The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-08-10 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: 08/10/2026 Document dates: 8/03/26 – 8/10/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; CityCouncil; Goodell, Erin; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Diana Diamond; Reckdahl, Keith; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Brandon Pho; PD Kristina Bell; Yolanda trevino Cc:EPA Today; DuJuan Green; Friends of Cubberley; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; sam.liccardo@gmail.com Subject:Source: Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 10:23:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From the archives of Aram James Source: Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project Don’t Judge Persky Decision, or Any Sentence, in a Vacuum — by Aram James https://share.google/X1oyqtgedwr3qPsDU From:Aram James To:Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia Cc:Hoyt, George; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Jasso, Tamara; EPA Today; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Deaths reported and buildings collapsed after 7.4-magnitude earthquake hits Colombia Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 10:07:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://nbcbayarea.app.link/TuyfkzrKu5b From:Shir, Arnold Cc:Thompson, Aly; Coxe, Nicole; McClinton-Brown, Rhonda; Daligga, Teddy; Savage, Matt; Tran, Don; Hernandez, Alondra; Ceballos, Richard; Slocum, Elizabeth Subject:Reminder: You’re Invited: Level Up Your City at the Healthy Cities Summit! Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 9:48:18 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i Dear Valued Community Partner, This is a friendly reminder about the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department’s (SCCPHD) upcoming event, Level Up Your City: Healthy Cities Summit on Thursday, September 24, 2026, from 8:30am-12pm at the Mexican Heritage Plaza. Register by Thursday, September 10 at the following link: https://bit.ly/4eyFHFm. After registering, don’t forget to add the event to your calendar using the instructions provided on the confirmation page. This half-day, in-person summit underscores how strong city partnerships are essential to creating healthy conditions through policy. Join the summit to examine two policy areas to reduce chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Explore how innovative public health solutions rely on close collaboration among cities, county agencies, community organizations, and residents to ensure equitable protection for all. Final panel lineups are in – get ready! Join us to hear from subject matter experts who are well versed in their fields and network with partners from across the county. Sugary Drink Excise Taxes as a Tool to Improve Health Dr. Tony Iton, Chief Executive Officer, The Health Trust (Moderator) Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, District 3 Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz Blythe Young, Regional Senior Lead of Community Government Relations, American Heart Association Asha Chirackal, Program Coordinator, Vouchers 4 Veggies of City and County of San Francisco Policies to Reduce Youth Access to Tobacco and Cannabis Scott Gerbert, Director of Outreach and Strategic Partnerships, REACH Lab at Stanford University (Moderator) Peter Ortiz, District 5 Councilmember, City of San Jose Tim Gibbs, Director, Endgame Messaging Hub Dr. Alisa Padon, Research Director, Public Health Institute We can’t wait to see you there and work together toward a healthier, more equitable future for all. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to Arnold Shir at Arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Regards, Arnold Shir Arnold ShirHealth Planning Specialist IIIOffice of the DirectorCounty of Santa Clara, Public Health Department 150 W. Tasman Drive, 2nd Floor, San Jose, CA 95134Mobile: 1-669-324-9315Pronouns: he, him, hisEmail: arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org From: Shir, Arnold Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 10:42 AM Cc: Thompson, Aly <Alyssa.Thompson@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG>; Coxe, Nicole <Nicole.Coxe@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG>; McClinton- Brown, Rhonda <rhonda.mcclinton-brown@phd.sccgov.org> Subject: You’re Invited: Level Up Your City at the Healthy Cities Summit! Dear Valued Community Partner, The County of Santa Clara Public Health Department (SCCPHD) is excited to invite you to our upcoming event, Level Up Your City: Healthy Cities Summit on Thursday, September 24, 2026, from 8:30am-12pm at the Mexican Heritage Plaza. This half-day, in-person summit underscores how strong city partnerships are essential to creating healthy conditions through policy. Because most of our residents live in cities, strong city leadership and collaboration play a pivotal role in shaping the health of our entire county. By examining two policy areas to reduce chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, we will explore how innovative public health solutions rely on close collaboration among cities, county agencies, community organizations, and residents to ensure equitable protection for all. What to expect at the summit: Receive updates on SCCPHD’s Healthy Cities Dashboard Engage in two policy panel discussions with subject matter experts and local policymakers on: Sugary Drink Excise Taxes as a Tool to Improve Health Policies to Reduce Youth Access to Tobacco and Cannabis Learn about findings from new county data on sugary drinks and tobacco Connect with partners across the county Reserve your spot today! Register here: https://bit.ly/4eyFHFm. Space is limited to just 150 attendees, so please register by Thursday, September 10, 2026. After registering, don’t forget to add the event to your calendar using the instructions provided on the confirmation page. We can’t wait to see you there and work together toward a healthier, more equitable future for all. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to Arnold Shir at Arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org. Warm Regards, Arnold Shir Arnold ShirHealth Planning Specialist IIIOffice of the Director County of Santa Clara, Public Health Department 150 W. Tasman Drive, 2nd Floor, San Jose, CA 95134Mobile: 1-669-324-9315Pronouns: he, him, hisEmail: arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. From:Shikada, Ed To:Council, City Cc:Jensen, Christopher; Ah Yun, Mahealani Subject:FW: Resignation from PTC Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:56:41 AM Councilmembers – Forwarding this for your awareness, as it’s not clear whether this was sent to all. We will coordinate with the Mayor and Vice Mayor on changes to tonight’s agenda. Respectfully, --Ed From: Forest <petersonforest@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 9:54 PM To: Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; brynachangptc@gmail.com; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Subject: Resignation from PTC GBANNERINDICATOR Mayor Veenker and Members of the Council: This letter is a resignation from the Planning and Transportation Commission, effective immediately. The depth of my appreciation for this opportunity to serve and of all I have learned during my time here is difficult to articulate. I look forward to carrying those experiences forward and continuing to contribute to our community in new ways and across a broad range of issues. Forest Peterson From:Gang Liu To:Switzer, Steven; Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; PlannerOnDuty; Building Subject:2497 High Street [26PLN-00180]— Comments Regarding Threshold Eligibility, Preliminary-Application Accuracy, and Sufficiency of the Administrative Record Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:37:19 AM Attachments:2497 High Street - Letter 1 - Comments (26PLN-00180).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i 08/10/2026City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, California 94301 Re: 2497 High Street [26PLN-00180]— Comments Regarding Threshold Eligibility, Preliminary-Application Accuracy, and Sufficiency of the Administrative RecordA pdf version of this letter is attached in this email. Dear Steven and Planning Staff:Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the City's threshold review of the SB 79 Preliminary Application for the proposed residential development at 2497 High Street.We support the production of additional housing consistent with applicable State law. Nothing in this letter should be understood as opposing housing development generally, challenging the Legislature's policy judgments reflected in SB 79, or asking the City to disregard standards that State law lawfully displaces.This letter also intentionally does not rely upon generalized objections concerning building height, density, parking quantity, neighborhood character, property values, or architectural preference. Those matters either are governed by SB 79 or are more appropriately considered at later stages of project review.Instead, these comments address a narrower procedural question: whether the administrative record presently before the City accurately and consistently describes the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report project and contains a sufficient factual basis for the threshold statutory determinations the City is presently being asked to make.A preliminary application is preliminary in design detail, but it is not legally inconsequential. Government Code section 65941.1 deems a preliminary application submitted only upon provision of the information enumerated in subdivision (a), including the project's location and existing uses; the proposed residential and nonresidential uses; below-market-rate and bonus units; incentives, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions; requested Subdivision Map Act approvals; and the number and occupancy status of existing residential units proposed for demolition.Those statutory categories are directly implicated by the present record. The materials supplied for public review appear to contain project-defining information from an unrelated property; they describe the proposed development inconsistently as an apartment residence while also indicating a condominium map; they do not presently permit the affordability and density-bonus calculations to be reproduced; and they contain conflicting code classifications and environmental assumptions that require clarification.Where this letter identifies an inconsistency or omission, it does not assert that the applicant's position is necessarily incorrect or that the project necessarily fails to qualify for SB 79. Rather, it respectfully requests that the City identify the factual and legal basis for each determination, require corrected or supplemental materials where appropriate, and make no determination the present administrative record does not support.The central issue throughout this letter is therefore not whether the project may ultimately be approved. It is whether the threshold protections claimed by the application rest upon a record that is accurate, internally consistent, and sufficiently complete to permit informed governmental review and meaningful public participation.In addition, and without prejudice to the threshold statutory questions addressed below, we are submitting a separate, accompanying letter requesting project-specific conditions in the alternative if the City concludes that the project may proceed. That letter does not concede eligibility and does not contend that any one condition independently requires disapproval. It is intended to ensure that foreseeable environmental/groundwater, fire/life-safety, public-infrastructure, utility, refuse, excavation, neighboring- property, and construction risks are identified while the design can still respond to them, rather than being deferred until the building-permit stage when site layout and core project assumptions may be difficult to change.This letter is organized as follows: Part I — The statutory framework and the determinations presently before the City. Part II — Threshold statutory questions concerning the accuracy of the Preliminary Application, affordability and density-bonus calculations, existing residential units, and building classifications. Part III — Sufficiency and integrity of the present administrative record. Part IV — Reservation of rights and requested administrative actions. Exhibits A through E — Record comparison, calculation requests, requested determinations, authorities, and a submission-verification checklist.Requested conditions of approval if the project proceeds — addressing environmental and groundwater investigation, fire and life safety, public infrastructure and utilities, solid waste, construction safety, and coordinated technical review — are set out in an accompanying letter submitted concurrently with these comments. PART I — THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 1. Determinations Presently Before the City Issue PresentedWhich statutory determinations is the City making at the threshold-review stage, which determinations remain open, and what factual record will support each determination? Applicable Statutory FrameworkSeveral distinct statutory regimes appear relevant. They operate at different stages and should not be collapsed into a single undifferentiated conclusion.First, SB 79 establishes transit-oriented development standards in Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162. Government Code section 65912.157 prescribes qualifying height, density, and residential floor-area standards; uses the SB 79 density as the base density for State Density Bonus Law; requires compliance with Government Code section 66300.6 and applicable local demolition and anti-displacement standards; restricts eligibility on specified sites containing more than two rent- or price-controlled units occupied by tenants during the preceding seven years; and imposes minimum affordability requirements.Second, Government Code section 65941.1 separately governs the preliminary application. Subdivision (a) identifies the information necessary for the application to be deemed submitted. Subdivision (d) requires resubmission when residential units or the square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, subject to the statutory exclusions, and defines square footage of construction by reference to building area under the California Building Standards Code. Third, Government Code sections 66300.5 and 66300.6 govern demolition and replacement of existing and protected units. Section 66300.6 requires at least as many residential units to be demolished, and, where protected units are involved, imposes replacement, occupancy, notice, relocation, and right-of-first-refusal requirements.Fourth, Government Code section 65915 governs density bonuses, incentives, concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios. SB 79 expressly provides that the density allowed under section 65912.157 is used as the base density for this purpose.Fifth, environmental review is a separate determination. Public Resources Code section 21080.66 may exempt a qualifying housing development from CEQA if every statutory criterion is satisfied. SB 79 itself does not eliminate CEQA review; Government Code section 65912.157, subdivision (l), expressly states that SB 79 does not modify CEQA's requirements. DiscussionThe existing 2497 materials raise questions under more than one of these statutes. A conclusion that the site falls within an SB 79 transit-oriented development zone does not, by itself, answer whether the preliminary application included all information required by section 65941.1, whether the project's affordability calculations are correct, whether the existing units trigger replacement or anti-displacement duties, or whether any CEQA exemption is supported.Separating these determinations would materially improve the administrative record. It would also allow interested persons to direct comments to the correct stage rather than asking Planning staff to decide final engineering or environmental questions during preliminary review. Requested Clarification1. Identify which determinations the City is making at this stage under SB 79, Government Code section 65941.1, State Density Bonus Law, the Housing Accountability Act, and CEQA. 2. Identify which determinations remain open for the formal application, completeness review, entitlement review, or building-permit stage. 3. State whether the City will issue separate written determinations concerning SB 79 eligibility, the legal effect of the preliminary application, existing-unit and anti-displacement issues, and any CEQA exemption. 4. Identify the documents that constitute the operative administrative record for each determination. 5. Confirm that no statutory protection or exemption will be recognized unless the record establishes every prerequisite for that protection or exemption. PART II — THRESHOLD STATUTORY QUESTIONS 2. Reliability of the Administrative Record and Accuracy of the Preliminary Application Issue PresentedWhether the present record accurately identifies the subject property and proposed development, as required for a preliminary application to perform its statutory function. Current Administrative RecordThe existing 2497 comment reports that the Preliminary Application describes 2497 High Street as an approximately 5,500-square-foot RM-30 parcel improved with a three-unit residential building. The same draft identifies portions of the conceptual plan set that instead refer to 555–559 College Avenue, an existing office property, commercial zoning, a 20,728-square-foot lot, an 8,225-square-foot building, and 30 parking spaces.Those facts do not describe the same site. They appear to combine information from 2497 High Street with information from an unrelated proposed development. Applicable LawGovernment Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a), requires, among other things: the specific project location; existing uses and major physical alterations; a site plan, elevations, massing, height, and approximate building square footage; the proposed land uses and residential and nonresidential square footage; proposed parking; below-market-rate units; bonus units and requested incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions; requested subdivision or condominium approvals; and the number and occupancy status of existing residential units to be demolished. DiscussionThe issue is not whether an early plan set may contain drafting errors. It plainly may. The issue is whether errors concerning the property's identity, existing use, lot area, building area, zoning, and parking prevent the current record from reliably establishing the statutory information that section 65941.1 requires.These are not cosmetic notations. Existing residential use and unit count bear on demolition, replacement housing, tenant protections, and SB 79 eligibility. Lot area, building area, proposed use, and ownership structure bear on density, affordable-unit percentages, floor area, parking, and future subdivision approvals. A record containing two unrelated project descriptions does not allow the City or the public to know which facts are operative without additional clarification.The integrity of the administrative record also matters for meaningful public participation. Members of the public should not be required to reconstruct the actual project by deciding for themselves which entries are template remnants and which are intended project facts. Requested Determination6. Identify the documents the City considers operative for the threshold review. 7. Require a single corrected, internally consistent, revision-dated set of materials accurately identifying 2497 High Street, its existing use and units, lot area, zoning, existing improvements, proposed uses, building area, parking, and requested approvals. 8. Require each replacement sheet to identify the sheet and revision it supersedes. 9. Determine whether all information required by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a), was supplied for the actual 2497 High Street project at the time of filing. 10. If the required information was incomplete or materially described another project, identify in writing the legal effect upon any claimed preliminary-application protections. 11. Place the corrected documents and the City's written determination in the public administrative record. 3. Proposed Tenure, Affordable Housing, and State Density Bonus Calculations Issue PresentedWhether the record consistently identifies the proposed tenure and contains a complete, reproducible calculation of the base units, affordable units, SB 79 affordability requirement, State Density Bonus Law bonus, and all requested incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions. Current Administrative RecordThe existing 2497 draft states that the conceptual plans describe a six-story apartment residence, while the Preliminary Application indicates an intent to seek a condominium map. It further identifies 19 total units, including two Low-Income units, one Moderate-Income unit, and three density-bonus units, but reports that the submitted materials appear to use different denominators or rounding methods. Applicable LawGovernment Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a)(10), requires the number and affordability levels of proposed below-market-rate units. Subdivision (a)(11) requires the number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions requested under section 65915. Subdivision (a)(12) requires disclosure of requested Subdivision Map Act approvals, including a condominium map.Government Code section 65912.157, subdivision (d), makes an SB 79 project eligible for State Density Bonus Law using the SB 79 density as the base density. Subdivision (i) separately imposes SB 79 affordability requirements, subject to any higher or deeper applicable local inclusionary requirement. For a project exceeding 10 units, the statute identifies alternative affordability pathways, including specified percentages of extremely low-, very low-, or lower-income units. DiscussionThe present record should permit the City's calculation to be reproduced from beginning to end. It should identify the site area used, the applicable SB 79 base density, the resulting base-unit count, the statutory denominator, the affordable-unit percentage and income category, the treatment of fractional units, the bonus percentage earned, and the final number of bonus units.The record should also state whether the three identified affordable units serve the SB 79 affordability requirement, a local inclusionary requirement, State Density Bonus Law, replacement of any protected units, or more than one of those obligations. Section 66300.6 expressly provides that protected replacement units count toward specified affordability requirements; without a unit-by-unit worksheet, the public cannot determine whether units are being counted consistently and lawfully.The apartment/condominium inconsistency should likewise be resolved. Rental and ownership projects are subject to different affordability periods under section 65912.157, and a condominium map is itself information required by section 65941.1. A preliminary application should not leave the proposed tenure unclear when tenure is relevant to the statutory restrictions being claimed. Requested Determination12. Identify whether the project is proposed as rental apartments, ownership condominiums, or another tenure, and require all project documents to use a consistent description. 13. Require a reproducible worksheet showing the parcel area, SB 79 base density, base-unit count, affordability pathway, denominator, fractions and rounding, affordable units by income category, density-bonus percentage, bonus units earned and requested, and final unit count. 14. Identify each unit used to satisfy SB 79 affordability, local inclusionary requirements, State Density Bonus Law, or replacement-housing requirements, and identify any lawful overlap. 15. Identify every requested incentive, concession, waiver or reduction of development standards, and parking reduction, together with the statutory basis for each. 16. Identify whether a tentative map, parcel map, vesting map, or condominium map is requested. 17. Place the complete calculations and the City's written conclusions in the administrative record. 4. Existing Residential Units, Occupancy, Anti-Displacement, and Replacement Housing Issue PresentedWhether the record establishes the status and history of the three existing residential units sufficiently to support SB 79 eligibility and compliance with State demolition, replacement-housing, notice, relocation, and anti-displacement requirements. Current Administrative RecordThe existing 2497 draft states that the Preliminary Application identifies three occupied residential units, all proposed for demolition. The supplied materials do not establish a unit-by-unit occupancy history, rent-control or price-control status, affordability restrictions, tenant-income history, withdrawal history, or the applicant's legal analysis of protected-unit and replacement obligations. Applicable LawGovernment Code section 65912.157, subdivision (f), requires an SB 79 project to comply with section 66300.6. Subdivision (g) requires compliance with applicable local demolition and anti-displacement standards. Subdivision (h) prohibits an SB 79 project on a site containing more than two units if the development would demolish housing subject to public rent or price control that was occupied by tenants during the preceding seven years.Government Code section 66300.5 defines protected units to include units subject within the preceding five years to an affordability covenant or law restricting rents, units subject to public rent or price control, units rented by lower- or very-low-income households, and units withdrawn under the Ellis Act within the preceding ten years.Government Code section 66300.6 prohibits approval of a project demolishing residential units unless it creates at least as many units as will be demolished. Where protected units are involved, it requires replacement of protected units, a project containing at least as many units as the greatest number existing on the site during the preceding five years, continued occupancy until six months before construction, prescribed notice, relocation benefits for qualifying lower-income occupants, and a right of first refusal for a comparable affordable unit, subject to statutory exceptions. DiscussionBecause the site contains more than two existing units, the status of those units is not a peripheral issue. It may bear directly on whether section 65912.157, subdivision (h), allows use of SB 79 and on what replacement and tenant-protection conditions must accompany any approval.The necessary inquiry is historical and unit-specific. A later characterization of a unit does not necessarily answer whether it was occupied, rented by a qualifying household, subject to rent or price control, or otherwise protected during the statutory lookback period.The City may protect private tenant information through redaction. Redaction does not prevent the City from placing in the record a sufficient summary of the facts and legal conclusions supporting eligibility, replacement, relocation, and notice determinations. Requested Determination18. Prepare or require a unit-by-unit determination identifying occupancy during the relevant statutory periods, rent- or price-control status, affordability restrictions, protected-unit status, and any claimed exemption. 19. State whether Government Code section 65912.157, subdivision (h), applies and identifies the factual basis for the conclusion. 20. Identify the number and bedroom count of existing and protected units that must be replaced under sections 66300.5 and 66300.6. 21. Identify applicable notice, continued-occupancy, relocation-benefit, and right-of-first-refusal requirements. 22. Confirm that the preliminary application's statement concerning the number and occupancy of units proposed for demolition satisfies Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a)(15). 23. Place the City's written findings in the administrative record, with private tenant information redacted as appropriate. 5. Occupancy Classification, Governing Building Code, and Construction Type Issue PresentedWhether the conceptual plans consistently identify the proposed use, governing building code, occupancy groups, and construction type. Current Administrative RecordThe existing 2497 draft reports that the cover sheet identifies Group R-2/M occupancy and Type I-B construction, while the Preliminary Application states that no nonresidential use is proposed. It further reports that the cover sheet refers to the 2025 California Residential Code for a proposed six-story multifamily building. DiscussionFinal building-code compliance is properly addressed during building-permit review. The present request is not for a final code determination. The request is for a corrected conceptual code summary that consistently describes the project.An M occupancy ordinarily denotes mercantile use, yet the Preliminary Application reportedly identifies no nonresidential use. The California Residential Code generally addresses detached one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses within its scope, and specified accessory structures, rather than a six-story apartment building. Type I-B may or may not be the intended construction type, but the record should identify the code basis rather than carry forward unexplained template classifications.These classifications affect more than construction-document detail. They may bear upon building height, allowable area, mixed-use assumptions, fire and life-safety systems, excavation, mechanical design, and construction cost. Correcting them now will prevent the formal application from proceeding on conflicting assumptions. Requested Determination24. Require a corrected code summary identifying the governing California Building Code edition, every proposed occupancy group, and the reason for any nonresidential occupancy. 25. Confirm whether the project includes any commercial, retail, office, service, or other nonresidential use. 26. Identify the intended construction type, building height, story count, sprinkler status, and code basis. 27. Confirm or correct the references to Group R-2/M, the California Residential Code, and Type I-B. 28. Require revision-dated replacement sheets and place them in the administrative record. 6. Establishing the Government Code Section 65941.1(d) Baseline Issue PresentedWhat residential-unit count and building-area figure will serve as the statutory baseline for determining whether later revisions require resubmission of the preliminary-application information? Applicable LawGovernment Code section 65941.1, subdivision (d), provides that if the proponent revises the project so that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, excluding specific density-bonus-related increases, the project is not deemed to have submitted a qualifying preliminary application until the required information is resubmitted. The statute defines square footage of construction as building area under the California Building Standards Code. DiscussionThe present project materials reportedly contain conflicting site and building information and may be corrected substantially. Establishing the baseline now will avoid a later dispute over whether the 20-percent threshold is measured from an erroneous template figure, gross floor area under a local zoning definition, net residential area, or building area under the California Building Standards Code. Requested Determination29. Identify the unit count and California Building Standards Code building area that the City recognizes as the section 65941.1(d) baseline. 30. Identify the source document and calculation supporting each baseline figure. 31. Confirm that future revisions will be compared to those fixed figures. 32. If correction of the present materials changes either figure by 20 percent or more, require statutory resubmission. 33. Place the baseline determination in the administrative record. PART III — SUFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 7. Cumulative Reliability of the Submitted Materials Issue PresentedWhether the record, considered as a whole, presently supplies a reliable foundation for threshold statutory determinations. DiscussionAny one of the matters discussed above might ultimately be explained by a corrected sheet, a supplemental calculation, or a short written clarification. Collectively, however, they concern nearly every project-defining category identified by Government Code section 65941.1: site identity, existing use, proposed use, building area, parking, below-market-rate units, bonus units, requested waivers or reductions, condominium approvals, existing residential units, and environmental information.The City and public should not be required to evaluate the project through a record containing unrelated property data, inconsistent tenure descriptions, unreproducible affordability calculations, unresolved existing-unit questions, conflicting code classifications, and environmental assumptions that have not yet been documented.This request does not seek final architecture, structural calculations, or construction documents during preliminary review. It seeks something more basic: one coherent project description and a written explanation of the threshold determinations that depend upon it. Requested Determination34. Determine whether the current record is sufficiently accurate and complete to support each threshold conclusion. 35. Defer any conclusion the current record does not support until corrected or supplemental information is filed. 36. Require a consolidated revision set rather than piecemeal corrections that leave superseded information appearing operative. 37. Maintain an index identifying each operative application document, revision date, and superseded version. 38. Provide written responses to the material questions raised in this letter. 8. Meaningful Public Participation and NoticeMeaningful participation requires access to the same operative facts the City is evaluating. We therefore respectfully request notice when corrected materials are filed, when the formal application is received, when the application is determined complete, and when the City issues any written eligibility or environmental determination.We further request that timely technical or factual materials submitted by interested persons be placed in the project file and considered at the stage to which they relate. This request does not seek to delay review pending private studies; it seeks assurance that the administrative record remains open to relevant information before the City's corresponding determination is finalized. PART IV — RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 9. Reservation of RightsThese comments are based upon the materials supplied and the publicly described preliminary record. They do not waive any objection or argument arising from the formal application, corrected plans, technical studies, City comments, environmental documents, or other materials later added to the record.Nothing in this letter concedes that the project satisfies SB 79, Government Code section 65941.1, State Density Bonus Law, the Housing Accountability Act, CEQA, or any other statute. Conversely, nothing asserts that the project necessarily fails those laws. The submitting parties reserve the right to address those issues after the relevant record is complete. 10. Consolidated Administrative RequestsThe following administrative requests are made in addition to those set out above. Requests concerning environmental/groundwater investigation, fire and life safety, infrastructure capacity, solid waste, and construction-phase protection of adjoining structures are addressed in the accompanying letter requesting conditions of approval in the event the project proceeds.39. Designate the submitting parties as interested parties and provide notice of material future actions concerning the application. 40. Identify the official project record number, assigned planner, filing date, and documents presently treated as operative. 41. Require a corrected, consolidated, revision-dated application and conceptual plan set that contains no information from unrelated projects. 42. Issue a written determination addressing whether the information required by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a), was supplied for the actual 2497 High Street project. 43. Establish the unit-count and building-area baseline under Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (d). 44. Provide a complete, reproducible SB 79 affordability and State Density Bonus Law worksheet, identifying all incentives, concessions, waivers, reductions, and subdivision approvals. 45. Issue a written, unit-by-unit determination concerning the three existing units, SB 79 subdivision (h), protected-unit status, replacement housing, tenant notice, relocation, and right-of-first-refusal requirements. 46. Require a corrected building-code and occupancy summary. 47. Identify any CEQA exemption relied upon, the factual basis for every criterion, and the date on which any Notice of Exemption is filed. 48. Place corrected materials, calculations, technical reports, public comments, and the City's written responses in the administrative record. 49. Provide written notice when the formal application is received, when it is determined complete, and when any appealable written determination is issued. 50. Identify any administrative review or appeal process applicable to threshold eligibility or environmental determinations. ConclusionThank you for considering these comments.This letter does not ask the City to reject housing policy established by the Legislature, nor does it ask Planning staff to decide final engineering questions at the preliminary-application stage. It asks the City to distinguish the legal determinations presently before it, identify the facts supporting each determination, and require the public record to describe the actual project consistently.The preliminary-application process can vest significant statutory protections. Those protections should attach only to an application that supplies the information the Legislature requires. Likewise, SB 79 eligibility, State Density Bonus Law benefits, replacement-housing compliance, and any CEQA exemption should rest upon written determinations supported by the administrative record.If the City determines that the project may proceed, the accompanying letter requesting conditions of approval addresses the foreseeable consequences of placing a six-story, nineteen-unit building on this constrained corner site, including environmental and groundwater conditions, fire and life safety, actual emergency-access width on High Street and Colorado Avenue, water pressure and fire flow, sewer and stormwater capacity, electrical and transformer needs, refuse collection, and construction protection of immediately adjoining homes. These interdependent public-safety and infrastructure issues should be resolved through coordinated technical review and enforceable conditions while the project design can still respond to them.We respectfully request that the City make no determination the present record does not support. Where corrected or supplemental information resolves the questions identified above, the City should place that information and its written conclusions in the public record before proceeding.We would be pleased to provide additional information that may assist the City's review.Respectfully submitted,Gang Liu on Colorado Ave EXHIBIT A — CONFLICTING PROJECT INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE PRESENT RECORD Topic Preliminary Application / Draft Conceptual Plan Entry Reported in Draft Requested CorrectionaddressStreetAvenueoperative address and remove unrelated references.residential building property existing-site description.zoning applicable zoning and SB 79 overlay assumptions.5,500 square feet feet surveyed parcel area.building residential units foot office building and demolition data.parking conditions spaces parking description. residence ownership.Proposed use No nonresidential use reported classification remove M occupancy. EXHIBIT B — REQUIRED AFFORDABILITY AND DENSITY-BONUS WORKSHEETCalculation Item Required Entry Authority / PurposeParcel area [Confirm surveyed square footage]calculationdistance65912.157(a)-(b)65912.157(a), (d)baselinepathwayincome / local alternative]65912.157(i) denominator definition]reproducibilityroundingauthority]reproducibilityModerate Income (confirm)purpose of each unit percentagerequested 65941.1(a)(11), 65915Incentives / concessions [List each]Gov. Code §§ 65912.157(d), 65915 65941.1(a)(11), 65915tentative / vesting map]65941.1(a)(12) EXHIBIT C — REQUESTED WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS 51. SB 79 site and project eligibility under Government Code section 65912.157. 52. Completeness and legal effect of the preliminary application under Government Code section 65941.1. 53. Unit-count and building-area baseline under Government Code section 65941.1(d). 54. Affordability pathway and State Density Bonus Law calculations. 55. Requested incentives, concessions, waivers, reductions, and parking relief. 56. Status of the three existing units under Government Code sections 65912.157(h), 66300.5, and 66300.6. 57. Replacement-housing, notice, relocation, and right-of-first-refusal obligations. 58. Correct occupancy classifications, governing building code, and construction type. 59. Applicability and factual basis of any CEQA exemption, including Public Resources Code section 21080.66. EXHIBIT D — PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIESCal. Gov. Code § 65912.157 (SB 79 transit-oriented housing standards, affordability, anti-displacement, and interaction with Density Bonus Law and HAA).Cal. Gov. Code § 65941.1 (information required for preliminary applications; 20-percent revision rule; filing deadlines).Cal. Gov. Code § 65915 (State Density Bonus Law). Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act).Cal. Gov. Code § 66300.5 (definitions, including protected units).Cal. Gov. Code § 66300.6 (demolition, replacement housing, continued occupancy, notice, relocation, and right of first refusal).Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 (housing-development CEQA exemption, if all criteria are satisfied).California Building Standards Code, title 24, California Code of Regulations (including definition of building area relevant to Gov. Code § 65941.1(d)). From:Katherine Mills To:Council, City Subject:STOP SB79 Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:33:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i SB79 is helping few and destroying communities. Apartments.com lists thousands of avaliable rentals in the contiguous cities along El Camino, from Milpitas through Mountain View now. Many of these behemoths are overshadowing El Camino, and still the builders get to destroy a grocery store on Cal Ave in Palo Alto for more rentals, downtown Menlo Park is under threat of all parking being destroyed for more rentals when virtually all of El Camino in Menlo Park is lined with empty apartments, and the plans for the former Sunset Magazine property are suitable for the Vegas Strip or Manhattan, but not that neighbor or any in Menlo Park or Palo Alto. All while the taxpayers are footing the bill to install infrastructure for the utilities and the roads. In conclusion, if these behemoths don't fill up, and the ones already constructed have not and the population in the Bay Area is not increasing but by a few percent, then these properties will be unprofitable and the billionaires will walk away and the city will be stuck with these eyesores, and the devaluation of not only those properties but others in that area, properties owned by the very same people who are warning you now that this piece of legislation is destroying neighborhoods and not providing affordable housing. STOP SB79 IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE HOUSING SHORTAGE-- >stop persons who are not citizens from buying homes, >stop hedge finds from buying homes, >increase taxes on second homes .. >stop apartment owners from creating and increasing fees, such as for parking and garbage collection. This is to work around the limit on rent increases. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Council, City; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Palo Alto Renters" Association; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Board of Directors; BoardOperations; Bill Newell; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; editor@paweekly.com; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Vicki Veenker; Stone, Greer; Patrice Ventresca; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Gerry Gras; Lu, George; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Friends of Cubberley; Yusra Hussain; PD Kristina Bell; Burt, Patrick Subject:Re: Keith believes in transparency my a- -! Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:32:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Keith, Have you ever spoken out against your employer's production of weapons used to commit mass genocide in Palestine? On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 5:19 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 8/8/2026 Keith, Are you in Huntsville, Alabama making more killer missiles for Lockheed to continue the Israeli genocide on the people of Palestine? Are you a citizen of Israel? Is your first loyalty to vile state of Israel? Are you an extremist white-wing Zionist? I have asked you the above questions multiple times and you have refused to answer me. We the the voters are entitled to be fully informed on your opinions/answers on these critical issues. Stop stonewalling the public —Mr. Transparacy! ****** Keith, you claiming to want transparency in local Palo Alto politics is beyond fucking laughable. You want transparency out of planning commissioner Olf Paterson—while for the last two years you have refused to meet with me, one of your constituents. You're about as transparent as a fucking brick wall. You are an embarrassment to all righteous, justice-loving Jews. Avram “Eliminate Israel Now” Finkelstein Aka: one proud Jew—Aram James On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 9:54 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. It describes how ordinary people, without necessarily being inherently evil, can participate in and contribute to monstrous acts, often by simply conforming to social norms or blindly following orders. Arendt's analysis of Adolf Eichmann =led her to conclude that his actions, while horrific, stemmed from a lack of critical thinking and a failure to consider the consequences of his actions, rather than from deep-seated malevolence. From:Aram James To:Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia; Hoyt, George; Jasso, Tamara; Council, City Cc:EPA Today; Gennady Sheyner; Friends of Cubberley; Braden Cartwright; Enberg, Nicholas; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Cecilia Taylor; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; BoardOperations; Board of Directors Subject:News Alert: 7.4 earthquake topples buildings in Colombia Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:19:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bay Area News Group A 7.4-magnitude earthquake shakes western Colombia, causing serious damage In Manizales, 190 miles west of Bogota, a tower of the neo- Gothic cathedral collapsed and fell on the nave. READ STORY Bay Area News Group © Copyright 2026 Bay Area News Group. All rights reserved. 75 E. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1100 | San Jose, CA 95113 Unsubscribe From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - August 10 Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 8:01:56 AM Attachments:RE Restricted Parking due to Bike Lane.msg image001.png image002.png RE Subject Clarification Regarding Housing-Related Assistance Available Through Project Sentinel.msg Re Questions for boy scout merit badge.msg RE RE 72126- Again problems with obtaining a residential parking permit for a disabled person visiting caregivers !.msg FW Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto.msg RE Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code 18 Roosevelt Circle Request for Response Within 10 Days.msg RE Garbage Not Being Picked -Up.msg RE Speeding Middlefield red.msg FW Council Direction for path.msg FW Ventura Neighborhood.msg FW Confirmation of Public Records Act Request.msg RE Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code 18 Roosevelt Circle Request for Response Within 10 Days.msg FW Fire HazardsPatrolling Page Mill Rd..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 August 10, 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:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: tomorrow"s meeting, item AA1 Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 7:49:43 AM From: Allyson Rosen <rosenally@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 5:30 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: tomorrow's meeting, item AA1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I also found this review of the Bay Area Autoworks and Towing LLC On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 5:10PM Allyson Rosen <rosenally@gmail.com> wrote: Please include this in the materials for tomorrow's meeting onAA1. Removal of Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson New Item Ad i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Powered by Mimecast I also found this review of the Bay Area Autoworks and Towing LLC On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 5:10 PM Allyson Rosen <rosenally@gmail.com> wrote: Please include this in the materials for tomorrow's meeting on AA1. Removal of Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson New Item Added This Business complaining about Forest Peterson has some serious one star reviews --   From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: tomorrow"s meeting, item AA1 Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 7:49:26 AM From: Allyson Rosen <rosenally@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 5:10 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: re: tomorrow's meeting, item AA1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please include this in the materials for tomorrow's meeting onAA1. Removal of Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson New Item Added This Business complaining about Forest Peterson has some serious one star reviews -- ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Please include this in the materials for tomorrow's meeting on AA1. Removal of Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson New Item Added This Business complaining about Forest Peterson has some serious one star reviews Powered by Mimecast -- From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Subject:Re: Keith believes in transparency my a- -! Date:Monday, August 10, 2026 12:48:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 5:19 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 8/8/2026 Keith, Are you in Huntsville, Alabama making more killer missiles for Lockheed to continue the Israeli genocide on the people of Palestine? Are you a citizen of Israel? Is your first loyalty to vile state of Israel? Are you an extremist white-wing Zionist? Have you ever spoken out against your employer's production of weapons used to commit mass genocide in Palestine? I have asked you the above questions multiple times and you have refused to answer me. We the the voters are entitled to be fully informed on your opinions/answers on these critical issues. Stop stonewalling the public —Mr. Transparacy! ****** Keith, you claiming to want transparency in local Palo Alto politics is beyond fucking laughable. You want transparency out of planning commissioner Olf Paterson—while for the last two years you have refused to meet with me, one of your constituents. You're about as transparent as a fucking brick wall. You are an embarrassment to all righteous, justice-loving Jews. Avram “Eliminate Israel Now” Finkelstein Aka: one proud Jew—Aram James On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 9:54 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. It describes how ordinary people, without necessarily being inherently evil, can participate in and contribute to monstrous acts, often by simply conforming to social norms or blindly following orders. Arendt's analysis of Adolf Eichmann =led her to conclude that his actions, while horrific, stemmed from a lack of critical thinking and a failure to consider the consequences of his actions, rather than from deep-seated malevolence. From:Lin Xie To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:Record No. 26PLN-00179 (340 Palo Alto Avenue) — Further comments on threshold eligibility review Date:Sunday, August 9, 2026 11:14:23 PM Attachments:We found suspicious links.msg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Dinh, Attached are further comments on Record No. 26PLN-00179, continuing my letters of 5 and 7 August. Since those letters I have located records bearing on the existing residential conditions at the site, and have reviewed the objective design standards applicable to a multiple-family development on an R-1 parcel. The attached letter reports what I found. It raises four matters: 1. Records indicating that the property has been rental housing, including a detached cottage described in a January 2022 listing as independently equipped, and the bearing of Gov. Code § 65912.157(f) on the City's present review; 2. The applicability of PAMC Chapter 18.24 to this project, and the privacy standards at § 18.24.050; 3. Whether PAMC § 16.65.030 applies, and if so at what rate; and 4. Two shorter questions, concerning Gov. Code § 65941.1(a)(16) and the consistency criterion relied upon for the claimed CEQA exemption. I recognize the review timeline is short, and I have kept the letter to matters that appear to bear on determinations now before the City. If it assists, the two questions I would most value an answer to are identified in the conclusion. I would be grateful if this could be routed to the City Attorney and the Housing Division as appropriate, and placed in the record for this application. Thank you again for meeting with me and for inviting written comments. Respectfully, Lin Xie 346 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 linxie08@gmail.com · (608) 628-7987 From:Martin Balestie To:Council, City Subject:Critical Infrastructure: PFAs, 6PPD-quinone, sludge dewatering, anaerobic digestion, engineering ethics, Baskin-Robbins, bridge load rating, engineering software (recent hires/area managers/most eng & science majors: env/chem/mech/civil/cyb... Date:Sunday, August 9, 2026 9:34:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi! Nice to touch base! Hope all is well! Just a short email (hope it makes it through). I'm helping get the word out as regards up and coming webinar series, i.e. 6PPD-quinone, engineering ethics, federal grants, biological treatment, green infrastructure and schoolyards, sludge handling, aging infrastructure, cooling energy and water use tradeoffs, continuing funding and more. Feel free to pass along/forward to possibly available/interested parties/eng heads/area managers/recent hires. Applies to almost all eng/science/EPC areas: env/chem/mech/ civil/ cyber/interdiscipl/pub policy. Will be glad to redirect to registration links! Always happy my side to support engineering/education, recommended practice, student mentoring, industry/global outreach and much more. Global and digital go hand in hand! Have a nice week start and beyond. Stay safe, healthy and happy! Best of greetings from way down south "el Sur" ... Tschusssssssssssss!! Martin Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! Geosynthetics Case Studies Date: August 13, 2026 This webinar will present three case studies in the geosynthetics industry. First, Patrick Elliott (Colorado Lining Int'l/Viaflex) will discuss rehabilitation of a 2-milion gallon water storage tank in Arizona. The project involved installing a HydraStor Bladder System with an inlet structure, floating vents, and a stormwater removal system, which was completed in just five days. Second, Brian Fraser (Layfield Group) will present a case study involving the use of baffle curtains in a potable water treatment system to increase water contact time during the treatment process. Finally, Ron MacKenzie (Inland Tarp & Liner) will discuss the use of factory fabricated geomembrane panels in above ground storage facilites in mining applications. This case study will illustrate the use of factory fabricated geomembrane panels in mining applicaitons. 1.0 PDH Presenters: Patrick Elliott, Brian Fraser and Ron MacKenzie Engineering Ethics Date: August 17, 2026 Sound, ethical behavior is the cornerstone of the engineering profession. Engineering requires honesty and impartiality toward the work we do to protect public health, safety, and welfare. This webinar is designed to meet the ethical training requirements of the Michigan PE, while reminding us all of the importance in making clear ethical decisions during our daily activities. Who Should Attend? Engineers who are looking to meet their Michigan ethical training requirements. Those who wish to enhance their ethical decision making during daily activities. Preparing for a Federal Grant: A Small Community Case Study Date: August 18, 2026 Description: Large federal grants can be transformative, but small communities often have limited staff and resources to manage complex funding opportunities. This webinar will highlight how one small community is preparing for a major federal grant project by building partnerships, leveraging technical assistance, and coordinating with key stakeholders. Through this case study, participants will gain practical strategies to strengthen local capacity, prepare for project implementation, and position their communities for long-term success. Learn More Learning Objectives: Develop a plan to assess community capacity, identify resources needed, and position organizations for funding Identify technical assistance resources that support project readiness Strengthen collaboration with agencies and stakeholders Presenters: Anna Archer, Wichita State University Rhonda Bell, City of Beverly, Kansas Like Baskin-Robbins… Activated Sludge Has Many Flavors Date: August 20, 2026 Description: The term “activated sludge” means nothing more than biological wastewater treatment provided by microorganisms suspended in wastewater by mixing and aeration systems. How the mixing and aeration take place along with tank configuration and influent wastewater feed can be very different. Sometimes people get lost in the various configurations and forget that at its core, treatment boils down to aerated microorganisms suspended in wastewater. The presentation will take an historic look at some of the common activated sludge treatment schemes – from early treatment to modern granular sludge treatment – always remembering the key component involves aerating and mixing microorganisms. Learning Objectives: - Understand the basics of activated sludge - Understand how various activated sludge treatment schemes are similar and how they are different - Understand how and why activated sludge processes have evolved from the 1920s to the present - Gain a general understanding of how activated sludge processes are used to reduce biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus Presenter: Mike Tate, PE Wichita State University Seasonal Challenges, Smart Solutions Part 2: Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Wastewater Lagoons Date: August 25, 2026 Description: Warmer temperatures are often viewed as beneficial for wastewater lagoon performance, but extreme heat conditions can create a complex set of challenges that affect biological treatment and regulatory compliance. This one-hour webinar will explore how seasonal temperature changes influence biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal, dissolved oxygen availability, nitrification, algae growth, and overall lagoon treatment efficiency. Participants will gain a practical understanding of how microbial populations respond to warming lagoon temperatures and why some lagoon systems continue to experience elevated BOD levels despite favorable summer conditions. The webinar will also examine dissolved oxygen limitations, hydraulic retention time, short-circuiting, aeration strategies, and operational approaches to improving lagoon performance. Designed specifically for wastewater operators and managers, this session will provide practical examples and troubleshooting techniques to identify treatment bottlenecks and improve lagoon operations during the warmest months of the year. Presenter: Dr. Jason R. Barrett, Director Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute at Mississippi State University Wastewater Systems Biological Digestion and Sludge Disposal Date: Aug 27, 2026 Join us for part 2 of our two-part webinar on wastewater solids handling. This one-hour webinar is designed to train wastewater operators, utility board members, and municipal decision makers on biological digestion and the role it plays in wastewater treatment. We will review digester basics, discuss both aerobic and anaerobic digestion and better understand land application of sludge. Presenter: Dawn Nall Cooling Tower Selection and Design -> The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (corporate webinar) Date: August 27, 2026 2026 Bridge Load Rating Fall Training Series Each workshop will be offered twice, giving you flexibility to select the session time that best fits your schedule. Join us for the Bridge Load Rating Spring Series: Bridge Load Rating 2-Day Virtual Workshop Bridge Load Rating Basics: From Plans to Load Rating Bridge Load Rating: Theory & Policy Advanced Topics in Bridge Load Rating: Part 1 Advanced Topics in Bridge Load Rating: Part 2 2026 Bridge Load Rating 2-Day Virtual Workshop (Sept) Learn how to use AASHTOWare Bridge Rating software in a 2-day hands-onn workshop environment. This event will take place from 9:00am-12:00pm (ET) on both September 23rd & 24th. Participants will need the latest version of the software installed on the computer they are using for the training. AASHTOWare Bridge Rating software is available to local agencies and their consultants free of charge (courtesy of MDOT) for use on Michigan bridges. 2026 Engineering Software Date: October 5, 2026 The Center for Technology & Training has partnered with civil engineering faculty to develop learning modules that bridge the gap between classroom theory and hands-on software experiences. Bentley Education provides the educational software access that forms the basis for these modules.In this free webinar, faculty members will demonstrate how to easily integrate these pre-built modules into existing syllabi, homework, or computational labs. These modules may also be of interest to working professionals who are branching into new areas of expertise. Intended Audience Civil engineering faculty and students Transportation agency engineers/technicians Anyone interested in learning about OpenRoads™ Designer, OpenBridge ® Designer, MicroStation®, SYNCHRO™ Pro or Plaxis® 3D THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING Date: October 14, 2026 Older generations are retiring from manufacturing; companies are scrambling to fill production demands, keep equipment running, navigate current energy pressures and optimize core plant utilities like compressed air and chilled water. Industry professionals must work together to engage with the general public to change misconceptions about manufacturing and drive awareness to new solutions such as AI, digitization, automation and robotics. Key Takeaways: Leveraging technology in new ways to support manufacturers Adapting new types of automation, digital tools, frontline worker solutions and AI Engaging the new workforce to attract and retain younger generations Jake Hall is an advocate for manufacturing, automation and skilled trades by helping revolutionize the way people and companies present themselves through social media. With over 120,000 followers and 250,000,000+ views on his content, he ignites conversations about the latest in manufacturing and automation to excite the current and future workforce about industry. Learn more. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Small Wastewater System Funding Series - Syracuse University Successfully securing and managing federal funding for publicly owned and decentralized wastewater treatment systems is no small task, especially with shifting program priorities and uncertainty about future allocations. This no-cost webinar series from the Capacity Collaborative will guide participants through the entire funding process: where to find nationally available funding, how to craft competitive proposals, and how to stay in compliance through project completion. Designed for small wastewater systems, each session focuses on a step in the funding application and management journey, equipping participants with tools and knowledge to increase their chances of funding success. Workshops and webinars are complimentary under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA. Feel free to forward/circulate to likely stakeholders/incumbent parties. Will be happy to redirect to registration links! WORKFORCE MENTORING (PUBLIC/PRIVATE)After six years of successful college/university mentoring (UC Davis, Maryland College Park & Global, UMich Ann Arbor, Penn State) I'm happy to announce I will be expanding/adding like pro bono support for practicing professionals, start up teams and trainees/interns/junior workers. Glad to report was again awarded a Fall 2026 scholarship by Wichita State and chosen research area/coursework is centered around workforce mentoring (HRM 460BE). While I have been doing this for many, many years for people in industry things keep changing and there's always room for improving and updates/revamps. I will be seeking one or more existing (or to be implemented) like workforce programs to help examine and develop improvement plan/recommendations which will also serve for the course's Capstone. Naturally it would be handled with confidentiality or as desired.Most all majors welcome: engineering/business and marketing/env chem mech ind eng/science/CS/IT/manufacturing/cybersec/C&I education/intl/arts). Feel free to touch base ad lib 24/7/365 ...Contact emails: Martin Balestie <balestie@umich.edu>, Martin Balestie <answers@engineeringfundamentals.com>,Martin Balestie <mxbalestie@shockers.wichita.edu>SMS: (1) 917 300 3024 Teaching, the "profession that makes others possible," cannot be executed in isolation of others! James C. Young Project - Ken Schifftner Consulting Air Pollution Control - Balestie & Balestie Ingenieros www.facebook.com/industrialwastewater - www.PocketGoogle.com - www.DigitalProspection.com - www.MartinBalestie.com - www.GalopeApproach.com - www.TrumpetBible.com UNIVERSITY MENTOR University of Maryland: serving a third consecutive term as Computer Science Mentor Iribe Initiative Program https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-Peer-Alumni-Mentoring-Agreement-Fall-2021-signed.pdf uc davis University of California, Davis (College of Engineering ENG 003 Introduction to Engineering Design Showcase Evaluator): volunteered highly technical feedback to a full one third of 45 presented student teams although initially scheduled to review just five projects https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/Evaluator%20Assignments%20%26%20Team%20Info%20%28Sp22%29%20U%20California%20Davis.pdf University of Michigan: Chemical Engineering Mentoring Platform https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/z-umich-chemical-engineering-mentor-ucan-chemical.pdf Penn State University: Engineering Design 100 Climate Resilience and Adaptation Design December 2025 https://engineeringfundamentals.com/1000Ace/penn-state-engineering-design-100-december-2025-invitation.pdf p.s.: My good friends, my best friends computers NEVER fail to fail! You may receive duplicates of this message/others as at times I having email snafus/bounces. Feel free to get back to me ad lib, either via balestie@umich.edu and/or cc.: Martin Balestie < answers@engineeringfundamentals.com> (1) 917 300 3024 (on and off NEW NUMBER ). From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:August 10, 2026 CityCouncil Meting, Item #6: Embarcadero Road Traffic Signals Operation Date:Sunday, August 9, 2026 5:37:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. AUGUST 10, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #6 EMBARCADERO ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNALS OPERATION [Embarcadero Road Improvements (Alma to Emerson)] I urge you to continue this agenda item to a future meeting toprovide staff the opportunity to disclose the changes totraffic signal locations and signal timing for Embarcadero Roadthat includes the installation of new traffic signals onEmbarcadero Road at Emerson Street and High Street. It required three public records requests to obtain the gradingcontract for the Alma Street to Emerson Street portion of theroad that indicated traffic signal installation but omittedanything about the traffic signals themselves. Thank you. Herb Borock From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Council, City; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly Cc:Shikada, Ed; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; Bains, Paul; Patrick Marshall; julie.ruhlin@oirgroup.con; Lythcott- Haims, Julie Subject:The Washington Post this month reported that at least 50 officers across the U.S. have been accused by authorities of improperly using license plate camera systems, including to stalk women. Date:Sunday, August 9, 2026 9:21:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be interested. How to get away with murder ... https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=8640e738-409f- 4e73-956f-49868abcd54b&appcode=SAN252&eguid=fcee9590-f6b3-486f-9acb- 9a3f78cb6ed2&pnum=1# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:anthony jordan To:Council, City Subject:Joining Cupertino and Santa Clara county rideshare program Date:Sunday, August 9, 2026 9:05:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I'm reaching out to you to ask if you would be interested in joining the hopper ride share program that is in Cupertino and Santa Clara. There's a request from the riders requesting to expand the entire Santa Clara county. It makes getting around town more affordable for seniors and students. I would suggest contacting the Cupertino and Santa Clara accounts to get more information. Thank you for your time. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Council, City; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Palo Alto Renters" Association; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Board of Directors; BoardOperations; Bill Newell; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; editor@paweekly.com; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Vicki Veenker; Stone, Greer; Patrice Ventresca; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Gerry Gras; Lu, George; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Friends of Cubberley Subject:Re: Keith believes in transparency my a- -! Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 5:20:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 8/8/2026 Keith, Are you in Huntsville, Alabama making more killer missiles for Lockheed to continue the Israeli genocide on the people of Palestine? Are you a citizen of Israel? Is your first loyalty to vile state of Israel? Are you an extremist white-wing Zionist? I have asked you the above questions multiple times and you have refused to answer me. We the the voters are entitled to be fully informed on your opinions/answers on these critical issues. Stop stonewalling the public —Mr. Transparacy! ****** Keith, you claiming to want transparency in local Palo Alto politics is beyond fucking laughable. You want transparency out of planning commissioner Olf Paterson —while for the last two years you have refused to meet with me, one of your constituents. You're about as transparent as a fucking brick wall. You are an embarrassment to all righteous, justice-loving Jews. Avram “Eliminate Israel Now” Finkelstein Aka: one proud Jew—Aram James On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 9:54 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. It describes how ordinary people, without necessarily being inherently evil, can participate in and contribute to monstrous acts, often by simply conforming to social norms or blindly following orders. Arendt's analysis of Adolf Eichmann =led her to conclude that his actions, while horrific, stemmed from a lack of critical thinking and a failure to consider the consequences of his actions, rather than from deep-seated malevolence. From:Aram James To:Council, City; BoardOperations; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Raymond Goins Subject:My Day by Eleanor Roosevelt, January 26, 1962 Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 3:23:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/myday/displaydoc.cfm?_y=1962&_f=md005061 From:Aram James To:Tim James; Cait James; Lewis james; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; caitlin.a.james@gnail.com Cc:Gerry Gras Subject:Peace Hostage Proosal Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 2:56:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Michel Brahic To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Comment regarding proposed development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 1:58:15 PM Attachments:Comment 340 Palo Alto Ave. BSB-1.pdf Comment 340 Palo Alto Ave. BSB-2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Begin forwarded message: From: Michel Brahic <mbrahic@stanford.edu> Subject: Comment regarding proposed development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Date: August 8, 2026 at 11:46:42 AM PDT To: joey.dinh@paloalto.org Cc: planner@paloalto.org, city.council@paloalto.org, jonathan.lait@paloalto.org Please find attached my comments regarding proposed development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Powered by Mimecast From:Michel Brahic To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Public Comment Re. Proposed Development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 1:54:44 PM Attachments:Comment 340 Palo Alto Ave. MB-1.pdf Comment 340 Palo Alto Ave.MB-2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Begin forwarded message: From: Michel Brahic <michelbrahic@gmail.com> Subject: Public Comment Re. Proposed Development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Date: August 8, 2026 at 11:43:54 AM PDT To: joey.dinh@paloalto.org Cc: planner@paloalto.org, city.council@paloalto.org, jonathan.lait@paloalto.org Please, find attached my comments regarding the proposed development at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Powered by Mimecast From:Ping Zhang To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto 311 case 18225728 Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 11:28:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear city council members, Thank you for confirming that the 4000 block of Fabian Way east of the bend is eligible for signs allowing enforcement of the overnight oversized vehicle parking restriction under PAMC 10.44.020. This is near the driveway serving 800 Charleston Village. Installing these signs will dramatically improve safety and visibility in the area. Could you please share the expected work order and installation date? Thanks and best regards, Ping Zhang From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Richard Konda; Susan Hayase; Carla Torres; Raymond Goins; Sameena Usman; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Salem Ajluni; DuJuan Green; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; city.council@menlopark.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; Perron, Zachary; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Rosen; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jose Valle; Raj Jayadev; Gerry Gras; Diana Diamond; Yusra Hussain; Human Relations Commission; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Zelkha, Mila; Zahra Billoo; Reckdahl, Keith; Vicki Veenker; Rodriguez, Miguel; Dana St. George; Damon Silver; julie.ruhlin@oirgroup.con; Preminger, Steve; Stephen Connolly; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; board@pausd.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Board of Directors; BoardOperations; Afanasiev, Alex; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Steve Wagstaffe; EPA Today; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Donna Wallach; William Armaline; Lewis james; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Nicole Chiu-Wang; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission Cc:Charlie Weidanz; Jensen, Eric; PD Kristina Bell; Nancy Goodban; Rebecca Kieler; Taylor, Cecilia; Council, City; Dave Price; Bains, Paul Subject:Virginia’s Prisons Have a Dog Problem - Jaeon Chavis - Inquest Date:Saturday, August 8, 2026 9:14:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. A must read!! https://inquest.org/virginia-prisons-dog-attacks/ From:Emily Renzel To:Eggleston, Brad Cc:Pham, Tina; Council, City Subject:Measure E site & RWQCP Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 8:17:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Brad: I’m sorry that the City Administration is still trying to keep the habitat corridor that was part of the 2011 Measure E undedication of parkland. As I’m sure you remember, Bob Wenzlau wanted to preserve the 15-acre compost operation on the landfill. Mayor Peter Drekmeier formed a Composting Task Force. Thousands of dollars were spent. Trips to ZBest in Gilroy were the CO2 bogeymen. Council over-ruled the Composting Task Force recommendation and started a very costly “Dry Anaerobic Digestion” study. Staff jiggered the numbers to try to make that project “cost effective”. In particular, after the General fund had charged $100,000/acre/year rent for decades to use Byxbee Park as a landfill, the Anaerobic Digestion study used a figure of $10,000/acre/year rent. In the end the project changed to “wet anaerobic digestion” and ultimately was found NOT to be cost effective. In 2019 the RWQCP incinerator was retired, resulting in major CO2 reduction (far more than trips to Gilroy). Now, the same people (Drekmeier, Wenzlau et al) are determined to prevent the Parkland from being rededicated. They will probably support whatever novel technologies might occur in the future just to justify this continued usurpation of parkland. The Renzel Wetland was a “beneficial use” project of RWQCP. It was a type of mitigation for excess discharge of treated sewage effluent. As a required part of that project, a large pipeline was installed to supply salt water from the Bay to a portion of the Renzel wetlands that hosts a very healthy endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse population. That pipeline is a permanent requirement of RWQCP and is a hydrological connection between the two wetlands. It runs through the 2.4 acre site. The 125’ wide habitat corridor was also a Site and Design requirement of RWQCP. It was carefully landscaped at the time and RWQCP is responsible for maintaining it. I hope that Staff will provide complete information about RWQCP’’s use of parkland. Thanks. Emily PS Please put page numbers on your staff reports. I had to use my precious speaking time to give page citations. From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City Subject:Measure E site/RWQCP Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 1:52:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. August 7, 2026 Chair Veenker & Members of the Climate Action Committee: I urge you to recommend re-dedication of the entire 10 acre Measure E site - just as the Parks & Recreation Commission has TWICE recommended. You have received my letter to the Parks & Recreation Committee and I would like to add the following comments. Of course, I support re-dedication of the 7.6-acre portion of the Measure E site which are part of the completed landfill and would cost huge amounts of money to use, requiring re-opening the landfill, reconfiguring it, relocating landfill infrastructure and disposing of excess contaminated landfill materials. The 2.4 acre habitat corridor is, of course, the most important part of the Measure E site to be re-dedicated. It provides a key wildlife and hydrological connection between the Bay, the 126-acre landfill, and the Renzel wetland sites. It also provides an important link in the loop trail around Byxbee Hills Park. The Staff Report 8th page says, “the study found that the Measure E site already provides wildlife habitat and hydrologic connectivity between adjacent wetlands, and that constructing a new wildlife corridor would require substantial excavation, utility relocation, and ongoing maintenance while providing limited ecological benefit beyond existing conditions. There are about 5 acres of privately held properties along Embarcadero Way that adjoin the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. If the RWQCP partners want to plan for the long term, they ought to be looking into those properties instead of the Measure E habitat corridor. The 6th page of the Staff report says, “The Baseline (current biosolids management) and Offsite Partnership alternatives require no new onsite energy- consuming processes, with no additional natural gas or electricity demand beyond what is needed to address increased solids loading with time. “ The 7th page says, …“the Baseline (Alternative 1) and Offsite Partnership (Alternative 2) alternatives ranked highest across all evaluation criteria and sensitivity analyses. Both of these two offsite alternatives scored significantly higher than any onsite alternative. The 7th page also says, “Long Term Plan (2041-2055) recommendation. The Staff recommendation is that the 2.4 acre site be held hostage for 15-30 years more instead of allowing the site to once again enjoy protection of the Park Dedication Charter Amendment. How old will you be in 2055? Please restore the entire 10-acre Measure E site to Park Dedication. Thank you. Emily M. Renzel Planning Commissioner, 1973-79 Councilmember 1979-91 From:Ryan Griggs To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; PWD Cc:Annette; sheri@midtownresidents.org Subject:Palo Alto Park Signs Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 1:00:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, My name is Ryan Griggs, and I am the incoming chair of the Midtown Residents Association. I’m writing to share MRA’s concerns regarding the city’s new park-sign initiative. The Midtown Residents Association strongly opposes the proposed removal and replacement of the signs at Hoover and Seale parks. The existing three-dimensional signs are beautiful, handcrafted features that reflect the distinctive character of our neighborhood. We especially value the unique tree motif associated with each park. We are concerned that replacing these signs with standardized, two-dimensional panels would diminish their craftsmanship, durability, and sense of place. We believe Palo Alto can maintain a cohesive city identity without sacrificing the character of individual neighborhoods. To our knowledge, the proposed replacements were not presented to the City Council or the Parks and Recreation Commission, and nearby residents were not given an opportunity to comment. Before any additional signs are removed, we ask the city to pause the project and consult with affected neighborhoods through a transparent public process. Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know if we can provide any additional information. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter further. Ryan Griggs Chair, Midtown Residents Association Sheri Furman Past Chair, Midtown Residents Association Annette Glanckopf Vice Chair, Midtown Residents Association From:Andreas Bode To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:SB 79 Preliminary Application for 340 Palo Alto Ave (Record 26PLN-00179) Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 11:34:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Joey, I received your email address from other concerned neighbors in the vicinity of 340 Palo Alto Ave. My wife and I own the adjoining property at 374 Palo Alto Ave, which we bought and moved into in 1992. We loved living there for more than a dozen years, enjoying in particular the residential feel, the rich & lush greenery provided by huge oak trees and redwoods, and the friendly neighborhood of a positive mix of single-family homes and well-integrated condominium or apartment buildings. Since we moved away, our renters have echoed this positive sentiment – everyone agrees that this neighborhood in North Palo Alto features a particularly well-balanced mix of suburban comfort with urban flair. For my wife and I this has been the main reason for holding on to the property – we are seriously considering settling down for our retirement in Palo Alto again. The planned construction at 340 Palo Alto Ave would certainly violate many of the above principles. I am worried about the impact on the wonderful trees on our and neighboring properties. I am concerned about the abundance of planned concrete on the lot, which will impact local climate and drainage quality, potentially also impact the fragile eco-system of San Francisquito Creek. Also I fear this planned construction is not designed to foster the balance and appropriate mix of dwellings in the neighborhood, but instead is tipping the scale by attempting to maximize towards one extreme. Thank you for taking the time to read my point of views & concerns. As an adjoining property owner, I would like to request to be listed as an “interested party” in further considerations of the approval process. I would also be happy to answer any specific questions you may have – please feel free to contact me at your convenience: Andreas Bode Vollmannstrasse 27g 81925 Munich Germany Or at +49 151 58956207 Or, probably easiest, at abode@microsoft.com Thank you, From:Lin Xie To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Supplemental Technical Comments — 340 Palo Alto Avenue (Record No. 26PLN-00179) Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 9:44:54 AM Attachments:Letter_2_Supplemental_26PLN-00179_v12.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Dinh, Further to my corrected letter of 5 August, attached are supplemental technical comments on the above application. I would be grateful if this letter could be routed to the City Attorney, Public Works, and the Transportation Division as appropriate. Where the first letter asked whether the present record establishes the statutory prerequisites the application relies upon, this one addresses a related question: whether the physical constraints of this particular site have yet been evaluated, and what would be required to evaluate them. One matter I should raise directly rather than leave to the attachment. At § 7 of my earlier letter I described a dimension on Sheet A-1 as unaccounted for, and stated that no dimension was carried to the rear property line. On closer examination both statements were mistaken, and I withdrew them. The correction is set out at the front of the attached letter, together with the narrower concern that remains. I apologize for the errors. The letter opens with a short section explaining why the constraints are worth examining together rather than separately — they interact, and a resolution of one may unsettle several others. The sections that follow cover public safety and emergency access, excavation and utilities, protected trees, construction, and coordination between the disciplines involved. As with the first letter, I would be glad to provide marked-up excerpts of the submitted drawings identifying the features referenced, and I will forward the arboricultural and structural reports now being prepared once they are available. Thank you again for your time. Lin Xie 346 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 linxie08@gmail.com · (608) 628-7987 From:Jeffrey A. Snyder To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:SB 79 Preliminary Application for 340 Palo Alto Ave (Record 26PLN-00179) Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 9:05:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Joey, Thank you for meeting with Mark, Lin, and me on August 3, 2026. We appreciate your time and attention to the proposed condo redevelopment project at 340 Palo Alto Avenue (“the Project”), including hearing all of the neighbors’ concerns, of which there are many. My wife and I live at 380 Palo Alto Avenue, which is approximately 50 feet from the rear wall of the Project. The rear wall is projected to be built right up against the boundary line of our neighbor’s property at 374 Palo Alto Ave. While we are not a directly adjoining neighbor, we will have an unobstructed and close-up view of the Project (including at least three floors of condos) if it is allowed to go forward as planned. We have lived in our house since 1992 and care deeply for this neighborhood. We particularly love the oak and redwood tree canopy, proximity to the creek, walkability, bike-ability, and overall residential feel of the area. There are no large lots and, with one exception (the apartments at 320 Palo Alto Ave), no high rises. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast I heard you and appreciated your comments about how the City may have limited ability to deny eligibility to proceed under SB79. However, the state legislature has painted with such a broad brush here; every parcel and locale is not necessarily a good fit for a scaled-up development project. This Project is truly ramming a square peg through a round hole. The 340 lot is very small for a massive 4-or-5 story structure with 6-7 luxury condos, an elevator, and nine (9) ground-level parking spaces. The existing lot is literally covered by a thick canopy of oaks and other trees. Some of the affected oaks might actually be on neighbors’ property and not entirely on the Chapman property. I know that when Mark was seeking to build up from his house at 350 Palo Alto Ave., he was limited due to the presence of oak trees—they may even be the same ones that are now at risk due to the Project. It would be ironic if Mark couldn’t build up to improve his one-story house, yet the Chapmans can endanger these same trees. Proximity to the Caltrain station appears to be very close to the ½ mile radius, apparently measured “as the crow flies” from one of several train station access points to the nearest point on the Chapman parcel. We would appreciate your confirming they are indeed within the state definition and actual physical measurements. Other potential issues relate to building right up against neighboring boundary lines, building within such close proximity to the San Francisquito Creek, site drainage, interfering with the bike boulevard and pedestrian bridge, and numerous other building and environmental issues as raised by Lin and others. No legitimate public interest is served by this Project. The Project, along with 2497 High Street possibly, are the only SB79 proposals within established neighborhood R-1 zones surrounded by residential housing. 340 Palo Alto Ave does not solve any housing shortage issue as was the legislative intent. Only 6-7 units are potentially added. Remember that two (2) housing units would be displaced, not just one. Thus, the City has a net gain of 4-5 units, none of which will be anywhere near low income. We know this because the property is currently listed on Redfin for a $6.3 million asking price. Given the cost of construction, timing issues and carrying costs, any buyer will seek to maximize profits as soon as possible. Given all the issues, we are comforted to know that you will review the Chapmans’ application and preliminary plans carefully. We urge you and the City to determine the Project ineligible to proceed under the SB79 and/or 330 protections. Sincerely, Jeff and Jeanese Snyder 380 Palo Alto Avenue (650) 322-2583 From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Richard Konda; Sean Allen; Susan Hayase; Carla Torres; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; board@pausd.org; city.council@gilroy.org; Cecilia Taylor; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Rosen; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Lewis james; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Baker, Rob; Rodriguez, Miguel; DuJuan Green; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Enberg, Nicholas; Goodell, Erin; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Malinsky, Jason; Nancy Goodban; Bill Newell; rabrica@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; sharon jackson; Yusra Hussain; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Jose Valle; Raj Jayadev; Steve Wagstaffe Subject:Bay Area reparations: How Russell City became the movement"s epicenter Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 7:37:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Reparations Now!! https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/30/how-a-demolished-black-community-became-the- epicenter-of-the-bay-area-reparations-debate/ From:Anthony Klein To:Council, City; Sheryl Klein Subject:Letter in Support of Option 1 for Agenda Item 20 for August 10 City Council Meeting: Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 6:35:35 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i RE: Agenda Item 20, August 10, 2026 – Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project. We live at 576 East Crescent Drive. While we do not like to disagree with our next-door neighbor, we think that public safety along our street should absolutely take priority and the Council should ratify the Staff recommendation of Option 1. When we first moved to East Crescent Drive in 2004, our neighbors warned us regarding traffic on the street moving too fast. A child had been struck prior to our moving in and we were concerned that our two children could be at risk. As the years went by, we certainly witnessed many incidents of speeding along the narrow street, particularly for cars making the turn from Southwood onto East Crescent. Several times we have had cars strike the trees on our property. Consequently, we were thrilled when Palo Alto built the temporary traffic-calming measures on Southwood and East Crescent. While cars often do not stop at the stop sign or make rolling stops and continue quickly on, the bulb-out forces the cars at least to the right-hand side of a very narrow street. As a consequence we feel much safer now with the cars traveling towards University Avenue. Similarly, for cars travelling towards Southwood from University, the bulb-out has quite effectively reduced speeds as they turn onto Southwood. Again, the stop signs are marginally effective, as Staff have observed; not everyone stops, but the bulb-out definitely slows the rate of travel. Given how many people cross at that point walking their dogs or just strolling through the neighborhood, the bulb-out has dramatically increased the safety of the intersection. Of the three options being brought before Council tonight, we therefore strongly endorse the Staff recommendation to adopt Option 1. We would not object to modifications that would make it more attractive, naturally. We also encourage the City to incorporate new ramps to ease pedestrian access through the modified bulb-out. That seems like a good idea and a fair compromise. As noted above, based on years of observation and daily dog-walks through that intersection, Option 2 would be ineffective absent constant policing to enforce that people actually stop at the stop signs. Option 3, a return to the original, would be a disaster. As the years have gone by, we have much more traffic on East Crescent, as it has become a commute corridor. So a return to status quo ante, particularly after the City has acknowledged our safety concerns, would be the worst result. As you can see from a typical view from our lot, slowing traffic at that intersection is vital. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report We really appreciate how much effort the City and Staff have put into this. We think the modified Option 1 is the best possible outcome and we support this motion and their efforts. Too bad this wasn’t done 20 years ago. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this matter. Best regards, Anthony and Sheryl Klein From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Dave Price; city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org Subject:homelessness_letter_8-2-13 Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 6:10:42 PM Attachments:homelessness_letter_8-2-13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg Subject:New Yorker article 1964 Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 6:00:23 PM Attachments:New Yorker article 1964.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject:New Yorker article 1962 Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 5:59:41 PM Attachments:New Yorker article 1962.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. circa 1962 From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:August 2026 Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 5:50:04 PM BOOK SALE NEWSLETTER THIS WEEKEND AT CUBBERLEY Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES Saturday August 8 Main Room General Sale 11am - 4pm Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Comic Book Sale 10am - 2pm Music Pop Up Sale 10am - 2pm Sunday August 9 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 numbered tickets this month! 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 Summer Reading Program theme this year is "Oceans of Possibilities", it is in its wrap-up phase and readers have logged more than two million minutes of reading! Readers can pick up their prizes at Children's, Mitchell Park, or Rinconada Library through August 31 while supplies last. More info on the Library's web site. All branches will be closed on September 7 for the Labor Day holiday. Plan accordingly. You could find out about these sorts of things in a slightly more timely manner by subscribing to the Library's mailing list. Like us, they send one or two messages per month, more usually one. You can find out about other things they want you to know from the Palo Alto City Library Blogs page. Or you can subscribe to them with an RSS reader. -Frank McConnell Quarter Comic Book Sale Greetings Earthlet's! I, Tharg, have come to you from the planet Quaxxan to bestow upon you the gift of Thrill Power!* What better way to bring you this gift than through selling you comic books for a mere 2 gold senines each (or one shiny quarter in your human currency). Yes, THE QUARTER COMIC BOOK SALE IS BACK! And we have more than 8000 comics, all for one quarter each! Splundig vur Thrigg! *(And to avoid the high tax rates of the Betelgeuse system.) Poetry August brings the sheaves of corn, Then the harvest home is born. From the harvest fill your plates With goodies from the poet Yeats. If you want some verse that cooks, Try the top shelf Heritage Books. You're sure to find good treats galore At the FOPAL Poetry store. https://fopalbooks.com/poetry.html -Mandy MacCalla Magazines Our features for this month revolve around photography and food. There are some wonderful glossy issues of periodicals that have gorgeous photographs (look left and you'll see wonderful Photography books on offer) and for those of you (like me) remember food porn, then you'll love the collection of Gourmet magazines spanning decades on offer. You might also find helpful cooking and food tips with a full array of Cooks Illustrated. Come find something that, for a minimal amount of money, will give you great visual pleasure without having to scroll. -Glen Sato Home & Crafts Can you believe it? We're approaching the end of summer and back to school! And boy oh boy, do we have books and more books for your reading, crafting, and home project enjoyment. Now that the kids will be back in the classroom, take the time for yourself for a calming, relaxing, or stimulating pleasure. In August we have many books on jewelry making, including Metal Clay Jewelry and Metalworking 101 for Beaders. There are multiple books on papercraft, and a few colorful titles on birdhouse building. Get fancy with The Calligraphy Workbook, or creative with body art from Tiny Tattoos. You'll find beautiful knitting resources for kids and adults from Vogue and Kaffe. There are also several books on weaving, and a new collection of guides on quilting. Don't miss our crochet, needlepoint, cross-stitch, and sewing resources. You can create gorgeous flower arrangements with our floral arts books as well. In Fashion, we showcase some interesting titles for men: Vanity, Vitality, and Virility, Manspace, and Nordstrom Guide to Men's Fashion. Not to be left out, our women's titles include: Dress Your Best, Slow Beauty, and Bobbi Brown's A Guide to a Lifetime of Beauty. There's also a cool book on shoes! For the designer in you, find splendid references on costume and fashion history. Look for a myriad of titles on home decorating, essays on the home, resources for maintenance and repair, in addition to home building and remodeling, including Tree Houses: Living a Dream. Not to be missed, search for regional and international designs, from San Francisco to France - and Italy. Bellissimo! eShelf photos can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Antiques & Collections New in the month of August are The Book of Perfume, and Legends of the Silent Screen, plus many titles on silver, gold, glass, and ceramics. There's a precious book on Rocking Horses, as well as several books on toys and dolls. We have multiple titles on textiles and furniture, a Taschen's book on DecoDecorative Art 50's, and a study on Winchester rifles. Look for many resources on collecting, caring for, and repair of antiques to assist you with your passion. eShelf photo can be found at <https://fopalbooks.com/crafts.html>. -Virginia Perry Sociology/Anthropology For the upcoming book sale, the Sociology/Anthropology section will feature 581 books on anthropology, archaeology, and sociology, offering a fascinating journey through human history, culture, and society. Among the highlights is David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything, a groundbreaking reinterpretation of humanity's past that challenges traditional ideas about the origins of civilization, inequality, and the state. Also featured is C. Wright Mills's The Power Elite, a classic work arguing that political, military, and corporate leaders form a closely connected elite that shapes major decisions in modern society. Readers interested in Africa may enjoy The Precarious Balance: State and Society in Africa, which explores the complex relationship between governments and communities across the continent. Its themes remain relevant today, as recent events involving migrants reaching the Spanish enclave of Ceuta highlight how political instability, economic inequality, and migration continue to connect Africa and Europe in profound ways. Humor It's another bumper month in the world of humor with five full shelves. On the top shelf we have 19 books of cartoons including 9 classics from the New Yorker. Lower down we have 25 books by Wodehouse (a record?), some of which are anthologies. Also we have a good selection of Monty Python and a dozen other examples of British humor. On this side of the pond our #1 American author with 9 novels is David Sedaris. My favorite book of the month is Vanity Fair's Proust Questionnaire with around 100 "Prominent Cultural Figures" answering a set list of questions truthfully and/or dubiously and perhaps wittily. -Nigel Jones Children's Room As the summer break is drawing to an end, teachers are preparing for school to begin. The Children's Room is a fantastic resource for teachers--thousands of books from preschool age through teens, and at prices anyone can afford: from 50 cents to just a few dollars (and teachers get a discount!). If your teacher friends are starting a classroom library, or adding to one, the Children's Room is the place they should begin. Our School-age Fiction shelves are packed. Several stand-outs include like-new award- winning boxed collections of Roald Dahl titles (3 sets), Judy Blume titles (2 sets), and a set of Beverly Cleary. We are loaded with gift-quality special editions of Harry Potter books, beautifully illustrated. They were originally priced at $40 to $55; our price is only $10. In the sci-fi and fantasy section, check out the Warriors series by Erin Hunter, and a great middle school read-alone or--for younger readers--read-aloud series, The Wings of Fire by Tui T. Sutherland, featuring all kinds of dragons. On the popular authors cart you'll find many Stuart Gibbs books from several different series, all New York Times best-sellers. To the right of the teen section, there is a wonderful new series geared toward teen-age girls who like soccer: The Kicks, by World Cup champion and Olympic gold medalist Alex Morgan. If your girls are into soccer, they will love this series. Finally, in classics, we have a full-color two-book set of The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Complete Winnie the Pooh. Our Activity section offers something for everyone, from toys and games to workbooks and math manipulatives. The toys include a Playmobil first responders set, a Thomas the Tank Engine train set, and bags of Lego sold by the pound! We think Magnatiles are some of the best toys ever, and we have a huge collection of them. Plan a family game night with an assortment of games from our overstuffed shelves. Once again, our graphic novels bookcase has spilled over onto a table--look for several series including Big Nate and Tintin. Nearby, you'll spot books for gamers, including lots on Minecraft. Looking ahead, choose books of experiments to inspire science fair projects, or find workbooks for a quick review of math or language arts skills. And don't miss our pristine coloring books and kids' cookbooks--items to use now or to store for gift-giving later. The Beginning Readers shelves offer lots of good books including very inexpensive sets for early readers. And, once again, a huge assortment of Mo Willems Elephant and Piggie books. Look in the Parenting corner for a great selection of books to help you navigate the years from infancy through teens. On the Giftable Picture Books shelves you'll find an abundance of brand new Treasury of Curious George books (13 copies!), and a large selection of Madeline books. Under the front windows we offer some beautiful pop-up books in great condition that would make lovely gifts, in addition to lots of board books for the youngest readers. Our shelves and carts are packed this month more than ever. Don't Miss This Sale! -Carolyn Davidson Children's Vintage Children's Vintage is spotlighting six women illustrators this month: Nancy Tafuri (Caldecott Honor winner for her book Have You Seen My Duckling, Kate Greenaway (best known for Under the Window and her delicate watercolor aesthetics), Virginia Burton (Mike Mulligan, The Little House), Emily Arnold McCully (winner of several Bank Street Best Book awards), Beatrix Potter (of course!), and Mary Blair (renowned cartoonist known for shaping the mid-century Disney style). We have several of the award winning books on display this month to add to your collection. Moving on to books for older kids, among all the other treasures, look for a boxed and gilded gift copy of The Hobbit and a stated second printing of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. The world language section doesn't disappoint with a Mary Poppins book in Spanish and The Little Prince in the original French as well as others. And the toys and games section just keeps exploding with possibilities! This month look for vintage model car kits as well as metal car replicas, a beautiful doll and plaid doll steamer trunk, and many games, the most unique being an animated Jumanji. See all this and more at https://fopalbooks.com And for more children's vintage books, check us out on eBay at https://www.ebay.com/str/friendsofthepaloaltolibrary -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 - To the End of the eEarth : a History of the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico The Only Jew in The Room: Searching for Understanding in An Arab Islamic College The Gates of Gaza: A Story of Betrayal, Survival and Hope on Israel's Borderlands Essays on Ethics by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Spies of No Country: Secret Lives at the Birth of Israel The Necessity of Exile: Essays from a Distance (Political Imagination) On Repentance And Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World Here All Along: A Reintroduction to Judaism Entering the High Holy Days: A Complete Guide to the History, Prayers and Themes American JewBu - Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter 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 Self-Help/Personal Growth A Featured Subsection this month is CREATIVITY, found on the top shelf, third Bay. There are so many fun ideas of how to freely express yourself, including a Creativity Kit by Julia Cameron, along with some of her popular books. So let your imagination soar! Some Featured Books are: Designing Your Life and Workbook; 10 Steps to Happiness; The Love Project; Decolonizing Trauma Work; Ikigai-Japanese Secret to a Long & Happy Life. There are some great deals in the 'Marked Down' section of some previously featured books. For those who like to keep personal growth simple and fun, check out several Card Decks including: Relax and Cards Against Anxiety. There are now TWO CD sets by Anthony Robbins, a popular motivational and self-help coach: The Time of Your Life and Lessons in Mastery. These are way below the price on his website and used books sites. Enjoy browsing and helping books find a new home while supporting Palo Alto Libraries! Peace and Well-Being to All, -Marnie Cameras Lots and lots of cameras this month! Take a trip through history with gear from every era: vintage film SLRs, later film point-and-shoots, Y2K digicams, DSLRs, and even a modern mirrorless camera. Don't miss the unique Polaroid Tektronix camera! Videographers, be sure to check out the camcorders and GoPro accessories. -CAMelot Mitchell Park Store The Mitchell Park Store is featuring Home and Crafts this month. If you have read their newsletter submission you know that they have received many wonderful books. In fact, their "cup runneth over" and we are the beneficiary as they are sharing many of their terrific books with us. In addition to activity books such as knitting, crocheting, and quilting we have a nice selection of adult coloring books. We even have a Faberge puzzle book! There are several excellent books on home repair and maintenance which no one really wants to buy but they certainly are helpful when needed. Best of all if you can do it yourself rather than calling a handyman you usually save quite a bit of money. In our current heatwave it is hard to imagine sitting at home and knitting, sewing, or doing origami but when the cooler weather comes your will be happy that you visited the store especially if you were unable to attend our monthly sale. If you are not a "crafter" we have beautiful books on decorating particularly with Asian influences. The Home and Craft selection is so great that instead of the special just occupying one side of our kiosk the books will be on both sides of the kiosk. By the way, I just recently remembered that Home and Crafts used to be called "Miscellaneous" in the Main Room. This sort of explains why Fashion and Beauty are included in this section. A reminder that the Mitchell Park store is open during all library hours and staffed by volunteers every afternoon for several hours. They are most happy to help you with our books, CDs and DVDs. You can pay with cash, Zelle or PayPal. At MP we prefer cash but if you use Zelle or PayPal please put "MP" (for Mitchell Park) in your purchase description. The Rinconada and Downtown libraries also have stores that are accessible all library read. Enjoy the sale and start your Holiday shopping this weekend! -Suzanne Little Philosophy Another month rich in new philosophy books. In terms of philosophers we have six on Dewey, nine on Wittgenstein (including titles not seen before), four on Lander, and five on Nietzsche. The book of the month without any doubt is the hardback Oxford Handbook of The Philosophy of Consciousness. This is a high value book typically sold only online but being offered to our sale book buyers at a reduced price. It is on the far left of the top shelf on the right hand bookcase. -Nigel Jones Science Fiction and Fantasy In Science Fiction and Fantasy, the Steampunk and Alternate History sections are back in their old home in the southwest corner of the aisle. I don't see signed copies of Neal Stephenson books often, but I've got a couple this month. Shelf pictures at fopalbooks.com. -Rich McAllister History FoPAL got a large donation of books on Russia and the Soviet Union recently. We also received large donations of books on Latin America and the Middle East. If you want some lighter reading, we also have a selection of books on exploration, as well as the histories of everyday objects. In US history, in addition to the usual dead presidents, there is a selection of books on regional history, mainly New York, but also extensive works on the American South. -Lin McAllister Bargain Room Sections in the Bargain Room with loads of books: Vinyl & CDs, Music Books, Sci-Fi, Children's, Art, Science, Mystery, Foreign Language, Reference, Business, Psych, Sex & Gender, Sheet Music, Magazines/Maps/Ephemera, Travel, Vintage, Computers, Health & Medicine, Home & Craft & Gardening. Not enough? Some folks are never happy! -The Boogie Woogie Frugal Boy From Company B Sheet Music Significant donation of exceptional classical and acoustic guitar sheet music has arrived this month. -Edwin El-Kareh 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 August 2 through Sunday August 9. Please hold your donations until Monday August 10. 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. A New Reading Group at Rinconada Library Philosophy for Life is a friendly reading and discussion group that begins on August 16 at Rinconada Library. Together, we'll read accessible texts from different philosophical traditions, discuss the ideas and assumptions that shape our world, and explore big questions about how we live and what we value. The group is open to adults and young adults. No background in philosophy is required--just curiosity and a willingness to talk, listen, and learn from one another. We meet twice a month on Sundays. Our first book is Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life by American philosopher Emily A. Austin. Full information about the reading group, including the reading schedule and curriculum for each meeting, is available on the Library's website. -Natalia & Lottie 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 felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online. 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:Ayah Ali-Ahmad To:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Cc:Council, City Subject:KQED — Palo Alto’s Flock contract and the OIR audit, response by 6 p.m. today Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 12:31:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Meghan, I’m Ayah Ali-Ahmad, a reporter with KQED News. I’m writing about Stanford ending its Flock Safety contract and switching vendors, and I want to place Palo Alto’s own status accurately in that story. I am hoping you can forward this media inquiry to a spokesperson from the city, or PD, that can answer these few questions at some point today. My questions: 1. Where does the city’s Flock contract stand today? Is it still active, and does it still run through December 2029? 2. How many ALPR cameras is the city currently operating, and has that number changed from 30? 3. Chief Reifschneider said in June that the department is not wedded to Flock as a vendor. Has the department evaluated alternatives, including Genetec Cloudrunner, and if so, with what result? 4. Has the city sought any penalty, credit or refund from Flock over the nationwide search function that was enabled without the department’s knowledge? Mayor Veenker raised the idea of a fine. 5. Palo Alto’s network audits show Stanford University police searching a database that included Palo Alto’s cameras, most recently in late June. Is that access authorized under city policy, and does the city have an agreement with Stanford DPS governing it? 6. Has the city received any request from a federal agency for ALPR data this year? This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Happy to take any of this by phone. My deadline is 6 p.m. today, and you can reach me at 408-464- 4206 any time. Thank you, Ayah Ali-Ahmad KQED News, newscast reporter 408 464-4206 aaliahmad@kqed.org From:Fred Laruelle To:Council, City Subject:Suggestion on coordinating roadwork timing Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 11:01:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, I live in Cupertino and commute to Palo Alto for work. Lately, it feels like every major route has road construction happening at the same time, creating congestion in all directions. I understand road maintenance is necessary and important. But doing so much of it simultaneously really impacts daily commuters. Would it be possible to better coordinate the timing of these projects, maybe staggering them so not every road is under construction at once? Thank you for your work keeping the city's infrastructure in good shape. Cheers, Frederic Laruelle Software Engineering Valor Equity Partners 260 Homer Ave, Suite 102 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Valor Email Disclaimer From:Laurie Girand To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:August 10 Council Agenda Item #20 Re Report # 2511-5563, Page 342 of Packet Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 10:53:40 AM Attachments:Background on East CrescentSouthwood.8.6.25.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I respectfully request that this email and the accompanying history document be included in materials provided before the coming weekend to Council Members. To: Palo Alto City Council Re: August 10 Item #20, Report # 2511-5563, “Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project including a Bulb-out on Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive, etc.” My name is Laurie Girand, and I’m a co-owner of 590 East Crescent Dr. where my father has resided for 46 years. Since the Office of Transportation installed a supposedly one-year pilot more than five years ago, our family and my father have had to correct the record presented by OT and to plea for sanity with respect to what the city has done to this neighborhood: the local neighborhood that encompasses East Crescent, Southwood and people who use this intersection from Edgewood. On August 10, I will once again attend the city council meeting. I am attaching a history of what has transpired that was previously sent to council in October of 2025, following the last PTC meeting in September 2025, at which OT informed the commission it did not need the commission’s approval for the intersection because council had already approved the project. If OT had followed the original direction of PTC and seriously considered other alternatives for the intersection or even if it had separated this intersection from the rest of the project for approval, we would not still be discussing it almost three years after the project was first brought before Council. Unfortunately, I must once again correct errors and misstatements in the recommendations proposed by OT in the packet for the August 10 meeting. Page 342: “Staff evaluated three options in response to recent discussions with the Planning and Transportation Commission in order to address concerns raised by adjacent property owners.” No public discussions are “recent.” They last took place in September of 2025, almost a year ago. Concerns were raised not only by “adjacent” property owners; independently, commissioners disparaged the pilot as well. In addition, staff has never acknowledged a petition of neighbors local to the intersection who oppose the pilot, a petition which was submitted to staff and can be found through PRA requests and in the attached history; it has been updated to include a fifth page. Page 342: “Based on the effectiveness of each of the options in addressing access and safety concerns and the level of neighborhood support indicated in the project survey…” In the past and now in the packet, staff repeatedly refers to the “project survey,” showing suspiciously high satisfaction rates. No option was presented to respondents other than “yes/no”. This survey was sent to many residing in the considerably larger Crescent Park neighborhood who never use this intersection. Neighbors local to the intersection oppose the bulbout, as indicated by the petition of local neighborhood residents. Page 342: “Staff is returning to Council to… in response to a request from Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) members who expressed concerns about a mismatch between their prior communications and PTC motion communicated to Council on November 6, 2023. “Mismatch” is a euphemism. With respect to the intersection, OT staff misled council as to 1) the status of the Southwood/East Crescent pilot, 2) the commission’s lack of satisfaction with it, and 3) OT’s subsequent refusal or inability to consider other alternatives to the “bulb- out” in a timely fashion. Page 343: “Although Options 2 and 3 do not fully align with the original intent and objectives of the traffic calming project, staff has included and analyzed them for Council consideration.” Council might reasonably ask what the original intent and objectives were and in what order of priority. Later, staff indicates they are “cut through traffic, congestion during peak periods, and vehicle speeds during off peak hours.” Page 343-344: “In 2022, staff collected post- installation data including a neighborhood survey to evaluate the performance of the pilot measures. The results showed reductions in traffic volumes, cut through traffic, and vehicle speeds, which suggested that the pilot was likely effective (with the caveat that ambient travel patterns had also changed during the pandemic.). Please do not read this sentence too quickly. Here are the facts. The “neighborhood survey,” which staff repeatedly uses as evidence of support, surveyed residents of all of Crescent Park, most of whom do not use the intersection. Via PRA requests, there is no evidence of a city survey showing neighborhood support local to the intersection because there isn’t any. The city’s own post-installation speed data shows NO IMPROVEMENT on East Crescent, where the city took its only measurements. The “caveat” is because staff’s own consultants do not support the argument that cut throughs or traffic have been reduced at the intersection, owing to overall declines in traffic due to the pandemic. By conflating the survey and other data for the entire Crescent Park project with that of the intersection when addressing the intersection, staff uses sleight of hand to imply its pilot at Southwood/E. Crescent improves traffic, when it does not. I could continue with an analysis of staff’s interpretations of its work in this area, but I feel enough evidence has been compiled to suggest that the summary paragraph of PTC requests as of September 24, 2025, stands as concluded: Page 345: “PTC members did not support staff recommendation to proceed with the engineering design of the refined bulbout concept. PTC members also expressed concern that their recommendations from July 14, 2023 had not been accurately communicated to Council on November 6, 2023 (Attachment A).” However, please note a subsequent reference to “This [public]engagement has helped staff to incrementally refine draft concepts for potential permanent installation.” It remains true that staff has “incrementally” refined drafts of the bulbout, modifying it from an original T, promoted by NACTO standards, to an S curve, likely because people hit the original installment when making a right turn. After more than five years of consideration, only in the August 10 packet, has staff considered any alternative to the pilot at Southwood/E. Crescent, despite requests from PTC to do so years ago. I am grateful that staff reviewed the video of the prior meeting to understand how far its earlier summaries were from actuality. However, unfortunately, after this section of the packet, it continues to promote unsupported statements. Staff indicates in Table 1 under “Effect on traffic calming goals” that the “modified” bulbout would produce “lower speed and less cut through traffic than pre-pilot,” which it does not do. Despite the following statement, specifically referring to improvements on East Crescent: Page 349, “This realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through traffic and lower unsafe vehicle speeds for right and left turn movements to and from E. Crescent Drive.” staff has no evidence supporting speed or traffic improvements, and staff’s own consultants would not support such a statement. In fact, vehicles routinely slalom through the intersection. It is probable that, instead of how this line is phrased, staff meant to say, “This realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through traffic and lower unsafe vehicle speeds at similar intersections, according to…” (Note the missing citation, again). However, once again, staff’s summary states as solid fact evidence it does not have -- a bad habit. It could just be a mistake, but the construed statements always support staff’s position. Unlike the handwaving in which staff engages, the data the city does have is described and cited in the attached history. Let me say that this endless fact checking is exhausting, and it should not be required of homeowners. City representatives should require staff produce clear and irrefutable facts and apply them accurately. On August 10, you will be asked to consider: - ongoing modifications at the unsupervised whim of OT to the Southwood/E. Crescent bulbout opposed by the majority of PTC and the local neighborhood, with no evidence of improvements associated with the three goals; - a new alternative, with no evidence of improvements associated with the three goals; or - largely returning the intersection to its original state. I would note that in coming up with Option 2, once again, local neighbors and those “adjacent” to the pilot were neither notified nor consulted until 10 days before the Council meeting. It’s unknown whether PTC members or council members have been privately consulted. That OT staff would propose any alternative to Council without prior PTC approval despite years available for potential PTC consideration is indicative of how little energy staff have put into alternatives or this intersection. The conclusion is that it is too late for public input on Option 2, which should also be a piloted and proven to produce statistically reliable results. At the meeting, I will request that you return the intersection as close as legally possible to its original state and bring this unnecessary, unsupported – by either homeowners or data - and miserable experience to an end. Laurie Girand August 6, 2026 From:Sal Gts To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Andrade, Alicia; Velasquez, Ingrid Subject:Re: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 10:32:25 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello City Council At approx 9:55 AM - Aug 6th, 2026 - another short term renter has arrived. Nice person - was dropped off in a honda accord. I briefly spoke to him as I was watering my plants. This gentle man greeted me and we exchanged greetings. He informed me he is here for a "week" This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Please confirm what is allowed in Palo Alto - and what is NOT ALLOWED I need written answers please: Sal Khan Personal Email On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 9:25 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Ms Mayor Veenker Please provide the status of this request. At Aug 6th, 2026 9:15 AM- Few minutes ago, we met an older lady - who had driven from Encino CA to rent a room for 2 weeks. She said it is her daughter who will be looking for a job in bay area and she needs a place for 2 weeks so she can find long term apartments. And she wanted to see if this area is safe. This is another example that the house is being used as an "apartment" - there are 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER : - Is this ALLOWED in Palo ALto ? - Can I convert my 3 bedroom 2 bath house to 5 bedroom and 5 bath WITHOUT Proper permits ? - Then Can I RENT EACH ROOM? - THE OWNER DOES NOT LIVE ON SITE - The owner is in India. Sal Khan Personal Email On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 2:46 PM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Elisa, According to santa clara county records this is 3 bedroom house. But the rental person - who lives here his exact words are "There are 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms" in this property. This is violation of construction code. And very likely evasion of property taxes. I need the city of palo alto to please check. If there has been illegal construction in the past without permits, it can be a fire and safety hazard for the occupants and neighbors. I am documenting this request so city of palo alto is aware that fire risk is significant if there are unapproved electrical or other work has been done. We also believe that there is 1 person living in the garage. As of Jul 10 There are 2 new residents have "Checked in" Please check if they are short term rentals And per Rental Registry status for 851 Moana Court. Sal Khan Personal Email On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:39 PM Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Khan, I apologize for the delay in responding to this email. I would like to share with you that I am actively working on obtaining the information that you requested on the Rental Registry status for 851 Moana Court. I will respond to you within 10days with the information, Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Elisa Vargas Supervisor of Code Enforcement (650) 329- 2303| Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:45 AM To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. >>> Rental Registry Program: Landlords are generally only required to register if they have 3 or more residential rental units. >>> 851 Moana Court This property has 5 rental units - according to the owner. Who used to live here, is now in India. How can I confirm that this property is properly registered under Rental Registry Program of Palo Alto ? Sal Khan Personal Email On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 9:41 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello I need to file another complaint. The owner of 851 moana court lives in India. He is a foreign national. Her daughter does NOT live in this house. The daughter has rented the house to another person. This person acts as the property manager and apartment manager. He in turn rents the rooms to multiple people. Mostly they are short term rentals. IS THIS ALLOWED IN PALO ALTO ? Sal Khan Personal Email On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 9:25 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: HELLO -- HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET A RESPONSE ??? Sal Khan Personal Email On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:32 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello can I please get a status o f: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning Sal Khan Personal Email From:Sal Gts To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Andrade, Alicia; Velasquez, Ingrid Subject:Re: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 9:26:42 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Ms Mayor Veenker Please provide the status of this request. At Aug 6th, 2026 9:15 AM- Few minutes ago, we met an older lady - who had driven from Encino CA to rent a room for 2 weeks. She said it is her daughter who will be looking for a job in bay area and she needs a place for 2 weeks so she can find long term apartments. And she wanted to see if this area is safe. This is another example that the house is being used as an "apartment" - there are 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER : - Is this ALLOWED in Palo ALto ? - Can I convert my 3 bedroom 2 bath house to 5 bedroom and 5 bath WITHOUT Proper permits ? - Then Can I RENT EACH ROOM? - THE OWNER DOES NOT LIVE ON SITE - The owner is in India. Sal Khan Personal Email On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 2:46 PM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Elisa, According to santa clara county records this is 3 bedroom house. But the rental person - who lives here his exact words are "There are 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms" This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report in this property. This is violation of construction code. And very likely evasion of property taxes. I need the city of palo alto to please check. If there has been illegal construction in the past without permits, it can be a fire and safety hazard for the occupants and neighbors. I am documenting this request so city of palo alto is aware that fire risk is significant if there are unapproved electrical or other work has been done. We also believe that there is 1 person living in the garage. As of Jul 10 There are 2 new residents have "Checked in" Please check if they are short term rentals And per Rental Registry status for 851 Moana Court. Sal Khan Personal Email On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:39 PM Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. Khan, I apologize for the delay in responding to this email. I would like to share with you that I am actively working on obtaining the information that you requested on the Rental Registry status for 851 Moana Court. I will respond to you within 10days with the information, Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Elisa Vargas Supervisor of Code Enforcement (650) 329- 2303| Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:45 AM To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. >>> Rental Registry Program: Landlords are generally only required to register if they have 3 or more residential rental units. >>> 851 Moana Court This property has 5 rental units - according to the owner. Who used to live here, is now in India. How can I confirm that this property is properly registered under Rental Registry Program of Palo Alto ? Sal Khan Personal Email On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 9:41 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello I need to file another complaint. The owner of 851 moana court lives in India. He is a foreign national. Her daughter does NOT live in this house. The daughter has rented the house to another person. This person acts as the property manager and apartment manager. He in turn rents the rooms to multiple people. Mostly they are short term rentals. IS THIS ALLOWED IN PALO ALTO ? Sal Khan Personal Email On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 9:25 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: HELLO -- HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET A RESPONSE ??? Sal Khan Personal Email On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:32 AM Sal Gts <slowgts@gmail.com> wrote: Hello can I please get a status o f: Case Number: 26PCE-00546 Date Case Opened: Apr 19, 2026 Case Type: Zoning Sal Khan Personal Email From:PSTA Record To:Council, City Subject:Records Request Date:Thursday, August 6, 2026 6:55:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good morning, I am seeking public information. My request is for an electronic file that includes a roster or listing of every current employee for your entity. Date range—(Current Fiscal Year) This request includes employees coded as full-time, as well as elected officials. I am not seeking part-time or seasonal employees. This request includes employees coded as full-time, as well as elected officials. I am not seeking part-time or seasonal employees. The file would include information such as the following fields for each employee: ● First Name ● Last Name ● Hire Date ● Department ● Job Title ● Job Description ● Salary Range ● Annualized Salary ● Year to Date Earnings ● Bonus Amount (if any) ● Car Allowance (Annual) ● Cell Phone Allowance (Annual) ● Certification Pay (Annual) If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me via this email (pstarecord@gmail.com). If you need to redact a portion of the request in order to expedite the fulfillment of the request, I agree to redaction in advance. If you need to redact names of employees due to the nature of their employment (for This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report example: law enforcement officers), I agree in advance to redacting these names. If you seek to deny part or all of this request, please let me know the basis for a denial in part or in whole. My preferred delivery method is for the record to be sent via email as an Excel file, but a PDF file is also acceptable. Thank you for your time and have a great day. Regards, Darren From:Jon K To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to proposed 2497 High Street project Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 4:30:51 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 strongly oppose the proposed 2497 High Street project. I was raised in Palo Alto in a home my family has owned since 1966. Building a 6 story apartment building in a neighborhood of single-family homes would have significant detrimental impacts to our community. If anyone walked around the neighborhood it would very clear the proposed apartment building is completely out of scale and not appropriate. Some of my concerns are as follows: Property values: Many homeowners are rightfully concerned that the proximity of a large apartment building could negatively affect their property values. Increased traffic: More residents means more vehicles entering and leaving the neighborhood, particularly during morning and evening commute hours. This will increase congestion at nearby intersections and make it more difficult for residents to enter and exit their streets. Traffic is already a concern at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Alma Street. Parking pressure: With only 2 parking spaces proposed for 19 residential units, many residents and visitors will rely on street parking. Existing apartment buildings on High Street and Alma Street already occupy much of the available street parking along the first block of Colorado Avenue and on High Street. This development will only worsen the shortage, making it even more difficult for current residents and their guests to find parking. The City will need to change parking regulations and have restricted overnight, time limit or permits to protect current single family homeowners along Colorado Avenue and Emerson from having their neighborhood turned in to a parking lot. Building scale and neighborhood character: A six-story building would be dramatically out of scale with the surrounding 1 and 2 story homes. This would significantly alter the visual character and identity of the neighborhood. Privacy concerns: Homes adjacent to the project, as well as those up to a block away and beyond, would experience reduced privacy as upper-floor apartments and rooftop areas overlook neighboring backyards and windows. Shadows and reduced sunlight: A building of this height will cast longer shadows onto nearby homes, yards, and gardens, reducing sunlight during portions of the day and throughout different seasons. Construction and ongoing noise: Construction is likely to last many months if not years, bringing heavy equipment, truck traffic, dust, and noise. After completion, the increased number of residents will naturally lead to higher levels of everyday activity and ambient noise. Having glass balconies and a rooftop deck will add to noise levels and certainly to privacy concerns. Infrastructure demands: Additional residents will place greater demands on local roads, water and sewer systems, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report electrical, and emergency services. I respectfully ask that the City work with the developer to redesign this project so that ti is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A 6-story building with only 2 parking spaces is simply not appropriate for this location.Please support a development that better reflects the scale, character, and infrastructure capacity of this established residential community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Jon Kvenvolden on behalf of Kvenvolden Family 2433 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Lin Xie To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Re: [Corrected Version] Comments on SB 79 Preliminary Application — 340 Palo Alto Avenue (Record No. 26PLN- 00179) Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:45:57 PM Attachments:Letter_1_Comments_26PLN-00179-4.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Dinh, Please find attached a corrected version of the comments I submitted on 5 August 2026 regarding Record No. 26PLN-00179 — 340 Palo Alto Avenue. On review I found several citations and statements in the earlier version that needed correction. The substance of the questions raised is unchanged. I would be grateful if the attached version could be placed in the record in place of the version submitted on 5 August, and if the earlier version could be disregarded. I apologize for the inconvenience. With thanks for your time, Lin Xie 346 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 linxie08@gmail.com · (608) 628-7987 On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 7:45 AM Lin Xie <linxie08@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Dinh, Thank you again for meeting with me last week and for inviting written comments. The Attached are my comments on the above application. I own the adjoining property at 346 Palo Alto Avenue. The letter is organised in four parts: the statutory framework and which determinations are presently before the City; three threshold statutory questions; four questions about whether the present record is sufficient to evaluate the project configuration; and administrative requests. An appendix compares this application with the eight others filed during the initial period. I understand you have not yet had the opportunity to review the drawings in detail. I would be glad to provide marked-up excerpts of Sheets A-1 and A-2 identifying each point referenced, if that would be useful. A second letter will follow shortly with supplemental technical comments on site-specific constraints. I would also be grateful to be registered as an interested party for this record. Thank you for your time. Lin Xie 346 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 linxie08@gmail.com · (608) 628-7987 From:Lisa Lawson To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Laurie McGregor (ljg@beyondmarketing.com); N Goggins; Jim Girand Subject:8.10.26 Council Agenda Item No. 20 re Report #2511-5563 (page 342 of Packet) Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:40:42 PM Attachments:image001.png Ltr to City Council from Lisa G. Lawson re Item No. 20 on 8.10.26 Agenda (the Bulb Out).pdf Exhibits to Ltr to City Council re Item No. 20 on 8.10.26 Agenda (Bulb Out).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council Members, Please see attached letter regarding Item No. 20 on the Council’s 8.10.26 Agenda (the Bulb Out). Also attached are exhibits to the letter. Thank you for your consideration. Lisa Lawson One Sansome Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Direct: 415-484-4342 www.lawson2.com This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:sam.liccardo@gmail.com Cc:Sean Allen; Pat M; Raymond Goins; Bains, Paul; DuJuan Green; PD Kristina Bell; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; Zelkha, Mila; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Brandon Pho; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/yKDcC3Yql1h7M8DqtgfZNhQV1c_?domain=m.facebook.com Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 3:05:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks. On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:37 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 8/5/2026 Hi Sam, You failed as San Jose’s mayor to ban flesh-eating police canines. As I said to you before, in an earlier email, you were in bed with the SJPD and the manufacturer, Axon, regarding the use of deadly Tasers. And sadly, in the same bed with the use of deadly police canines by the SJPD. Now you have a chance to redeem yourself by writing federal legislation to ban flesh-eating police canines in all federal agencies. As you well know, deadly canines and deadly Tasers are both hugely disproportionately used on African Americans. It is way past time that you take a stand against the use of these weapons that have been used to terrorize, injure, and murder African Americans and other people of color. Time to do the right thing, Sam! Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James 1944 Ivy Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 https://m.facebook.com/story.php? Sam on Police Canines I could not find evidence that Sam Liccardo took a public position against police K-9 units or advocated ending their use while he was mayor of San José or afterward. There are a few related points that may be causing confusion: Liccardo did support some police reforms, including changes to use-of-force policies and greater police accountability after the 2020 protests. At the same time, he also supported funding for police equipment in some instances, such as voting for the 2020 purchase of Taser 7 devices for the San José Police Department. More recently, as a member of Congress, I could not find any statements from Liccardo supporting California proposals to restrict or ban police dogs, nor any public statements opposing police K-9 programs. If you’re referring to a specific incident—for example: an attack by a San José police dog, a vote on the city’s K-9 unit, or a bill in Congress or the California Legislature Sam on Tasers Yes. Based on the available City Council records, Sam Liccardo voted in favor of purchasing Tasers while serving on the San José City Council as mayor. The clearest example is the December 1, 2020 City Council meeting, when the council considered a proposal to purchase Axon Taser 7 conducted electrical weapons, software licenses, accessories, training, and installation for the San José Police Department under a contract worth up to $4.61 million over five years. The official agenda recommended approval of the purchase. The official meeting minutes show that: The item received public comment, including speakers who opposed the purchase and urged greater scrutiny. The motion passed unanimously, 11–0. Resolution No. 79805 authorizing the purchase was adopted. Since the vote was unanimous and Liccardo was present as mayor, he voted with the majority. So, if the question is specifically: Did Sam Liccardo vote to purchase Tasers while on the San José City Council? The answer is yes. The December 1, 2020 vote approving the purchase of Taser 7 equipment for the San José Police Department passed unanimously, and Liccardo voted in favor. According to the official San José City Council minutes for the December 1, 2020 meeting, the following members of the public spoke in opposition to the Taser purchase: Richard Konda, Executive Director of the Asian Law Alliance Blair Beekman, community activist Eric James Sparky Harlan, CEO of the Bill Wilson Center Caller “5140” (identified only by caller number in the minutes) Veronica, identified as a special education teacher The minutes summarize their concerns as including: The risks associated with Tasers. A recommendation to create a task force and allow greater public scrutiny before making the purchase. A preference for using the funds to enhance social services rather than buying new police equipment. The need for greater social equity in public safety spending. A contemporaneous news report provided additional detail on some of the speakers’ arguments: Richard Konda argued that Tasers have been associated with more than 1,000 deaths since 2000, citing Reuters reporting. Sparky Harlan said the city should delay the purchase and instead discuss investing the nearly $5 million in community-based responses to mental health crises and other non-emergency calls. From:Aram James To:sam.liccardo@gmail.com Cc:Sean Allen; Pat M; Raymond Goins; Bains, Paul; DuJuan Green; PD Kristina Bell; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; Zelkha, Mila; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Brandon Pho; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Shikada, Ed Subject:https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/bYIVC4Wr8xtYWjlAcOfGlh4yFEM?domain=m.facebook.com Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 2:40:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks. 8/5/2026 Hi Sam, You failed as San Jose’s mayor to ban flesh-eating police canines. As I said to you before, in an earlier email, you were in bed with the SJPD and the manufacturer, Axon, regarding the use of deadly Tasers. And sadly, in the same bed with the use of deadly police canines by the SJPD. Now you have a chance to redeem yourself by writing federal legislation to ban flesh-eating police canines in all federal agencies. As you well know, deadly canines and deadly Tasers are both hugely disproportionately used on African Americans. It is way past time that you take a stand against the use of these weapons that have been used to terrorize, injure, and murder African Americans and other people of color. Time to do the right thing, Sam! Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James 1944 Ivy Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 https://m.facebook.com/story.php? From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:8/10 Public Comment Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 1:59:47 PM Attachments:SB 79 implementaion in Palo Alto.pdf Hi, Please see the attached public comment from Ravi Sethi who will presenting this at the 8/10 City Council meeting. Thank you. SB 79 Implementation issue in Palo Alto Ravi Sethi Ordinance created a 15 days window of Economic opportunity for some only •The ordinance could not be implemented immediately in the June 15th meeting. •The state law went in effect on July 1st. •Ordinance went into effect on July 16th. •This created a 15-day window for some projects (6-8?) to use the pre- application procedure to freeze the larger FAR (3.0), higher building heights (48 ft without the daylight plane restrictions). •Post ordinance standards are much more restrictive: 1.5 FAR, 16 ft daylight plane etc. •THIS HAS CREATED AN ECONOMIC DISPARITY OF THE LOT VALUES ON THE MARKET. The uneven “Economic Impact” of the Implementation flaw •Example: •A project (340 Palo Alto Ave) admitted in the 15-day window period is on the market for $6.3M •Similar property (246 Palo Alto Ave) owned by my daughter is subjected to the current ordinance restrictions. •The market value of this property is probably $3M less than what is being asked by the 340 Palo Alto Ave owners. The disparity is mostly due to the difference in the building standards applied to this property currently. •This economic loss is significant! •Recommendations to the city Council •Mitigate this economic loss and disparity with more liberal standards that will allow the highest and best use of our and similar properties in the transit districts From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly Cc:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Emily Mibach; board@pausd.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Zelkha, Mila; PD Kristina Bell; Reifschneider, James; Roberta Ahlquist; Yusra Hussain; William Armaline; Sean Allen; Carla Torres; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Goodell, Erin; Shikada, Ed; editor@paweekly.com; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Steve Wagstaffe; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; EPA Today; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Raymond Goins; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Lewis james; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@menlopark.gov; DuJuan Green; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Nancy Goodban; JIM MINKLER1 Subject:How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking - The Washington Post Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 1:00:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. No Flock in Palo Alto Just say no to Flock in Palo Alto! Just say no to a Trumpian Surveillance State! F - -K Flock! Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James But bad actors have used this massive camera network as a powerful weapon for intimate surveillance. Authorities have charged or accused at least 50 law- enforcement officers of using license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk women without their knowledge or consent, a Post analysis of police and court records found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-police-officers-used-vast- network-cameras-spy-their-exes/ JOIN US THIS SATURDAY! August 8, 2026 Unite & Rise for Voting Rights! From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Join us on THIS SATURDAY to Unite & Rise for Voting Rights! Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 11:17:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. FREE EVENT! THIS SATURDAY - AUGUST 8, 2026, 4-6PM @ Congregation Etz Chayim, Social Hall | 4161 Alma, Palo Alto The fight for the right to vote continues, thisSaturday. UNITE & RISE FOR VOTING RIGHTS! DOCUMENTARY & DISCUSSION: Join us to watch the award-winning documentary, After Selma, about the fight for voting rights, followed by a facilitated discussion including what YOU can do today to stop voter suppression. After the film, meet historian, educator, playwright and author DR. CLAYBORNE CARSON, in conversation with LISA RATNER, JD and LWVPA president, who will speak to the Voter ID initiative (Prop39) on the upcoming California ballot, and hosting a neighborhood “What’s on Your Ballot” gathering in September. Trained election observer GAIL SLOCUM will advise on how we can protect elections. Facilitated by ILLYASHA PEETE, MBA. DR. CLAYBORNE CARSON is a founder of Stanford’s MLK Research and Education Institute, where he directed the King Papers Project at Coretta Scott King’s request since 1985. His works include In Struggle and The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., and he has advised on award-winning documentaries such as Eyes on the Prize. DOCUMENTARY: AFTER SELMA: The march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday galvanized a nation and forced the country to create the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Now, everyone could vote. What has happened since, and what tactics are being used today to suppress voting rights? Civil rights veteran Joanne Blackmon Bland, Emmy-winning filmmaker Loki Mulholland (“The Uncomfortable Truth”) and New York Times bestselling author, Carol Anderson, (White Rage: the Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide) dive into the history of voter suppression, and the need for us to challenge it, in order to preserve our democracy and equality for all. Registration through our Google Form is optional, but it will help us put out enough chairs. Join Us In a National Day of Action on Voting Rights! Check it out on Mobilize. ADA-friendly. Free parking. Light refreshments will be provided. A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP: UNITE & RISE FOR VOTING RIGHTS in Palo Alto is brought to you by: League of Women Voters of Palo Alto & Rho Delta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Sorority, Inc. In partnership with, and gratitude to: AME Zion Church The Joan Trumpauer Mulholland Foundation Catalyze & Cultivate Consulting Spark/Etz Racial Justice Impact Coalition (SERJIC) Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley BE PART OF A NATIONWIDE EFFORT! "Democracy doesn't defend itself - people do." - Celina Stewart, CEO, League of Women Voters. In May 2025, LWV launched its new initiative, Unite and Rise 8.5. Our country is in a constitutional crisis — and it is up to all of us, no matter our political party, to engage, mobilize, and push back against anti-democratic threats. WHY 8.5? The number 8.5 million is the estimated number of voters it would take to bring about change through nonviolent protest. This is based on the finding from the Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights: “Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts...and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.” ABOUT THE ACTION: On August 8, 2026, join us for a nationwide day of civic action in honor of the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. JOIN US IN A VIRTUAL PEP RALLY ON AUGUST 6 AT NOON! Bringing together League leaders, voting rights advocates, entertainers, and grassroots organizers, we will celebrate and remind each other of the power of collective action - livestreamed at lwv.org/riseforvotingrights, the event will underscore that protecting democracy requires sustained civic participation—not just on Election Day, but every day. "Protecting democracy requires vigilance, participation, and collective action." - Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters. Led by the LWVUS, the August 8 Unite & Rise for Voting Rights Day of Action is powered by a broad coalition of organizations committed to protecting democracy and expanding civic participation. National partners include: American Association of University Women American Booksellers Association Black Voters Matter Common Cause Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority, Inc. Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights LULAC Mi Familia Vota National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Inc. National Council of Jewish Women Public Citizen Register Her She Should Run Third AcT Voto Latino, and YWCA USA ABOUT THE ARTIST: Andrea Pippins' core mission to empower others through her art and storytelling directly aligns with the League's mission to empower voters. Past projects include the bestselling "Young, Gifted, and Black," book series, designing a national Kwanzaa stamp with the US Postal Service, and collaborating with the Malala Fund, among many other credits. The League is honored to have commissioned her work for Unite and Rise. We interviewed her about her art, womanhood, and activism: Behind the Art: An Interview with Andrea Pippins | League of Women Voters Coming up! A U G U S T 6: Unite & Rise 8.5 NATIONAL PEP RALLY - noon (PT) virtual 8: LWVUS - Unite & Rise FOR VOTING RIGHTS in partnership with Rho Delta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and our community colleagues - 4pm 14: LWV PA Members' Coffee - 9:30am 17: LWV Night at the Valkyries Game! Details & ticket link 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 Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Our League is gearing up for the Novembermidterms. You can help! Make a difference by volunteering to assist with the candidate forums, join the Pro/Con team to address the many November ballot propositions or our Advocacy Team which will communicate the League’s position on ballot measures through community outreach events. JOIN OUR PRO/CON TEAM! We'll be working with our fellow Leagues on a few of the 14 statewide ballot propositions, plus the local ones still to come. Join our team to analyze all viewpoints to provide a concise, educational summary for voters - a key service the League provides. Team is forming now. (Need to be an active LWVPA member.) Interested? Please contact us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com. 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 of all genders is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Use your voice! Contact your Members of Congress and share your thoughts on how they should represent YOU! FEDERAL: US SENATE: Senator ALEX PADILLA | Senator ADAM SCHIFF US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Representative SAM LICCARDO (16th District) | Find your CA state representative CALIFORNIA: State Assembly District 23 (Palo Alto) - Assemblymember MARC BERMAN State Senate District 13 (Palo Alto) - Senator JOSH BECKER Find Your California Representatives FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA! Facebook Website Instagram Email Email Threads YouTube 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:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc: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; Bryna Chang; 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; GregSchmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; 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; Janie Sydow; 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; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Dmitri Samsonov; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Marc Berman; Josh Becker; Apple, Kara; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen Subject:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s OSV Count (8/4/26) Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 11:12:33 AM Attachments:RV Inventory_03Aug26.xlsx OSV Count_04Aug26.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committe, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, I’m very sorry to say that the numbers of OSVs on our streets are increasing. My count on 8/4 shows that we have 141 OSVs on our streets an increase of 10 over the previous count on 7/10. Even though East Meadow Circle continues to have the largest number of OSVs (38 on this 0.5 mile road) the largest increase has been on Fabian Way which has 20 OSVs. We do have a couple of wins! There were no OSVs parked in front of two of the four condominium complexes in south Palo Alto. They are the Acacia Townhomes on Acacia Ave. and Charleston Village Condos on the corner of E. Charleston and Fabian Way. I know the residents of Charleston Village need to park their cars in front of their complex so the OSVs do not come back for a multi-month stay, but I’m not sure about Acacia Ave. Kudos to PAPD if they made this happen! Let’s just hope it can stay this way for the newly purchased condominium owners in this complex. And… we all know how this works. We are not seeing a net decrease, we are just seeing the OSVs move to other locations! Regards,Bob Marinaro East Meadow Circle - - What you see when entering the Adobe Meadow Neighborhood from Fabian Way Fabian Way - - Filling up again! Fabian Way Fabian Way Fabian Way - - The segment between E. Charleston and San Antonio Would like to see more of these... Commercial Street - - For the tenth time, how can this be legal? Ross Rd. in front of the YMCA. We have been seeing an increased presence in the South Palo Alto neighborhoods. Ross Rd. in front of the YMCA. No license plates in front and back Ross Rd. in front of the YMCA. Colorado Ave. next to Greer Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - This van has been here for months, if not years, and no action is ever taken Orinda St. in Ventura neighborhood - - Also been here for months with a No Parking sign directly in front of it Orinda St. in Ventura neighborhood - - The No Parking sign directly in front of the parked OSV Matadero Ave. - - The gas station attendant said it has been here for years and local residents have complained Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and several of his dozen or so vehicles on Ventura Neighborhood streets Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and several of his dozen or so vehicles on Ventura Neighborhood streets Olive Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and one of his dozen or so vehicles on Ventura Neighborhood streets Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and several of his dozen or so vehicles on Ventura Neighborhood streets Page Mill Rd. - - Bad Actor #1 and several of his dozen or so vehicles on Ventura Neighborhood streets Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs 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 ##############8/3/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 & 8/4 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 4 12 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 8 7 8 9 8 9 12 10 11 9 11 10 9 9 8 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 56 53 52 49 53 48 41 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 37 38 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 11 11 11 12 11 6 5 4 6 8 7 7 7 5 6 6 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 13 15 13 11 11 3 3 5 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 3 8 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 - -- -- -- -- -- -5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 9 10 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 11 11 11 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 11 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 6 6 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 8 4 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 15 8 10 5 9 6 9 6 7 8 6 7 9 10 8 9 15 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 10 11 7 7 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 12 12 16 17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 19 Ames Av./Ross Rd.At Intersection with Ross Rd.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 1 0 0 2 200 197 195 180 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 117 124 20 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 21 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 0 0 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 6 23 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 6 4 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 24 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 25 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 26 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 3 0 29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 20 20 20 19 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 14 17 Total:220 217 215 199 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 131 141 Delta:9 -2 -16 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 1 10 Days since first count: ########29 43 60 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 262 286 Months since first count: ########1.0 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.6 9.4 Yellow OSVs on new street Palo Alto City Council: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Green Utility construction Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: rmarinaro@mac.com, Cell: 650-269-5936 Ash Street Numerous auxillary vehicles in addition to OSVs Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Some columns may be hidden to facilitate easy one page viewing Ventura Area RV Inventory_03Aug26 8/10/2026 12:53 PM From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Julian Garcia; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Raymond Goins; Sean Allen; Richard Konda; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Goodell, Erin; Alaniz, John; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Rick Callender; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Brandon Pho; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:Stanford drops Flock cameras amid national backlash - Palo Alto Online Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 11:11:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/technology/2026/08/04/stanford-drops-flock-cameras-amid- national-backlash/ From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly; Alaniz, John; Lee, Craig; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; EPA Today; cromero@cityofepa.org; Raymond Goins; Human Relations Commission; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Brandon Pho; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Cc:Council, City; Sean Allen; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; josh@joshsalcman.com; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen Subject:cops abuse flock canseas Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 9:38:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. cops abuse flock canseas https://share.google/Hgrypa4kpF6rugmmk From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick Cc:planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; Lee, Craig; Raymond Goins; Council, City; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Enberg, Nicholas; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; Human Relations Commission; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Shikada, Ed; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Steve Wagstaffe; PD Kristina Bell; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Brandon Pho; Nash, Betsy; Cecilia Taylor; Sean Allen; Malinsky, Jason; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Vicki Veenker; DuJuan Green; Stone, Greer; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Anna Griffin; Anne Cribbs; Ann Ravel Subject:Olaf Peterson v Zack Perron Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 9:23:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Daily Post -2019 Cop’s use of n-word led to investigation that never became public – Palo Alto Daily Post https://share.google/zdlZ58OawOWjHMMg0 From:Jeanne Cosby To:Council, City Cc:Jeanne Cosby; Glenn Skinner Subject:Relocation of the Matadero bike route – Further considerations Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 8:05:06 AM Attachments:Cosby_Exploration_Matadero_bike_path_relocation.pdf Cosby_Map_Bike-Ped_Hansen_Varian-Siemens.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Re: Relocation of the Matadero bike route, which now goes between the Matadero and El Camino Real intersection and the Matadero and Laguna Avenue intersection, where it joins the Hanover / Bol Park / Gunn High School bike-pedestrian shared path. There are two attachments to this email message.: “Exploration and a map of the area. August 2, 2026 Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, and Councilmember Reckdahl: I am Jeannette Cosby, a longtime Palo Alto resident at 850 Chimalus Drive, writing to you about the relocation of the City’s designated bike path along Matadero and proposing an alternative bicycle-pedestrian path to the proposed shared bicycle-pedestrian path within the Valley Water easement in the Chimalus Drive area. First, I am completely in favor of the city finding an alternative to the Matadero bike route in the face of the pending construction at 3400 and 3606 El Camino and the projected greatly increased vehicular traffic at the Matadero / El Camino intersection. Second, I propose a Hansen Way/Stanford-Varian-Siemens route, which would be much less costly and safer, plus have the added benefit of connecting two existing Palo Alto bike- pedestrian paths: Portage Street and Hanover / Bol Park / Gunn High School. — See attachment ‘Cosby_Map_Bike-Ped_Hansen_Varian-Siemens’ Hansen Way/Stanford-Varian-Siemens path: bicycle-pedestrian separation Hansen Way has sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides. Therefore, there would be no Powered by Mimecast additional planning and construction costs. Funding could be reallocated to other pending bike-pedestrian path plans. At 911 Hansen there are two separate Varian-Siemens driveways: 811/911 and 911/913. Both are wide driveways going to a very large parking lot which should be evaluated for including a 11-foot, two-way bike path plus a path for walkers, mainly running along the solid, back perimeter wall to an opening which would connect with the Hanover/Bol Park shared path. In the Varian-Siemens parking lot there many empty parking spaces as well as a good number of parked Rivian vehicles and Amazon trucks. For this segment there would be very significantly less planning and construction costs in this already paved area, particularly in comparison with the Valley Water easement proposal. Yes, this Stanford-Varian-Siemens segment would require negotiations with Stanford University et al. and I think that this current period of development of Stanford’s General Use Permit Application could be an excellent time for the City to negotiate for a very modest portion of an underutilized parking lot for a bike-pedestrian path which would benefit both university faculty, staff, and students and Palo Alto residents and young students. Furthermore, this alternative would not negatively impact the safety, on-going comfort, and privacy of approximately 36 Chimalus Drive households whose back yards are immediately adjacent to the Valley Water easement. Third, I think placing a bicycle-pedestrian path in the Valley Water easement will create numerous downsides and issues, such as public safety and emergency access, destruction of many of the positive attributes of the green belt, and on-going negative impacts on Palo Alto residents, owners and tax payers. I am attaching my more extended notes: "Exploration: Where to relocate the existing Matadero bike path route?" I think they could be helpful during your further deliberations as to where to locate our displaced-by-builder's-remedy Matadero bike route. —Please see attachment: ‘Cosby_Exploration_Matadero_bike_path_relocation’ Respectfully yours, Jeannette Cosby 850 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto, CA. 94306 650-493-4933 cosby@cosbyemail.net cc: Glenn Skinner 850 Chimalus Drive glenn.skinner@acm.org Exploration by Jeannette Cosby, 850 Chimalus Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ‚ <cosby@cosbyemail.net> 650-493-4933 Issue: Where to relocate the City of Palo Alto's designated bike route starting at El Camino Real, proceeding westward on Matadero, to Bol Park, to link up with the Hanover - Bol Park bike path. 7/15/2026 The intersection at El Camino Real and Matadero is a primary entry and exit point for the Barron Park neighborhood. Matadero is street with two lanes, no bike lanes nor sidewalks, and a City designated bike route to schools and the Hanover/ Bol Park/Gunn H.S. bike path. The pending construction of two high rise residential buildings — at 3400 and 3606 El Camino Real — and the associated rise in vehicular traffic from their garages fronting on Matadero and cars turning into the Matadero / El Camino Real intersection will make the current bike route even less safe than it already is. A. Hansen Way / Varian-Siemens parking lot bike route proposal — See attached annotated map — This illustrates a much less expensive alternative to the Valley Water District Easement proposal for relocating the Matadero bike route. The Hansen / Varian-Siemens bike route originates at the Hansen Way/El Camino Real/Portage Street intersection with existing traffic signals and proceeds west on Hansen Way, an existing street with good visibility, bike lanes, sidewalks, low car traffic, and excellent access for emergency services. At 811/911 or 911/913 Hansen, negotiate a bike route easement with Stanford-Varian-Siemens for a bike path easement to one side of their wide driveways and along the back sound wall of their large paved parking lot (with lights), to the point at which a wall opening would connect this bike path midway with the existing Hanover/Bol Park bike path, facilitating easy access to both Stanford and Palo Alto schools. To summarize, this bike route would have very low construction costs, pose minimum safety issues, and avoid any disruption and long-term negative impacts on ~36 properties in the adjacent residential neighborhood and to the Water District Easement's existing positive benefits, such as safety, privacy, noise buffer, urban forest, night time dark. A further benefit: This Hansen Way/Siemens bike path would connect at both ends with existing Palo Alto bike paths, thus creating a network with a continuous bike route between south of Oregon Expressway neighborhoods with the Palo Alto Council supported El Dorado tunnel under Alma and the railroad tracks / to the existing Portage Street bike lanes / to the existing Portage / El Camino Real / Hansen crossing with traffic lights / Hansen Way (Stanford Research Park) /Siemens bike path and the existing Hanover / Bol Park bike path (Barron Park Elementary, Gunn High School). B. Water District Easement/Green Belt bike route proposal — To construct a bike path in the Water District Easement located between the back yards of ~36 houses on Chimalus Drive and the sound wall bordering Stanford Research Park, which has extensive parking lots in back and some buildings fronting on Hansen Way. Valley Water District Easement / Green Belt — Some current benefits: • Flood control and culvert maintenance with locked entrance gates for multiple safety reasons • Authorized access only; safety, privacy for homeowners whose back yards have low 6' chain link fences • It's a tree-rich buffer, along with a solid 12' wall, between the immediate residential neighborhood (consisting of ~36 houses with back yards facing the green belt) and Stanford Research Park's operating noise and night time light bleeds from their buildings and parking lots • An ecological, animal corridor, bound on one side by the wall and the other by neighborhood fences, • An mature urban forest which is very much alive with wild life and nighttime dark. It's about 2 acres Water District Easement / Green Belt — Some adverse impacts if a bike path is added to it: • Construction planning and costs: Re: the underground box culvert and soil conditions, the cost for a raised path with proper drainage would be high compared with other bike paths of comparable length and would impinge on the limited funds available to the city for planned bike path work elsewhere in Palo Alto • Removal of a significant number of trees in order to construct a funding compliant path • Construction noise, air pollution, safety, privacy impacts on residents • Residential safety and privacy with low 6' fences next to a path with 24/7 public access • Reduced likelihood of timely aid in case of on-path injury or assault due to greatly reduced access. • Compromised access for emergency services and vehicles due to closed corridor only open at ends • For safety and maintenance vehicle access, removal of even more trees, resulting in more industrial noise and night time light from Stanford Research Park and reduced ecological benefits • Disruption of a wildlife corridor; adverse impacts of day and night time path user's noise • Negative impact on property values • This path would end at El Camino Real, mid-block, without an immediate El Camino crossing to an El Camino bike lane leading the Portage Street bike path, unless another traffic light were added. From:Lin Xie To:Dinh, Joey Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Comments on SB 79 Preliminary Application — 340 Palo Alto Avenue (Record No. 26PLN-00179) Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 7:46:48 AM Attachments:Letter_1_Comments_26PLN-00179 (4).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mr. Dinh, Thank you again for meeting with me last week and for inviting written comments. The Attached are my comments on the above application. I own the adjoining property at 346 Palo Alto Avenue. The letter is organised in four parts: the statutory framework and which determinations are presently before the City; three threshold statutory questions; four questions about whether the present record is sufficient to evaluate the project configuration; and administrative requests. An appendix compares this application with the eight others filed during the initial period. I understand you have not yet had the opportunity to review the drawings in detail. I would be glad to provide marked-up excerpts of Sheets A-1 and A-2 identifying each point referenced, if that would be useful. A second letter will follow shortly with supplemental technical comments on site-specific constraints. I would also be grateful to be registered as an interested party for this record. Thank you for your time. Lin Xie 346 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 linxie08@gmail.com · (608) 628-7987 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Art Liberman To:Rice, Danille; Council, City Cc:Lo, Ria; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Arce, Ozzy Subject:Re: Council Direction for path Date:Wednesday, August 5, 2026 7:27:59 AM Attachments:image005.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Ms. Rice - I want to thank you very much for your response. Your letter admits that there had never been any "Council Direction" for this project and that Council member Pat Burt invented it when he spoke on June 2,2025,.and Council member Keith Reckdahl bought into it. It was because of the use of "Council Direction" when Council member Burt was questioning a junior member of the Office of Transportation that the OoT raised the priority in the BPTP update for a project for a bike-ped path in the Water District Easement, behind homes on Chimalus Drive. It was also because of Council member Burt's insistence, as a member of the Council's Finance Committee, that a CIP for the project was initiated for fiscal year 2028. I hope your note will serve to admonish City Council members to be careful in their words and to not use the term "Council Direction" unless there is some evidence of formal vote providing clear decision that gives a 'Council Direction' on a policy. This is especially important when Council members are discussing issues and questioning junior members of staff. I want to thank you and the City Manager's staff for clarifying this issue. Arthur Liberman On Monday, August 3, 2026 at 12:50:14 PM PDT, Rice, Danille <danille.rice@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Liberman, I am replying on behalf of the City and apologize for the delay. Thank you for your email regarding the June 2, 2025, Council discussions related to a potential shared use path within the Valley Water easement in the Chimalus Drive area. City staff were unable to identify Council meeting minutes documenting formal Council direction on this specific alignment before June 2, 2025, except a Council comment on February 4, 2019 regarding a development of a path behind Chimalus in the letter to Stanford regarding “Requested Terms for Inclusion in a Possible Development Agreement Between the County and Stanford University Related to the General Use Permit Application.” Staff understood this comment as related background, rather than formal direction to pursue or study the specific alignment. Since that time, however, the City Council has provided direction on this project. On June 15, 2026, Council adopted both the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the City’s budget, both of which include the Chimalus project. Based on that Council direction, staff will be seeking grant funding to support preliminary concept planning and feasibility analysis for this project in FY 2028. Thank you for raising the distinction between informal statements of support and formal Council direction. That distinction is important, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the public record. Sincerely, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.govwww.PaloAlto.gov From: Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 9:36 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Council Direction for path Council - this is a question that I am asking of Council member Burt. He invoked the term Council Direction in a meeting of the Council on June 2, 2025. I am asking him to tell me when did the City Council gave formal "Council Direction" to a shared bike-ped path in the Water District Easement behind houses on Chimalus Drive? Council member Burt: You mentioned 'Council Direction' at about 3 hours and 29 minutes into the video of the City Council meeting on June 2, 2025. Council Member Pat Burt said: "I am particularly concerned with the network that would connect our residents to the Research Park, especially in the greater Midtown area, that would use the underpass that we are planning in the vicinity of Loma Verde through the (Ventura) NVCAP area. The Council three years ago had given support for an off- road path from El Camino to Bol Park and the South End of the Research Park through the 40' wide Valley Water Right of Way. A year ago, at a Rail Committee meeting, bike route connect-ness was discussed, and it was told to us that this route had been dropped because there had been some neighborhood opposition. But again, the Rail Committee unanimously said, no, this was a Council direction to have this explored and we think this is an important part of the network connecting South Palo Alto to the Bol Park Path to Gunn High School and the Research Park." I thought that a statement of “Council Direction” would require a vote on a motion by Council members. Statements of support by you and Council Member Reckdahl at the City Council meeting on June 2, 2025, are informal statements. From the information available on PaloAlto.gov, I was not able to find a publicly indexed Council meeting in which Council members expressed formal support for this off‑road path. Can you please provide me with the information on which you base your statement of Council Direction? Thank you to all members of the Council for your service to the residents of Palo Alto. Art Liberman From:Eric Hendrickson To:Council, City Subject:Planned 19 unit, 2 parking space development at 2497 High St. Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 8:52:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, First, thank you for your service. I’m reaching out about the planned development at 2497 High St. I live with my 7 and 4 year old daughters about a block away on Colorado between Ramona and Emerson. My neighbors who live closer to the site are concerned about blocked light, overloaded street parking, and loss of privacy due to the height of the building and ability to look down from the higher floors into backyards. My 7-year old daughter is concerned about cars parking in front of our house. In her words, she wants our neighborhood to stay a neighborhood. I thought I’d reach out to relay their concerns. I appreciate that there are competing concerns. As an additional thought: the most direct walk between the planned site and the nearest Cal Train station goes along Alma St and requires several relatively stressful street crossings. Alma is a fast road, and cars exit to and enter from Oregon Expressway going quite fast. I tend to avoid walking that route, though I have done the walk a number of times and know it well. If there are a lot of additional people walking that way, it could create traffic problems as well as dangerous situations at the crosswalks. I’d be happy to connect if helpful. Thanks again for your service. Best, Eric This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:N Goggins To:Council, City Cc:Nita Goggins Subject:City Council Special Meeting - Item #20 - Report #2511-5563 Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 8:23:24 PM Attachments:Goggins - City Council Item #20 - August 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, My name is Juanita Girand Goggins and I am a co-owner of the home at 590 East CrescentDrive. I am writing to request that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood bereturned to its original state. Please see my attached letter addressing the Office of Transportation's request forapproval to proceed with the final design for the permanent installation of the bulbout infront of our home at the Special Meeting on August 10, 2026. Thank you,Juanita Girand Goggins This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 1 Dear City Council Members, Re: Item #20, Report #2511-5563 (“staff report” or “report") Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traf7ic Calming Project My name is Juanita Girand Goggins and I am a co-owner of the home at 590 East Crescent Drive. I am writing to request that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood be returned to its original state. I virtually attended and spoke (when the City’s software allowed) at all of the Planning and Transportation Committee (“PTC”) and City Council hearings regarding the proposed traf/ic calming measures. With my family members, I attended in person the two site visits with the Of1ice of Transportation (“OT”) and their consultants. I also wrote to members of City Council via email (September 2025) regarding the injustice of this project and wrote to the City Manager regarding the conduct of the OT (May 2025). This letter *irst identi*ies the material de*iciencies in the August 2026 staff report and then sets forth the case for removing the berm at the intersection of East Crescent and Southwood and returning the intersection to its original state, as closely as is legally possible. The OT staff report prepared for the City Council’s August 10, 2026 Special Meeting presents a misleading account of the facts. The report contains material misrepresentations, unsupported assertions, and signi0icant omissions. It repeatedly presents opinion as fact, advances conclusions without evidence, and contains internal inconsistencies. The following are eight of the most signi,icant concerns. 1. The August 2026 staff report acknowledges a “mismatch” between the PTC’s intent and what the staff communicated to City Council in November 2023 The OT’s staff report states: “Based on this review, staff concur with PTC member’s perception that there was a mismatch between the Commission’s general conversation and the 5inal motion that was conveyed by staff to Council.” The attached letter from the PTC Chair is more direct. It states: “PTC intent was miscommunicated to Council...” and that the staff report “did not accurately represent PTCs motion.” 2 The OT's statement is an acknowledgment that the staff report presented to the City Council in November 2023 mischaracterized the PTC's recommendation, reversing PTC's direction to staff, effectively switching a "no" into a "yes." 2. The staff report seeks to diminish the signi2icance of its error The body of the staff report of August 2026 describes the problem merely as a “mismatch,” but the PTC letter states that the staff report of November 2023 did not accurately represent the motion, and the intent of the PTC was miscommunicated to City Council. These &indings are far more signi&icant than merely characterizing the issue as a "mismatch." The discrepancy was not inconsequential - it had a decisive effect. By misrepresenting the PTC's recommendation, the OT obtained City Council approval to proceed with the bulbout. The OT then relied on that approval throughout the process, repeatedly asserting that the Council had already authorized the design and that there was no obligation to revisit or modify its 4inalized plans. Following Council approval of the bulbout, the PTC directed the OT, during a working group hearing, to meet with us on site and work toward a mutually agreeable redesign. However, at the site visit, civil engineer Shahla Yazdy stated that the OT was under no obligation to make any changes because the project had already received Council approval and the plans had been !inalized. 3. “Three quarters of residents supported the design” is misleading The staff report repeatedly asserts that "approximately 75% of residents supported permanent installation." While that statement may or may not accurately re1lect the survey results, it omits critical context that is necessary to evaluate what the 4igure actually represents. Immediately after the pilot installation, our elderly father, assisted by his caregiver, went door-to-door surveying the neighbors living closest to the project, most of whom are also elderly. The response was remarkably consistent: the residents most directly affected opposed the installation. Twelve neighbors signed his petition, which our frail father personally delivered to the OT's of4ices. Yet the results of that neighborhood survey were never presented to the PTC or the City Council. Instead, direct evidence that the closest neighbors opposed the project was excluded from the public decision-making process. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) records show the OT’s receipt of our father’s survey, but no attempt by the OT to disseminate it. 3 Months later, the OT conducted the survey it now relies upon to claim broad community support. However, the reported "75%" has never been accompanied by essential information needed to assess its signi.icance, including: • the total number of respondents, • the survey response rate, • who was eligible to receive a voting card and how those recipients were selected, and • whether support re+lected the views of residents closest to the project or was concentrated elsewhere. Without this context, the oft repeated claim that "75% of residents supported permanent installation" likely overstates the degree of community support. Equally signi,icant, through multiple FOIA requests, we have speci0ically sought copies of the returned voting cards from the neighborhood survey. To date, the OT has never produced them. As a result, the underlying data supporting its repeated claim of 75% support has never been available for independent review or veri/ication. 4. “Multiple good faith efforts” is subjective The report states: “staff has made multiple good faith efforts…” Whether the efforts of the OT were in “good faith” is subjective and should not be presented as an objective fact. At $irst, we believed a public agency representing the City of Palo Alto would approach the process with transparency, fairness, and a genuine effort to consider the concerns of all stakeholders, and anything indication otherwise was a mistake or misunderstanding. Over time, we reached the dif0icult conclusion that the OT was not engaging with us in good faith. We were repeatedly excluded from key parts of the deliberative process, we were not directly noti,ied of public hearings (Greg Welch was noti%ied directly, according to FOIA records), evidence contrary to the OT’s objective was dismissed, and elected decision- makers were deprived of their essential role as impartial arbiters because they were presented with incomplete and misleading information. After years of these actions, it became clear that these were not isolated errors, but a pattern of conduct inconsistent with a transparent and good faith public process. Examples of the OT acting “in good faith”: 4 a) The OT deliberately excluded us from the process. FOIA records show that previous efforts to install traf,ic-calming measures in nearby areas (such as Crescent Drive and University) were successfully challenged early in the process by neighbors who organized, retained counsel, and prevented the projects from moving forward. These records also show Greg Welch expressing frustration to the OT with those residents who had joined forces to successfully oppose medians, berms, and street closures. Given this history, it appears the OT chose not to notify us directly in order to avoid similar opposition and expedite the installation of the bulbout without meaningful community input. In fact, FOIA emails show that on the day before the installation, Shahla Yazdy asked Greg Welch to notify us (the residents at 590 East Crescent Drive), and he declined to do so. b) There is no evidence - now or ever - that the intersection at East Crescent and Southwood presented a traffic safety problem. The City’s own records show no accidents and no citations at this location, and the OT’s data confirms that vehicle speeds before and after the pilot were at or below the posted speed limit. Despite the absence of any demonstrated safety issue, the OT continued to advocate for the bulbout. At the most recent site meeting, when questioned about moving forward with the bulbout despite the absence of supporting data, Shahla Yazdy acknowledged that the data does not support their claims of improved safety but stated that she didn’t need empirical evidence because she simply “knew” the bulbout would work. This is an unacceptable standard for any public infrastructure decision. c) The OT’s own consultant, Fehr & Peers, found the traf8ic-calming results “inconclusive” and attributed traf,ic changes to broader post-COVID citywide trends. Despite this conclusion, the OT repeatedly led the PTC, City Council, and the public to believe that the bulbout had been highly successful, using that unsupported claim to justify moving forward with the project. 5. “The resident declined” is misleading The staff report states that staff asked our father to demonstrate his preferred method of accessing his home and that "the resident declined" at the most recent site visit. While it is true that staff made the request and our father declined, the report omits critical context that explains why. At the time of the site visit, our father was using his wheelchair because of signi6icant mobility limitations. He could not safely get into or out of a vehicle without assistance. Under those circumstances, asking him to physically demonstrate his normal means of access was neither practical nor reasonable. Moreover, the City and its staff should be aware that asking a disabled person to demonstrate their disability violates state and federal discrimination laws. This request was offensive and humiliating. By reducing 5 the encounter to a statement that "the resident declined," the report creates a misleading impression while omitting the very facts necessary to understand his response. 6. “At least two accessible means” is misleading The report states that two routes remain available between the house and a parked vehicle, but it fails to acknowledge that the most direct - and our father's preferred - route is now longer. For a man with signi$icant mobility limitations who walks slowly, has balance issues, and at times relies on a walker or wheelchair, that additional distance is not trivial; it is a meaningful burden. The report also offers no objective analysis to support its conclusion. It provides no measurements, grade calculations, turning-radius assessment, wheelchair evaluation, or accessibility analysis. Instead, it simply asserts that access remains adequate while ignoring the increased distance and physical demands now imposed on our father. 7. “Shown to reduce” is misleading The report states that “this realignment has been shown to reduce cut-through traf*ic and lower unsafe speeds,” yet provides no evidence speci5ic to this location. Instead, it relies on data from pandemic era traf'ic conditions and an installation at a different location. The conclusion exceeds what the evidence supports: the OT’s own data shows speeds were already at or below the speed limit before and after the pilot, and its consultant found the pilot’s effectiveness inconclusive, attributing traf3ic reductions to broader COVID-era changes consistent with citywide declines. 8. Internal inconsistency regarding the PTC recommendation The report states that “PTC approved moving forward in June 2023,” yet later acknowledges “commissioners actually wanted substantially more redesign.” These statements are inconsistent. The attached PTC letter con2irms that the latter accurately re2lects the PTC’s concerns. Continuing to characterize the PTC’s position in a way that minimizes or obscures those concerns perpetuates a misleading narrative and appears intended to in3luence Council's understanding of the project rather than accurately represent the PTC’s recommendation. 6 The Case Against Permanent Installation The bulbout should be dismantled and the intersection should be returned to its original state because the OT never established that the intersection was unsafe in the 3irst place, nor has it demonstrated that the pilot improved safety. The OT’s own data shows that vehicle speeds were already at or below the posted speed limit before and after installation. No before-and-after analysis has demonstrated a reduction in unsafe speeds, collisions, or other measurable safety bene5its attributable to the bulbout. The claim that the project reduced traf2ic and improved safety is similarly unsupported. The OT relies on data from pandemic-era conditions and different locations, while its own consultant, Fehr & Peers, concluded that any reduction in traf6ic volume was consistent with broader citywide declines and could not be attributed to the pilot. Finally, the residents who were most directly affected did not support the project. Neighbors living nearby raised immediate concerns and communicated those concerns to the OT via a survey, but the OT never presented the survey to the PTC, City Council, or the public. A permanent alteration to a residential intersection demands evidence - not assumptions or gut feelings. To date, the OT has demonstrated neither a documented safety problem requiring correction nor a measurable bene1it resulting from the bulbout. Without clear evidence that this permanent change improves safety or serves the community, the bulbout should not be made permanent and the intersection should be restored to its original condition. Collectively, our family has devoted hundreds of hours and over $20,000 in legal fees to ensure that this decision is evaluated through a fair and transparent process grounded in facts. We are deeply grateful for the considerable time, attention, and care that the PTC and City Council have invested in reviewing this matter, and we look forward to the Special Meeting on August 10, 2026. From:CaraSilver@proton.me To:Council, City Cc:IPA+ Team Subject:Stanford"s Cancellation of Flock Contract and Other Flock/ALPR Developments Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 8:08:04 PM Attachments:image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers: I hope you all had an enjoyable summer break. Special thanks to Councilmembers Reckdahl and Lu for attending our June 28 Democracy Forum called "Safeguarding Our Privacy." For those unable to attend, here is both a highlight reel and a link to the entire plenary session with national privacy experts. There have been many Flock/ALPR developments and news stories this summer, and I wanted to highlight a few key ones: Multiple city councils across the country are reconsidering their Flock contracts. Closest to home, Stanford University announced yesterday it was cancelling its Flock contract and transitioning to a vendor who does not share data with outside agencies. Further, LAPD recently announced it would not be renewing its Flock ALPR contract in light of privacy concerns and potential data leaks to ICE; ACLU recently released a comprehensive report on Flock's blatant lies; KQED aired a segment on the changing tide regarding Flock cameras (Palo Alto Online reporter Riley Clarke was interviewed about the story she broke regarding Palo Alto's recent data breaches and the growing public mistrust); The US Supreme Court issued its long-awaited privacy decision in Chatrie v. United States. The decision reiterated that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of our movements, even in public; And John Oliver just did an entire show on Flock and mass surveillance. The show airing on HBO is linked here and even features a few California cities; Flock has also been in the news trying to combat all this bad publicity. I haven't attached links, but John Oliver does a good job summarizing their untenable position. Finally, SOS Palo Alto will be hosting an anti-ALPR Rally as part of the national week of actions against ALPRs on August 20, 5:30 PM, at King Plaza. We hope to see some of you there! Best, Cara Silver Indivisible Palo Alto Plus, Immigration Chair Safety Over Surveillance (SOS) Palo Alto Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From:Angela Kim To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa Cc:City Mgr; Planning Enforcement; Andrade, Alicia; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Veenker, Vicki; City Attorney Subject:Re: Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code – 18 Roosevelt Circle – Request for Response Within 10 Days Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 6:33:06 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Ms. Vargas, I am following up on my email below. I received your automatic out-of-office message and also attempted to reach you by phone but was unable to connect. If you are currently away, would you please let me know whether another member of the Code Enforcement Division is handling this matter in your absence? If so, I would appreciate that person's name and contact information so I can follow up directly. Given the ongoing fire safety concerns and the length of time this matter has remained unresolved, I would appreciate any update that is available. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Angela From: Angela Kim <woongela@gmail.com> Date: Friday, July 31, 2026 at 10:23 AM To: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Planning Enforcement <Planning.Enforcement@PaloAlto.gov>; Andrade, Alicia <Alicia.Andrade@PaloAlto.gov> This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Subject: Re: Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code – 18 Roosevelt Circle – Request for Response Within 10 Days Dear Ms. Vargas, Thank you for your prompt response and for confirming that this matter has been assigned to you. I appreciate your acknowledgment that this has been a longstanding issue and that Code Enforcement is actively working on the case. I would appreciate some additional information regarding the City's enforcement efforts. Specifically: 1. On what date did Code Enforcement conduct the site inspection of the property? 2. On what date was the Vector Control report issued to the homeowners? 3. When do you anticipate issuing the Notice of Violation? 4. Once the Notice of Violation is issued, what is the City's enforcement process if the homeowners fail to comply? For example, what deadlines apply, and what enforcement actions (such as administrative citations, fines, abatement, or other remedies) are available if the violations remain uncorrected? As you noted, this has been a persistent problem for many years. According to publicly available reports, the City previously coordinated a large-scale cleanup of the property in 2019, but the conditions returned shortly thereafter. Given that history, I am concerned that a Notice of Violation alone may not result in lasting compliance. I would encourage the City to consider arranging another comprehensive cleanup of the property, followed by regular monitoring and, if necessary, scheduled weekly cleanup efforts until the property remains in compliance. In my view, a sustained enforcement strategy is more likely to achieve a permanent solution than isolated enforcement actions. Please preserve all documents, photographs, inspection records, communications, emails, notes, text messages, and electronically stored information relating to the Subject Property, my complaints, and the City's investigation and enforcement efforts. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to learning more about the City's planned enforcement timeline. Sincerely, Angela Kim From: Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2026 at 5:26 PM To: Angela Kim <woongela@gmail.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Planning Enforcement <Planning.Enforcement@PaloAlto.gov>; Andrade, Alicia <Alicia.Andrade@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: RE: Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code – 18 Roosevelt Circle – Request for Response Within 10 Days July 30, 2026 Re: Your Correspondence Dated July 22, 2026 — 18 Roosevelt Circle, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (Code Enforcement Case No. 26PCE-00782) Dear Ms. Kim: I write on behalf of the Code Enforcement Division in response to your letter dated July 22, 2026, addressed to Mayor Veenker and City Attorney Jensen, concerning conditions at 18 Roosevelt Circle. I also want to acknowledge, directly, your frustration. You have reported these conditions in good faith on multiple occasions — including formal complaints on July 3, 2025, January 13, 2026, and June 8, 2026. This matter is an active enforcement case, Case No. 26PCE-00782, which was opened on June 8, 2026. This case is assigned to me, and I see that you are the reporting party. Enforcement Plan and actions taken: 1. Site inspection by Code Enforcement has been carried out. Since that inspection, a request to County of Santa Clara Vector Control has been requested, and based on this inspection, they have issued a report directly to the homeowners. In addition, an open violation exists with County of Santa Clara Weed Abatement Program which is also being addressed directly with the homeowners. 2. At this point I am developing a Notice of Violation which outlines for the residents of the property what is required based on the conditions noted. I agree with you that this is an issue that has been persistent for many years which code enforcement is frustrated with as well. I will work within the municipal code to gain compliance regarding the issues present at this property. Unfortunately, I cannot predict or assign a timeline for full resolution. Instead, what I can do is commit to addressing the concerns with the resources that are available to me within the City. Your letter references out-of-pocket expenses for fence repairs which the City cannot address or resolve private damages. =0-Thank you again for your engagement on this matter. We take it seriously. Please feel free to reach out to me directly regarding this matter. Respectfully, Elisa Vargas Supervisor of Code Enforcement (650) 329- 2303| Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Angela Kim <woongela@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 9:06 AM To: Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Vargas- Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Planning Enforcement <Planning.Enforcement@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code – 18 Roosevelt Circle – Request for Response Within 10 Days CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Lait, Ms. Vargas, and Members of the City Council: Please find attached my letter regarding the City's repeated failure to enforce the Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect to the property located at 18 Roosevelt Circle, Palo Alto, California. As detailed in the attached letter, I have submitted Code Enforcement complaints on July 3, 2025, January 13, 2026, and June 8, 2026. More than one year has passed since my initial complaint, yet the hazardous conditions at the property continue to worsen without meaningful enforcement action. Given the apparent fire hazard and the risks posed to neighboring residents and properties, I respectfully request a written response within ten (10) calendar days identifying the enforcement actions the City has taken and the specific actions it intends to take to address this matter. Thank you for your prompt attention. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Angela Kim 20 Roosevelt Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 714-6191 woongela@gmail.com From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City Cc:Pham, Tina; ParkRec Commission Subject:8/7 /26 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 2:27:59 PM Attachments:61826 email. to PRC cc CC.pages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers Burt, Lu, and Veenker: I hope to be able to remotely participate in your August 7 ...Sustainability Committee meeting. In the meantime, I am sending the letter I sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission (with copy to Council). I hope you will follow the PRC lead and recommend re-dedication of the entire 10 acre Measure E site. Some of you may recall that in 2011 Measure E proposed undedication of 10 acres of parkland to use for organics processing - initially just a composting facility. To influence voter choices, the measure stated that if the site were not used as described within 10 years of the 2011 election, Council could re-dedicate the 10 acres as parkland. It has now been 15 years since the election. Parks & Rec has TWICE recommended rededication of the entire 10 acres. Thank you for considering my remarks below: Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel, Councilmember 1979-1991, Planning Commissioner 1973-79. Below is my letter to the PRC and City Council: Dear Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission: Please recommend re-dedication of the entire 10-acre Measure E site. Just as general background, Highway 101, the Bayshore Freeway, was the bay shoreline in Palo Alto. Almost all the land north of Bayshore Freeway is former wetland, including the Athletic center, the Golf Course, the Airport, the Sewage Plant (RWQCP) , the Duck Pond, the Interpretive Center, the Flood Basin, the Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plant site, most of Byxbee Hills Park, and the Renzel Wetlands PLUS all the development along East Embarcadero and along East Bayshore Frontage Road. Many of those lands are California Public Trust Lands. Almost 50 years ago, as a Planning Commissioner, I proposed allowing the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to satisfy its Site and Design requirement for screen landscaping on the adjacent Byxbee Park to protect the natural park from a view of the industrial-looking sewage clarifiers. That was approved and the required 125-foot landscaped buffer was installed by the RWQCP and has been maintained by them to fulfill that requirement. It is the principal natural connection between the Bay and the Renzel Wetland. The landfill service road (and Byxbee Hills Loop Trail link) is also located in that area. As the landfill went from a single lift to a “hill and valley” plan to the ultimate 64’ high Byxbee Hills Park, the Palo Alto Refuse Fund’s ratepayers paid rent of $100,000 per acre/year for use of dedicated parkland and also collected many thousands of dollars of gate fees. This occurred from approximately 1976 until Byxbee Hills Park opened in the early 2000’s. That money was used to balance the City budget after Proposition 13 reduced City income. All of the 126-acre Byxbee Park took another 40 years to open to the public. In the meantime, the RWQCP received approval for a “beneficial use” project on the former ITT property which entailed installing a major pipeline under the landfill perimeter road adjacent to the buffer to provide salt water to habitat for the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. This was a substantial use of parkland to benefit RWQCP and became the Emily Renzel wetland. The Park Dedication Charter Amendment was intended to prevent capricious use of park land whenever the City wanted new facilities and didn’t want to pay for the required land. This current attempt to hold onto 2.6 acres of Measure E parkland for RWQCP expansion is precisely a case in point. It’s ironic that Measure E removed the required landscape buffer land from park dedication and may result in an even more industrial and smellier RWQCP facility even closer to the park for which this buffer had been intended. I think we can all agree that the RWQCP will be around for a very long time. As I look at the attached aerial photo of the site, I note (eyeball measurement) that there are approximately five acres of private buildings on Embarcadero Way adjoining the RWQCP. It would make much more sense for this immortal public sewage infrastructure to be located there instead of on Byxbee Park. Please at least recommend to the Council that it explore that option in lieu of further disrupting Byxbee Park. I believe that the City should honor and protect its requirements and commitments such as the Site and Design commitment made lo those many years ago. Otherwise, it renders all our actions a farce. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel Planning Commissioner 1973-79 Councilmember 1979-91 9/22/22 PRC Staff Report Key Sections from Ballot Measure E (Resolution) Shall ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park be undedicated for the exclusive  purpose of building a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic material?   • The Property shall be removed from dedication as parkland, for the exclusive purpose of building a facility (“Facility” herein) for converting yard trimmings, food waste, other municipal organics and/or sewage sludge from the regional wastewater treatment plant by biological and/or other environmentally equally protective technology. Ten years from the passage of this Initiative (ER NOTE: Nov 2021), the City Council may rededicate any portion of the site. Any other use, except for parkland, would require a new vote of Palo Alto residents.   From:Doug Valenti To:Council, City Subject:Support traffic calming around “Five Points” Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:30:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I write in strong support of the traffic calming measures taken in the Five Points, Southwood Dive area. It has made a big difference for the quality of life and safety in the neighborhood. It is super important that we keep these measures in place. Thank you. Doug Valenti 125 Southwood Drive Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Richard Ho To:Council, City Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 9:16:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am a Crescent Park resident writing to express my support for making the traffic calming improvements at the intersection of Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive permanent. My family regularly walks along this section of Southwood Dr and East Crescent Dr in the morning and the early evening. Before the pilot project was installed, I witnessed many instances of cars speeding through this intersection without slowing or stopping, which endangered pedestrians, bikes and other cars. Since the pilot project was installed, I have seen a reduction of speeding and cut-through traffic in our neighborhood. Slower traffic makes our streets safer for everyone, including children walking or biking to school, pedestrians, cyclists, and residents entering and leaving their homes. While no traffic project will satisfy every resident, I understand the City's neighborhood survey found strong support for making these improvements permanent. The staff report notes that approximately 74% of responding Crescent Park residents—and 75% of respondents living closest to the Southwood/East Crescent intersection—supported permanent installation. Please approve the permanent installation of the Crescent Park traffic calming measures. Thank you for your service and for considering my comments. Sincerely, Chianmin Ho 269 Southwood Dr Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:gretchen deandre To:Council, City Subject:Traffic-Calming Measures Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 8:22:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing as a Crescent Park resident to encourage you to approve the permanent installation of the traffic calming measures at Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive. Since these measures were put in place, I have seen the positive impact these changes have had on our neighborhood. Reducing vehicle speeds and discouraging cut-through traffic create a safer environment for everyone who uses our streets, and I can usually pull right out of my driveway during rush hour instead of having to wait for an opening in the long line of cars and then maneuver around those cars into the street. I recognize that there will likely not be unanimous support. However, the City’s survey results show that a significant majority of responding residents support keeping these improvements in place. The pilot has provided ample time to evaluate the results, and the data shows that the project has achieved its intended goals. I respectfully ask the Council to approve making these traffic calming improvements permanent. Thank you for your consideration and your continued work on behalf of Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Gretchen DeAndre This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report 130 Southwood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Erica Pelavin To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: East crescent and Southwood drive Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 4:56:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Erica Pelavin <erica.pelavin@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 4:53 PM Subject: East crescent and Southwood drive To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.or> Council Members, I am a Crescent Park resident writing to express my support for making the traffic calming improvements at the intersection of Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive permanent. Since the pilot project was installed, I have noticed a meaningful difference in our neighborhood. The efforts to reduce speeding and discourage cut-through traffic have helped make our streets feel safer and more pleasant for everyone who lives here. Whether it’s children walking or biking, neighbors out for a walk, cyclists, or residents pulling out of their driveways, slower traffic benefits us all. Our neighborhood streets are narrow and were designed to serve residents, not as high-volume commuter routes. The purpose of these improvements is not to create congestion, but to slow traffic and discourage unnecessary cut-through driving so that our streets remain safe for those who live, walk, and bike here. I recognize that opinions differ on changes like these, and no solution will satisfy everyone. However, I believe the pilot has demonstrated that these measures improve safety and preserve the residential character of our neighborhood. I respectfully urge you to approve the permanent installation of the Crescent Park traffic calming measures. Thank you for your service to our community and for considering my comments. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Erica and Rich Pelavin 190 Southwood drive Palo Alto ca 94301 650 465-0005 From:Jeanette Harrison To:Council, City; City Mgr; John.Lait@palotalto.gov; Council, City Subject:Health and Safety Concern Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 2:15:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council Members and Managers, This is a health and safety concern regarding the 6-story building with 19 units on the corner of High Street and Colorado. The proposal for this size building/number of units with only 2 parking spaces on the site is creating a very dangerous situation. By not accounting for enough parking spaces for this many residents will force them to park on the streets which has limited space. This will push the residents to park farther away and on the main Palo Alto biking boulevard of Bryant Street. This increases the potential accidents of cars hitting bikes as the vehicles pull out of street parking spaces. Many of the bicyclists who use this boulevard are kids riding to and from middle school and high school. There should be at least one parking space per residential unit. It is unrealistic to believe the occupants would not have at least one care to get around this area for shopping or doctor appointments, even if they use the train for commuting to work. Decreasing the units and increasing on-site parking could help alleviate this potential health and safety risk with street parking. Or move the project away from small residential streets and the biking boulevard to a location that would minimize accidents. Perhaps they could consider the old Fry’s building site which is larger and a better location relative to kids biking to school. ACTION REQUESTED: You should have a comprehensive Traffic and Parking Spillover Impact study before any further steps can be taken. You should strictly audit the developer’s application to ensure it was genuinely 100% complete and accurate by the July 15th deadline. The city needs to fix this problem that was created by lack of a timely action allowing the developer to slip this proposal in. Or I fear there will be biking accidents in the future and the city will be responsible and liable. Thank you for taking this issues seriously. jeanette Harrison Long-time Palo Alto Resident This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:FYI - Buena Vista Households get 30-Notices to vacate by about August 31 Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 1:18:09 PM Hi Council Members - Below is the July 31st Housing Authority 30-day Notice to BV residents for relocating up to 8 months (increase from 6 months). BV households are to vacate by August 31 at the earliest. In the coming weeks, a 10-day notice with the specific move date will be issued. A few households on the west end of the property will not have to relocate, to remain adjacent to the work to be done. The 30-day notice below includes where this household will be relocated - near Middlefield Rd. and Shoreline Blvd. in Mountain View, about 4-miles from Buena Vista. There are no students in this household. Fingers crossed that student households are relocated to Palo Alto. This timing seems very tight. There is a hard codified deadline in March 2027 for Housing Authority to have spent and draw down all its $24,595,646 MORE award, granted for Buena Vista on 12/14/2023. MORE is a state program only for refurbishment of mobile home parks. Any unspent funds must then be returned to HCD. I hope you enjoy you last week of Council break, Winter Dellenbach . From:Lisa Van Dusen To:gstone22@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Ed Lauing; Julie Lythcott-Haims; georgeglue@gmail.com; pat@patburt.org; Vicki Veenker; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Andrade, Alex; Robustelli, Sarah; Gaines, Chantal; McDonough, Melissa; meghan.horrigan-taylor@palpalto.gov Subject:Fwd: Discover Downtown Through Art, Laughter & Compliments Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 12:21:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Mayor Veenker, City Council members, Ed, Alex, Sarah, Chantal, and Meghan, I cordially invite you to join me for three Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS this week, listed below in the City of Palo Alto Public Art email. Some of you have already joined an earlier version of the Tour of Downtown Palo Alto’s Hidden Public Spaces (POPOS - Privately Owned Public Open Spaces). Our mayor joined the tour in late June and “bowled a strike” in one of the POPOS (spoiler alert). These tours are ever-evolving and highly participatory. I hope you can join as there is nothing like a “field trip” to understand our fair city better - and to meet some curious and game members of the Public. Tuesday, 5:00 - 6:30 pm. And on Saturday, you can start the day with The Compliment Dept.: Office Hours with Live Music (Saturday, 9-10 am) (and I bet you could all use one given your respective public service roles through which you likely receive a lot of “feedback” of other varieties. And then start your evening with a Summer Laughter Party (Saturday 5:30 - 6:30 pm) - we also all need to laugh. Or at least I do. These are all part of my ArtLift Grant from the Public Art Program and Saturday’s activations are also part of the Magical Series, supported by Magical Bridge. So in addition to having some fun and seeing the POPOS enlivened, you can also see a bit of the City budget in action! Details and RSVPs (helpful but not required) below. Hope to see you there! Best regards, Lisa Lisa Van Dusen lisa@lisavandusen.com | 650-799-3883 lisavandusen.com | paloaltopopos.org Instagram @lisavandusen LinkedIn Begin forwarded message: From: Palo Alto Public Art Program <denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov> Subject: Discover Downtown Through Art, Laughter & Compliments Date: July 30, 2026 at 11:42:06 AM PDT To: lisa@lisavandusen.com Reply-To: denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov I will send out this now. Please take a quick look. Tour of Downtown Palo Alto’s Hidden Public Spaces Discover the public spaces hiding in plain sight! Join artist Lisa Van Dusen for a walking tour and participatory public artwork exploring Downtown Palo Alto’s overlooked Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS). Together, participants will activate these unique plazas, pathways, and gardens while reimagining their role in public life. Tuesday, August 4 5:00–6:30 p.m. Meet at Avenidas 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto Free, accessible, and open to the public. All ages welcome. RSVPs are appreciated but not required. Walk-ins are welcome. Part of Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS, an ongoing public art project by Lisa Van Dusen that activates Palo Alto’s hidden Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS). Free and open to the public. RSVPs are helpful but not required. Walk-ins are welcome. Presented with support from the City of Palo Alto Public Art Program’s ArtLift Grant Program. RSVP Now! The Compliment Dept.: Office Hours #3 Thursday, August 8, 2026 9:00-10:00 a.m. Edgewood Plaza (POPOS) next to House of Bagels 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Drop by The Compliment Dept.: Office Hours and request a complimentary compliment from artist Lisa Van Dusen. Through observation, conversation, attentive listening, and humor, each compliment is thoughtfully crafted for the individual, transforming an everyday interaction into a moment of connection, reflection, and delight. Free, accessible, and open to the public. All ages welcome. RSVPs are helpful but not required. Walk-ins welcome. Part of Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS, this participatory public art project takes place in Plaza Ramona, one of Palo Alto’s Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS), inviting visitors to discover and activate these often-overlooked public places. This activation is funded in part by the ArtLift Grant Program, City of Palo Alto Public Art Program, and is a Magical Series event, in partnership with Magical Bridge Foundation. RSVP Now! Summer Laughter + Dance Party Laugh your way through a joyful summer evening at Plaza Ramona! Join two-time American Laughter Champion and 2023 World Laughter Champion Carla H. Brown for an uplifting Laughter Yoga experience blending intentional laughter, simple movement, deep breathing, and community connection. No experience or equipment is necessary - just bring your curiosity and come ready to laugh! Stay for the full experience or drop in for a few minutes. Saturday, August 8 5:30–6:00 p.m. Plaza Ramona (POPOS) 250 University Avenue, Palo Alto (next to Ettan) Free, all ages, accessible, and open to the public. RSVPs are appreciated but not required. Walk-ins are welcome. Part of Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS, an ongoing public art project by Lisa Van Dusen that activates Palo Alto’s hidden Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS). This activation is funded in part by the ArtLift Grant Program, City of Palo Alto Public Art Program, supported by Ettan Cal-Indian Cuisine, and is a Magical Series event, in partnership with Magical Bridge Foundation. RSVP Now! paloalto.gov/publicart Palo Alto Public Art Program | 1313 Newell Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY. This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a draft message. If you believe you have received the message in error, please contact the author by replying to this message. Constant Contact takes reports of abuse very seriously. If you wish to report abuse, please forward this message to abuse@constantcontact.com.