: Bill Kelly <bill@kellys.org> Subject: Proposed Bike Path Extension Date: March 31, 2022 at 5:04:01 PM PDT To: "pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org" <pat.burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org" <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org" <City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org> Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members, As a long-standing resident of Chimalus Drive I was upset to read about the proposed Bike Path Extension. My wife and I moved into this newly constructed home in 1992, our backyard is directly connected to the proposed bike path. In the mid 1990’s the Santa Clara water district installed an underground culvert in this area, removing hundreds of trees and permanently damaging others. The tall Acacia behind our house on water district land, toppled over and is now growing sideways. While the construction was happening, we had many instances of This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report strangers at our back fence. This proposal is a large loss of our security and well- being. When we purchased our home we had no disclosure requirements, as a result we had no Idea that our house was directly adjacent (across a short expanse of water district land) to a cyanide chemical storage facility, we only found that out after a toxic chemical release by CPI in 2005. While the city did a great job in addressing this problem the ultimate solution will come in 2030 when the Plating restrictions come into full effect, and 2040 when Stanford retakes its 99-year lease. This bike path proposal, like the impact of the CPI release, seems like another way our home has lost and will lose value unnecessarily, both quality of life and financial. Barron Park is a wonderful rural setting which we love, adding a public throughway 30 feet from our living room and where our bedrooms are located is a HUGE loss of privacy and will significantly impact the value of our homes. We expect street foot traffic, we have never envisioned that the small stretch of land behind our house would produce bike and foot traffic 24/7. Light Pollution, from proposed 24/7 lighting of the bike path is another problem, we already have significant sound pollution from CPI, adding lights directly behind our home will negatively impact our sleeping patterns. I would invite any and all council members to spend 15 minutes in my backyard to see how invasive this proposal would be. Thank you for your time, Bill Kelly 632 Chimalus Dr From:Shikada, Ed To:Thomas Nguyen; Council, City Cc:Howard, Adam Subject:RE: Request to Halt Further Pickleball Court Petitions Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:00:46 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Greetings Mr. Nguyen, Thank you for your message. As requested, I am forwarding your message to the City Council. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada, City Manager ICMA Credentialed Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Thomas Nguyen <hooverhedgehog@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:11 AM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Howard, Adam <Adam.Howard@paloalto.gov> Subject: Request to Halt Further Pickleball Court Petitions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Manager, Please forward this email to all members of the City Council. I am writing regarding the ongoing efforts to seek additional pickleball court space at Mitchell Park. Frankly, I am exhausted by the repeated petitions and requests to revisit the same issue. No meaningful new rationale has been presented, yet the tennis community is continually asked to reargue the same points and defend the same position. At some point, this process becomes unfair and unnecessarily burdensome for residents who have already participated in good faith. If Parks and Recreation truly wishes to determine the community’s preference, then it should fund and place the issue on the ballot during the next election and let the voters decide. Until then, I urge the City to direct Parks and Recreation to stop pursuing additional petitions regarding court space at Mitchell Park. Thank you for your time and consideration, and for forwarding this message to the City Council. Sincerely, Thomas Nguyen 3726 Grove Ave From:San Carlos To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Fair Chance Housing Ordinance: Public Safety and Tenant Screening Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 4:00:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Policy and Services Committee and City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. While expanding housing opportunities for individuals with prior criminal histories is aworthy goal, public policy must also protect the safety and well-being of residents whoalready live in Palo Alto. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance does not strike that balance. California law already provides robust fair housing protections. Landlords are required tocomply with the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and federalFair Housing requirements, all of which prohibit blanket exclusions and require individualizedassessments. The proposed ordinance goes significantly beyond these protections by severelyrestricting the consideration of relevant criminal history, creating additional proceduralburdens, and increasing potential liability for housing providers. This approach prioritizes the interests of applicants over the safety interests of existing tenants.Residents reasonably expect landlords to take lawful and reasonable steps to maintain a safeliving environment, particularly in multi-family housing communities where shared spacescreate unique safety concerns. By limiting access to information that may be relevant toresident safety, the ordinance shifts risk from applicants to neighbors and existing residents. The City itself routinely conducts criminal background reviews for positions involving publictrust, financial responsibilities, access to sensitive information, and public safety functions. Indoing so, the City recognizes that criminal history can be one factor among many in makingresponsible decisions. Housing providers are seeking no more than the same ability to balancefairness, rehabilitation, and resident safety. The ordinance may also create unintended consequences. Small and mid-sized propertyowners may respond by leaving the rental market or imposing stricter non-criminal screeningcriteria, such as higher income or credit requirements. Ironically, these outcomes could reducehousing opportunities for many applicants, including those the ordinance is intended to help. A more balanced approach is possible. Any ordinance should preserve consideration ofconvictions involving violence or threats to co-residents, provide safe-harbor protections forlandlords acting in good faith, recognize the burden on small housing providers, and ensurethat public safety receives equal consideration alongside fair housing objectives. The key question before the Council is whether Palo Alto should limit landlords' ability to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report evaluate risks that may directly affect the safety of residents and property. California lawalready prohibits blanket exclusions and requires fair, individualized review. The proposedordinance goes much further by restricting information that housing providers use to maintainsafe communities. Public safety and fair housing are not mutually exclusive. A well-crafted policy can advanceboth goals. However, the ordinance in its current form places too much emphasis on oneobjective while minimizing the other. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the ordinance as currentlydrafted or substantially amend it to preserve meaningful tenant screening rights whileprotecting existing residents and public safety. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Perera From:MS To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment – Policy & Services Committee – Barking Dog Enforcement Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:41:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Policy & Services Committee Members, I am writing to request consideration of a staff review of Palo Alto’s barking-dog enforcement framework based on ongoing issues I have experienced with persistent nighttime dog barking near my home. I live in the Barron Park area in a residential home adjacent to a commercial property. The property keeps dogs in an outdoor yard that directly faces my home across a narrow alley. The dogs are approximately 24 feet from my bedroom window and frequently bark in response to activity in the alley. For more than one year, I have been working with Code Enforcement regarding repeated nighttime barking from these dogs. Despite numerous complaints and ongoing communication with City staff, the issue has not been resolved. My understanding is that enforcement of the barking-dog ordinance requires two conditions: (1) the barking must meet the definition of continuous and incessant barking for ten minutes within a fifteen-minute period, and (2) an officer must personally witness the violation. Video recordings from residents are not accepted for enforcement. In practice, this makes enforcement difficult. By the time an officer arrives, the barking has usually stopped, even when it was significant enough to wake residents at night. As a result, there is often no opportunity for the required observation to occur. This is especially problematic at night, when residents are asleep and unable to document events in real time. Even short nighttime barking episodes can significantly disrupt sleep, but may still fall below the current enforcement threshold. City staff have acknowledged that mitigation measures such as installing a visual screen along the fence could reduce barking by limiting visual triggers, but this has not resulted in an effective resolution. I am not asking the Committee to resolve a specific neighbor dispute. I am asking whether the current barking-dog ordinance and enforcement procedures are functioning as intended, and This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report whether a staff report should be prepared to evaluate complaint volumes, enforcement outcomes, evidentiary requirements, and whether residents have a realistic path to obtaining relief. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Manpreet Singh Barron Park, Palo Alto From:Leela Hebbar To:Council, City Subject:SB 79 delayed implementation Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 8:31:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I unfortunately could not make the public comment portion of Monday’s (June 8) city council meeting, so I am writing to share two comments. 1. I ask that you move the SB 79 topic from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Delaying full implementation of SB 79 without public debate is not transparent. It also prevents the public from hearing the city’s justification for using an urgency ordinance on a significant housing matter. I’d like to hear why it’s been deemed an emergency situation to delay full implementation of SB 79. Moreover, the June 1st meeting covered the topic late in the evening when most residents had left, which raises concerns about whether enough opportunity was given to discuss a significant topic. Irrespective of whether you support delaying SB 79 full implementation or not, this topic deserves to be discussed publicly. 2. I oppose delaying full implementation of SB 79 because it is disproportionately unfair to low-income residents. We need more affordable units sooner. I also think it’s ironic that the council is using an urgency ordinance mechanism, which is designed to protect the public from immediate harm to delay a housing law that was itself designed to accelerate urgently needed affordable housing production. I understand the city’s argument is that delaying SB 79 is a more pressing need than full implementation of SB 79. But affordable housing already has a long construction timeline. Further delay compounds a shortage that disproportionately harms low-income families. I think the need for more affordable housing sooner is the more urgent emergency. Thank you for considering these comments. Leela Hebbar Palo Alto Resident Sent from Gmail Mobile From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Buena Vista - relocation updated today - Now September Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 6:58:41 PM A BV resident was watching council meeting tonight and heard my comment about uncertainty of relocation date and the consequences for residents. This is what the resident just texted to me. Now - September relocation. So summer trips can proceed. Winter Dellenbach From:Justine Burt To:Council, City Subject:SB 79 discussion Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 6:46:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing as a resident of Palo Alto who would like to see more housing built near transit. Building within a half-mile of Caltrain stations and El Camino Real would be the best places to do so as residents of these new developments would not need cars. I encourage you to remove SB 79 from the consent calendar on June 15 to give the public a greater say in how the city implements SB 79. On June 1, the item came up for discussion around10:30pm, which meant many community members did not have a chance to comment on the topic and Council discussion was cut short. With the San Antonio Road Area Plan discussion tonight and other projects, overall I’m pleased to see the City’s progress toward the 2031 Housing Element goal of enabling at least 6,000 new housing units. Thank you, Justine Burt This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:SARAP--Item 15 TONIGHT"s Council Agenda Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 5:06:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, Forgive my hurriedly written SARAP (Item 15) comments, I have highlighted in RED, my key comments below. Staff Recommendation: 1. Endorse the core scenario for the San Antonio Road Area Plan as the basis for Phase 3 analysis, modified as needed to reflect Council priorities; and Please vote NO on this and see my comments below. 2. Authorize the transportation analysis described in Attachment A, to be completed and presented to Council in Q4 2026 alongside a recommended land use and transportation plan. Please vote NO on this. See my comments below. What’s missing from the Citywide Context section on p. 3. Citywide State housing mandate for 2031 is 6,086 units. What’s being proposed in this staff report, at low end (5,700du), is only 386 shy of the citywide 2031 mandate. At the high end(6,700du), it is 614 units above the citywide mandate in one relatively small area of town. Add to that 750,000sf office and R&D space. Total retail square footage requirement is not quantified in the report. Analysis: Heights/Density: 90 feet, 8 stories across all primary sub-areas: CTI, North and South Fabian, and Central San Antonio. (For reference: This exceeds max Campus for Jewish Life height by 40 feet.) The analysis will look only at a “single core scenario”, one that, I think Council heard loud and clear at the last meeting the community is VERY concerned about. From p. 5 -- “To provide a meaningful basis for comparison, the transportation analysis will evaluate the core scenario against a current-zoning baseline – not simply existing conditions, but the development that could reasonably be expected to occur under current zoning. This comparison isolates the transportation effects attributable to the higher household densities the core scenario enables, which is the primary driver of changes in travel demand. Under current zoning, the plan area could yield up to approximately 5,700 residential units. The core scenario – by increasing allowed heights and densities in key areas – could yield up to approximately 6,700 units, roughly 1,000 more.” To clarify, will the transportation analysis evaluate the core scenario against existing conditions in addition to evaluating it against the current upzoned baseline? This approach, not doing analysis against existing conditions, seems highly irregular. Question: Will analysis also incorporate and evaluate projected traffic from all known projected background growth, including planned development in Mountain View and planned transportation facility changes to nearby City of Mountain View streets and VTA to 101 interchanges and nearby streets that likely will impact SARAP project area streets, etc.? Which Mountain View projects does staff plan to include in traffic analysis? Please be explicit. Office & Retail: We know new office/R&D space tends to be much more intensively used than older spaces. Please ask staff to analyze the estimated planned occupancy density of the proposed 750,000sf office R & D, to help us understand potential effects on the city’s job:housing imbalance. p. 5- “Core scenario includes 750,000sf of office and R&D space in the CTI sub-area (gross, not net new), with an overall net reduction in commercial square footage across the plan area.” p. Neighborhood -serving retail is required at key nodes – within CTI, within North Fabian, and at the San Antonio/Middlefield intersection –and is designed to be co-located with outdoor space to support walkable, community-oriented neighborhoods. Where retail is not required expanded ground-floor use allowances encourage active frontages without mandating retail. Outdoor Space & Parks 3-3.5 acres park and 1.5 acres of “consolidated outdoor space” in the CTI sub-area (which includes bike/ped transportation facilities). How much is usable park space (and not outdoor space dedicated to retail use), and how much is for transportation? Are we giving park space credit for paseos and pedestrian connections and outdoor restaurant seating space? How does this conform with Comprehensive Plan requirements? Mobility The report says there will be near-term removal of on-street parking and built, protected bike lanes throughout the San Antonio Corridor area on BOTH sides of the street. Will these be fully in place before the first buildings receive occupancy permits? This is critically important. If the city fails to accomplish that, we will never be able to reclaim that roadway from new residents who bought in because they saw the “extra” on-street parking for their second or third vehicles. Also, the habits of using alternative modes can’t be established until safe, continuous ped/bike/transit facilities are fully in place. I still do not understand how the “enhanced connections” to the Caltrain Station will be achieved. I have seen no concept plan. Pathways from Alma into/out of the station are narrow. Even today, with relatively low usage, the pathways can be challenging to share on a bike, especially with a trailer or panniers. With much higher volumes of users, capacity will be a real problem. I repeatedly have raised this question and received no answer. Nita is already problematic. (Please the note the sad memorial flowers and teddy bears that pop up there now and then.) What is the conceptual plan to improve this important cross- border connection? All I’ve seen is words—“we’ll improve it.” How? What’s the concept plan? How will the San Antonio Avenue route be used? I have repeatedly asked this question and received vague replies. I am concerned about finding a way to manage cut-through auto traffic from a more congested San Antonio Road into neighborhood school commute routes and bicycle boulevards. (Waze will find a way we don’t want drivers to use if we don’t plan well.) What is the plan for this parallel service road? It has great potential for improving bike/ped connections to the bike boulevard/school route network; but so far, I see no concept that presents a clear conceptual vision for it. How will we help foot-powered new residents get to quieter neighborhood bike/ped routes and off busy arterial streets? p. 6—“Vehicle circulation and parking management strategies focus on maintaining local access, reducing cut-through traffic, and reallocating curb space more efficiently as development occurs.” Transportation Analysis Transit viability – Please be specific. To what “viable” transit does this refer? Besides Caltrain (which is a little light on service at the San Antonio Station), there isn’t much existing transit in this area. The current-zoning (recent upzoning) has not been implemented. Using current zoning as a baseline for the traffic study seems highly irregular. In 25 years working land use and transportation issues, I have never seen a transportation analysis proposal like this. What is the legal basis for it? My understanding is a baseline should not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans. We need a baseline that represents today’s on-the-ground existing conditions so that the public, staff, and Council can understand what changes will occur from today’s baseline—especially as it relates to changing traffic—for planning purposes. San Antonio is highly congested with trucks and cars today. It is uncomfortable and unsafe for all other modes, according to the Draft BPTP. We need to see a traffic study comparison to today’s existing conditions. Perhaps I am misunderstanding this. Please explain. To Council, my read is, staff is saying you can change the analysis (and baseline) later, but if you read the project budget information, you really cannot. There’s no money in the budget to redo this work. Let’s please get it right the first time. Housing p. 12 –Core scenario will examine max building heights to 90’ “in a way that allows for a height transition to low-density residential neighborhoods.” p. 15- Refers to Buildout rates Tables A and B. Where are these Tables? p. 33-- ^ D’s Density, Diversity, Design, Destination accessibility, Distance, Demand management, Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:Follow up comment Re: Item 15, June 8, 2026 City Council: SARAP Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 5:05:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council, I write to supplement my earlier comment with one additional concern. The transportation analysis before you tonight will use current zoning capacity of up to 5,700 units as its baseline for comparison, rather than the units actually built and occupied in the corridor today. Using theoretical zoning capacity rather than actual built conditions as the baseline risks systematically understating the transportation impacts of the core scenario when the program EIR is prepared. Furthermore, it is my understanding that California law explicitly states that an existing conditions baseline "shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans." I would ask Council to direct staff to address this baseline methodology before approving a transportation analysis. Thank you. Best regards, Meri Gruber, Greenmeadow, Palo Alto On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 1:30 PM Meri Gruber <meri.gruber@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Members of the City Council, I supported housing in the SARAP corridor as envisioned in the Housing Element. My concern tonight is with a process that is presenting a fourfold increase beyond that vision, in an area currently lacking services, and without adequate community engagement. The certified Housing Element allocated approximately 1,559 units to this corridor. That was the number Council and staff cited publicly from 2022 through the launch of the SARAP engagement process, and the baseline used in the City's own SARAP Existing Conditions report. That was the number residents and advisory bodies were working with throughout the engagement process. What the community was not told until March of this year is that current zoning already allows up to 5,700 units. Tonight Council is being asked to endorse a core scenario anchored at 6,700 units. That is not a refinement of the housing element vision. It is a fourfold increase over what was publicly discussed during the engagement process this report is citing as its foundation. The community engagement this report relies on happened before the community knew the actual buildout numbers. I also want to raise concerns about concentrating up to 6,700 units in a corridor that the City's own existing conditions analysis describes as currently lacking parks, grocery, and neighborhood services. This raises a question about whether this housing is being planned equitably. Finally, the staff report states expected buildout is 60-75% but cites no methodology for that estimate. Before endorsing this scale of development, I would ask Council to direct staff to explain that assumption. Thank you for your consideration of my comment and for your service to the community. Best regards, Meri Gruber Greenmeadow, Palo Alto From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:June 8, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #4: Council Appointed Officers Evaluation Processs Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 4:48:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. JUNE 8, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #4: COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS EVALUATION PROCESS I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar toamend the evaluation process to ensure that when the CityCouncil schedules a Closed Session to evaluate each CouncilAppointed Officer (CAO), the public is given a meaningfulopportunity to comment on each CAOs performance before theCouncil goes into Closed Session. In other government organizations, Key Performance Indicators(KPIs) are determined and publicly available to provide thepublic and the press the opportunity to comment about each CAOsperformance when measured by the KPIs before thatorganization's legislative body goes into Closed Session. For example, the Valley Transportation Authority has formallyadopted quantitative KPIs for evaluation of its chief executiveofficer that both the employee and the public are aware ofduring the employee's tenure. The recommendation regarding item "a" in "Questions to Drivethe Palo Alto CAO Evaluation Process" says that the Council andeach CAO know what each CAO's Key Goals and KPIs are at the endof each performance evaluation. Those agreed on Goals and KPIs should be available to thepublic when they are agreed to by the Council and each CAO sothat they can be referenced by the public before the CityCouncil and CAO Committee go into Closed Session to evaluateeach Council Appointed Officer. KPIs can be either quantitative or qualitative. Both should bedisclosed at the same time. Otherwise, the only time qualitative KPIs are discussed by theCouncil would be during the Council's deliberations that occurafter the public has had an opportunity to make comments abouteach CAOs performance based on only the quantified KPIs. In that case, the only time the Council would discussqualitative KPIs would be after they received public inputabout the quantified KPIs when that input could be used inClosed Session to support individual Council Members opinionsabout which qualitative performance measures the Council shoulduse in evaluating each CAOs performance. Prior to going into Closed Session, the public is given anopportunity to speak to the Council and CAO Committee about Therefore, the agreed to Goals and KPIs for each CAO should beincluded in the Agenda Packet for the Closed Session meetingand available at the meeting, so that the press and public cancomment on each CAOs performance with remarks relevant to thecriteria that the Council and CAO Committee are using toevaluate the CAOs. The "Questions to Drive the Palo Alto CAOEvaluation Process" should also be included in the AgendaPacket at the same time. The Timeline for the Evaluation Process should include the datewhen the Goals and KPIs will be made pubicly available toenable the press and public to participate meaningfully in theOpen Session period before the Council and CAO Committee usethose evaluation criteria to make their evaluations. Similarly, in item "f" in "Questions to Drive the Palo Alto CAOEvaluation Process", when each CAO proposed priorities and KPIsfor the coming year, those should also be made public to enablethe public to comment on them in Open Session prior to theCouncil going into Closed Session to reach agreement with eachCAO about what those priorities and KPIs will be, and youshould direct staff to make public now the priorities and KPIscited in item "a". Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Herb Borock From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer Subject:Please pull SB 79 item from consent to allow full public particiaption Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 3:24:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Veenker and council members, Please pull the SB79 item from consent so there can be full public participation that has been missing given the delayed meetings and the past 11pm time for public comment in the last meeting. I am not an attorney but do wonder if suppressing/preventing full public participation is a grounds for successful legal challenge. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Megan Watson To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Dinh, Joey; Raybould, Claire; Armer, Jennifer Cc:Ted O"Hanlon Subject:June 8, 2026 - City Council Meeting - Agenda Item #15 - SARAP Work Plan Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 2:43:37 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To Members of the City Council, As owners of the property at 788 San Antonio Road, which is included in the vision for the San Antonio Road Area Plan, we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Core Scenario before you this evening. We are strongly supportive of the improvements contemplated in the Core Scenario, including protected bike lanes, enhanced Caltrain access, and a safer, more inviting pedestrian experience. These are important goals, and we believe the existing special setback along our stretch of San Antonio Road presents a meaningful opportunity for Palo Alto to advance them thoughtfully and effectively. However, one critical issue must be addressed as part of any plan for increased residential density: the essential support services that dense housing inevitably requires. These include, but are not limited to: Fire truck staging Waste management staging Postal, package, and delivery services Move-ins and move-outs Increased bus and shuttle activity Ride-share pick-up and drop-off To date, the City’s preference has generally been to keep support functions within the private properties they serve. While understandable, that approach conflicts with the Plan’s goals of creating protected, continuous, and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Requiring all service activity to occur on-site would increase curb cuts, driveway crossings, and other interruptions to those protected routes. We strongly support limiting curb cuts along San Antonio Road. However, that goal requires a This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report comprehensive curbside management strategy that accounts for the operational needs of dense housing, including fire access, waste management, deliveries, move-ins, ride- share, shuttles, and transit stops. These functions cannot be treated as afterthoughts or pushed entirely onto private property without creating unintended consequences – notably reduction in housing potential. By utilizing a portion of the existing special setback, the City appears to have sufficient width to preserve a dedicated curbside lane along San Antonio Road for these essential services while still advancing the Plan’s broader mobility and safety goals. This is especially important for car-light housing proposals like ours, which reduce private vehicle dependence but still rely on ride-share, deliveries, shuttles, and other shared mobility services. Even car owners increasingly use these options, underscoring the need for an area-wide approach. Establishing this vision now is imperative. Several housing developments along San Antonio Road are currently seeking approval, and these improvements should be planned and constructed concurrently with those projects rather than retrofitted later. While 788 San Antonio benefits from access to Leghorn Street, many neighboring properties do not, making a coordinated public-realm strategy even more important. The special setback offers a rare opportunity to accommodate density, mobility, safety, and essential services in a cohesive way. We urge the City Council to ensure the San Antonio Road Area Plan uses it accordingly. Sincerely, Megan Watson Megan Watson Vice President, Development + Acquisitions 10000 West Washington Blvd WeWork, 6th Floor Culver City, CA 90232 Mobile: 405-973-5229 mwatson@grubbproperties.com grubbproperties.com From:Virginia Smedberg To:Council, City Subject:for Meeting tonight: comment re item 13 UWMP Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 2:32:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, regarding item 13 in tonight's meeting, concerning the UWMP: Please incorporate the language provided by UAC Commissioner Gupta into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management Plan. It is important to me that Palo Alto stand strong in its position, given the SFPUC's history of working with their own preconceived ideas, rather than facts. I want our precious water resource utilized sensibly for the best help to all users. Not all Palo Altans are wealthy, and many of us are struggling with skyrocketing water bills. I appreciate Council standing up to the SFPUC and hope you will insist on scheduling a study session to engage directly with the SFPUC. cheers - virginia smedberg 441 Washington Ave, 94301 EARTH without ART is just EH Democracies are not lost all at once. They erode piece by piece while people convince themselves that what they are seeing cannot really be happening. Joyce White Vance This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment Item 15, June 8, 2026 City Council: SARAP Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 1:31:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council, I supported housing in the SARAP corridor as envisioned in the Housing Element. My concern tonight is with a process that is presenting a fourfold increase beyond that vision, in an area currently lacking services, and without adequate community engagement. The certified Housing Element allocated approximately 1,559 units to this corridor. That was the number Council and staff cited publicly from 2022 through the launch of the SARAP engagement process, and the baseline used in the City's own SARAP Existing Conditions report. That was the number residents and advisory bodies were working with throughout the engagement process. What the community was not told until March of this year is that current zoning already allows up to 5,700 units. Tonight Council is being asked to endorse a core scenario anchored at 6,700 units. That is not a refinement of the housing element vision. It is a fourfold increase over what was publicly discussed during the engagement process this report is citing as its foundation. The community engagement this report relies on happened before the community knew the actual buildout numbers. I also want to raise concerns about concentrating up to 6,700 units in a corridor that the City's own existing conditions analysis describes as currently lacking parks, grocery, and neighborhood services. This raises a question about whether this housing is being planned equitably. Finally, the staff report states expected buildout is 60-75% but cites no methodology for that estimate. Before endorsing this scale of development, I would ask Council to direct staff to explain that assumption. Thank you for your consideration of my comment and for your service to the community. Best regards, Meri Gruber Greenmeadow, Palo Alto From:Tom Watzka To:Council, City Subject:City’s Urban Water Management Plan Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 1:05:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council Members, My family lives in the Greater Miranda Neighborhood in Palo Alto. We urge you to incorporate the proposals contained in Council Member Gupta's memo that is being presented this evening regarding the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). I have sat in on discussions with Peter Drekmeier and Council Member Gupta. They provided statistical data demonstrating that the Peninsula, and I assume the greater bay area actually take individual actions to reduce water consumption leading into drought periods, and continue reduced consumption after drought periods. Furthermore, it appears that the SFPUC has taken a lazy approach to their drought forecasting and have developed an arbitrary "Design Drought" that aligns with an 8,000 year drought. Palo Alto appears to be paying more attention to the statistics. This arbitrary approach taken by the SFPUC has a negative impact on us financially. But more importantly, it adversely affects our environment. Our declining Delta salmon population is evidence of this. Palo Alto should take the leadership position with a data driven UWMP. Thank you, Thomas Watzka and Elise Pomerantz-Watzka This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:dgoldeen@icloud.com To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Michael Ekwall"s Letter Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 12:55:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The council discussion of the Cal Ave “outdoor activation standards” (Item #16, June 1) was the most astonishing display of ignorance and arrogance on the part of the council that I have ever witnessed. Emergency access? This has been foundational for all the design decisions. What about way signage? Staff has to beg council for a measly $300K to just do the bare minimum, a minimum that is years over due. As Ed Shikada explained, addressing the way signage is another big chunk of change (and Ed Lauing doesn’t know this?!) Who’s going to pay for that ? Visibility and obstacles? That’s in phase 2, which is supposed to come up before council next year, but, because it costs $900K, it’s fate is uncertain. That discussion was so far out in left field, I decided to look at what was available, which meant reviewing email to council for June 1. Lo and behold, there was a six page letter from Michael Ekwall, co-owner of La Bodeguita. All of your comments were lifted straight out of this letter. What the heck?! So now I know. If I want to get the council to do what I want, I need to bully and harass and lie and write six page mini-disertations with 16 point bold print headers and lots of bullet points? (Ekwall’s letter is, by the way, full of holes. City staff has already addressed almost all of his concerns.) You all did an amazing job educating yourselves about the Flock cameras. Same goes with SB 79. Maybe if you don’t have time, or you didn’t listen when Bruce Fujuki was giving his presentation and you didn’t listen to the eloquent and astute Charlie Weindanz when he addressed council, you should just not say anything. What the business owners on Cal Ave want is for something to happen and they want fairness. With your comments, council threw sand in everyone’s face. You owe everybody, especially staff, an apology. Deborah Goldeen, 94304 From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Subject:Policy & Services: Ordinance to Limit Criminal History in Rental Applications Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 12:07:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. California already has extensive protections for renters with criminal histories. Under California fair-housing law, landlords cannot use blanket "no felons" policies, cannot consider arrests that did not lead to convictions, and must show that convictions are directly related to legitimate housing-safety concerns. California law also limits what tenant- screening agencies can report, including many older criminal records. This proposal goes far beyond existing California law. It prevents landlords from conducting a criminal background check until after they have made a conditional offer to rent, effectively requiring them to reserve a unit before obtaining information they may consider important to the safety of their property and other residents. The ordinance then imposes a complex process of notices, waiting periods, individualized assessments, written justifications, and opportunities to respond. Any mistake can expose a landlord to complaints, litigation, and significant legal expense. The ordinance also contains a major flaw: the lookback period runs from the date of disposition rather than release from incarceration. A person who served more than five years in prison could therefore receive these protections immediately upon release without demonstrating any period of law-abiding behavior in the community. According to CDCR, approximately 39% of released prisoners are convicted of a new crime within three years, including about 22% convicted of a new felony. Public safety should be the City Council's first responsibility. Palo Alto should support second chances, but not at the expense of the safety and peace of mind of current residents, including families with children and seniors. I respectfully ask you to reject this ordinance and rely on existing state protections instead. Hamilton Hitchings