Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-24 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: 08/24/2026 Document dates: 8/17/26 – 8/24/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Mary Baker To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2832 Emerson Street Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:58:41 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: My husband and I are residents and property owners on Emerson Street, which is a closed-end cul-de-sac street that intersects El Dorado Avenue. We utilize the El Dorado Avenue corridor as our primary access route to reach our home. We are writing to submit our formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals could impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on our family, our property, and our daily transit. We urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway and Street Access Safety Hazards The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that threaten our ability to safely enter, exit, and navigate between El Dorado Avenue and our home. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path Traffic Surge Elevated Transit Barriers: Because the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, we are concerned 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 that this increased traffic from the bike path will make it even more difficult to enter and exit El Dorado Avenue to drive to our house. Escalated Accident Risks: Squeezing this high volume of regional bicycle and fast-moving e-bike traffic into our narrow street grid lowers vehicle reaction times and increases the ongoing risk of traffic accidents. B. Increased Risks if Alma Traffic Light Installed Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the Alma Street T-intersection introduces further severe safety risks to our primary neighborhood access point. Cut-Through and Regional Traffic: If a traffic light is installed at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street, there may also be increased car traffic from both neighborhood regional car traffic and commuter cut-through traffic wanting to access the traffic light, and vice versa. Compounding Traffic Volumes: We are concerned that this possible increased car traffic, layered directly on top of the projected increased bike and e-bike traffic, could further increase the possibility of traffic accidents for us as we navigate to and from our property. C. Emergency Vehicle Access Risks Significant Delay Concerns: We are concerned about emergency vehicle access to our home on this cul-de-sac street. With all this possible increased traffic on El Dorado Avenue, emergency vehicles may be significantly delayed in reaching our house during a critical event. Flawed Evacuation Logic: Even if the proposed traffic signal is designed to change and empty out El Dorado Avenue for approaching emergency responders, the existing traffic on El Dorado Avenue may not empty out quickly if there is a backup on other connecting roads, such as Alma Street. This possible gridlock may create a bottleneck that compromises our basic public safety baseline. 2. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. We are concerned that the possible overall additional traffic volume generated by this project would have the potential to increase vehicle adversely affect our living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact our personal health and well-being. 3. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe neighborhood egress and altering the traffic safety metrics of our street corridor, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of our property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and inducing cut-through traffic patterns creates an inherently dangerous condition for our residential access point, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan We formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. We respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the active public packet closes. Sincerely, Mary Baker Wendell Baker Full Names: Mary Louise Gray Baker & Wendell Craig Baker Address: 2832 Emerson St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street—an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Linda Aplin To:Council, City Cc:David Hung Subject:El Dorado Petition Ramona 1 Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:52:47 AM Attachments:Supplement Petition Ramona 1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. City of Palo Alto Here are a couple of more signatures for the circulating Petition for El Dorado. The file is called Supplement Petition-Ramona 1. I will bring the originals to City Hall this afternoon. Thank you, Linda Aplin From:Erica Brand To:Council, City; Transportation Subject:Plan A1 Traffic Signal at El Dorado would help Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:46:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council and Transportation Team, I am writing to express my support for Plan A1 (Traffic Signal at El Dorado). Implementing a traffic signal and a tunnel under the tracks, similar to the infrastructure at Homer and Alma, would be highly beneficial. Additionally, I urge you not to move forward with the ramp up to Emerson, as it would be costly and disruptive. Thank you, Erica Brand 2642 Ramona St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:Re: BPTP Public Comment: Initial Submission of Neighborhood Petition Opposing El Dorado Avenue Alternative Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:32:08 AM Attachments:ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_2_of_6.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_5_of_6.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_4_of_6.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_3_of_6.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_1_of_6.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_6_of_6.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Please find attached an update to our neighborhood petition submission for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project record. We have attached fresh, scanned PDF files: 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_1_of_6.pdf 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_2_of_6.pdf 3. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_3_of_6.pdf 4. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_4_of_6.pdf 5. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_5_of_6.pdf 6. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Supplemental_I_Submission_Set_6_of_6.pdf containing additional neighbor signatures collected ahead of the 12 Noon cutoff. Attached for formal filing into the project record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project are the scanned sheets of our Neighborhood Petition opposing the El Dorado Avenue alternative. Please note that these files together contain 103 signatures. This, added to the 30 signatures in the Initial Submission, total 133 signatures. We request that these petition sets and the accompanying Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan engineering blueprint be uploaded into the administrative record before the active public packet closes. Please reply to verify receipt and successful upload of both attachments. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 4:44 PM David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> wrote: To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Please note that 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf previously sent has a total of 15 signatures. and 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_2_of_2.pdf has a total of 15 signatures. So for the Initial Submission there are a total of 30 signatures. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 3:48 PM David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> wrote: To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Attached for formal filing into the project record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project are the scanned sheets of our Neighborhood Petition opposing the El Dorado Avenue alternative. This transmission constitutes the Initial Submission Suite, which is divided into two separate PDF files for administrative convenience: 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_2_of_2.pdf We request that these petition sets and the accompanying Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan engineering blueprint be uploaded into the administrative record before the active public packet closes. Please reply to verify receipt and successful upload of both attachments. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA From:Paul Aplin To:Council, City Cc:Transportation; Coles, Charlie; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Concerns about Alternative Plans A1 and A2 Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 11:12:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I want to begin with something on which I believe we can all agree: Palo Alto needs safe, effective ways for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the Caltrain corridor. I support that goal. My concern is not whether we should improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, but whether El Dorado Avenue is the right location—and whether the residents most directly affected have had a meaningful opportunity to participate in that decision. I am particularly concerned about the apparent gap in the City’s community outreach. City reports describe an extensive public-engagement process and summarize community preferences among the alternatives. Yet participation appears to have been heavily weighted toward neighborhoods farther south. One result is particularly difficult to overlook: according to the City’s South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Community Workshop #2 Summary — September 9, 2025, zero Midtown residents participated in that workshop. For a project being considered for Midtown, that should have raised a red flag. It suggests that the outreach process, however extensive on paper, was not successfully reaching a meaningful cross-section of the residents who would ultimately live with the consequences of the decision. My own experience reinforces that concern. My first real awareness of the scope of the project came from an article in the Palo Alto Weekly, if I recall correctly. I immediately began asking neighbors whether I had simply missed a comprehensive neighborhood outreach effort. I could not find a single person I spoke with who understood the scope of what was being considered for El Dorado. Since then, our direct conversations with residents have revealed a similar pattern. Many people living closest to the proposed project knew little or nothing about the potential changes to their street, parking, traffic patterns, property, neighborhood access, or emergency-vehicle access. I attended the City Council meeting on December 1, 2025, and expressed my concerns. Those concerns have only increased as I have learned more about the alternatives being considered. Why El Dorado Deserves Another Look This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast El Dorado is a Local street—not a Collector street. The City classifies El Dorado as a Local street, intended primarily for low-volume access to nearby residences. Yet at certain times of day, it already functions more like a Collector because it is one of the limited routes connecting a substantial number of homes in the area bounded by Alma, Colorado, Cowper, and El Dorado. The proposed project risks formalizing and increasing a function the street was never designed to perform. Either El Dorado alternative could substantially change how the street works. Whether the City ultimately advances one design or another, the consequences extend well beyond creating a bicycle and pedestrian rail crossing. The project could affect vehicle circulation, bicycle movements, pedestrian activity, residential access, parking, and the everyday operation of the surrounding neighborhood. The potential property impacts need to be clearly defined. The City has expressed a desire to minimize or avoid eminent domain. Yet residents are still trying to understand how many properties could ultimately be affected by the tunnel alignment. Is it two properties? Three? Four? Five? Six? One potentially affected property contains three residential units. Before an alternative advances further, residents and Council should have a clear accounting of what private property may be required and to what extent. Creating a bicycle boulevard would bring another substantial set of changes to El Dorado. Concepts under consideration could include restricting parking to one side of the street, adding a traffic circle, changing stop-sign configurations, and making other modifications intended to accommodate increased bicycle use. Each intervention may have merit when considered individually, but together they could fundamentally change a narrow residential street and may introduce new vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, driveway-access, and emergency-access conflicts that deserve further study. A new traffic signal could also attract more vehicle traffic to El Dorado. A signal at El Dorado and Alma would provide something drivers throughout the surrounding neighborhood currently lack: a signalized opportunity to safely turn onto Alma. That is certainly a benefit. But it is also precisely why the signal could attract drivers from adjoining streets to El Dorado. The result could be an unintended contradiction: a project intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety could draw additional automobile traffic onto the same narrow residential street. None of these concerns means Palo Alto should abandon the goal of providing a safe bicycle and pedestrian crossing. They mean we should make certain we are solving the right problem in the right place—and that we understand the consequences before committing to a solution. My Request to Council I have signed the neighborhood petition asking the Council to reopen community input before advancing the El Dorado alternative further. I respectfully ask the Council to provide a focused opportunity for residents of Midtown, El Dorado Avenue, and the immediately adjoining streets to understand the alternatives, their potential impacts, and the tradeoffs involved—and to provide meaningful input before the project proceeds further into design. For future projects of this scale and cost, I would also encourage the City to consider not simply how many people participated in an outreach process, but whether the people most directly affected were adequately represented. When participation data show that an affected neighborhood is essentially absent, that should trigger additional outreach before those results are relied upon to guide a major infrastructure decision. Safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is an important goal. So is making sure the community most affected has a meaningful voice in deciding how we achieve it. Respectfully, Paul Aplin 2861 Emerson Street Palo Alto, California Paul Aplin Creative Director Direct: 650 678 0084 paul@auc.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From:Linda Aplin To:Council, City; Transportation; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Coles, Charlie Cc:Linda Aplin Subject:El Dorado Bike Blvd Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:26:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City of Palo Alto City Council and Transportation Department, I am writing regarding the El Dorado bike blvd project. I live in the Emerson cul de sac off El Dorado, so this project greatly impacts our family and our neighbors. I have a few comments Ii would like to make about this project. 1) We did not hear about this project until after El Dorado was selected. None of our neighbors were aware of this project until we mentioned it. I can’t believe Palo Alto would plan a major project in our neighborhood without talking with the people in the neighborhood. It certainly doesn’t sound democratic to me. Our neighbors are upset that this project is being “shoved down our throats.” 2) El Dorado is inappropriate for a bike blvd. The street is so very narrow that cars park on the sidewalk to make room for traffic. If you restrict parking, that will be a hardship on many people who rely on street parking for their personal vehicles, and commercial vehicles like delivery and construction trucks. 3) El Dorado is a “Local" street. By City definition, a “Local" street serves neighborhoods. El Dorado is short, narrow and only serve 7 streets between Cowper & Alma. Loma Verde, by contrast, is a “Collector" street and serves 20 streets from West Bayshore to Alma. How can you treat our “Local" Street like a “Collector” Street? 4) When looking at the Draft Network Enhancements map, taking out all the stop signs on El Dorado will make that street a speedway for cars and bikes, including electric bikes and scooters. That’s an accident waiting to happen. And crossing or This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast turning onto El Dorado will be difficult due to the increased, speeding traffic. 5) If you install a traffic light at El Dorado and Alma, it will be a magnet for cars wanting to get onto Alma, especially those wanting to drive south. I would suspect cars from east of Middlefield will use that traffic light to get only Alma because it will be the only traffic light between the 2 miles stretch from Grocery Outlet and Churchill. We all know how fast traffic is on Alma, so a chance to enter at a light is golden. More car traffic and more bike traffic on a narrow street is a recipe for disaster, especially if there are no stop signs on El Dorado. And getting across or onto El Dorado will be a challenge for those of us who live in the cul de sacs south of El Dorado. 6). The traffic circle. Please please do not put a traffic circle at Bryant & El Dorado. We do not want a repeat of the Ross Road debacle. And it will hamper Emergency Service vehicles, who will already have a challenge with your proposed changes. 7. If you build a tunnel, it will affect 3? 4? 5? 6? houses. I realize sacrifices need to be made, but let’s make it worth the sacrifice. None off your plans are worthy, in my opinion. 8. The tunnel ramp opening will be very close to the intersection of Emerson & El Dorado. This seems extremely unsafe for bikers. Imagine a kid racing down El Dorado to get to the tunnel ramp. He/she is not going to be thinking about a car turning on to/from El Dorado. And if bikers zoom up the ramp existing the tunnel on their electric bikes, they too will be endanger of getting hit by a car on Emerson turning onto El Dorado. Cars backing out of their driveways will also be a risk because they will have trouble seeing bikes and an influx of cars. I could go on with pros, but I think you get my drift. El Dorado is a bad choice and I only wish you had talked with the neighborhood before going to all the expense of developing plans. Given these pros (and I do have more!) I hope you will reconsider other more reasonable streets. Last week I sent an invitation to Council members to meet on El Dorado so I could show you why I have objections and get reassurance from you that my objections are overstated. That invitation stands. Thank you, Linda Aplin 2861 Emerson Palo Alto From:kenmorgan.3722@gmail.com To:Transportation Cc:Council, City Subject:FW: test2 Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:20:59 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i -------------- Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2700 Bryant Street Date: August 23, 2026 I am against paying more money to pay for someone else’s benefit for any reason. I am totally against water-wasting high-rises such as the one at Mollie Stone on California Avenue, or anywhere else. No one has taken one moment to think what the consequences of these atrocities may be—including increased water usage of which California is desperate for. There is absolutely NO reason to keep making cities bigger and more obnoxious. And, there is NO reason to keep raising my water and utility rates. Regarding Bikers & e-scooters: there needs to be a stricter code of enforcement for breaking rules—such as running stop signs (Bryant and California is extremely dangerous) as bikers don’t slow down at all at these various stop sign intersections. And, e-bikes ride too fast on streets even though speed limits are sometimes posted with signs. Where are the police in stopping these “criminals”. Also, spending more money for bikers and changing streets because of them is uncalled for. Bike riders are rude, obnoxious, self-caring people who have no value for other’s rights or common curtesy. California Avenue has a tunnel that goes under Alma and the tracks and bikers have no interest in getting off their bikes and walking through the tunnel like the signs say is mandatory. They don’t care a hoot about pedestrians. It is dangerous to put bikers and pedestrians on the same path. We don’t need any more special routes for bikers. Bryant Street already has too many bikers making it dangerous to get out of one’s driveway. DO NOT add more expensive tunnels which will cause more unnecessary traffic and more injuries to unsuspecting pedestrians. STOP!!!! This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner on Bryant Street, situated on the residential block between Colorado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue. My private residential driveway is located directly on this segment of Bryant Street. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals could impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on m family, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Location-Specific Risks The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that may threaten my ability to safely enter and exit my private driveway on Bryant Street. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path and Driveway Entry/Exit Risks The Connecting Traffic Surge: While the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, this design could draw additional bike and e-bike traffic onto my block of Bryant Street as riders maneuver to connect to the El Dorado corridor. Physical Gutter Constraint Vulnerability: To enter or exit my driveway, drivers must move at a crawl to safely negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between the road and my driveway, which functions as a large, physical bump. This structural layout forces my vehicle to remain slow, exposed, and vulnerable in the roadway during both entry and exit. Escalated Collision Probability: If an additional influx of fast-moving e-bikes and traditional cyclists ride to the El Dorado path to access the Alma Street crossing, the likelihood of collisions increases. If oncoming wheeled transit fails to yield or stop while I am slow and exposed on the gutter profile, multi-modal collisions and vehicular conflicts may occur. B. Increased Risks if Alma Traffic Light Installed Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street may produce the unintended consequence of additional traffic volume resulting from both neighborhood regional traffic and commuter cut-through traffic. The Oregon Expressway/Colorado Commuter Shortcut: Motorists coming off Oregon Expressway seeking to bypass arterial congestion could turn directly onto Bryant Street, or collect from Colorado Avenue, utilizing my block as a shortcut to reach the new operational signal at Alma Street, and vice versa. Compounding Multi-Modal Traffic Volumes: Layering this potential addition of regional and cut-through car traffic directly on top of the increased bike and e- bike volume could increase traffic hazards. This combination could increase the probability of car-on-car collisions and multi-modal accidents as I enter or exit my driveway. 2. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. I am concerned that any increased traffic volume as a result of the Alma traffic signal would have the potential to increase vehicle emissions (PM2.5) and elevate ambient noise levels. Such changes would adversely affect my living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact my personal health and well-being. 3. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway maneuvers and altering the traffic metrics of my block, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of my property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and inducing cut-through traffic patterns creates an inherently dangerous condition for my residential access point, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION I don’t really even think this route is necessary. There is a tunnel at California Avenue and access to Park Blvd/Avenue at East Meadow intersection. That suffices and doesn’t cost the City or residents any extra finances. We don’t need these stupid changes. Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the active public packet closes. Sincerely, Ken Printed Name: Ken Morgan Address: 2700 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace [INDEX]. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street [INDEX]. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact [INDEX]. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis [INDEX]. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks [INDEX]. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard [INDEX]. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch [INDEX]. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan -------------------- From:Carly Lake To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr Cc:Steve Bollert; David Waller Subject:OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Coyote Hill Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:15:46 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership for 3380 Coyote Hill Road, to oppose the proposed OSV Parking Permit District. Coyote Hill Road sits within one of Palo Alto's key commercial and research employment corridors. The businesses here anchor jobs and generate meaningful tax revenue for the City — revenue that funds the very services this pilot is meant to provide. Concentrating up to 40 vehicles directly against these properties threatens that economic base directly: it puts tenant safety, curb appeal, and marketability at risk, and that risk converts immediately into lost leasing activity, lost jobs, and lost tax revenue. This isn't a marginal cost to ownership — it risks crushing one of the City's own economic engines. We support real solutions for people living in vehicles. We do not support parking dozens of RVs next to an established commercial area that has no RV activity today. This proposal doesn't manage an existing problem — it creates one, and ownership bears the cost. The scale alone is disqualifying. The district would run 1,105 feet and could hold up to 20 OSVs plus a personal vehicle per OSV — as many as 40 vehicles on this stretch of road. That changes roadway visibility, traffic circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. If demand exceeds capacity, it spills onto adjacent streets. The location also adds a fire risk the City cannot ignore. This site sits in the Wildland Urban Interface next to dry, unmonitored open grassland, with round-the-clock human activity, propane tanks, generators, and open flame. This isn't hypothetical: two fires broke out near this exact location in the past year — one near Deer Creek Road in 2025 that burned several acres before Palo Alto firefighters got it under control, and one near Coyote Hill Road this past July, caused by human activity. Concentrating OSVs here puts new ignition sources on the driest, least-monitored land around, right next to sensitive open space and watershed habitat — and next to the businesses that keep this corridor economically viable. Ownership is asking the City Council to reject Coyote Hill Road as an OSV Parking Permit District. If the Council proceeds anyway, we ask, at minimum, that the City: Take responsibility for cleanup, property damage, and impacts beyond the designated parking area. Set measurable standards for tenant safety, sanitation, fire prevention, environmental conditions, and property access. Suspend or relocate the program immediately if those standards aren't met. Sunset the pilot automatically unless the Council affirmatively re-approves it after evaluating outcomes and consulting affected property owners. These conditions are not our endorsement. They are the floor of accountability ownership needs if you proceed over our objection. Spend the City's resources on long-term housing, case management, and properly managed off-street facilities — not on new fire and safety risks next to one of Palo Alto's own economic engines. Ownership is not asking the City to choose between compassion and commerce — we're asking you to stop funding one by crushing the other. Reject this permit district. Sincerely, Carly Lake Carly Lake Principal | BioScience Property Investments M: 858.692.6952 E: carly@bioscienceprop.com bioscienceprop.com From:Carly Lake To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr Cc:Steve Bollert; David Waller Subject:OPPOSE OSV PARKING PILOT - Embarcadero Way Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 10:10:20 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Bioscience Property Investments writes on behalf of ownership, as the operator and developer of the commercial building on the 2400 block of Embarcadero Way, to request that this block be removed from the proposed OSV parking pilot and that the City prohibit long-term RV and OSV parking in this commercial area. We have invested heavily in conversion of these buildings to Class A Life Science laboratories and offices. The block houses employers (including City of PA offices), generates lease revenue, and contributes directly to the City's tax base. Long-term RV conditions here are actively crushing that economic driver — not in the abstract, but in dollars: added operating costs, damaged curb appeal, and leasing activity that stalls every time a prospective tenant tours the block. Every month these conditions continue, they push tenants and future employers toward more presentable properties elsewhere, and this corridor loses ground. As ownership, we already absorb what long-term RV parking does to a block: We pay for added cleaning just to handle the public space cleanup and monitoring. Our team has hauled away dumped furniture, bulky items, and garbage, repeatedly. Campfire ash near our landscaping has killed plants and created a fire hazard. Persistent odors and waste affect how the property presents to tenants, employees, and visitors. Unsafe conditions create an environment of hostility and fear for tenants. We've reported these conditions through the City's channels repeatedly. Nothing has changed. Leasing is where this economic damage shows up clearest. Before one high-priority tour, we had to escalate the RV conditions to the City's economic advisor and coordinate a temporary RV relocation just to present the property safely. Once we did, we leased roughly 8,000 square feet — nearly half the building. That's a direct, demonstrated link between RV conditions on this block and ownership's This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report ability to lease space, retain tenants, and keep this corridor economically viable. The alternating-side pilot doesn't fix this — it just moves the same RVs from one side of the street to the other every six months, so the impacts, and the economic damage, continue year-round. Signage, red curbs, sweeping, and towing don't cover the porter costs, cleanup, landscaping damage, or lost leasing revenue ownership has already absorbed. They manage where the RVs sit, not whether they're here. We're not asking the City to manage or rotate RVs on this block. Remove it from the pilot and make this commercial area a no-OSV-parking zone. Ownership and the businesses we house are core economic drivers for Palo Alto — the jobs, lease revenue, and tax base the City depends on. Formalizing long-term RV parking on this block doesn't just cost us; it erodes the commercial vitality of this entire corridor and the tax revenue the City relies on. Protect the safety, cleanliness, and economic viability of the Embarcadero Way commercial area by rejecting this pilot and rezoning the 2400 block. Sincerely, Carly Lake Carly Lake Principal | BioScience Property Investments M: 858.692.6952 E: carly@bioscienceprop.com bioscienceprop.com Date: August 24, 2026 RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2875 Emerson St, which is a closed-end cul-de-sac street that intersects El Dorado Avenue. I utilize the El Dorado Avenue corridor as my primary access route to reach my home. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and request evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals could impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on my family, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway and Street Access Safety Hazards The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that threaten my ability to safely enter, exit, and navigate between El Dorado Avenue and my home. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path Traffic Surge Elevated Transit Barriers: Because the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, I am concerned that this increased traffic from the bike path will make it even more difficult to enter and exit El Dorado Avenue to drive to my house. Escalated Accident Risks: Squeezing this high volume of regional bicycle and fast-moving e-bike traffic into our narrow street grid lowers vehicle reaction times and increases the ongoing risk of traffic accidents during my daily commute. From:E M To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2875 Emerson St Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:58:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Sarah Longstreth To:Coles, Charlie; Lo, Ria Cc:Council, City Subject:Response to July 20, 2026 Notice Regarding Potential Eminent Domain — 2800 Emerson Street Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:56:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Ms. Hutabarat Lo, I am writing in response to your letter dated July 20, 2026, regarding the South Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Grade Separation project, which was sent to my parents, Stephen and Linda Longstreth, homeowners who reside at 2800 Emerson Street. My parents have lived in their home on Emerson Street for 52 years. My father is a retired, self-employed documentary film producer, and my mother dedicated over four decades to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) as a speech therapist. They were fortunate, as an artist and a public school educator, to find a way to purchase their home over five decades ago. They sacrificed to send my sister and me to college by borrowing against their home, and they finally paid off their mortgage about ten years ago. Throughout their 61 years in Palo Alto, my parents have contributed deeply to this community: My father serves as President of the Council for the Arts Palo Alto, a local nonprofit he has led for decades. My mother was a PAUSD educator for over forty years as noted above. My mother served on Palo Alto’s Disability Task Force, operating under the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast In connection with my mother's membership on the Disability Task Force, my parents co-produced—pro bono—the educational film "Good Intentions, Mistaken Assumptions." Circulated nationally, it won second place at the National Educational Film Festival and earned a formal commendation from the Palo Alto City Council (Resolution No. 7090). It is with great dismay and alarm that I read your letter referencing the potential acquisition of their property and the exercise of eminent domain. As retired public servants and artists, my parents' retirement savings are overwhelmingly tied up in the value of their home. They intend to age in place, and accessing their home equity is critical to making that possible. We have already been advised by financial professionals that the mere cloud of potential eminent domain risks impairing their ability to secure a reverse mortgage or access their home value—an outcome our family cannot permit. Please be advised that if the City ultimately moves forward with exercising eminent domain against my parents’ property, we will have no choice but to retain legal counsel to vigorously contest the City’s actions. To be clear, I am not opposed to pro-cycling infrastructure or transit improvements in Palo Alto, and outside of eminent domain, I am not taking a position against other possible changes to El Dorado Avenue. My husband, Tom Culbertson, cycles through Palo Alto daily in his role as president of the Palo Alto Educators Association. My son, Owen Longstreth, is a former member of the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). As a family, we strongly advocate for safe, connected bicycle and pedestrian pathways. However, I cannot countenance any infrastructure proposal that threatens to strip my parents of their home or destroy their financial ability to age in place. Finally, a word of advice on administrative courtesy: if the Office of Transportation is going to send correspondence to long-term Palo Alto homeowners raising the prospect of losing their property to eminent domain, you should at the very least take the time to address the letter to them by name. Reaching out with a form letter addressed to "Dear Resident" is, frankly, offensive. Thank you for reading. I request that this letter be made part of the official public record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project. Sincerely, Sarah Longstreth 979 Amarillo Avenue From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; Diana Diamond Subject:Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back up Plan - Email Details Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:40:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Re: Just Say No To Banning RVs on The streets of Palo Alto without a well-thought-out back up Plan - Email Details https://share.google/JSjZlSFEXg6d6RB6v From:Barry Hart To:Council, City Subject:Do homework before starting a pilot RV program Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 9:13:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council - Please do your homework before deciding on a pilot program. Ask nearby cities why they completely banned RVs and not attempted to regulate and limit numbers? Determine the increase in arson and fires caused by transient population vs non-transient population in Santa Clara County and on the peninsula. Have other cities attempted to deter illegal activities of RV residents? Did they have success? Review the documented issues that homeowners and businesses have filed about RV residents and determine if a plan can be reasonably created to make sure these issue do not continue There is much information from other cities experiences with RV residents - and Palo Alto is not really any different. Let's not make a pilot program that ignores these lessons Barry Hart This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Elena Kadyrova To:Council, City Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking Plan and Student Bike Commute Safety Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 8:51:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and members of the Palo Alto City Council, My name is Elena Kadyrova. I live directly on Park Boulevard and I am a mother of three kids. Every day I watch my children and many other neighborhood kids bike down Park Boulevard to get to Escondido Elementary and JLS Middle School, Gunn and Paly. It is a designated bike boulevard and it is the main safe street on this side of El Camino. It connects Ventura to Escondido and Paly and it links Mayfield Stanford College Terrace Southgate and Evergreen Park to JLS and Gunn (see the pictures from the offical Palo Alto bike roads maps in the attachments ). Just this year city cleaned Park Blvd and the RVs stopped parking here. Our kids were so glad they did not have to pass big RVs on their way to school anymore. It felt safe again. I understand the city needs rules for RV parking. But putting RVs on Park Blvd is very dangerous for our children. Large RVs block the view so drivers cannot see small kids on bikes at crosswalks and intersections. RVs are wide so they make the bike street narrow and force kids closer to moving cars. Some RVs also have loud dogs that bark and jump suddenly which scares the kids on their bikes. Also RVs obstruct the street to John Boulware Park. This is the new park that our city and neighborhood is so proud of. With oversized vehicles our young kids feel afraid on the way to go and enjoy the new park. Please protect our kids on their daily bike ride to school. Please keep Park Boulevard off the oversized vehicle parking list. Thank you for listening and keeping our children safe. - Elena Kadyrova, parent and Park Boulevard resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Annette Glanckopf To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie; Council, City; City Clerk Subject:I Oppose the El Dorado Avenue and Endorse the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 8:40:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. PLEASE Consider this a Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project I am a resident and property owner at 2747 Bryant close to El Dorado Avenue. I utilize the El Dorado Avenue corridor as my key access route. The council was given additional alternatives and picked the narrowest and least safe street. I have written before to ask that that Matadero creek access north side be considered. I also support the petition for the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. This email is register my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I have written before to ask that that Matadero creek access north side be evaluated. I also support the petition for the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals will impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on my family, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route. PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway and Street Access Safety Hazards The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that threaten my ability to safely enter, exit, and navigate between El Dorado Avenue and my home. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path Traffic Surge Elevated Transit Barriers: Because the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, I am concerned that this increased traffic from the bike path will make it even more difficult to enter and exit El Dorado Avenue to drive to my house. Escalated Accident Risks: Squeezing this high volume of regional bicycle and fast- moving e-bike traffic into our narrow street grid lowers vehicle reaction times and increases the ongoing risk of traffic accidents during my daily commute. I am especially concerned about ebike and scooters. B. Increased Risks if Alma Traffic Light Installed Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the Alma Street T-intersection introduces further severe safety risks to my primary neighborhood access point. Cut-Through and Regional Traffic: If a traffic light is installed at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street, there will be increased car traffic from both neighborhood regional car traffic and commuter cut-through traffic wanting to access the traffic light, and vice versa. Compounding Traffic Volumes: I am concerned that this possible increased car traffic, layered directly on top of the projected increased bike and e-bike traffic, will increase the possibility of traffic accidents for me as I navigate to and from my property. C. Emergency Vehicle Access Risks Significant Delay Concerns: I am concerned about emergency vehicle access to my home on this cul-de-sac street. With all this possible increased traffic on El Dorado Avenue, emergency vehicles may be significantly delayed in reaching my house during a critical event. Flawed Evacuation Logic: Even if the proposed traffic signal is designed to change and empty out El Dorado Avenue for approaching emergency responders, the existing traffic on El Dorado Avenue may not empty out quickly if there is a backup on other connecting roads, such as Alma Street. This possible gridlock may create a bottleneck that compromises my basic public safety baseline. 2. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. I am concerned that the possible overall additional traffic volume generated by this project would have the potential to increase vehicle emissions (PM2.5) and elevate ambient noise levels. Such changes would adversely affect my living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact my personal health and well-being. 3. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe neighborhood egress and altering the traffic safety metrics of my street corridor, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of my property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and inducing cut-through traffic patterns creates an inherently dangerous condition for my residential access point, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. I also ask that the Matadero bike path also be evaluated. Thank you for considering these comments. Annette Glanckopf 2747 Bryant Street Palo Alto, Ca From:Helene Grossman To:Star-Lack, Sylvia Cc:City Mgr; Lo, Ria; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:Re: FW: After a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, what does Palo Alto change? Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 8:25:45 AM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Star-Lack, (and cc to City Council, City Manager Shikada, Chief Lo, and Attorney Jensen) Thank you for responding. I'd like to clarify my question, because I don't believe it was answered. I understand that the City has plans for future improvements. But my question is much more specific: What physical changes has the City actually made at these crash locations since these deaths and life-changing injuries occurred? As I read your response, you didn't identify a single physical change at East Meadow/South Court, Embarcadero/Newell, Greer/Thomas, or Middlefield/San Antonio. At East Meadow, for example, you described a future quick-build project that remains unbuilt. That distinction is important. Plans do not protect children. Physical changes protect children. A child biking to school tomorrow is not safer because the City has a project planned for the future. Nearly three years after the East Meadow crash – and more than two years after Palo Alto was awarded $888,000 in federal funding for this quick-build project – the physical improvements still have not begun. The City originally targeted the project to begin in late fall 2025, itself more than two years after the crash. Now, nearly a year past that already-late start date, the City's own project page says the project is “currently paused due to staffing availability." A “quick-build” that remains unbuilt more than two years after the grant award – and nearly three years after the crash – is not quick. If this were being treated as an urgent safety priority, I would expect the City to find a way to move it forward now, rather than leave a funded child-safety project paused because of staffing. So I'll ask again: what physical, on-the-ground safety changes have been made at the sites of these catastrophic accidents: East Meadow/South Court, Embarcadero/Newell, Greer/Thomas, and Middlefield/San Antonio. If the answer is none, please just say that. As I noted previously, San Francisco has made physical safety changes within days or weeks after fatal crashes. In Palo Alto, we appear to be going years without physical changes on the ground. The City expresses urgency in words. But urgency has to be visible in what actually happens on the ground. Children are not protected by planning documents, hiring processes, or projects that may eventually be built. They are protected when the street changes. Sincerely, Helene Grossman On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 5:30 PM Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star-Lack@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Ms. Grossman, On behalf of the City Manager, thank you for writing and for your sustained advocacy for safer streets in Palo Alto. We are deeply saddened by the death of Zaeem Johnson and extend our condolences to his family, friends, and the broader community. Every fatal or life-changing traffic injury is a profound loss. We recognize the urgency residents feel when conditions appear unchanged after a serious crash, particularly on school commute corridors used by children and families. Palo Alto City Council adopted the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan on June 2, 2025. The Plan establishes the City’s Vision Zero commitment to eliminate traffic deaths and life- changing injuries on local streets, using a Safe System approach that recognizes people make mistakes and that the transportation system must be designed to prevent those mistakes from resulting in death or serious injury. The Plan identifies a High-Injury Network and a range of engineering, policy, education, and program actions intended to reduce severe crashes. The City has also adopted the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which identifies near-term bicycle, pedestrian, intersection, and crossing projects to advance a safer and more connected network. With respect to the City’s response following a fatal collision, the Palo Alto Police Department has officers trained in advanced collision investigation and reconstruction who respond to major injury and fatal collisions. After completing a collision investigation, the department shares collision details with the Office of Transportation managers, planners, and engineers. Office of Transportation engineers evaluate each fatal collision location to determine whether the site meets applicable State of California standards and assess whether engineering changes are warranted. Where conditions indicate that interim safety enhancements are appropriate, staff considers measures that can be implemented more quickly while longer-term enhancements are developed. The appropriate response can vary based on the collision circumstances, roadway geometry, operational conditions, jurisdiction, applicable standards, funding, and the type of treatment recommended. Regarding East Meadow Drive, the City was awarded a federal Safe Streets for All grant for the South Palo Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project. The project is intended to install quick- build separated and buffered bicycle lanes, along with pedestrian improvements, on sections of East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way, including in the vicinity of the East Meadow Drive/South Court intersection. The City is currently recruiting a project manager to start this work in the next few months. This parent-requested grant-funded demonstration project is an important opportunity to implement and evaluate protective infrastructure on a major school commute corridor. The City is also working to revise its traffic-calming program. The revised program is expected to include quick-build components that can be considered in locations with verified speeding concerns, allowing the City to evaluate and, where appropriate, implement lower-cost measures more rapidly while permanent improvements are developed. We appreciate your partnership in the shared work of making Palo Alto’s streets safer for children, families, and all people who walk, bike, roll, and drive. Sincerely, Sylvia SYLVIA STAR-LACK Transportation Planning Manager Office of Transportation (650) 329-2546 | Sylvia.Star-Lack@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:42 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: After a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, what does Palo Alto change? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, City Council Members, City Manager Shikada, Chief Lo, and Attorney Jensen, I am writing after learning the heartbreaking news that Zaeem Johnson, a former Harker student, died following the devastating injuries he suffered when he was hit by a car while bicycling on East Meadow Drive. Zaeem's collision occurred on September 14, 2023, at East Meadow Drive and South Court. According to reporting, the driver passed another vehicle in the bike lane while Zaeem was turning left, causing the collision. Zaeem suffered a traumatic brain injury from which he never recovered. What makes this tragedy even harder to accept is this: Nearly three years after Zaeem was struck, what has Palo Alto physically changed at this location to prevent the same thing from happening to another child? As far as I can determine, the answer is nothing. When I drive on East Meadow, I still see cars illegally passing other vehicles in the bike lane. This is a heavily traveled school commute corridor used by hundreds of children biking to Fairmeadow, JLS, Gunn and other schools. The danger is not obscure. Residents have specifically identified East Meadow near South Court as unsafe, and the City has studied protected bicycle infrastructure on East Meadow for years. Yet children riding there today remain exposed to the same conditions. And this is part of a deeply troubling pattern. On February 19, 2024, 28-year-old cyclist Sarah Muller was struck and killed at Embarcadero and Newell. More than two years later, the City's 2026 bicycle plan still speaks of exploring safety improvements there. At Greer and Thomas, a cyclist suffered a traumatic brain injury at an unusual two-way stop where traffic on Greer -- the major street -- stops, while vehicles from the much smaller Thomas Drive do not. Despite poor visibility, its location on a school route, and the serious injury, the City has left the configuration unchanged. And on July 2, 2026, Jennifer Smith was catastrophically injured while bicycling at Middlefield and San Antonio -- an intersection the City already knows is hazardous for cyclists. Yet meaningful safety improvements remain plans for the future. How many deaths and catastrophic injuries should it take before a dangerous location triggers an immediate safety response? Other cities demonstrate that this does not have to be normal. When a four-year-old girl was killed in a San Francisco crosswalk at Fourth and King in 2023, city leaders announced safety changes within a week; San Francisco subsequently removed a turn lane and installed a traffic signal. When a two-year-old girl was killed at Fourth and Channel this February, crews were out within 24 hours repainting crosswalks and repairing lighting, followed by additional safety work. That is what urgency looks like. Palo Alto frequently speaks about Vision Zero, Safe Routes to School, and prioritizing vulnerable road users. But Vision Zero cannot simply be a planning document or a list of capital projects years in the future. Its central premise must be that deaths and serious injuries are unacceptable -- and that when they expose a danger, we act. A child biking to school tomorrow cannot be protected by an improvement that has not yet been built. So I would like to ask Council and the City Manager a broader question: What is Palo Alto's protocol after a fatal or serious bicycle or pedestrian collision? Does every such collision automatically trigger an immediate engineering safety review? Does staff consider inexpensive interim measures that could prevent another crash? Is there a deadline for doing so? And most importantly: After each of the serious and fatal crashes above, what did the City actually change to make that location safer? I respectfully ask the City Manager to provide Council and the public with that answer. If the answer, in case after case, is nothing, then we need to ask what is going wrong. Thank you. Sincerely, Helene Grossman From:Steve Longstreth To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan = 2800 Emerson St. Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 8:13:28 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Date: August 23, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov), Charlie Coles - Project Engineering Manager (Charlie.Coles@paloalto.gov) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: We are residents and property owners on Emerson Street, which is a closed-end cul- de-sac street that intersects El Dorado Avenue. We utilize the El Dorado Avenue corridor as our primary access route to reach our home. We have lived at this address for 52 years. This has always been a dangerous intersection because of the 2-way stop signs and the proximity to Alma St. traffic. The narrow street and intrusion of parked cars into it, often make it necessary to pull over in order to let other cars pass. The proposed light at Alma Street will only make the danger worse--for bicycles, pedestrians and cars. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The 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 current El Dorado proposals could impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on my family, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway and Street Access Safety Hazards The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that threaten my ability to safely enter, exit, and navigate between El Dorado Avenue and my home. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path Traffic Surge Elevated Transit Barriers: Because the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, I am concerned that this increased traffic from the bike path will make it even more difficult to enter and exit El Dorado Avenue to drive to my house. Escalated Accident Risks: Squeezing this high volume of regional bicycle and fast-moving e-bike traffic into our narrow street grid lowers vehicle reaction times and increases the ongoing risk of traffic accidents during my daily commute. B. Increased Risks if Alma Traffic Light Installed Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the Alma Street T-intersection introduces further severe safety risks to my primary neighborhood access point. Cut-Through and Regional Traffic: If a traffic light is installed at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street, there may also be increased car traffic from both neighborhood regional car traffic and commuter cut-through traffic wanting to access the traffic light, and vice versa. Compounding Traffic Volumes: I am concerned that this possible increased car traffic, layered directly on top of the projected increased bike and e-bike traffic, could further increase the possibility of traffic accidents for me as I navigate to and from my property. C. Emergency Vehicle Access Risks Significant Delay Concerns: I am concerned about emergency vehicle access to my home on this cul-de-sac street. With all this possible increased traffic on El Dorado Avenue, emergency vehicles may be significantly delayed in reaching my house during a critical event. Flawed Evacuation Logic: Even if the proposed traffic signal is designed to change and empty out El Dorado Avenue for approaching emergency responders, the existing traffic on El Dorado Avenue may not empty out quickly if there is a backup on other connecting roads, such as Alma Street. This possible gridlock may create a bottleneck that compromises my basic public safety baseline. 2. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. I am concerned that the possible overall additional traffic volume generated by this project would have the potential to increase vehicle emissions (PM2.5) and elevate ambient noise levels. Such changes would adversely affect my living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact my personal health and well-being. 3. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe neighborhood egress and altering the traffic safety metrics of my street corridor, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of my property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and inducing cut-through traffic patterns creates an inherently dangerous condition for my residential access point, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the active public packet closes. Sincerely, Stephen E. Longstreth Linda L. Longstreth Address: 2800 St, Palo Alto, CA *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street—an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Sanne Smith To:Council, City Subject:Written comment for agenda item #10 for City Council Meeting 08/24 Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:45:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I am writing as a parent and as a Traffic Safety Representative for Escondido Elementary in Palo Alto regarding the proposed oversized vehicle parking restrictions (agenda item #10). First, I want to express my appreciation for the City's efforts to find a workable solution to the challenges created by oversized vehicle parking. I particularly appreciate that maintaining access to bike lanes is part of the motivation behind the proposal. Keeping bike infrastructure clear and usable is an important part of making Palo Alto safer and more accessible for people who bike. I would, however, encourage the City to give particular consideration to the safety of young bicyclists when determining where designated oversized-vehicle parking should be located. This is especially important along Park Boulevard between approximately the 2800 and 3200 blocks. Although this area may appear relatively low-traffic on a map, Park Boulevard is an important bicycle route for Palo Alto students. Children use this corridor to travel between neighborhoods and schools, including Escondido Elementary, Palo Alto High School, and JLS Middle School, as well as destinations such as Mitchell Park Library and JLS Pool. For young cyclists, the issue is not simply whether a bike lane technically remains open. Visibility and adequate space are critical safety considerations. Large vehicles parked near intersections and crosswalks can create significant sight-line obstructions, making it harder for children to see approaching vehicles and harder for drivers to see children. I encourage the City to ensure that designated parking areas leave ample clear space around intersections, crosswalks, and other conflict points so that children and drivers have sufficient visibility. I would also encourage the City to consider the actual width and usability of the bicycle space alongside designated parking areas. Young children do not always ride in a perfectly predictable line. A younger cyclist may need to ride alongside a parent or another adult, and children may need additional lateral space to navigate safely. A bike lane that remains technically unobstructed but becomes narrow or uncomfortable because of adjacent oversized vehicles may not function well as a Safe Routes to School facility. I support the City's effort to develop a reasonable solution to oversized vehicle parking, and I This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report appreciate the recognition that bike-lane accessibility matters. My request is simply that, as specific street segments are considered, the City evaluates them through the lens of the youngest and least confident cyclists who use them every day. In particular, I hope the City will consider sight lines at intersections and crosswalks, adequate separation from conflict points, and sufficient usable width for children biking alongside an adult when determining where oversized vehicles can safely be accommodated. Thank you for considering the safety of Palo Alto's young cyclists as part of this proposal. Sincerely, Sanne Smith Traffic Safety Representative From:Anupa Bajwa To:Council, City Subject:PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV PARKING PROGRAM Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:43:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Respected Members of the City Council, This is regarding item #10, "Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs", on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Monday, August 24, 2026. As stated in our petition text below, we request that the Olive Avenue blocks be excluded from the list of allowed parking areas for OSVs in your pilot program. We detail the safety and operational impacts if OSVs were allowed to park on our residential street. Residents of 17 of the 22 currently-occupied homes on Olive Avenue have signed this petition. The signed copy will be delivered to the City Clerk. Please contact me at this email address if you require further clarification. Regards, Anupa Bajwa Olive Avenue (El Camino Real to Park Blvd) PETITION TO EXCLUDE OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FROM PALO ALTO’S PILOT OSV PARKING PROGRAM TO: The City Council of Palo Alto and the Department of Transportation DATE: August 23, 2026 LEAD BLOCK ORGANIZER: Dr. Anupa Bajwa ADDRESS: 450 Olive Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 EMAIL: anupabajwa@gmail.com STATEMENT OF INTENT: We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Olive Avenue (bounded by El Camino Real to the west and Park Boulevard to the east), hereby petition the City of Palo Alto to exclude Olive Ave blocks from the Pilot OSV Parking Program. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Our request is based on the following specific municipal safety and operational impacts: 1. Sightline Obstructions: The prolonged parking of oversized vehicles along this corridor severely impairs visibility for residents exiting standard residential driveways, creating an immediate traffic hazard for oncoming motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Olive Avenue experiences heavy cut-through traffic so clear visibility is crucial for the safety of residents exiting driveways and for kids riding their bikes to and from school. 2. Emergency Vehicle & Utility Access: The narrow (35-foot) width of this residential street, combined with large vehicles parked, creates logistical challenges for municipal waste management, street sweeping machinery, and emergency vehicles. 3. Preservation of Residential Access: To ensure that street access conforms with the local character and safety of this residential neighborhood, we must protect street access for current residents and new residents in apartments, condominiums, townhomes within a block of this neighborhood. From:ALONDRA ORDAZ ARELLANO To:Council, City Subject:Safety Over Surveillance - Cancel the ALPR Contract Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:36:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, Dear Councilmembers, I am writing as part of the Safety Over Surveillance Coalition to ask you to support public safety by canceling your contract with Flock and avoiding implementing any other automated license plate reader (ALPR) system. I also ask you to cover the cameras immediately until they can be completely removed. These systems have been used to surveil protestors exercising First Amendment rights, to hunt down a woman seeking healthcare from a state where abortion is illegal, and by more than a dozen police officers to stalk former romantic partners. The tangible harms to our civil liberties are far too great a price to pay for any perceived benefit. ALPRs are tools of mass surveillance, indiscriminately capturing the data of every vehicle that drives by regardless of whether there is any articulable suspicion of a crime. Police can use the historical location data they provide to recreate a person's motions as they go about their day-to-day lives without a warrant. Only a fraction of a percent (~0.1%) of any captured images corresponds to a vehicle associated with a hot list, meaning the overwhelming supermajority of information captured is of innocent people. Despite claims that they help solve crime locally, the vast majority of searches of ALPR data is performed by outside agencies. These invasions of our privacy come with questionable efficacy - Roseville police reported a false read in 71% percent of alerts! LAPD reported a false positive rate of approximately 33%. There are numerous stories of innocent people being pulled over and held at gunpoint or mauled by police dogs due to false alerts caused by AI hallucinations. On top of the issues with ALPRs in general, Flock Safety is a company that is particularly untrustworthy. They turned on features that enabled illegal data sharing without alerting its customers. They have changed contract language from what was negotiated by city legal staff in Berkeley. Its CEO has called privacy advocates terrorists. They have been found reactivating or newly installing cameras in cities after their contract was canceled. Their valuation does not match company fundamentals looking at what they charge for cameras unless the value of our data is factored in - we are the product. In Palo Alto, we are used to startups trying to move fast and break things, but what Flock has broken is the public trust. They are not for public safety, they are for profit. Palo Alto doesn't need to pay to let Peter Thiel get a return on his investment trying to tear down our democracy. Despite crafting strict guardrails to protect our personal data, Palo Alto saw data breaches like so many other cities in California. Hundreds of out of state and federal agencies illegally accessed our data. Even if there were no responsive results for any of the searches, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chatrie vs. US that "regardless of 'the quality or quantity of information' the government obtains" the Fourth Amendment still applies, and that "whether something is a search does not depend on what it finds." This breach of contract is severe and pervasive - Palo Alto should seek remuneration through legal action against Flock, possibly in class action status with other cities who were similarly victims of Flock's actions. These violations of our civil liberties are occurring while we face a hostile federal government. Despite local policies and state law prohibiting use of ALPR data for immigration purposes, any access by ICE to our ALPR data will be invisible due to a DHS policy that prohibits ALPR audit logs from saving data about ICE access except for logs only available to ICE. No matter what local policies we set, we cannot know if ICE is using our data. This is a general truth about all ALPR systems, not specific to Flock Safety. Palo Alto can join dozens of other communities, including our sister city of Bloomington, IN, in supporting public safety by canceling your contract with Flock. I urge you to cancel the contract as soon as possible and instruct city staff to research the option of legal action against Flock Safety. Once the contract is canceled, I ask that the cameras be covered immediately until such time they can be promptly removed. ALONDRA ORDAZ ARELLANO abruisedviolet@gmail.com 330 Sands Drive, J102 San Jose, California 95125 From:Casey Cameron To:Council, City Subject:Surveillance is not safety - cut the ALPR Contract Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 7:36:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, Dear Councilmembers, I am a concerned citizen prioritizing public safety over intrusive surveillance. Cancel your contract with Flock and any other automated license plate reader (ALPR) system. Cover the Flock cameras immediately until they can be completely removed. These automated “spy cameras”have been used to track protestors exercising First Amendment rights, and to hunt down a woman seeking healthcare from a state where abortion is illegal. They can be seriously abused too, for example by more than a dozen police officers to stalk former romantic partners. The tangible harms to our civil liberties are far too great a price to pay for any perceived benefit. These ALPRs are egregious invasions of privacy. Despite claims that they help solve crime locally, the vast majority of searches of ALPR data is performed by outside agencies, and the data can lead to false conclusions. Roseville police reported a false read in 71% percent of alerts! LAPD reported a false positive rate of approximately 33%. There are numerous stories of innocent people being pulled over and held at gunpoint or mauled by police dogs due to false alerts caused by AI hallucinations. On top of the issues with ALPRs in general, Flock Safety is a company that is particularly untrustworthy. They turned on features that enabled illegal data sharing without alerting its customers. They have changed contract language from what was negotiated by city legal staff in Berkeley. Its CEO has called privacy advocates terrorists. They have been found reactivating or newly installing cameras in cities after their contract was canceled. Their valuation does not match company fundamentals looking at what they charge for cameras unless the value of our data is factored in - we are the product. In Palo Alto, we are used to startups trying to move fast and break things, but what Flock has broken is the public trust. They are not for public safety, they are for profit. Palo Alto doesn't need to pay to let Peter Thiel get a return on his investment trying to tear down our democracy. Despite crafting strict guardrails to protect our personal data, Palo Alto saw data breaches like so many other cities in California. Hundreds of out of state and federal agencies illegally accessed our data. Even if there were no responsive results for any of the searches, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chatrie vs. US that "regardless of 'the quality or quantity of information' the government obtains" the Fourth Amendment still applies, and that "whether something is a search does not depend on what it finds." This breach of contract is severe and pervasive - Palo Alto should seek remuneration through legal action against Flock, possibly in class action status with other cities who were similarly victims of Flock's actions. These violations of our civil liberties are occurring while we face a hostile federal government. Despite local policies and state law prohibiting use of ALPR data for immigration purposes, any access by ICE to our ALPR data will be invisible due to a DHS policy that prohibits ALPR audit logs from saving data about ICE access except for logs only available to ICE. No matter what local policies we set, we cannot know if ICE is using our data. This is a general truth about all ALPR systems, not specific to Flock Safety. Palo Alto can join dozens of other communities, including our sister city of Bloomington, IN, in supporting public safety by canceling your contract with Flock. I urge you to cancel the contract as soon as possible and instruct city staff to research the option of legal action against Flock Safety. Once the contract is canceled, I ask that the cameras be covered immediately until such time they can be promptly removed. Casey Cameron alt.caseyc@gmail.com 1308 Greenwich CT San Jose, California 95125-5958 From:dfkleung@yahoo.com To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Leung David Subject:SUBJECT: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2780 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 94306 Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 12:38:53 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2780 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 94306 Date: August 23, 2026 RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner on Emerson Street, situated near the intersection of El Dorado Avenue. I utilize the El Dorado Avenue corridor as my primary access route to reach my home on Emerson Street. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals could impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on my family, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway and Street Access Safety Hazards This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report The proposal to route a bike path down El Dorado Avenue introduces safety conflicts that threaten my ability to safely enter, exit, and navigate between El Dorado Avenue and my home on Emerson Street. A. Proposed El Dorado Bike Path Traffic Surge Elevated Transit Barriers: Because the city estimates an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue, I am concerned that this increased traffic from the bike path will make it even more difficult to enter and exit El Dorado Avenue to drive to my house on Emerson Street. Escalated Accident Risks: Squeezing this high volume of regional bicycle and fast-moving e-bike traffic into our narrow street grids lowers vehicle reaction times and increases the ongoing risk of traffic accidents during my daily commute. B. Increased Risks if Alma Traffic Light Installed Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the Alma Street T-intersection introduces further severe safety risks to my primary neighborhood access point. Cut-Through and Regional Traffic: If a traffic light is installed at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street, there may also be increased car traffic from both neighborhood regional car traffic and commuter cut-through traffic wanting to access the traffic light, and vice versa. Compounding Traffic Volumes: I am concerned that this possible increased car traffic, layered directly on top of the projected increased bike and e-bike traffic, could further increase the possibility of traffic accidents for me and my other family members as we navigate to and from my property. 2. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. I am concerned that the possible overall additional traffic volume generated by this project would have the potential to increase vehicle emissions (PM2.5) and elevate ambient noise levels. Such changes would adversely affect my family living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact our personal health and well-being. 3. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe neighborhood egress and altering the traffic safety metrics of my street corridor, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of my property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and inducing cut-through traffic patterns creates an inherently dangerous condition for our residential access point, exposing the city to more ongoing tort liabilities due to subsequent injuries to me or my family members and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the active public packet closes. Sincerely, David Leung Printed Name:David Leung Address: 2780 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,600 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan ---------------- From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Vote NO on proposed RV Permit Pilot. Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 12:15:11 AM Attachments:Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_1.png Palo_Alto_RV_Flyer_Email_Page_2.png Microsoft Word - Palo_Alto_RV_V27_LOCKED_EDIT_TRULY_FINAL.docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vicemayor Stone and City Councillors, With respect, please: John Melnychuk, Fairmeadow, Palo Alto, (650) 9i06-5656 CITY COUNCIL: VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED RV PARKING PLAN. COMPASSION HAS NO LIMITS, BUT BUDGETS DO. Help people in need. But do not make RV living on Palo Alto streets the new normal. Palo Alto is already addressing a $17.1 MILLION General Fund deficit. WHY ARE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES DEMANDING ACTION? STREETS Large RVs crowd streets built for ordinary cars and SUVs. BUSINESSES Parking, customer access and commercial appearance are harmed. SAFETY Large vehicles reduce sightlines and complicate traffic movement. SANITATION Complaints include debris and improper human-waste disposal. NEIGHBORHOODS Concentrated RV living changes daily use and appearance of streets. CITY SERVICES Cleaning, enforcement, Police, Public Works and staff time add cost. RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ASKED FOR RELIEF. THIS PERMIT PROGRAM INSTEAD FACILITATES THE EXACT CONDITION THEY ASKED CITY HALL TO REDUCE. ABOUT 4× MORE ≈ $27,000 a year for one added Geng Road RV space — about four times the $6,743 General Fund revenue benchmark per resident household. $823,800 / YEAR → $8.2 MILLION / 10 YEARS Before inflation. Before costs not fully allocated to the RV program. DON’T ASSUME “PILOT” MEANS TEMPORARY. ONCE A BENEFIT CREATES RELIANCE, IT BECOMES HARD TO END. Permits, services and designated places create expectations and reliance. The City should decide what is fair for everyone before creating a benefit that may become permanent. HELP PEOPLE. PROTECT THE CITY. DO NOT EXPAND RV LIVING AS AN ACCEPTED CITY PROGRAM. PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF Compassion matters. Council’s first responsibility is to decide what is best for Palo Alto as a whole. County benchmark: about $41,639 per person counted as unhoused in the 2025 Point-in-Time census. Geng Road: ≈ $27,000+ per added RV space. Council must distribute scarce benefits and burdens fairly across the whole community. BEFORE CREATING THIS BENEFIT, THE CITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER: 1 WHO QUALIFIES? Need deserves compassion. But presence alone should not create a special claim to scarce City money or public streets. 2 WHY THESE STREETS? Why should selected neighborhoods and businesses carry impacts that other Palo Alto neighborhoods largely avoid? 3 WHAT IS SUCCESS? Success means fewer RVs on City streets and more people in stable housing - the result the community is asking for. 4 HOW DOES IT END? What happens after people rely on the benefit? If Council cannot realistically end it, do not call it temporary. ONE CITY. ONE STANDARD. Would Council adopt the same policy if every Palo Alto neighborhood had to accept an equal share? If not, do not ask selected neighborhoods and businesses to carry a burden the rest of the City would not accept. GENG ROAD Excellent humanitarian help. Managed, off-street + services. HOMEKEY Housing + services. A path toward stability. PROPOSED PLAN Facilitates RV street living as an accepted City program. THE BETTER DIRECTION: HELP PEOPLE HUMANELY - AND REDUCE RVs ON OUR STREETS. VOTE NO ON THIS “PILOT.” KEEP GENG ROAD AND HOMEKEY. SEEK CREATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS. HELP PEOPLE MOVE TOWARD STABLE HOUSING. DO NOT MAKE RV LIVING PALO ALTO’S NEW NORMAL. COMPASSION REQUIRES HELP. GOOD GOVERNMENT REQUIRES FAIRNESS TO THE WHOLE CITY. City sources: FY2026-27 budget update; Oversized Vehicles staff materials. Geng Road expansion: ≈$270,000 annually for 10 added RV spaces. $6,743 is a General Fund revenue-per-resident- household benchmark, not a household tax bill or benefit. PALO ALTO RV POLICY • PUBLIC ADVOCACY BRIEF From:Katie Knott To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue bike tunnel/traffic light Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 11:03:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, I am writing to formally document my opposition to the El Dorado Avenue transit option. My house is on Ramona Street nearby El Dorado Ave and yet I never received any sort of mailer or notification that this was even an option being considered. We just completed an arduous 4 year construction project that required numerous revisions through the city, each time opening our plans to feedback from neighbors in a wide radius around our property. It is shocking that the city is not being held to the same standard and is instead trying to sneak a major thoroughfare through a small residential street without any sort of notice to any Midtown residents who will be significantly impacted. I also didn’t see an urban forestry impact report. What are the plans to replace the canopy that will be destroyed by this project? This hypocrisy aside, my biggest concern is that I have two children who bike to PAUSD schools. There have already been a number of accidents of car vs bike in our school district and essentially installing a highway through El Dorado is significantly increasing chances of more of these types of accidents especially when coupled by increasing bike traffic by thousands per day as well. The legal ramifications from preventable accidents due to poor city planning would be catastrophic. There is a perfectly useable pedestrian/bike tunnel under Alma less than half a mile from El Dorado. Loma Verde is a very reasonable option for traffic looking to cut through Midtown that is already established. The improvements to connectivity by installing an underpass or stoplight at El Dorado would be negligible at best and certainly pale in comparison to the negative consequences. Please stop wasting taxpayer money and opening the city to extensive lawsuits with these ill thought out plans. If you want to put the money to actual good use, invest it into the school district, which remains one of the biggest draws for people looking to live in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Katie Knott 2707 Ramona St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City Subject:OSV Pilot Programs Please Vote Against. Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 10:14:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, Addressing RV habitation is a regional challenge that requires coordinated efforts with neighboring cities including Mountain View, Redwood City, San Mateo, San Jose and San Francisco. Accurate, current data—and thoughtful boundaries on how local funds are used—will be essential to crafting an effective and fair regional policy. Clearly a lot of thought and effort has been put into developing these “pilot" programs. Why would Palo Alto be the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program? I am adamantly opposed to the pilot programs recommended by the ad hoc committee to the City Council for a vote on the Monday, August 24, 2026 meeting for the following reasons: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->What are the short and long-term costs of such a “pilot” program? One year cost? Cost over 2, 5, 10-year use of taxpayer dollars? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->What is the cost of moving 37 OSVs to two different locations? Initially, per the ad hoc committee document: - “The work to prepare the areas for OSVs parking includes: What is the cost of each of these preparation steps? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Landscaping to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Temporary restriping of Embarcadero Road to allow for OSVs to park without blocking the bike lane <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Signage installation that clearly states ’parking by permit‘ only <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Outreach to current OSV dwellers to gain participants for the permit program Staff also need to execute service contracts for: What is the ongoing cost of these services? Cost per vehicle? Cost of contractors? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Case management and program support through a formal solicitation process <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Onsite port-a-potties and hand-washing stations <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Waste management bins (via Greenwaste of Palo Alto) <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Signage installation <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Road restriping design and labor <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Who are the 37 vehicle dwellers and why is it the City of Palo Alto’s responsibility to provide virtually free parking for them with a goal of providing permanent housing? The proposed cost of a permit not to exceed $15 is laughable. It will probably cost way more than $15 to create such a permit. Let’s do the math $15 x 37 =$555.00. How much is the cost of staffing the permitting process? WHAT IS THE REAL COST OF PREPARING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM? Let’s say the real cost of one year of the designated parking pilot program is $1M/37 vehicles = ~$27k per vehicle. Why would Palo Alto give its valuable real estate and land to set up an expensive and virtually free campground to 37 oversized vehicles at a significant cost to the taxpayers? This is a regional problem. If the people living in vehicles are low-income workers, then their employers need to take responsibility for providing better pay and parking for them, not Palo Alto taxpayers. What is Stanford’s responsibility for the contract workers, employees, and students living in OSVs? Stanford has land and can provide space for their related worker vehicles. What is the responsibility of other area employers? If employers paid a livable wage, then people would be able to afford housing and commute to work. Most people cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. We cannot fix that. People have always commuted to work from housing in less expensive areas. How do you define “resident?” Is a “resident “anyone who parks their vehicle on one of our streets?” Again, why would Palo Alto be the only city to run this kind of permit and parking program? Please City Council – JUST SAY NO TO THIS PROGRAM – and work with other Bay Area communities to deal with this ongoing problem. The pilot programs outlined are not a solution – it will add huge costs in staff, management and contractor time and money for a small benefit and will have unintended consequences – the spaces 37 vehicles moved to new parking will free up space for 37 more vehicles to relocate here as other nearby communities push out OSVs from their neighborhoods. Please this is not a common sense practical and cost-effective solution. If you build it, they will come, and come, and come. Work with the neighboring communities; it is a regional problem. Not Palo Alto’s to solve alone. Please vote against it. Thank you. Melinda McGee Palo Alto Resident From:Jon Kiya To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 261 El Dorado Ave., Palo Alto, CA. 94306-2374 Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:58:43 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 261 El Dorado Ave., in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my fellow residents, my property, and me. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my two separate driveways (one on Bryant Street and one on El Dorado Avenue). A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound potential auto and bicycle collisions simply due to the lack of visibility due to the configuration of the intersections and the housing landscapes along El Dorado Ave. as further detailed below. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Physical Gutter Constraint: To negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between my driveway and the road that is essentially a large bump, I must enter and exit slowly, leaving me highly vulnerable to any sudden oncoming traffic during both maneuvers. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. This provides me some protection, even though some cyclists may not stop. With a traffic circle however, there is no full stop to provide protection for vehicles and cyclists. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles in the circle, or about to enter the circle, may not see me entering or exiting until the last moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming From the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. More traffic is not what we need in our City as our street infrastructure was not meant for high volume traffic. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Not good when you consider the bike bridge to El Carmelo Elementary School is one block south of the intersection of El Dorado Ave. and Bryant St (of which i live on the corner) and there is considerable kid traffic. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and 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 PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Thank You! Sincerely, Jon D. Kiya Address: 261 El Dorado Ave., Palo Alto, CA. 94306-2374. *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi-modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street—an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Aram James To:sam.liccardo@gmail.com Cc:Human Relations Commission; Dave Price; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Diana Diamond; Gennady Sheyner; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; DuJuan Green; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Goodell, Erin; Reifschneider, James; james pitkin; Jeff Hayden; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Zelkha, Mila; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Friends of Cubberley; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Vicki Veenker; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Bill Newell; PD Kristina Bell; dcombs@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Spieckerman, Damian; Anne Cribbs; cromero@cityofepa.org; Ann Ravel; rabrica@cityofepa.org Subject:Stop US aid_5.5x5.5 Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:29:04 PM Attachments:Stop US aid_5.5x5.5.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Sam, This one's for you, Mr. Shill, for Israel! Avram From:Thomas Nguyen To:Council, City Subject:RV parking on East Meadow Circle Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:19:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to allow oversized recreational vehicles to remain permanently on East Meadow Circle. This proposal should not be viewed simply as a change to parking policy. Permanently permitting RVs to remain on a residential street effectively creates a location for long-term vehicle habitation in a neighborhood where people have purchased homes with the reasonable expectation that their residential streets will remain safe, accessible, sanitary, and consistent with residential use. Palo Alto already has a law addressing this very issue. Municipal Code §10.44.020 prohibits oversized vehicles from parking on streets in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to limited exceptions. The City’s own definition of an oversized vehicle includes vehicles exceeding 20 feet in length, 7 feet in height, or 7 feet in width. (City of Palo Alto⁠) The City therefore should be asking why it is considering creating an exception that would effectively authorize what the existing ordinance was designed to prevent. The impact on surrounding homeowners is not theoretical. Permanently stationed RVs can create: obstruction of sight lines and reduced pedestrian and bicycle visibility; increased traffic and parking conflicts; noise and activity immediately adjacent to homes; sanitation and waste-disposal concerns; increased demands on public services; diminished privacy for homeowners whose properties directly face the vehicles; difficulty accessing curb space and maintaining streets; and the gradual conversion of a residential street into a de facto vehicle-dwelling area. The City’s own materials acknowledge that the growing number of people living in vehicles creates additional health and safety concerns and neighborhood challenges. (City of Palo Alto⁠) There is also a fundamental policy issue here. A public street is public infrastructure—not private residential land that can simply be converted into permanent housing sites without considering the effect on the homeowners who live there. If the City wants to establish designated safe-parking or vehicle-dwelling locations, it should do so through a comprehensive, transparent process with appropriate sanitation, safety, service, and management provisions—not by effectively turning a residential street into a permanent RV site. Most importantly, please do not confuse compassion for people living in vehicles with an obligation to permanently authorize vehicle habitation on a particular residential street. Those are separate policy questions. The City can provide appropriate alternatives and services without imposing the consequences of permanent RV habitation on a small group of neighboring homeowners. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report I respectfully urge the Council not to authorize permanent RV parking on East Meadow Circle and instead to enforce the City’s existing parking regulations and pursue appropriately designated alternatives that do not shift the burden disproportionately onto residential neighborhoods. The residents who live around these vehicles should not have to sacrifice the safety, privacy, accessibility, and residential character of their neighborhood because the City has not yet developed a comprehensive solution to vehicle habitation. Please enforce the laws already on the books rather than creating an exception that effectively nullifies them. Sincerely, Tom From:Larry Hsiung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie; Charles.Coles@paloalto.gov Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan - 2809 Bryant Street Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 9:11:04 PM Attachments:image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2809 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my property, and me. I urge the city to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Additionally long delivery trucks and service vehicles would be impeded greatly from backing out of the no-through traffic on Bryant Street, which is also accidents waiting to happen. A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) El Dorado Driveway Risks: The addition of an estimated 2,600 bicycle and pedestrian trips per day presents safety hazards when entering and exiting my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound these problems. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Garage Ingress and Egress Collision Risks: Increased cars and bicycles on El Dorado may collide into me as I enter or back out of my driveway. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. The stop sign forces moving vehicles to decelerate to stop and prevents a full acceleration through the intersection after a full stop. The roundabout removes that safety net for me to safety enter and exit my garage. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles coming out of the circle may not see my car entering or exiting until the last moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. Delivery and Service Vehicle Collision Risks: Long delivery trucks and service vehicles currently need more than the full length of the intersection on Bryant to back out of the no-through traffic on Bryant Street. With the traffic circle, they may not have enough room to maneuver, and accidents will happen with inpatient bicyclists, e-bicyclists or drivers who have already entered the circle. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming from the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Sincerely, Lawrence Hsiung Printed Name: Lawrence Hsiung Address: 2809 Bryant Street ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: From:nellickson@yahoo.com To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:"Dmitri Samsonov"; "Robert Marinaro"; "stephanie wansek"; "Chris Schremp"; "Christine Schremp"; "Roger Smith"; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; "Bryna Chang"; "Peter Xu"; "Barry Katz"; "Ceci Kettendorf"; "Dana Dahlstrom"; "Lydia Kou"; "Bill McLane"; "Dave Stellman"; "Charlie Weidanz"; "Jeanette Baldwin"; "Titan (Zhengtian) Gu"; "Becky Sanders"; "John Schafer"; "Scott Petersen"; "Martin Cuyegkeng"; "Loren Brown"; "Colin Swindells"; brianhama@gmail.com; shayes236@gmail.com; "John Seltzer"; vic52@victor- aviation.com Subject:Response to the OSV Pilot Parking Program Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:06:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Staff, We are writing to express our strong opposition to City Staff’s proposed pilot program addressing Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking. As presented, this program will not alleviate the ongoing issues in Palo Alto’s residential and business corridors. Instead, it will deepen an already untenable situation and place an even greater burden on the neighborhoods and commercial businesses that have been forced to manage the consequences after years of inaction by the City. Our property is located on Embarcadero Way, an approximately 850‑foot‑long, 40‑foot‑wide cul‑de‑sac. For the past 8-10 years, it has effectively been the Wild West. Although recent months have brought sporadic enforcement of City ordinances, the reality is that our street has long been overwhelmed by 14–16 OSVs parked end‑to‑end on both sides. In fact, one OSV resident has remained on our street for more than two years—note that other business owners report that it’s been closer to five years. During this time, we have dealt with vicious dogs, accumulated trash, personal belongings obstructing both the street and sidewalks, human feces on the sidewalks and lawn, theft, hijacked water and electricity, and even approximately 25 gallons of human waste poured directly into storm drains that flow to the nearby Baylands (video available). We have witnessed assaults. We have seen our street become unsafe, unsanitary, and unrecognizable. And despite clear ordinances, overnight parking rules are not consistently enforced. The consequences for businesses have been severe. Customers are afraid to exit their vehicles to pay their bills. Prospective tenants decline to rent after seeing the conditions. Delivery trucks cannot safely access our street. Driveway and road sightlines are obstructed, making it dangerous to exit many of the driveways / parking lots on our street. This is not a manageable situation. It is a crisis. This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report The pilot program submitted by Staff does not solve these problems. It legitimizes them. Allowing OSVs to continue parking on one side of the street for six months—and then the other—does not address the root issues. It formalizes and expands them. It asks residents and business owners to continue bearing the burden of a crisis the City created, tolerated, and allowed to grow. We urge you to consider how you would feel if these conditions existed in front of your own business or home. We ask Council and Staff to return to the drawing board and develop a plan that: Prevents long‑term OSV parking in all business, commercial, and residential districts in Palo Alto. Strengthens and enforces existing ordinances consistently and transparently. Ensures that solutions do not move, shift, or expand the problem elsewhere in the City. Palo Alto deserves a plan that addresses the OSV crisis responsibly and effectively—not a pilot program that entrenches the very conditions that have harmed our community for nearly a decade. We urge you to immediately—not in six months, not in a year or more—ban OSV overnight parking in commercial, business, and residential areas of the City. Sincerely, Nancy Ellickson & Scott Hayes Owners, 2425 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto From:Michael Joseph To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* - 2798 South Court Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 7:52:32 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2798 South Court Date: August 23, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov), Charlie Coles - Project Engineering Manager (Charlie.Coles@paloalto.gov) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner situated on the western corner of South Court and El Dorado Avenue, specifically on the through-street segment connecting El Dorado to Colorado Avenue. My private residential driveway is located on South Court immediately adjacent to this intersection. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals would impose disproportionate negative impacts and direct physical hazards on myself, my property, and my daily transit. I urge the City to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Structural Traffic Alterations The city’s proposal to route a high-volume regional bike path down El Dorado Avenue likely introduces compounded safety conflicts that directly threaten my ability to safely utilize my private driveway on South Court. A. Compounding Wheeled Transit Volume Risks (2,600 Additional Trips) Elevated Turn Conflicts: The city's projection of an additional 2,600 daily bicycle and pedestrian trips along El Dorado Avenue could make executing turns from South Court onto El Dorado substantially more difficult. Existing Stop-Sign Non-Compliance: Currently, stop signs control South Court at this intersection. Under this existing layout, a distinct fraction of both vehicular traffic and multi-modal traffic—including road cyclists and fast-moving e-bikes—do not obey the stop signs and neglect to yield to me when I am trying to turn onto El Dorado Avenue. Escalated Accident Probability: Layering an additional 2,600 daily regional active transit trips directly on top of this existing baseline behavior could sharply increase the probability of severe multi-modal collisions and vehicular conflicts during my daily transit. B. Severe Hazards from Proposed Stop-Sign Realignment (The Corridor "Flip") I am concerned by project guidelines indicating that the city may remove the current stop signs on El Dorado Avenue and place them exclusively on intersecting streets like South Court to facilitate uninterrupted bike traffic. Flipping these stop signs could create an inherently dangerous condition for my corner property: Unintended Speed Inducement: Removing stop signs from the main thoroughfare to protect active transit momentum eliminates the natural traffic- calming friction of regular stop patterns. This open operating footprint induces unintended velocity increases, where continuous-flow wheeled transit, including fast e-bikes moving past 20 mph, maintains unhindered speeds right through our neighborhood intersections. Physical Gutter Constraint Vulnerability: To enter or exit my driveway, drivers must move at a crawl to safely negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between the road and my property, which functions as a large, physical bump. This structural layout forces my vehicle to remain slow, exposed, and vulnerable in the roadway during both entry and exit maneuvers. Reversing Collision Traps: If I am reversing out of my driveway to head north toward Colorado Avenue, for example, vehicles or wheeled transit making a sudden right-turn from El Dorado Avenue onto South Court could face a severe design-induced blind spot, creating a high risk of a broadside or rear-end collision into my vehicle. Pattern Shift Risk: Changing the stop-sign configuration to favor uninterrupted El Dorado movement could alter traffic patterns in a way that actively removes my current safety protections, fundamentally escalating the risk of accidents during standard driveway entry and egress. 2. Pedestrian Safety and Multi-Modal Crossing Hazards Intersection Encroachment Risks: The proposed influx of heavy regional bicycle and e-bike traffic on El Dorado Avenue could directly threaten my safety as a pedestrian. The increased volume and speed of non-stopping wheeled transit could significantly increase the risk of my being struck by traffic when attempting to cross intersections in the immediate vicinity of my home. 3. Induced Vehicular Gridlock from the Alma Traffic Light Installing a new vehicular traffic signal at the intersection of El Dorado Avenue and Alma Street could trigger a regional traffic displacement that undermines the safety of my through-street corridor. A. Regional Magnet and Commuter Cut-Through Racetracks The Colorado-South Court Shortcut: Because my segment of South Court functions as a direct through-street connecting El Dorado Avenue to Colorado Avenue, it is vulnerable to commuter cut-through traffic. Bypassing Arterial Congestion: Motorists coming off Oregon Expressway seeking to bypass major arterial congestion could utilize El Dorado, Colorado Avenue, and South Court as a shortcut to reach the new operational signal at Alma Street and vice versa. Compounding Multi-Modal Gridlock: If this influx of both regional and cut- through traffic layers directly on top of projected bike, e-bike, and pedestrian traffic, it could increase the probability of severe car-on-car collisions and pedestrian-strike incidents within my immediate neighborhood. 4. Environmental Degradation and CEQA Objections Potential Air and Noise Quality Impacts: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is required to evaluate localized environmental shifts. I am concerned that any induced commuter vehicle shortcuts or idling traffic queues generated by the Alma signal and a traffic circle if implemented at the intersection of El Dorado and Bryant Street would have the potential to increase vehicle emissions (PM2.5) and elevate ambient noise levels. Such changes would adversely affect my living conditions, as breathing this polluted air would directly impact my personal health and well-being. Neighborhood Blight and Trash Accumulation: The influx of large numbers of regional transit trips passing through our quiet corridor could lead to the steady accumulation of roadside litter, trash, and debris, degrading the environmental character and cleanliness of my local residential area. 5. Constitutional Liability and Prior Written Tort Notice Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway maneuvers and altering the stop-sign safety metrics of my corner property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, constituting an inverse condemnation of my property. Prior Written Tort Notice: Under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior written notice that removing full-stop protections and altering the intersection layout creates an inherently dangerous condition for my residential access point, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the active public packet closes. Sincerely, Michael Joseph Printed Name: Michael Joseph Address: 2798 South Court, Palo Alto, CA *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Michelle Rosengaus To:Council, City Subject:OSVs Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 6:24:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The City of Palo Alto should ban parking of oversized motor homes and vehicles serving as residences from all Palo Alto streets. Families living in these vehicles for lack of housing, should apply to the city for help. Michelle Rosengaus 3704 Ortega CT This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Colin Swindells To:Council, City Subject:OSV comment - Enact citywide overnight OSV parking restriction + stop the proposed pilot program Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:47:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada and Councilmembers: I strongly support a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction via an amendment to PAMC § 10.44.020 and a complete rejection of the proposed pilot to be discussed at the Aug 24 meeting. As part of a citywide overnight OSV parking restriction, I fully support the Palo Alto City Council in their efforts to compassionately interact with people currently dwelling in OSVs. The $823,800 saved by rejecting the proposed pilot program would significantly fund such initiatives. I also fully support the City Council's recent plans to revitalize business and residential areas in Palo Alto. A citywide overnight OSV parking restriction would significantly help this revitalization. Specifically, I request the City Council act to stop this wasteful market drag across the 13 linear corridors most impacted by the current OSV situation [1]. Using a midpoint estimated commercial, industrial and residential value of $8.5 B, a 1.1% overall drag due to this OSV situation amounts to about $92.5 M (or, about $740,000 per OSV based on the 125 vehicles targeted by the currently proposed pilot program). Such economic waste is an insult to everyone involved. I would also like to highlight the disproportionate burden on residential areas directly fronting these streets (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes). The $92.5 M estimate above is based on: - Directly Fronting Residential (e.g., Echelon, Park Blvd townhomes): ~$400 M total market value x 15% drag = -$60 Million - Adjacent Commercial & R&D Parks: ~$6.5 B total market value x 0.5% drag = -$32.5 Million In addition to these base market drags, I urge City Council to consider the full yearly business drags to commercial and R&D park activities across these 13 linear corridors due to direct impacts of this ongoing OSV situation. Specifically, I estimate annual additional business costs of $5.5 M - $13.0 M annually: - Security & Site Fortification costs of $1.8 M - $3.5 M / yr This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report - Sanitation & Site Maintenance costs of $800 k - $1.8 M / yr - Logistics & Supply Chain Friction costs of $1.5 M - $3.2 M / yr - Leasing Friction & Soft Rent Discounts costs of $1.4 M - $4.5 M / yr Over a 10 year period, these additional annual business costs directly resulting from the unaddressed OSV situation along these 13 linear corridors effectively double the market drag of $92.5 M. Please fix this situation as soon as possible with a combination of citywide overnight OSV parking restrictions and a compassionate transition program for those currently residing in the OSVs. Sincerely, Colin (Swindells) Heschel Echelon community, Palo Alto [1] 13 linear corridors most impacted by the OSV situation: - 4000 Block of Transport Street - 900 Block of Commercial Street - 900 Block of Industrial Avenue - 100 Block of Page Mill Road - 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard - 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue - 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street - 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue - 1000 Block of Elwell Court - 1000 Block of Corporation Way - 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle - 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way - 2400 block of Faber Place From:Chris Schremp To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen Subject:Procedural Breakdown on Staff Report #2606-6479: Taxpayer Accountability Matters Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:02:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Veenker, City Manager Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of Monday’s meeting, I am writing to address a severe procedural breakdown and a concerning lack of administrative accountability regarding Staff Report #2606-6479. As residents and taxpayers who fund municipal operations and pay city salaries, we expect professional, transparent, and responsive governance from City Management and staff. Their primary responsibility is to protect the public right-of-way, enforce local laws, and serve the tax-paying citizens and businesses of Palo Alto. Instead, we learned through multiple conversations this weekend, that the process leading to this $823,800 staff proposal reflects a complete disregard for community input and elected oversight: Bypassing the Council’s Own Ad Hoc Committee: City staff authored this pilot proposal in an administrative silo, completely bypassing direct collaboration with the Council’s appointed OSV Ad Hoc Committee. Premature Public Release Without Committee Vetting: Staff shared this proposal broadly before giving the Ad Hoc Council members a chance to review, influence, or shape it. Ignoring Taxpayer Input & Viable Alternatives: For months, neighborhood coalitions and local business stakeholders have submitted detailed, legally sound, and cost-effective proposals. Staff completely ignored this input, choosing instead to propose an expensive $823,800 "street shuffle" experiment that explicitly predicts spillover onto surrounding residential blocks. Through our conversations with civic leaders, we also learned that the Mayor and City Staff remain hesitant to act due to a fear of potential lawsuits. This fear is completely The legal authority to prohibit overnight OSV parking is already on the books (PAMC § 10.44.020) and has already been successfully enforced in other Palo Alto neighborhoods. Furthermore, many of these OSVs are operating in active violation of public safety laws— failing to move within required timeframes, running unshielded gas generators directly in the public street, and using our residential blocks as mid-week commuter pads. As neighboring municipalities have demonstrated, there is no valid legal ground for a lawsuit as long as the City provides fair advance notice before enforcing a citywide ban. Citing fear of litigation to avoid enforcing municipal code is an administrative excuse, not a legal reality. Because of this fundamentally flawed process, Staff Report #2606-6479 should not even be brought forward for adoption. We should not be forced to debate or reject an administrative experiment that failed basic procedural standards, bypassed the OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and ignores the taxpayers paying for it. ACTION REQUESTED: Instead, the Council should set aside this staff pilot entirely. You should be voting directly on the sound, community-supported proposals submitted by your taxpayers—initiating the advance notice process for a citywide OSV restriction and allocating a significantly lower, responsible amount of funds toward border signage execution. We urge the Council to hold City Management accountable, set aside Staff Report #2606- 6479 on August 24, and direct staff to execute the clear municipal code enforcement taxpayers deserve. Regards, Chris Schremp From:Pepper Person To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:8/24/2026 City Council Meeting Item 10: Use Existing OSV Data to Design Safer, Measurable Pilots Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:42:21 PM Attachments:PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts1.png PA_OnStreet_OSV_Counts2.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council Members, We are long-time Palo Alto residents, and we are writing regarding Item 10 on the 8/24/2026 City Council Meeting Agenda: the proposed oversized-vehicle (OSV) parking permit program and alternating-side parking pilot. We support the City’s effort to develop an orderly and humane response to vehicle dwelling, including using pilots rather than premature permanent policy. But a useful pilot must begin with the evidence already available, test identifiable hypotheses, protect public safety before implementation, and avoid merely transferring impacts among streets and neighborhoods. We respectfully ask Council to condition authorization on four requirements before activating location-specific restrictions. 1. Use the natural experiment that has already occurred The City already has a meaningful longitudinal dataset: at least 16 displayed count periods covering ~262 days, from October 2025 through approximately July 10-11, 2026. [Credit: Bob Marinaro; 7/25/2026 email forward included in 2026-07-27 City Council Emails.pdf retrieved 8/23/2026 from https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/] This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast The counts show two distinct phases. First, the citywide OSV count fell from 220 to 131, i.e., ~40%. But then the decline stopped. During the final ~3.4 months, the displayed counts were 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 143, 130, and 131, with an average of ~134 and identical first and last values. Overall, this two-phase structure shows an initial reduction followed by a relatively stable equilibrium. However, subsequent changes increasingly involved OSV location rather than continued citywide disappearance. The Ventura Area (see image) illustrates this point. Its total declined from 20 to 14, but within the area: Ash, Portage, Olive, and Acacia increased collectively from 6 OSVs to 10 and reached 15 at one count. Their share of the Ventura total increased from 30% to 71% and exceeded 84% at one observation. Park, Sheridan, and Lambert declined collectively from 13 OSVs to 2. Therefore, an area-wide decline masks substantial concentration and redistribution among adjoining streets. Acacia’s appearance as a “new street,” sustained across more than ten observations, is particularly relevant evidence of spillover rather than a single-count fluctuation. These changes cannot be attributed automatically to one cause. They occurred amid Phase I enforcement, construction, lost curb capacity, transportation changes, and other interventions. That is precisely why the existing series must be incorporated into the pilot design. January 2027 should not be treated as an unaffected baseline. The Council should preserve the October-2025-to-launch period as a formal pre-pilot phase, continue standardized counts (in partnership with Bob Marinaro), and identify the timing of enforcement, construction, signage, traffic-control, and other relevant changes. 2. Design experiments capable of answering causal questions The staff report correctly predicts that the restrictions are likely to produce spillover. But the proposal does not establish a sufficiently detailed baseline or comparison framework to determine how much spillover the pilots cause, where it goes, or which of the simultaneous interventions produced it. The two pilots also test different hypotheses. For the alternating-side pilot, the City should determine whether restrictions improve street sweeping, visibility, sanitation, and access; whether OSVs move across the street, to adjoining streets, or outside the city; and how OSVs and their auxiliary vehicles respond to a side change. For the permit pilot, the City should measure participation, compliance, enforcement contacts, service engagement, housing and safe-parking outcomes, and operating cost per participant and successful placement. These effects cannot be separated if all interventions begin simultaneously without comparison areas. Staff should stagger implementation across matched segments where feasible and publish the hypotheses, baseline, measurement protocol, intervention dates, and decision thresholds before implementation. Measurements should include occupied curb feet, auxiliary vehicles, duration, relocations, complaints, enforcement, sanitation, traffic effects, and service outcomes, in addition to OSV counts. The existing spreadsheet (constructive suggestions; this was a massive effort) could benefit from refinement and expansion before the pilot baseline measurements begin. For example, Ash is aggregated into two segments extending from Oregon Expressway to Portage, making it impossible to isolate Pepper, Page Mill/Oregon Expy, or the individual Ash blocks proposed for treatment. Pepper Avenue (among others) is not currently counted separately. The spreadsheet also notes “numerous auxiliary vehicles” on Ash without counting them. Specifically, Acacia, Portage, Olive, Pepper, the individual Ash blocks, etc., should be measured separately before outreach or signage causes anticipatory relocation. The proposed six-month parking periods are also too long for risk management and experimental evaluation. If a restriction causes unsafe access, severe concentration, or neighborhood spillover, six months is an unreasonable period to leave that condition in place. Analytically, assigning one side from January through June and the other from July through December makes side assignment inseparable from season, construction, school and traffic patterns, weather, and other time-varying conditions. With only one crossover, the City will have no replication and little ability to determine whether an observed Council should authorize a 12-month adaptive pilot, not two fixed six-month exposures. Staff should use staggered activation, different initial-side assignments on comparable segments where feasible, and 30-60-day evaluation cycles. Reviews should occur after 14 and 30 days, with comprehensive evaluation no later than 60-90 days. Shorter evaluation cycles need not require frequent forced relocation. A side assignment can remain in place while conditions remain within established limits. Changes should be triggered by evidence rather than an arbitrary calendar, and predefined safety, access, spillover, sanitation, and concentration thresholds should require prompt mitigation, modification, or suspension. Because the citywide count has plateaued despite ongoing enforcement, the evaluation should also track whether “exit-side” capacity, such as safe parking, case-management placements, storage, buyback, or similar options, is expanding. Redistribution alone cannot reduce the population against which the pilots will be evaluated. 3. Establish safety and emergency access as preconditions Emergency access should not be an outcome the City learns about by waiting for an impaired response. For example, Ash, Olive, and Pepper must be evaluated as a connected street system. Pepper has limited outlets. Its El Camino end can be affected by queues associated with El Camino and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, while its eastern access depends on Ash, where OSVs, trailers, passenger vehicles, and other auxiliary vehicles already reduce maneuvering space. Restrictions on Ash and Olive may improve some conditions, but they may also concentrate large vehicles on Pepper (El Camino end), Acacia, Portage, or constrained portions of Ash, reducing effective street width, sight distance, turning clearance, and redundant emergency access. Requirements may change depending on what is built; for example, fire code may require 26' rather than 20' vehicle access for fire hydrants or tall buildings. Naturally, the same safety requirement should apply to the permit corridors. Coyote Hill requires verification of fire access, egress, and emergency communications. Embarcadero requires review of roadway geometry, flood exposure, and airport land-use compatibility. People directed to those locations deserve the same pre-activation safety analysis as residents of affected neighborhoods. Before activating any segment, Council should require written, location-specific findings from Fire, Police, Public Works, and Transportation addressing: Clear street width under representative parking conditions; Swept paths for fire engines, ladder trucks, ambulances, refuse trucks, and tow trucks; Field testing with actual apparatus where geometric margins are limited; Intersection turning movements and opposing traffic; Hydrant, driveway, sight-distance, and daylighting clearance; Peak traffic queues under the El Camino/Page Mill-Oregon no-turn-on-red condition; and Alternative emergency routes if either end of Pepper or part of Ash is obstructed. The findings and required mitigations should be public before implementation. A street that cannot maintain applicable emergency-access and operational margins should not be used as an OSV concentration or foreseeable spillover location. 4. Address cumulative and distributional impacts citywide The objective should not be merely to reduce OSVs on selected streets. It should be to prevent excessive concentration and allocate unavoidable impacts according to measurable capacity, safety, land use, and equity considerations. Staff estimates that the alternating-side streets could retain ~116 or 125 OSVs, depending on the period, while the permit locations could accommodate ~37. That represents a nominal combined capacity of ~153-162 spaces, compared with the latest observed total of 131 OSVs. The central problem is therefore not solely aggregate capacity. It is whether that capacity is genuinely usable and how its impacts are distributed among neighborhoods, businesses, OSV residents, and the transportation network. The City should: Establish maximum block-level concentration and occupied-curb-foot thresholds; Prefer multiple appropriately designed locations over a few concentrated locations; Evaluate cumulative traffic, bike-lane, parking-removal, development, BMR-housing, construction, and emergency-access burdens; Determine whether lower-income or more housing-dense areas would bear a disproportionate share; Prevent omitted spillover streets from becoming unregulated de facto OSV zones; and Continue pursuing regional and off-street capacity so Palo Alto’s streets are not the only management mechanism. Requested Council direction We respectfully ask Council to direct staff to: 1. Incorporate the complete October 2025 to present count series into the administrative record and pilot baseline. 2. Begin standardized citywide and adjacent-street measurements immediately, including all potentially impacted streets (with street subsegments clearly separated; e.g., Ash), auxiliary vehicles, and occupied curb feet. 3. Publish a prospective experimental protocol identifying hypotheses, comparison areas, intervention dates, outcome measures, and decision thresholds. 4. Use staged implementation and 30- to 60-day evaluation cycles, with mandatory 14-, 30-, and 60-day reviews and predefined modification and stop criteria. 5. Require written emergency-access and traffic-operability findings before activating each location, including assessing and remediating the connected Ash/Olive/Pepper/Page Mill network, as well as similarly-impacted areas. 6. Complete a cumulative-impact and distributional-equity analysis before finalizing the street list. 7. Make the underlying non-personal data and interim and final evaluations publicly available. The City has already accumulated ~8.6 months of evidence showing both an initial reduction and substantial redistribution. It should not spend the proposed funds merely to confirm that displacement occurs. A properly designed pilot can answer the questions that remain unresolved: whether permits and services improve outcomes, whether alternating-side restrictions produce operational benefits, how displacement can be controlled, and how safety and neighborhood impacts can be distributed fairly. We urge Council to make these safeguards part of the authorization now, before outreach, relocation, and implementation begin. Warm regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MA, Economics From:Kelly Brieger To:Council, City Cc:Steve Perna Subject:SRI Letter Regarding Agenda Item #10 – Proposed OSV Pilot Program Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 3:22:03 PM Attachments:image001[44].png SRI letter to PA City Council OSV.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am sharing a letter from SRI’s Steve Perna regarding Agenda Item #10, the proposed overnight OSV parking pilot program, in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. We respectfully request that you include it in the public record for the Council's consideration. Please let us know if you have questions or would like to discuss. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Kelly Brieger on behalf of Steve Perna, President, Integrated Systems & Solutions, SRI Kelly (Ryan) Brieger Director, Communications | Curator, PARC Forum sri.com | LinkedIn | YouTube | Facebook | Subscribe SRI | 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA | www.sri.com City of Palo Alto August 23, 2026 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) pilot program, Agenda Item #10 Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of SRI to provide our perspective about the proposed overnight OSV parking pilot program. Our company has long supported efforts to address housing insecurity throughout our community, and our position on this proposal stems from operational necessity, not indifference to the community. For 80 years, SRI has been recognized internationally as a world-class research organization. We want employees, customers, and visitors to experience a campus that reflects our storied history and the amazing innovation being developed every day. SRI is in the initial stages of a significant modernization as we relocate our headquarters from Menlo Park to 3333 Coyote Hill Road in Stanford Research Park. This new HQ will support our team of more than 300 onsite Bay Area employees, which is expected to reach full capacity over the coming months. As we plan this transition, safety and security are a top priority for employees and visitors. The Coyote Hill entrance/exit has limited visibility, and OSV parking nearby would create a safety hazard for vehicles and cyclists. If OSVs are permitted to park directly along our property line, that would also create a greater security burden. We anticipate this could require additional investment in signage, lighting, physical barriers, and potentially 24/7 guard service. These costs would fall to SRI as a direct result of the program . Our commitment to support the community remains strong. In fact, as part of the sale of our Menlo Park property, we worked with the developer and Menlo Park City Council to secure hundreds of units of dedicated low -income housing. This investment reflects a strong contribution to addressing housing insecurity in the local area. Before the Council makes a decision, we respectfully request clarity on a few items: - Will the city add marked street parking in the area shown on the city drawing? - Will the city reduce the four-lane section of the road to two lanes and add a sidewalk? - What level of street parking is permitted for others along Coyote Hill? - Has a traffic study been performed to understand the impact? We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about the proposed plan to permit OSV parking in front of SRI’s Coyote Hill headquarters. Sincerely, Steve Perna, SRI, President of Integrated Systems and Solutions From:Oksana Selavri To:Council, City Cc:Robert Marinaro Subject:public comment for August 24th meeting - stop making Palo Alto a dumping ground for RVs Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 2:02:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council and members, This has to stop! We have seen worsening of the RV situation at Echelon residential complex after Phase 1 and street cleaning has been implemented. We now have RVs boldly parking right in front of our complex! when before they were abusing the East Meadow circle area. Enough is enough! Please support Palo Alto residents in their plea and NOT the people who are abusing the street space by flooding it with their boats, motorcycles etc! Oksana Selavri Echelon Community Fabian Way and East Meadow circle This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:David Richardson To:Council, City Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking on City Streets Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 1:54:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I think it is beholden on all of us to find more ways to accommodate the unhoused in our city.. Complaints about too much traffic or not enough parking and other complaints have prevented housing development in California and the nation for decades so that in this state we are 2 million homes short. It’s a matter of residents losing their housing because those who are earning more money can afford the housing that they cannot. We have a problem that we have to help solve. Everyone needs and deserves a place to live many of whom are earning a living. RVs seem poised to become part of the solution; they already exist where other transient housing does not and we are short of housing for those who work in our city who have no place to live. It seems we should try to meet their challenges without automatically banning them. Some measures that help: 1. Provide sewage, water, cleanup, and any other basic services that prevent the communities from becoming eyesores. Make rules to minimize impact. 2. Perhaps setting up a required training program on how to be a good neighbor in an RV and evict any one who is not. 3. Listen to residents and neighbors to accommodate their needs as much as possible and of course look for locations with minimal impact. Challenge neighbors and businesses to help with solutions in their areas. 4. Perhaps having someone as a liaison between neighbors and businesses and RV residents could be a catalyst for solving issues that come up. 5. Pilot projects should help iron out the kinks. 6. Working with neighboring communities is also important and necessary. Solutions may not be perfect so compromise may be in order in some specific situations. There is no doubt that homelessness is a serious problem that will be difficult to solve given how many homes short we are everywhere. But we need to tackle this program head on. Sincerely, David Richardson Palo Alto Resident P.S. Coyote Hill Road is the only parking reasonably close to the Matadero Creek Trailhead. Where will there be parking for that trail after the pilot program is initiated? Stanford research Park has restricted parking everywhere. From:Hannah Leonard To:Council, City Subject:Safety Over Surveillance - Cancel the ALPR Contract Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 1:30:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, Dear Councilmembers, I am writing as part of the Safety Over Surveillance Coalition to ask you to support public safety by canceling your contract with Flock and avoiding implementing any other automated license plate reader (ALPR) system. I also ask you to cover the cameras immediately until they can be completely removed. These systems have been used to surveil protestors exercising First Amendment rights, to hunt down a woman seeking healthcare from a state where abortion is illegal, and by more than a dozen police officers to stalk former romantic partners. The tangible harms to our civil liberties are far too great a price to pay for any perceived benefit. ALPRs are tools of mass surveillance, indiscriminately capturing the data of every vehicle that drives by regardless of whether there is any articulable suspicion of a crime. Police can use the historical location data they provide to recreate a person's motions as they go about their day-to-day lives without a warrant. Only a fraction of a percent (~0.1%) of any captured images corresponds to a vehicle associated with a hot list, meaning the overwhelming supermajority of information captured is of innocent people. Despite claims that they help solve crime locally, the vast majority of searches of ALPR data is performed by outside agencies. These invasions of our privacy come with questionable efficacy - Roseville police reported a false read in 71% percent of alerts! LAPD reported a false positive rate of approximately 33%. There are numerous stories of innocent people being pulled over and held at gunpoint or mauled by police dogs due to false alerts caused by AI hallucinations. On top of the issues with ALPRs in general, Flock Safety is a company that is particularly untrustworthy. They turned on features that enabled illegal data sharing without alerting its customers. They have changed contract language from what was negotiated by city legal staff in Berkeley. Its CEO has called privacy advocates terrorists. They have been found reactivating or newly installing cameras in cities after their contract was canceled. Their valuation does not match company fundamentals looking at what they charge for cameras unless the value of our data is factored in - we are the product. In Palo Alto, we are used to startups trying to move fast and break things, but what Flock has broken is the public trust. They are not for public safety, they are for profit. Palo Alto doesn't need to pay to let Peter Thiel get a return on his investment trying to tear down our democracy. Despite crafting strict guardrails to protect our personal data, Palo Alto saw data breaches like so many other cities in California. Hundreds of out of state and federal agencies illegally accessed our data. Even if there were no responsive results for any of the searches, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chatrie vs. US that "regardless of 'the quality or quantity of information' the government obtains" the Fourth Amendment still applies, and that "whether something is a search does not depend on what it finds." This breach of contract is severe and pervasive - Palo Alto should seek remuneration through legal action against Flock, possibly in class action status with other cities who were similarly victims of Flock's actions. These violations of our civil liberties are occurring while we face a hostile federal government. Despite local policies and state law prohibiting use of ALPR data for immigration purposes, any access by ICE to our ALPR data will be invisible due to a DHS policy that prohibits ALPR audit logs from saving data about ICE access except for logs only available to ICE. No matter what local policies we set, we cannot know if ICE is using our data. This is a general truth about all ALPR systems, not specific to Flock Safety. Palo Alto can join dozens of other communities, including our sister city of Bloomington, IN, in supporting public safety by canceling your contract with Flock. I urge you to cancel the contract as soon as possible and instruct city staff to research the option of legal action against Flock Safety. Once the contract is canceled, I ask that the cameras be covered immediately until such time they can be promptly removed. Hannah Leonard hrleonard00@gmail.com Palo Alto , California 94301 From:Aram James To:City Attorney; Dave Price; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Vicki Veenker; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Shikada, Ed; Braden Cartwright; Diana Diamond; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Preminger, Steve; Sean Allen; Council, City; Reifschneider, James; Brandon Pho; EPA Today; board@pausd.org; Board of Directors; Jeff Rosen; Carla Torres; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Conflict OIR and flock surveillance technology?? Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:39:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. here’s my best-supported answer If your question is: “How many cities/counties has OIR Group recommended using ALPR/license-plate- reader technology?” I can currently substantiate 3 jurisdictions where OIR has had a documented substantive role concerning ALPR: Vallejo, Eureka and Palo Alto. But I can substantiate 0 where OIR specifically recommended Flock Safety. If you ask: “How many jurisdictions have both OIR Group and Flock Safety?” The number is higher than 3. Santa Rosa, for example, clearly belongs in that category. There are additional jurisdictions that need to be checked against contracts and OIR records rather than simply assuming OIR recommended the technology. One potentially important lead I also found that in Palo Alto, OIR’s contract was separately associated with the city’s ALPR technology contract management work. A 2023 council agenda lists both an OIR Group contract amendment and an Office of City Auditor task-order change specifically identified as “ALPR Technology Contract Management.” That deserves a deeper look because it may tell us exactly when OIR became involved with Palo Alto’s ALPR procurement/oversight and what its scope was. And there is a broader surveillance-oversight context: in 2025, Michael Gennaco was participating nationally in discussions about how civilian oversight bodies should handle surveillance technologies including ALPRs, drones, gunshot detection and real-time video . My current evidence map is therefore: Flock recommendation by OIR: 0 confirmed ALPR-specific OIR involvement: 3 clearly documented OIR + Flock jurisdictions: more than 3 OIR recommendation later used by a government entity to justify Flock: 1 — Vallejo And importantly, I have not found evidence of OIR Group receiving money directly from Flock Safety or being a Flock vendor/consultant. The contracts I’ve located are between OIR and the municipalities/agencies, not between OIR and Flock. If you’re investigating a possible institutional relationship between Gennaco/OIR and Flock, the next thing I’d examine is Palo Alto’s OIR contract and the ALPR contract- management records, followed by Santa Rosa’s OIR/Flock contracts. Those are likely to tell us much more than the published OIR reports. From:Gerson Bers To:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; 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; Theron 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; AnnLafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; 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; TarynSanford; 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; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen;Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam Subject:RE: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26) Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 8:29:45 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i Robert, Many thanks for your work on this issue. The moment CPA took down the “No RV Parking” signs in our neighborhood…the RVs were back in force…and your data demonstrates this. Over the past week I have met many of our neighbors in the Transit/Commercial/Industrial small business enclave. To a person, not a one had been contacted by CPA regarding selling our curbs to the RV squatters OR the zoning change from light industrial to high density residential. Total disrespect to the property and business owners here. The City Council needs to hear from us in mass. I urge all our neighbors to attend the council meeting Monday evening. Gerson Bers 990 Commercial, LLC. From: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:24 AM To: Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>; Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>; Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; George Lu <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>; Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Cc: Josh Becker <senator.becker@senate.ca.gov>; Marc Berman <Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov>; Leslie Bulbuk <Leslie.Bulbuk@asm.ca.gov>; Nicole Fernandez <nicole.fernandez@sen.ca.gov>; Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>; Christopher Jenson <Christopher.Jensen@PaloAlto.gov>; Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>; Stephen Lindsey <stephen.lindsey@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nick Marinaro <njmarinaro@gmail.com>; Jennifer Kain <kainjennifer@google.com>; Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>; Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>; Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>; Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>; Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>; Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>; John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>; Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>; Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>; Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>; Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>; David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>; Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>; Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>; Theron Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>; Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Bryna Chang <bryna.chang@gmail.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>; CMEI Wong <cmei@wongelectric.com>; DMA Wong <dma@wongelectric.com>; Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>; Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>; K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>; Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>; Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>; Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>; John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net>; Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>; Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>; Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>; Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>; Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>; Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>; Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>; Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>; Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>; Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>; Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>; Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>; Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>; Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>; Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; William Ross <wross@lawross.com>; Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>; Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>; Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>; Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>; Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>; Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>; Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; Cassandra Paige <Acacia@DividendHomes.com>; Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>; Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>; Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>; Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu <gu_zt@yahoo.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>; Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>; Taryn Sanford <tsanford@POLARESMEDICAL.COM>; Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>; Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>; Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@Sofia.edu>; Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>; Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>; Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>; Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>; Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>; Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>; Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>; Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>; Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>; Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>; Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>; Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>; Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>; Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>; Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>; Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>; Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>; Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>; Scott Petersen <scottepetersen@gmail.com>; Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow <Jsydow@comcast.net>; Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com>; Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>; Boyd Smith <boyd@smithdevelopment.com>; Lund Smith <lund@wsjproperties.com>; Milan Milan <milan@willisandproperties.com>; Elliott Lee <Lee@PalomoArchery.com>; Robert Berkovich <rberkovich@yahoo.com>; Letizia Rodriguez <scheduling@franztermite.com>; Brennan Pang <brennan.pang@ridepanda.com>; Brad Eggleston <Brad.Eggleston@paloalto.gov>; Raphael Ruis <rafael.rius@paloalto.gov>; Lo Ria <ria.lo@paloalto.gov>; Alex Andrade <Alex.Andrade@PaloAlto.gov>; Bob Kennis <ckennis@comcast.net>; Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com>; Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen <peggyc3@hotmail.com>; Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com>; Julia Sun <jsun39872@gmail.com>; Aki Hirsa <akietaki@yahoo.com>; Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com>; Andrew Li <ali@lfrep.com>; Evan Mathews <evan@mathewscarlsen.com>; Efrain Monttano Velazquez <efrain@mathewscarlsen.com>; Ignacio Montelongo Jr. <jr@mathewscarlsen.com>; Joseph Montelongo <Joe@mathewscarlsen.com>; Nayirie Tashjian <ntashjian@alpfamed.com>; Fernanda Prado <fprado@alpfamed.com>; Dave Rubenstein <drubenstein@andersonhonda.com>; Johnny Vo <jvo@andersonhonda.com>; Priyanka Raghuraman <praghuraman@hammonplating.com>; Andrew Koo <andrew.koo@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>; Joseline Sotomayor <Joseline@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>; Dmitri Samsonov <argument@gmail.com>; Gerson Bers <gbers@abbae.com>; Mike Emrick <memrick@mozartdev.com>; Anand Srinivasan <sanand108@gmail.com>; Zohar Gillai <zgillai@gmail.com>; Maria Orlova <marlova123@gmail.com>; Marc Husemann <Marc.Husemann@tesa.com>; Niklas Sprungmann <Niklas.Sprungmann@tesa.com>; Kara Apple <Kara.Apple@paloalto.gov>; Joe Sinnott <joe@jsinnott.net>; Linda Zausen <llzausen@att.net>; Danny Whelan <dwhelan@pacamgroup.com>; Gulya Timokhina <gtimokhina@gmail.com>; Matt Lynch <matt@gryphonstrings.com>; Oksana Selavri <oksana.selavri@gmail.com>; Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com>; Fred Bailin <fbalin@gmail.com>; Dave Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com>; Christian Hothem <cahothem@Pacamgroup.com>; Aditya Jain <adityamo@gnail.com>; Anjali Jain <Anjali.jain78@gmail.com>; Jenny Lee <jenny.lee.jen@gmail.com>; Arun Bodapati <bodapa@gmail.com>; Soumya Bodapati <soumyagsr@gmail.com>; Yingxi Liu <yingxi.ut@gmail.com>; Susan Dorsky <sdorsky@yahoo.com>; Dave Price <dp-2006@sbcglobal.net>; Elaine Goodman <egoodman@padailypost.com>; Brandon Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Clark Penado <clarkpenado@gmail.com>; Francescarael Rael <Francescarael@me.com>; Kaye Crawford <kayedc@aol.com>; Jim Crawford <kayedc@aol.com>; Lena Yarovaya <yarovaya@hotmail.com>; Kenneth Russell <kenneth.b.russell@gmail.com>; Jon Hellesoe <jonhellesoe@bos.sccgov.org>; Ryan Judd <ryan@juddproperties.com>; Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com>; Rosalie Cook <Rosalie.Cook@sofia.edu>; Kay Satit <kay711@gmail.com>; Sooji Nam <Sooji.nam@cbs.com> Subject: Palo Alto's Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob's Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26) Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more than the community would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business. Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a hard stand to protect the hard-working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City. Please see the last image of this message to understand how this situation has devolved into an almost Blackboard Jungle atmosphere. And if you are unfamiliar with the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle - Google it! When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.” Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976. I’m very happy to know that an increasing portion of our community is understanding the consequences of an overly accommodating City government and are focussed on demanding that we do not want OSVs in our residential neighborhoods and business/commercial districts. The current situation is intolerable and we want a sea change for the better. We want to see a City government that prioritizes the needs of the community - that prioritizes the needs of its constituents, the very people that put every council member in their position! The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity! Regards, Bob Marinaro E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain! Fabian Way Transport Street - - One of the ways businesses have to keep the OSVs from taking up their valued parking Elwell Ct. Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks! Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26 ABB promotes sustainability. Please consider the environment before you print. | This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 19 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and the disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Please check for any defects or viruses before opening or using any attachments. There is no warranty that this e-mail is virus free or without error. Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. is not liable if an attachment is altered without its written consent. Thank you. From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; 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; Theron 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; AnnLafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; 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; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott;Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Kaye Crawford; Jim Crawford; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Jon Hellesoe; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Rosalie Cook; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam Subject:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s Pre-Council Meeting Count (8/22/26) Date:Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:43:12 AM Attachments:RV Inventory_22Aug26.xlsxImpacts to the Community_06Aug26.docxScreenshot 2026-08-22 at 11.59.26 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, I thought it might be beneficial to do one more OSV count before the August 24th City Council Meeting where the OSV Phase II Plan will be discussed. I’m sorry to report that our count is holding pretty static at 140-ish. As mentioned earlier we have seen the numbers fall from when I first started counting in October 2025 from 220 to the current number of 140. A reduction of 36%, but 140 OSVs on our streets is still way more than the community would like to see. And way too many if they happen to be parked in front of your residence or business. Aside from the count the climate on the streets is deteriorating. I’ve seen video of vandals destroying property, stealing electricity, and now using intimidation by those who feel emboldened by their tenure on our streets. This has to stop! As I take my count on the 21 affected streets I have increasingly been yelled at by those who think they have a right to squat on our streets because the City has been reluctant to take a hard stand to protect the hard- working tax-paying residents and businesses that fund the basic operations of this City. Please see the last image of this message to understand how this situation has devolved into an almost Blackboard Jungle atmosphere. And if you are unfamiliar with the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle - Google it! When I mentioned in one of my earlier e-mails that I was followed for about three blocks after walking East Meadow Circle with my wife a resident of condominiums on East Meadow Circle sent me the following the comment - - "I beg you to please be careful. None of us walk on East Meadow any longer. It is not safe. Please don’t go there especially with your wife.” Is this the Palo Alto that we want? And since we are on the movie theme who can forget the line “ I’m Mad As Hell and I’n Not Going to Take it Anymore,” from the movie “Network” in 1976. I’m very happy to know that an increasing portion of our community is understanding the consequences of an overly accommodating City government and are focussed on demanding that we do not want OSVs in our residential neighborhoods and business/commercial districts. The current situation is intolerable and we want a sea change for the better. We want to see a City government that prioritizes the needs of the community - that prioritizes the needs of its constituents, the very people that put every council member in their position! The time is Now to make this right. Let’s seize the opportunity! Regards, Bob Marinaro E. San Antonio Rd Next to Homekey Transitional Housing Facility (8/21/26). No Parking Zone. I called it in yesterday and it was gone today. East Meadow Circle in front of Echelon Townhomes East Meadow Circle in front of Google Buildings East Meadow Circle - - BMW Motorcycles (Average cost $19,500). This guy in the window was yelling at the top of his lungs as I was riding away. These folks feel so entitled. They have been allowed to stay here unfettered for so long that they feel as though they have a right to be here and I am intruding on their domain! Fabian Way Elwell Ct. Faber Places - - 15 OSVs on a short street segment Embarcadero Way - - 11 OSVs on a short street segment Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - The guy in the van has been here forever and the RV is new this weekend I believe Mitchell Park Parking Lot - - Lets get these OSVs out of our parks! Matadero Ave, - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Orinda St. - - Ventura Neighbors have complained forever but nothing happens Ash St - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Portage Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Page Mill - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Sheridan Ave. - - Bad Actor #1 and a handful of his 12-ish vehicles in the Ventura Neighborhood Palo Alto Daily Post Police Blotter - - Friday 8/21/26 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 OSVs ############################################################################################################################### & 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 11 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 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 39 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 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 3 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 5 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 3 8 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 - -- -- -- -- -- -5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 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 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 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 5 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 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 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 11 16 17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 19 Ames Av./Ross Rd.At Intersection with Ross Rd.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 1 0 0 2 0 200 197 195 180 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 117 124 123 20 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 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 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 5 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 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 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 3 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 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 1 28 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 3 0 0 29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 20 20 20 19 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 14 17 17 Total:220 217 215 199 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 131 141 140 Delta:9 -2 -16 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 1 10 -1 Days since first count: ########29 43 60 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 262 286 305 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 10.0 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_22Aug26 8/24/2026 1:52 PM OSV IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY 8/6/26 11:43 AM • Safety – residents do not feel safe in their presence (especially women) • Obstruct egress (sight lines) to the point of several reported accidents (on E. Meadow Circle) • Dump trash in street • Dump trash is business dumpsters including large items (mattresses, etc.) • Steal water • Steal electricity • Dump waste in sewers and in bushes • Prevent deliveries to back loading docks • Block traffic such as when OSVs double park for waste removal • Take up needed parking spaces for businesses and other facilities – they also reserve parking spaces adjacent to their OSVs using chairs, cones, etc. • Intimidate business/institution customers & students • Noticeable increase in crime in OSV dense neighborhoods • Liability issues associated with children playing on private property adjacent to OSVs • OSV slide-outs: dangerous, impedes traffic flow, and blocks bike lanes • Inhibits business owners and property managers from leasing vacant properties • Decreases property values which in turn decreases property taxes and revenue to the city • Discourages property development • General blight and reduction of quality of life for tax-paying residents and businesses • Services such as food trucks that once came by for lunch no longer stop by (E. Meadow Circle) • Financial - - Additional costs incurred by businesses: o Additional utility costs o Installation of locks on dumpsters o Installation of cameras and security monitoring systems o Installation of barriers (bollards with chains across driveways, gates, etc.) o Installation of audio systems to inconvenience OSV dwellers (Faber Place) o Additional trash pickup costs and additional burden to business owners who have to properly sort out trash from recycled materials File: Impacts to the Community_06Aug26.docx From:Matthew Bryant To:Council, City Subject:Regarding staff report #2606-6479 and agenda item #10 on 24Aug26 meeting agenda Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 11:32:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear distinguished members of Palo Alto City Council and staff, I am writing once again to express my opposition to the staff report and recommendations regarding agenda item #10 during the 24Aug26 meeting. The broader issue is described as permitting over-sized vehicle (OSV) parking on Palo Alto city streets. My family and I have spoken up during previous meetings to discuss the OSV parking and how they have affected our neighborhood on Pepper/Ash/Olive/Park/El Camino Real streets. I have stated that we support the rights of everyone to have access to stable, affordable housing resources. UCSF has conducted California unhoused studies which have concluded that stable, affordable housing is the primary or core need for people that are unhoused. Anything less than that will not help the unhoused. Therefore, Palo Alto’s plan to create programs that promote OSV parking on city streets with permits, restricted to certain streets, during specific dates/times of the year, with limited access to basic sanitation and clean water will not work because it is not housing. Permitting OSV parking on our streets will lead to continued unhoused neighbors living in vehicles in poor conditions on our streets at very high risk of public health outbreaks. I agree with many of the hundreds of Palo Alto neighbors who have spoken up about their concerns regarding permitting OSV parking to continue on our streets. I have highlighted a few below. - How were the OSV parking dates/times/street locations selected? The majority of the streets selected for OSV parking are in South Palo Alto. This Palo Alto neighborhood continues to be marginalized. - Since we don’t know how the OSV parking locations were selected in the report, I propose to add the entirety of Palo Alto Avenue parking along San Francisquito creek, the Oregon Avenue feeder road along Oregon Expressway, and work with Caltrans to repaint Oregon Expressway itself to allow street parking, and let’s not forget to add Sand Hill Road, too. Adding these wide, open, and long stretches of roadway will allow hundreds more OSV parking spaces and showcase to the world that the City of Palo Alto is the most compassionate OSV parking city in the Bay Area. - Did the City of Palo Alto consider using the many acres of public space and open land for additional OSV parking? - OSV are heavy vehicles and therefore damage local city streets, in addition to posing a safety risk to drivers by blocking the ability to see traffic/pedestrians/bicyclists due to ‘daylighting' along streets. Thank you for your public service to Palo Alto. We appreciate you reading our thoughts on these important matters as they directly impact our neighborhood and the image and reputation of Palo Alto. Best regards, Dr. Matthew Bryant 471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto From:Aram James To:sam.liccardo@gmail.com Cc:Josh Becker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; james pitkin; Goodell, Erin; Linda Jolley; Alaniz, John; Emily Mibach; board@pausd.org; Braden Cartwright; Bill Newell; Nancy Goodban; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Dana St. George; Human Relations Commission; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Malinsky, Jason; editor@paweekly.com; Shikada, Ed; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council; Zahra Billoo; Justin Zalkin; Gerry Gras; Roberta Ahlquist; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; PD Kristina Bell; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Brandon Pho; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Board of Directors; bos@smcgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Susan Hayase; Sameena Usman; Yusra Hussain; Diana Diamond; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Eric Diesel; Jensen, Eric; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Enberg, Nicholas; Vicki Veenker; DuJuan Green; Stone, Greer Subject:Sam “JStreetPAC” Liccardo Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 9:10:19 PM Attachments:EAD2B54E-89F7-4EE0-8817-D518B779F6A9.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. U.S. Representative Sam Liccardo (D-CA) has a recognized candidate endorsement and fundraising relationship with JStreetPAC, the political action committee associated with J Street, a pro-Israel and pro-peace advocacy organization. [1, 2] Hey Sam, ( Congressman Sam Liccardo) I have a question for you. JStreetPAC claims to be both pro-Israel and pro-peace at the same time. I can’t reconcile such a claim. Maybe you can. Israel perpetuated an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians people in 1948 (Nakba Day). Since the illegitimate inception of the rogue nation of Israel, Israel has continuously engaged in non-stop genocide of the Palestinian people -not a day of peace for the Palestinian people. You claim to be a man of peace but support the existence of Apartheid genocidal state, Israel. I find your stance both hypocritical and opportunistic. You need to get with the times and be a man of principle across the board. Please explain how your stance on Israel is any different from that of white-wing extremist Zionists. Your constituents deserve to know. Sam, stand up and do the right thing: call for a one-state solution or the elimination of Israel if they refuse a one-vote, one-person, one-state solution. Avram “one state solution” Finkelstein Nakba Day - Wikipedia https://share.google/iG6wmgfYfWm6FsIgL From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:In support of 6 Additions to Flock Audit Scope and use of ALPRS Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 4:47:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, As some of you may recall, we invested a lot of thought and consideration, as a community, to adding cameras and license plate recognition. My neighborhood Crescent Park is one of the neighborhoods that sought this tool to support the efforts of our PAPD. With a resource that the community worked hard to establish, my overriding concern is that if you take anything away that helps the police, we will need more resources such as more patrols. Our household personally had a licence plate theft, and my neighbor's and my car window were blown to pieces - which is nothing compared to the persistent vandalism that became rampant at one point. One family in the neighborhood had their Catalytic converter stolen 3 times in one year but the thieves stopped stealing once the city installed Flock. Every report seems to confirm that ALPR is an effective tool - as a crime deterrent; to investigate; and when used collaboratively with our northern California local law enforcement partners. Per this PAO article "Police Chief James Reifschneider told the council in June that the department has pinpointed more than 130 cases in which Flock has played an important evidentiary role in identifying and arresting suspects. He also noted that the city has seen a 13% reduction in residential burglaries and a 24% reduction in auto burglaries between 2025 and 2026." Every case of recovering a stolen vehicle, or helping residents when faced with a crime or crisis relies on this tool. Not to mention it supports elderly residents feeling safe (myself included as the years pass), as well as to preserve safety for our youth. I support Hamilton Hitchings' suggestions to Council, and hope that there will be no neglect or deterioration in what can be achieved with these tools. Thank you, Best, Jennifer ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 10:12 AM Subject: Flock Audit Scope - Requesting 6 Additions To: City Council <city.council@paloalto.gov> Cc: James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@paloalto.gov>, Zachary Perron <zachary.perron@paloalto.gov>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> I support OIR’s proposed ALPR audit scope. Many residents have raised legitimate privacy concerns about Flock. I’m asking the City Council and PAPD to make six specific questions explicit within the audit. Under Section 2, Internal Access and Appropriate Use, please add: 1. Review prohibiting PAPD from searching historical travel data for traffic citations, infractions, other low-level offenses, and exploratory use. Under Section 3, Data Sharing and External Access, my biggest concern is outside- agency searches. Palo Alto plates are searched up to 200,000 times a month, often through partner-system searches that may include minor offenses. A traffic stop should not expose someone’s travel history. Flock recently added offense-specific filters, which PAPD is reviewing. 2. Review the outside-agency search settings and recommend how searches can be limited, as narrowly as practical, to felonies, sex crimes, and narrowly defined crimes of regional concern, such as organized retail theft. Under Section 4, Data Retention and Storage, Flock now defaults new customers to seven days. 3. Review the impact of reducing Palo Alto’s retention period from 30 days to 7 for data not preserved for a specific investigation. Under Section 7, Policy, Procedures, and Oversight, the public search logs are useful but need more detail. 4. Review adding the offense type by name to Palo Alto’s online search logs. Finally, under Section 9, Best Practices and Benchmarking, I’m asking the audit to evaluate Genetec as an alternative vendor that, to date, does not carry Flock’s history of privacy controversies and access problems. Stanford recently switched to Genetec, which can keep data on Sheriff-controlled servers. 5. Conduct a paper evaluation of Genetec as an alternative to Flock, comparing security architecture, cost, capabilities, and tradeoffs, and consulting with Stanford about its experience. 6. Evaluate switching Palo Alto’s cameras to Genetec while retaining Flock only at Stanford Shopping Center to preserve access to regional Flock searches. These six requests fit directly within OIR’s proposed framework. I’m asking Council and PAPD to make them explicit in the audit. From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Flock Cameras. Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 3:18:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members. Thank you for all your work you do for our city of Palo Alto. Thank you for listening to us, especially when we have concerns. I am writing with concerns with the city's contract with Flock Cameras. The company claims they do not share personal data 'outside' the contracted agreement, but if you read the fine print in their contract, that is not always the case: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/despite-new- updates-flocks-creepy-cameras-remain-major-civil-liberties-threat Many cities close to us have cancelled Flock cameras, including but not limited to: Mountain View, Stanford, Santa Cruz, El Cerrito, Richmond, unincorporated areas in Santa Clara county (Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino). Thank you for your consideration. Diane McCoy Greer Road, Palo Alto From:Dick Jacobsen To:Council, City Subject:Pilot 2 OSV Parking Ordinance Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:26:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i September 22, 2026 RE: Proposed OSV Pilot Programs Dear City Council Members, It was almost 30 years ago that the Olive Avenue owners and tenants began their collaborating work with Hewlett Packard and the City of Palo Alto on the development standards to be applied to HP’s redevelopment of the 9.8-acre 395 Page Mill Road site which was to include a new 225,000 square foot 3- story office building and parking for 850-cars. The outcome of that collaborative effort shielded the Olive Avenue neighborhood from the impacts of the new development and served not only to preserve but also to enhance the character of the Olive Avenue single family residential neighborhood. No traffic was permitted to enter or exit the newly redeveloped HP site from Olive Avenue. The 3-story office building was to be located on the Page Mill Road frontage of the property. On the Olive Avenue side of the property a landscaped buffer zone would protect and enhance the single-family residential neighborhood. The Olive Avenue side of the HP property included an approximately 70-foot-wide buffer area made up of a landscaped parking reserve, a flood control bioswale, and a 5-foot-high berm planted with a double row of trees extending along most of the Olive Avenue residential frontage The pine trees, planted so many years ago, now stand almost 70-feet high and the overall feeling of the landscaping is that of a forest which now provides a natural home for rabbits, lizards, squirrels and a variety of other wildlife. We are very grateful for the outcome of that collaborative effort. For those not familiar with the Olive Avenue residential neighborhood, it, for the most part, consists of small (about 1100 square feet), 2-bedroom-1-bath single story homes all built in the mid-1940’s. The occupants of those houses primarily consist of lower-income families with a wonderful ethnic diversity – Polynesian, Hispanic, African American, Asian, and White. Most of the homes in the 300-400 block have been made available to lower income families at rental rates well below current market value to provide an affordable alternative for housing in Palo Alto for families who otherwise could not afford to live here. Some of the families include small children. We are grateful for the City’s concern for those who are living in OSV’s. We concur with the City’s suggested OSV Pilot 1 parking ordinance for low-income OSV families which includes registered permits, and a commitment to a “Good Neighbor Policy”. We hope that works out well. Regarding the city’s proposed OSV Pilot 2, however, we have some serious concerns. The city’s stated goal for both OSV Pilots is to “reduce the impact on business and residential neighborhoods”. We were therefore surprised to find that among the 13 streets included in OSV Pilot 2 there were two single family residential streets included, one of them being our own Olive Avenue. We request that Olive Avenue be removed from OSV Pilot 2 due to the largely very negative impact it would have on our single- family home neighborhood replacing our connection with the protective berm and planted natural forest area This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report with a virtual wall of parked OSV’s. Thank you for your very careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Richard M. Jacobsen Olive Avenue Property Owner 56 Year Resident of Palo Alto From:Dave Stellman To:Chris Schremp Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; garygech@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen; Chris Schremp Subject:Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:19:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! I agree 100% as a commercial property owner in Palo Alto. If this simple, legal and cost saving proposal is not followed we need to vote to override the city council who is not representing the majority. On Aug 22, 2026, at 12:56 PM, Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote:  Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our neighborhood coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders, wants to ensure the Council fully understands the operational, legal, and democratic choices before you. We are not merely voicing frustration; we are providing formal notice of a clear, unified path forward—and the mechanisms our coalition will consider if the Council chooses not to fulfill their obligation to taxpayers and protect our community. OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast parking restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial), modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain View. Border-Signage Execution: Activate this citywide restriction by deploying the California Vehicle Code § 22651(n) border-signage model, placing legislative notice signs at municipal entry points. This enforces overnight OSV restrictions across all streets within 30 to 45 days at a fraction of the cost, fully backed by the City Attorney’s acknowledgment of Grants Pass. Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately 20 to 30 legislative entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries, completely bypassing the multi-million-dollar block-by-block signage requirements assumed in staff reports. This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb painting, and utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts —saving over $775,000 in taxpayer funds compared to staff's proposal. Off-Street Transitional Alternatives: Decouple street parking code enforcement from long-term housing services. If the City seeks transitional parking options, it should utilize designated off-street surplus land—such as City surplus land on Geng Road or the state-owned Caltrans parcel near Highway 101/San Antonio—rather than using public streets as un-zoned, rent-free lots. Why We Oppose the Proposed Pilot: Reject "Pilot #2," an $823,800 experiment that does not ban OSVs, but instead institutionalizes a 6-month street shuffle for up to 125 vehicles while staff explicitly admits it will create spillover onto surrounding blocks. FORMAL NOTICE OF CITIZEN BALLOT INITIATIVE If the Council declines to enact a permanent, enforceable, citywide OSV parking restriction, our coalition—alongside partner neighborhood and business groups across Palo Alto—is fully prepared to launch a formal Citizen Ballot Initiative Campaign. Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional right to propose ordinances directly to the voters: Achievable Threshold: Enacting a citywide ordinance requires signatures from just 6% of registered voters (~2,630 signatures based on published figures). Given widespread community frustration across residential and commercial districts, our coalition is confident we will meet this threshold swiftly. Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single, narrow mandate: a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV parking across all public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial). Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will either be forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it on the next municipal ballot. CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four fundamental realities ahead of Monday’s session: 1. A Primary Duty to Tax-Paying Residents & Businesses: Mayor Veenker and the City Council were elected by—and are funded by—the tax-paying residents and property/business owners of Palo Alto. Your primary municipal duty is to protect public safety, maintain the public right-of-way, and enforce local codes for the citizens and local businesses that support our community. You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full City Wide ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000 2. Vehicle Habitation is Separate from Housing: Menlo Park successfully enacted its citywide OSV parking restrictions (passing 4–1) by treating street parking strictly as a traffic and safety regulation, separate from social services. Conflating municipal parking enforcement with solving regional homelessness creates an impossible bottleneck. When housed teachers, service workers, or city staff are priced out of Palo Alto, they make the difficult choice to commute or relocate to affordable regions; they do not get to convert public thoroughfares and bike lanes into un- zoned residential spaces. 3. Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants stay in Palo Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us so accommodating. Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when surrounding cities enforce their laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive jurisdictions. The City does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis before it can clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on East Meadow or Transport Street. 4. Palo Alto Has Proven Its Commitment to Housing: Palo Alto has already demonstrated extraordinary commitment to affordable housing, such as the major municipal partnership to preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Preserving structured, zoned affordable housing is a legitimate city function; allowing unregulated, hazardous street habitation on residential and commercial blocks is not. CONCLUSION The City Council does not need to force taxpayers into an unnecessary, expensive ballot battle to achieve basic municipal safety. You already have the legal authority, the municipal code, and a clear, unified proposal sitting on your desks. We strongly urge the Council to reject open-ended, 12-month "alternating side" pilots on August 24 and instead amend PAMC § 10.44.020 to establish a citywide overnight OSV prohibition across all public streets, executed via the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model. Regards, Chris Schremp Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder From:Gary Gechlik To:Chris Schremp Cc:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen Subject:Re: Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 1:14:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i It is not about right or wrong, it is all about a legal theory of law and economics that was developed on the East Coast that proved to be true, Broken Windows: Theoretical explanation: The reason the state of the urban environment may affect crime consists of three factors: social norms and conformity; the presence or lack of routine monitoring; and social signaling and signal crime. In an anonymous urban environment, with few or no other people around, social norms and monitoring are not clearly known. Thus, individuals look for signals within the environment as to the social norms in the setting and the risk of getting caught violating those norms; one of the signals is the area's general appearance. RV Squatters are not criminals, but the presence of unregulated RV Squatting leads to higher crime. Crime prevention is not cheap. It comes down to closed door negotiation sessions with our Police Union. Why is the budgeting for Police so high in Palo Alto and so low in Saratoga, because of a 'need to be right'. The more we recognize, there is no universal 'need to be right', or 'get our own way', in running a Municipality, the better our outcome will be and the lower our costs. There is no benefit to badgering the existing council members who have created a policy based on humanitarian principals. The best approach, go out and vote and choose city councilor members that are hard nosed operational boots on the ground soldiers of our City who are simply not international humanitarians and are local Joes. Do we honestly think that tree branches that abut high powered electrical lines that are three phase simply cut themselves. You should drive up to Skyline and watch the PG&E teams that cut these branches. There is no negotiation with 3 phase power at 12,000 volts to 21,000 volts phase to phase. It is the same with RV Squatters, what is the point of negotiation and land locked schemes to satisfy a random group of non-tax paying citizens. To satisfy any legal requirements of potential litigation, they can park at the Palo Alto Facilities near the Municipal Service Center where they can be consistently registered and given a time constraint of parking. Our staff is there anyway, and the Police can politely approach the RV Owners and the direct them to Palo Alto Municipal Land where there is camera surveillance. Gary DrGary.Vote This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Chris Schremp To:Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Council, City Cc:Loren Brown; Dmitri Samsonov; Robert Marinaro; stephanie wansek; Chris Schremp; Martin Cuyegkeng; Colin Swindells; Christine Schremp; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; garygech@gmail.com; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen Subject:Formal Submission for August 24 Action: Strategic Code Execution vs. Citizen Ballot Initiative Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 12:56:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Veenker, Mr. Shikada, and Members of the City Council, Ahead of the August 24 meeting regarding Staff Report #2606-6479, our neighborhood coalition, alongside local business and property stakeholders, wants to ensure the Council fully understands the operational, legal, and democratic choices before you. We are not merely voicing frustration; we are providing formal notice of a clear, unified path forward—and the mechanisms our coalition will consider if the Council chooses not to fulfill their obligation to taxpayers and protect our community. OUR REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL One Simple Ask—Amend PAMC § 10.44.020 for Citywide Application Please direct the Council to enact PAMC § 10.44.020 to expand overnight OSV parking restrictions citywide across ALL public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial), modeled on successful measures in Menlo Park and Mountain View. Border-Signage Execution: Activate this citywide restriction by deploying the California Vehicle Code § 22651(n) border-signage model, placing legislative notice signs at municipal entry points. This enforces overnight OSV restrictions across all streets within 30 to 45 days at a fraction of the cost, fully backed by the City Attorney’s acknowledgment of Grants Pass. Massive Taxpayer Savings (est. $45,000 Total Cost): Deploying the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model requires installing approximately 20 to 30 legislative entry signs at Palo Alto’s municipal boundaries, completely bypassing the multi- million-dollar block-by-block signage requirements assumed in staff reports. This model requires zero roadway restriping, zero red curb painting, and utilizes existing PAPD/Code Enforcement shifts—saving over $775,000 in taxpayer funds compared to staff's proposal. Off-Street Transitional Alternatives: Decouple street parking code enforcement from long-term housing services. If the City seeks transitional parking options, it should utilize designated off-street surplus land—such as City surplus land on Geng Road or the state-owned Caltrans parcel near Highway 101/San Antonio—rather than using public streets as un-zoned, rent-free lots. Why We Oppose the Proposed Pilot: Reject "Pilot #2," an $823,800 experiment that does not ban OSVs, but instead institutionalizes a 6-month street shuffle for up to 125 vehicles while staff explicitly admits it will create spillover onto surrounding blocks. FORMAL NOTICE OF CITIZEN BALLOT INITIATIVE If the Council declines to enact a permanent, enforceable, citywide OSV parking restriction, our coalition—alongside partner neighborhood and business groups across Palo Alto—is fully prepared to launch a formal Citizen Ballot Initiative Campaign. Under Article VI of the Palo Alto City Charter, residents hold the constitutional right to propose ordinances directly to the voters: Achievable Threshold: Enacting a citywide ordinance requires signatures from just 6% of registered voters (~2,630 signatures based on published figures). Given widespread community frustration across residential and commercial districts, our coalition is confident we will meet this threshold swiftly. Citywide Application: The drafted initiative will establish a single, narrow mandate: a uniform, citywide prohibition on overnight OSV parking across all public streets (residential, commercial, and industrial). Under California law, once certified signatures are submitted, the Council will either be forced to adopt the citywide prohibition ordinance as written or place it on the next municipal ballot. CORE PRINCIPLES FOR THE AUGUST 24 DECISION To move past administrative gridlock, the City Council must recognize four fundamental realities ahead of Monday’s session: 1. A Primary Duty to Tax-Paying Residents & Businesses: Mayor Veenker and the City Council were elected by—and are funded by—the tax-paying residents and property/business owners of Palo Alto. Your primary municipal duty is to protect public safety, maintain the public right-of-way, and enforce local codes for the citizens and local businesses that support our community. You have an opportunity to meet tax payer requests for a full City Wide ban AND save tax payers roughly $775,000 2. Vehicle Habitation is Separate from Housing: Menlo Park successfully enacted its citywide OSV parking restrictions (passing 4–1) by treating street parking strictly as a traffic and safety regulation, separate from social services. Conflating municipal parking enforcement with solving regional homelessness creates an impossible bottleneck. When housed teachers, service workers, or city staff are priced out of Palo Alto, they make the difficult choice to commute or relocate to affordable regions; they do not get to convert public thoroughfares and bike lanes into un-zoned residential spaces. 3. Leniency Drives Migration: The reality is that many OSV occupants stay in Palo Alto specifically because our lack of enforcement makes us so accommodating. Vehicle dwellers are mobile and resourceful—when surrounding cities enforce their laws, vehicles adapt and relocate to legitimate facilities, RV parks, or less restrictive jurisdictions. The City does not need to solve the entire Bay Area housing crisis before it can clear an unshielded gas generator or an OSV blocking a bike lane on East Meadow or Transport Street. 4. Palo Alto Has Proven Its Commitment to Housing: Palo Alto has already demonstrated extraordinary commitment to affordable housing, such as the major municipal partnership to preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Preserving structured, zoned affordable housing is a legitimate city function; allowing unregulated, hazardous street habitation on residential and commercial blocks is not. CONCLUSION The City Council does not need to force taxpayers into an unnecessary, expensive ballot battle to achieve basic municipal safety. You already have the legal authority, the municipal code, and a clear, unified proposal sitting on your desks. We strongly urge the Council to reject open-ended, 12-month "alternating side" pilots on August 24 and instead amend PAMC § 10.44.020 to establish a citywide overnight OSV prohibition across all public streets, executed via the CVC § 22651(n) border-signage model. Regards, Chris Schremp Palo Alto Resident & Stakeholder From:Dana Dahlstrom To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Robert Marinaro Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron 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; Greg Schmid (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; 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; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 9:11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Loren, I appreciate your thoughts but have some different views; see my responses below. > the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo Alto, > unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and > unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park. A ban like Menlo Park's would probably be effective and relatively efficient to enforce. Capping OSV numbers by issuing permits would require significant administrative overhead, and perversely favor those who squatted first on public streets. Finding legal places to store large vehicles should be up to their owners, not the rest of the public. > 1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods. > 2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on Palo Alto streets. > 3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently parking in Palo Alto can park. > 4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while parked in Palo Alto. > 5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time. This strikes me as overcomplicated. I would make the single goal simply to stop long-term storage of vehicles on public streets by enforcing existing codes and statues and, as needed, enacting new ones applicable to all. To that end perhaps the city could limit parking any OSV to, say, a number of days per month on streets anywhere in the city. This would be less restrictive than a total overnight ban. I'm inclined to oppose goals (2) and (3) above. I would rather out-of-town vehicles pass through than local ones occupy streets continually; and I want less, not more, public resources directed toward long-term storage of private vehicles. Those resources have many better uses to benefit the public at large. Dana From:Elissabeth Banks To:Council, City Subject:Safety Over Surveillance - Cancel the ALPR Contract Date:Saturday, August 22, 2026 7:45:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, Dear Councilmembers, I am writing as a Palo Alto resident and member of our local Indivisible Palo Alto group to urge you to cancel the city’s contract with Flock Safety, cover the cameras immediately, and remove them as soon as possible. Automated license plate readers are not targeted safety tools. They are instruments of mass surveillance that collect data on everyone, not just people suspected of wrongdoing. These systems have been used to monitor protesters, track people seeking abortion care, and enable abuse by officers stalking former partners. Most of the data collected belongs to innocent people, and false alerts can lead to dangerous police stops. Palo Alto has already seen improper access by outside agencies despite promised safeguards. Flock has also shown it cannot be trusted. The company enabled unlawful data sharing, changed contract language, and treated privacy concerns with contempt. At a moment when federal agencies can exploit surveillance in ways cities cannot fully audit, Palo Alto should not deepen this risk. Please cancel the contract, explore legal action against Flock, and keep the cameras covered until they are removed. Sincerely, Elissabeth Banks Elissabeth Banks elissabeth.banks@gmail.com Mountain View, California 94043 From:Angela Dellaporta To:Council, City Subject:OSVs Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:40:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Having read many of the letters written to the city council regarding experiences and opinions about OSV policy in Palo Alto, I sympathize with those who are upset about garbage strewn on the sidewalk, unwanted noise, vehicles blocking views of intersections, and unenforced rules. I can also understand those who feel that they or their children are threatened by some behaviors. It may indeed be true that some people are using their OSVs as cooling stations, or as a way to avoid a long commute from a distant community where they can afford to rent a home. However, I want to encourage the city council – as well as all of those who are feeling umbrage at the imposition of lost parking spaces, and at the loss of a pretty view outside of their front windows, and at the possibility that a customer may not be able to see their business signs – to consider the plight of those who are having to live in their vehicles. Those impositions are small matters compared to the struggle of having to live in an OSV. I am sure that if the OSV dwellers had the privilege of having a permanent home in which to sleep, to cool off, to bring up their children, or to study, they would certainly make use of that privilege. I live on one of the residential streets on which several long-term OSVs sidewalk, but only a little. I have rarely seen or heard from the inhabitants of these vehicles – except for the one time that I saw a child’s small hand in the open window of an OSV parked in the shade. They do need to run their generator sometimes, which can be annoying – but I ask myself what choice they have inside a metal “home” when their child may become dehydrated on a warm summer day? And I ask myself what I would do if I were in their position. I encourage the city to enforce all existing laws regarding noise or “partying” (that is, noise outside of legal volume and hours restrictions); and laws regarding garbage and littering; and laws regarding parking where sight lines are obstructed, such as the corners of intersections, and business addresses; and laws regarding parking that blocks driveways. I also encourage the city to find ways to accommodate the people who are of necessity resorting to OSVs in our neighborhoods – perhaps through building or finding housing for those who need it; or offering plenty of usable, safe parking spaces for OSVs near public transit lines. I support the idea of offering a temporary but renewable permit which could allow those who obey ALL garbage and noise laws to stay in the neighborhoods that have become home to them, until they can manage to rent or buy their own homes. (Of course, we must acknowledge that someone who is making minimum wage is unlikely ever to be able to rent or buy their own home in the Bay Area.) Proper screening must of course be done to ensure that anyone who could pose a threat to children -- or to anyone -- is not offered one of these permits. And anyone who broke the permit agreement in any way would have their permit revoked. A permit process would cost the city, of course, but there will be no remedy to this problem without cost. The wealthy residents of Palo Alto can afford to pay. Those of us who own property in Palo Alto are among the most privileged people in the world. Can we really turn our backs on those who work in our city, but cannot afford to rent in this most expensive of areas? Yes, the OSVs are unsightly, and do not “fit” into upscale Palo Alto neighborhoods. We may not like to see the evidence that our lifestyle is supported by those who live on minimum wage and who cannot afford to live here. Perhaps it’s a good thing for us to be reminded – by the sight of the objectionable OSVs – of the consequences of the financial policies and wealth inequality in our country. Angela Dellaporta, Resident of the Ventura Neighborhood From:Frances Perry To:Council, City Subject:Comments on some issues Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:36:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. On RV parking rules: Rules that apply to all vehicles would seem to be better than rules that apply to RVs only. Some cities alternate parking on street cleaning day to the even/odd numbered sides so that the gutters are really cleaned. We could do that here and vehicles would need to be moved at least once a week. In some of our residential streets parts of the gutters are never cleaned. I guess we would need to have a lot of signs announcing this and be prepared to tow vehicles on the wrong side of the street. On transitional housing for the homeless: I was surprised when at the opening of the new transitional housing for the homeless near the end of San Antonio Road, that it was called the first such facility in Palo Alto. The Opportunity Center was the first. It was built to be transitional housing for the homeless and provide services to them. Before it was finished, we looked around and realized that there was no housing to transition to, so it became low income housing with services for the homeless. Now that it has a water problem. Rather than helping them fix it, I read that the city wants to take money from them via fines. The Opportunity Center is closer to bus lines and train lines than the other place (sorry, I forgot its name). On RV parking: We just need to open a big KOA camp. It also makes sense to do the same that the surrounding communities are doing so that we don’t become a magnet because it is more attractive. Frances H. Perry Richardson Court From:eldoradorailcrossing To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick Subject:El Dorado Bike Blvd Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:11:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. " <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>, "Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov " <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>, "George.Lu@paloalto.gov " <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>, "Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov " <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>, "Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov " <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>, "Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov " <Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov>, "Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov" <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.600.51.1.1) Hello City Council, I live in the El Dorado & Emerson area and am extremely concerned with the possibility of turning El Dorado into a bike blvd. I’m concerned because: —our neighborhood was not asked for input on this project. This project will greatly affect and change our neighborhood and we feel we had/have no input —El Dorado is a very narrow street and whether a tunnel or traffic light, it will be dangerous for kids on bikes, I can explain why if given the chance —South of El Dorado are 5 cul de sacs. El Dorado is our one and only access. Additional traffic (via traffic light), blockage from Alma (via tunnel) will be detrimental to our one and only access —Most of all, asking residences who have lived in our neighborhood for 40+ years to evacuate their homes is unfair and cruel. I can’t begin to tell you how that has riled the locals. I’m wondering if any of our Council members would be open to meeting on El Dorado so we can discuss our differences. We can show you why we are concerned, and you can tell us why our concerns are over reactions. I would be willing to see with you any time, preferably before the 27th meeting. Linda Aplin 2861 Emerson St From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Vicki Veenker; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; Reifschneider, James; PD Kristina Bell; Nancy Goodban; Bill Newell; james pitkin; Jim Lawrence; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Gennady Sheyner; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins; Carla Torres; Sean Allen; Jay Boyarsky; City Attorney; board@pausd.org; Board of Directors; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Braden Cartwright; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly; Preminger, Steve; Damon Silver; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Diana Diamond; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; Goodell, Erin; Human Relations Commission; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; GRP-City Council; Daniel Kottke; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; Linda Jolley; Patrick Marshall; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; EPA Today; Ari Tarver; editor@paweekly.com; Riley Cooke; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Gerry Gras; Anne Cribbs; Anna Griffin; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Ann Ravel Subject:Source: San José Spotlight Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 7:08:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: San José Spotlight Jayadev: Santa Clara County shouldn't invest billions of dollars in its jail facilities - San José Spotlight https://share.google/mXtZCjlFZAi8oshcW From:Sherry Listgarten To:homekey@lifemoves.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Feedback on Palo Alto Homekey site by the Bay Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 6:46:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmember Reckdahl pointed out that Mountain View has a free shuttle, MVGo, that stops very close to Homekey and runs to the Mountain View Caltrain station. The service looks pretty regular in mornings and afternoons. In that case, the issues that need resolving are: - Caltrain passes - (Possible) Improved signage at the Marine/Casey stop - Clear directions/maps for Homekey residents (I still also like the idea of social/exercise outings that would get people out and about and talking to one another...) Thanks to Keith and Vicki for their suggestions, -- Sherry. On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 5:29 PM Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com> wrote: (Palo Alto City Council, I am cc'ing you on this to reinforce that we really want low-income folks who are trying to get back on track to be integrated throughout our neighborhoods, not stowed away in a corner, however lovely that corner may be. It's harder to create or find opportunities in remote locations, especially without regular access to a car and/or phone.) Dear Life Moves, I was visiting the Baylands yesterday, and it was nice to see the new Homekey site humming with activity. I saw someone exercising at the entrance to the Baylands, some folks talking in front, etc. But a few things reminded me what a remote location it is for people trying to get back on their feet and/or integrate into the community. So I have a few ideas. 1. I met a guy wandering up Marine Way, and he stopped me to ask how to get to the Caltrain station. I said "Whoa, that's a long way", and he said he knew, so I told him to walk down San Antonio Road and pointed it to him. I've done that walk before, it's very doable. But I forgot to tell him the sidewalk runs out past Middlefield and to use San Antonio Avenue instead. On my way back I spotted him sitting at the bus stop at the gas station at San Antonio x Middlefield. He was hoping to get the bus instead. He said he wanted to get to Opportunity Center near the downtown train station. But the closest the bus stops is at the Stanford Shopping Center, and it's super easy to get lost between there and the Opportunity Center. So I pointed out the way to Caltrain, said it wasn't far, and asked if he had a ticket. He didn't. Anyway, I felt awful for the guy. He was trying to do the right thing -- he got up early, prepared to walk to get to the Opportunity Center -- but he was stymied in several ways. And he was doing this all by himself. So some ideas to consider, if you aren't doing these already: - Provide some kind of daily shuttle to the Opportunity Center - Provide tickets or passes to people who want to use Caltrain to seek opportunities. - Provide maps so people without phones have a better idea how to get around. 2. I saw a Mom dropping her young daughter off in a car, driven by someone else, to get to school. I'm not sure what school, but I know it wasn't close by. There's no real fix for this solitary and car-dependent school commute at that site, but again maybe some kind of rideshare would help the kids make friends with other kids. I hope the Palo Alto Homekey site helps people get back on their feet, so thank you for working to make that happen. -- Sherry. From:Sherry Listgarten To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie Cc:Council, City Subject:Lines of RVs on select Palo Alto streets is not the answer to our affordable housing crisis Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 6:34:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I do not think that encouraging RV living on select streets in Palo Alto is an appropriate way to address our affordable housing crisis. There is no doubt that we have a grave affordable housing crisis. Although Palo Alto has in the past done more to support affordable housing than many other Peninsula cities, the affordable housing we have today is being razed by developers in order to build more lucrative housing and hotels. New state laws are exacerbating the situation. We are losing the battle. But your proposal to support and encourage RVs on select streets in the city is in my view going to do more harm than good. Our Mayor preaches unity, but the proposal is inherently divisive, segregating RV dwellers and pitting some parts of Palo Alto against others. RV residents hide in their dark and hot vehicles, afraid to emerge in a hostile environment. And the local residents and business owners are upset to see their streets and sidewalks crowded by permanently parked large vehicles, their air disturbed by the sound and smell of generators, and landscaping sometimes impacted with waste. The neighborhood they have invested in, and only their neighborhood, has become an RV lot. We have got to find a way to build proper affordable housing, which the state is apparently refusing to help with. (In fact, this whole development/gentrification push is now causing affordability problems even in inland areas.) Maybe we could couple stricter RV enforcement with an affordable housing fee on all residents. I would certainly prefer a tax that would fund affordable housing to one planned for Cubberley. And I live near Cubberley... Short of proper affordable housing, I would suggest that we distribute RVs equally throughout the city, one on every block or two, exclusively for low-income RV "households". The RV folks can move in front of a new house/building on their block(s) every week or two and get to know more people that way. Many blocks might even rally to support their local RV family. We want these folks to be integrated into our community, not locked away in a dark and hot vehicle, afraid of emerging. We need to get the socioeconomic profile of Palo Alto back into balance. It was urgent before, and now the state is making it both more difficult and more urgent. But turning select streets into RV lots cannot be the answer. It is divisive, it is unfair, and it doesn't make sense for RV residents or the local residents. We can do better. -- Sherry. From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:Re: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 6:18:06 PM Attachments:image.png image.png Exhibit Loma Verde-Alma Hybrid Plan.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@CityofPaloAlto.org), Charles Cole - Project Engineering Manager (Charles.Cole@CityofPaloAlto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) I am resending the graphic of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan as the prior instance may not have printed. I am also transmitting the attached PDF file containing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I am sending this standalone file attachment to ensure a clean, high-resolution copy enters the project record, as inline embedded graphics can occasionally experience formatting or printing errors across different systems. Please ensure this plan attachment is appended directly to my master letter filing. Sincerely, David Hung 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 1:22 PM David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> wrote: *Note: This transmission is a direct resend of the formal public comment package originally submitted on Friday, August 21, 2026. This message redirects the transmission to ensure complete administrative delivery to Project Engineering Manager Charles Coles (Charles.Coles@paloalto.gov) and Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov) due to a corrected name spelling and initial municipal email suffix bounce error.* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Subject: Fwd: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street To: <Transportation@paloalto.gov>, <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>, <Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov> Cc: <City.Council@paloalto.gov>, <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> *Note: This transmission is a direct resend of the formal public comment package originally submitted on Friday, August 21, 2026. This message redirects the transmission to ensure complete administrative delivery to Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov) and Project Engineering Manager Charles Cole (Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov) due to an initial municipal email suffix bounce error.* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 12:58 PM Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street To: <Transportation@paloalto.gov>, <Ria.Lo@cityofpaloalto.org>, Cc: <City.Council@paloalto.gov>, <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: August 21, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@CityofPaloAlto.org), Charles Cole - Project Engineering Manager (Charles.Cole@CityofPaloAlto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2789 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my property, and me. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my two separate driveways (one on Bryant Street and one on El Dorado Avenue). A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) El Dorado Driveway Risks: The addition of an estimated 2,600 bicycle and pedestrian trips per day presents safety hazards when entering and exiting my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Bryant Street Driveway Risks: If a fraction of those additional cyclists and pedestrians turn right from El Dorado Avenue onto Bryant Street, that volume almost certainly presents safety issues for my driveway exit on Bryant Street. Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound these problems. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Right-Turn Collision Risks: Cars and bicycles making a right turn through the traffic circle from El Dorado onto Bryant may collide into me as I enter or back out of my driveway. Physical Gutter Constraint: To negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between my driveway and the road that is essentially a large bump, I must enter and exit slowly, leaving me highly vulnerable to any sudden oncoming traffic during both maneuvers. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. This provides me some protection, even though some cyclists may not stop. With a traffic circle however, there is no full stop to provide protection for vehicles trying to turn into or exit my property safely. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles in the circle, or moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming From the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Sincerely, David Hung Printed Name: David Hung Address: 2789 Bryant Street *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street—an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:Fwd: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 5:43:11 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. *Note: This transmission is a direct resend of the formal public comment package originally submitted on Friday, August 21, 2026. This message redirects the transmission to ensure complete administrative delivery to Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov) and Project Engineering Manager Charles Cole (Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov) due to an initial municipal email suffix bounce error.* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 12:58 PM Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street To: <Transportation@paloalto.gov>, <Ria.Lo@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Charles.Cole@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: <City.Council@paloalto.gov>, <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: August 21, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@CityofPaloAlto.org), Charles Cole - Project Engineering Manager (Charles.Cole@CityofPaloAlto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2789 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my property, and me. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my two separate driveways (one on Bryant Street and one on El Dorado Avenue). A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) El Dorado Driveway Risks: The addition of an estimated 2,600 bicycle and pedestrian trips per day presents safety hazards when entering and exiting my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Bryant Street Driveway Risks: If a fraction of those additional cyclists and pedestrians turn right from El Dorado Avenue onto Bryant Street, that volume almost certainly presents safety issues for my driveway exit on Bryant Street. Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound these problems. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Right-Turn Collision Risks: Cars and bicycles making a right turn through the traffic circle from El Dorado onto Bryant may collide into me as I enter or back out of my driveway. Physical Gutter Constraint: To negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between my driveway and the road that is essentially a large bump, I must enter and exit slowly, leaving me highly vulnerable to any sudden oncoming traffic during both maneuvers. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. This provides me some protection, even though some cyclists may not stop. With a traffic circle however, there is no full stop to provide protection for vehicles trying to turn into or exit my property safely. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles in the circle, or about to enter the circle, may not see me entering or exiting until the last moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming From the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Sincerely, David Hung Printed Name: David Hung Address: 2789 Bryant Street *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Sherry Listgarten To:homekey@lifemoves.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Feedback on Palo Alto Homekey site by the Bay Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 5:30:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. (Palo Alto City Council, I am cc'ing you on this to reinforce that we really want low-income folks who are trying to get back on track to be integrated throughout our neighborhoods, not stowed away in a corner, however lovely that corner may be. It's harder to create or find opportunities in remote locations, especially without regular access to a car and/or phone.) Dear Life Moves, I was visiting the Baylands yesterday, and it was nice to see the new Homekey site humming with activity. I saw someone exercising at the entrance to the Baylands, some folks talking in front, etc. But a few things reminded me what a remote location it is for people trying to get back on their feet and/or integrate into the community. So I have a few ideas. 1. I met a guy wandering up Marine Way, and he stopped me to ask how to get to the Caltrain station. I said "Whoa, that's a long way", and he said he knew, so I told him to walk down San Antonio Road and pointed it to him. I've done that walk before, it's very doable. But I forgot to tell him the sidewalk runs out past Middlefield and to use San Antonio Avenue instead. On my way back I spotted him sitting at the bus stop at the gas station at San Antonio x Middlefield. He was hoping to get the bus instead. He said he wanted to get to Opportunity Center near the downtown train station. But the closest the bus stops is at the Stanford Shopping Center, and it's super easy to get lost between there and the Opportunity Center. So I pointed out the way to Caltrain, said it wasn't far, and asked if he had a ticket. He didn't. Anyway, I felt awful for the guy. He was trying to do the right thing -- he got up early, prepared to walk to get to the Opportunity Center -- but he was stymied in several ways. And he was doing this all by himself. So some ideas to consider, if you aren't doing these already: - Provide some kind of daily shuttle to the Opportunity Center - Lead a walk to the Caltrain in the morning to help encourage people and add some social value. - Provide tickets or passes to people who want to use Caltrain to seek opportunities. - Provide maps so people without phones have a better idea how to get around. 2. I saw a Mom dropping her young daughter off in a car, driven by someone else, to get to school. I'm not sure what school, but I know it wasn't close by. There's no real fix for this solitary and car-dependent school commute at that site, but again maybe some kind of rideshare would help the kids make friends with other kids. I hope the Palo Alto Homekey site helps people get back on their feet, so thank you for working to make that happen. -- Sherry. From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:Re: BPTP Public Comment: Initial Submission of Neighborhood Petition Opposing El Dorado Avenue Alternative Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 4:44:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Please note that 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf previously sent has a total of 15 signatures. and 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_2_of_2.pdf has a total of 15 signatures. So for the Initial Submission there are a total of 30 signatures. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 3:48 PM David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> wrote: To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Attached for formal filing into the project record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project are the scanned sheets of our Neighborhood Petition opposing the El Dorado Avenue alternative. This transmission constitutes the Initial Submission Suite, which is divided into two separate PDF files for administrative convenience: 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_2_of_2.pdf We request that these petition sets and the accompanying Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan engineering blueprint be uploaded into the administrative record before the active public packet closes. Please reply to verify receipt and successful upload of both attachments. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:Buena Vista, Item 9, Council meeting 8-24-26 Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 4:12:52 PM Council Members, Please read and consider the following before you review the Buena Vista Regulatory Agreements. Also, if you missed it, see below Weekly article about the BV relocation. Thank you, Winter Dellenbach The Regulatory Agreements are not clear whether newly vacated dwellings, mobilehomes or spaces for mobilehomes will first be offered to current Buena Vista residents before being offered to County applicants. Council previously discussed the desirability for Housing Authority maintaining an internal list of current Buena Vista households who had a legitimate desire/need to move to a larger home. Those listed households, if qualified, would be offered a vacancy first before Housing Authority considered non-BV households. This is a low-impact means to improve conditions with time, especially for large BV families. It also relieves pressure on Housing Authority. Given the Regulatory Agreements considered tonight contain the entire agreement of the Parties (section 16.7), this needs to be clarified at your meeting and amended if needed. share.google From:Erik Jacobsen To:Council, City Subject:Proposed OSV Pilot Programs Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 3:59:13 PM Attachments:IMG_1724.heic IMG_1727.heic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto writing with some input on the proposed pilot programs related to the parking of Oversized Vehicles (OSV). I am supportive of the idea of testing out a permit-based program as suggested in the first pilot program. I am also generally supportive of the second program prohibiting parking on specific streets for 6 month periods, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in the streets selected for the program. If the purpose of the programs is "to address ongoing neighborhood, business, public health, and safety impacts associated with OSVs used for habitation while also providing a more structured and humane response for individuals living in those vehicles” as stated, then it seems that the streets chosen for OSV parking should be located away from primarily residential neighborhoods. Of the 13 streets listed, they are all primarily non-residential streets with the surprising exception of Olive Avenue (at least 23 homes plus several ADUs, by my count). Lambert Avenue also has a section of single family homes (at least five), and East Meadow Circle is adjacent to multi-family housing. Currently, all overnight parking is prohibited on one side of the 300 block of Olive Street, and overnight OSV parking is prohibited on the other side. Is the intent to remove those existing restrictions and encourage more OSV parking? As the Executive Director of the California Family Foundation, I am very supportive of helping people in need find viable housing options. We are trying to be part of the solution to that challenge by providing low-income housing for families in the area, including some residences on Olive Avenue. While many of the streets proposed in the pilot seem appropriate for the test outlined by the City, Olive Avenue doesn’t belong on the list. I would also remove the residential portion of Lambert Avenue, and the section of East Meadow Circle adjacent to multi-family housing. I’ve included some photos of Olive Avenue so you can see some of the residences that OSVs would be camped in front of, if I’m understanding the proposal correctly. It doesn’t seem appropriate and consistent with program goals to encourage OSV parking directly in front of homes where families and children live. Thank you for your work in trying to address this challenge. Erik Jacobsen Executive Director California Family Foundation From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Initial Submission of Neighborhood Petition Opposing El Dorado Avenue Alternative Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 3:49:53 PM Attachments:ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set _2_of_2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: Attached for formal filing into the project record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project are the scanned sheets of our Neighborhood Petition opposing the El Dorado Avenue alternative. This transmission constitutes the Initial Submission Suite, which is divided into two separate PDF files for administrative convenience: 1. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_1_of_2.pdf 2. ElDorado_Neighborhood_Petition_Initial_Submission_Set_2_of_2.pdf We request that these petition sets and the accompanying Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan engineering blueprint be uploaded into the administrative record before the active public packet closes. Please reply to verify receipt and successful upload of both attachments. Sincerely, David Hung On behalf of the El Dorado and Bryant Street Area Residents 2789 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA From:Karen Burkey To:Council, City Subject:Safety Over Surveillance - Cancel the ALPR Contract Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:55:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, Dear Councilmembers, I am writing as part of the Safety Over Surveillance Coalition to ask you to support public safety by canceling your contract with Flock and avoiding implementing any other automated license plate reader (ALPR) system. I also ask you to cover the cameras immediately until they can be completely removed. These systems have been used to surveil protestors exercising First Amendment rights, to hunt down a woman seeking healthcare from a state where abortion is illegal, and by more than a dozen police officers to stalk former romantic partners. The tangible harms to our civil liberties are far too great a price to pay for any perceived benefit. ALPRs are tools of mass surveillance, indiscriminately capturing the data of every vehicle that drives by regardless of whether there is any articulable suspicion of a crime. Police can use the historical location data they provide to recreate a person's motions as they go about their day-to-day lives without a warrant. Only a fraction of a percent (~0.1%) of any captured images corresponds to a vehicle associated with a hot list, meaning the overwhelming supermajority of information captured is of innocent people. Despite claims that they help solve crime locally, the vast majority of searches of ALPR data is performed by outside agencies. These invasions of our privacy come with questionable efficacy - Roseville police reported a false read in 71% percent of alerts! LAPD reported a false positive rate of approximately 33%. There are numerous stories of innocent people being pulled over and held at gunpoint or mauled by police dogs due to false alerts caused by AI hallucinations. On top of the issues with ALPRs in general, Flock Safety is a company that is particularly untrustworthy. They turned on features that enabled illegal data sharing without alerting its customers. They have changed contract language from what was negotiated by city legal staff in Berkeley. Its CEO has called privacy advocates terrorists. They have been found reactivating or newly installing cameras in cities after their contract was canceled. Their valuation does not match company fundamentals looking at what they charge for cameras unless the value of our data is factored in - we are the product. In Palo Alto, we are used to startups trying to move fast and break things, but what Flock has broken is the public trust. They are not for public safety, they are for profit. Palo Alto doesn't need to pay to let Peter Thiel get a return on his investment trying to tear down our democracy. Despite crafting strict guardrails to protect our personal data, Palo Alto saw data breaches like so many other cities in California. Hundreds of out of state and federal agencies illegally accessed our data. Even if there were no responsive results for any of the searches, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chatrie vs. US that "regardless of 'the quality or quantity of information' the government obtains" the Fourth Amendment still applies, and that "whether something is a search does not depend on what it finds." This breach of contract is severe and pervasive - Palo Alto should seek remuneration through legal action against Flock, possibly in class action status with other cities who were similarly victims of Flock's actions. These violations of our civil liberties are occurring while we face a hostile federal government. Despite local policies and state law prohibiting use of ALPR data for immigration purposes, any access by ICE to our ALPR data will be invisible due to a DHS policy that prohibits ALPR audit logs from saving data about ICE access except for logs only available to ICE. No matter what local policies we set, we cannot know if ICE is using our data. This is a general truth about all ALPR systems, not specific to Flock Safety. Palo Alto can join dozens of other communities, including our sister city of Bloomington, IN, in supporting public safety by canceling your contract with Flock. I urge you to cancel the contract as soon as possible and instruct city staff to research the option of legal action against Flock Safety. Once the contract is canceled, I ask that the cameras be covered immediately until such time they can be promptly removed. Karen Burkey taylorkaren22@gmail.com Mountain View , California 94043 From:Mitchell Zimmerman To:Council, City Subject:We Don"t Need To "Audit" FLOCK -- We Already Know It"s An Unacceptable Move Toward a Surveillance Society Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:12:51 PM To the City Council: The plan to “audit” the use of Flock license plate readers is misguided. The central issue is neither the reliability nor the security of Flock’s surveillance technology, though these are serious concerns. The central issue is what kind of society we want to live in. We have a model of a perfectly reliable and effective “crime fighting” technology in George Orwell’s novel 1984. With always-on cameras everywhere, and every citizen forever under the watchful eye of the state, crime (including “thought crime”) can certainly be suppressed. Reality approaches Orwell’s imagination. It is likely within the technical acumen of Silicon Valley to turn on the watchful cameras and microphones of every home, workplace, and classroom computer, and every cellphone, and direct the feed to giant AI-enabled servers for assessment of what the state may deem “threats” to public safety. Such scrutiny might well deter or solve some actual crimes. But most of us prefer living in a society in which government and corporate entities are not granted the power to track our every movement, listen to our every utterance, and monitor our every relationship. In 1890, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis characterized privacy as the “right to be left alone,” which he termed “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Are we prepared for that right to be extinguished in the name of “crime fighting”? Flock and the surveillance industry have moved us too far in the direction of 1984. The Palo Alto City Council must vote to shut down Flock surveillance immediately. Mitchell Zimmerman Palo Alto From:David Adams To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; City Attorney Subject:Action Item 10: OSV pilots, 8/24 Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:07:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, I find it difficult to see anything good about your pilot 2. It may just be the most stupid, ill conceived and ill thought through idea to emanate from City Hall. Additionally, the report is so poorly written I could not discern whether it was AI slop or human written. You must withdraw this nonsense and instead implement Loren Brown's alternate proposal. I'll concentrate on just one aspect; allowing OSVs to park the length of Olive Ave. I am a home owner on Olive, lived here for 29 years so I know more about it than any of you. Olive is a residential street with 25 single family homes. You have just blighted 25 homes; no outreach and no notification from the city. I learned about it from reading the local paper. Can you imagine the extreme emotional distress you have caused. The report does not include the criteria for choosing the streets in pilot 2. What was it? You receive Bob Marinaro's spreadsheet each week which shows the max number of OSVs on Olive historically as 3. Why did you decide to allow an unlimited number on Olive? You take a problem, make it a million times worse then, no doubt, you will say it's solved. And the report says it is designed to 'reduce neighborhood impacts'! You must be thinking of your own neighborhoods because you're certainly not thinking of mine. How will it operate? Will OSV owners on Transport, Commercial and Industrial parked on the disallowed side be told they will be towed unless they move to Olive? What will be the city's role in herding them to Olive? I'm not fooled into thinking this will be a pilot. On completion I'm certain you will make it permanent because you favor OSV owners over residents. Let me tell you some of the impacts we will have: I will not be able to exit my driveway safely with OSVs parked either side. Emotional distress from having people living outside my front door for 6 months. Security and privacy issues. Trash and other human waste left on the sidewalk and median. Noise and pollution from mobile generators. Dog feces left on my property. Potential for illegal use of utilities As written, Appendix E Section 2 states that parking on the non-OSV side of the street will be restricted to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report certain vehicles. These do not include vehicles of residents. Therefore, for 6 months I won't be able to park my car outside my house because it's not permitted. For the other 6 months I won't be able to park my car outside my house because the space will be occupied by OSVs bumper to bumper. Lastly, I come to the most serious issue and this one makes my blood boil. There are many young families with small kids who play out front. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, pervert, pedophile, or other type of undesirable can roll up, swing their door open and start living right there. Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Lauing, Shikada; what on earth are you thinking? You seem willing to put our most vulnerable citizens at risk but not your own. I would like you to tell me why that is. Just today there is an item in the Police Blotter for an individual 'arrested for brandishing a weapon and resisting police' on E. Meadow Circle. City Attorney take note; if something bad was to happen it is now public record that you have all been warned. Also, take note, by allowing OSV parking only on certain streets the City of Palo Alto has effectively diminished the economic value of affected properties, amounting to an inverse condemnation (regulatory taking) and actionable nuisance under California law (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19). Also, take note, if you follow through with this I will be applying for a reduction in property tax. These reasons are why cities ban OSV parking on residential streets. Unbelievably, you want to encourage it. David Adams Home Owner, Olive Ave. From:Patrick Butler To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely Subject:Regarding: Palo Alto City Council Meeting of August 24, 2026., Agenda Item #10 Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 2:04:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hon. Members of the City Council: I respectfully urge the members of the City Council to reject the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on the subject of persons living in their vehicles on our streets in current violation of our codes and laws. I appreciate the work of the three ad hoc committee members but the over five million dollars in recommendations would simply continue our city as a magnet for individuals who have been lawfully excluded by our neighbors and want a place to stay without paying for rent, utilities, trash collection or sewage service. I believe that a survey of the residents and business owners of our city would show an overwhelming opposition to this plan to shove illegal RV and trailer parking into the south of our city. On August 14, 2026 Palo Alto Online published a very comprehensive report on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee that are before you tonight. The article included maps and lists of addresses of this convoluted plan to move illegally parked vehicles south and a plan to alternate street sides for such parking while collecting a $15. fee. What also needs focus is the statement by our City Manager Ed Shikada that in addition to the $800,000. plus for the program an additional $4,100,000. would be required for signage, enforcement and administration. That is a lot of signs. If you want to feel the pulse of our city on this subject I suggest that you take a minute to scan the 38 published comments to that August 14 article. All are, the last time I checked, opposed to the plan: 38 Comments From the Palo Alto Online August 14, 2026 Article JS1 says: August 14, 2026 9:14 am at 9:14 am Staff proposal is mostly a tone-deaf non-solution. The ONLY element of the proposal that has merit is allowing OSVs to park on Coyote Creek Road and Embarcadero Road (where there are no adjacent businesses or This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast residents). Continuing to allow OSVs to park in Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is NOT a solution (even if only on one side of the street). The City needs to find additional parking areas for OSVs that are not in Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods. Deer Creek Road, city-owned land off Geng Road and CalTrans property at 101/San Antonio are all viable locations for OSV parking. City Council and City Staff: MOVE ALLOWABLE OSV PARKING COMPLETELY OUT OF PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NOW. Until you take action to do this, you have not solved the most objectionable part of the OSV parking problem. Reply PA Concerned Residentsays: August 14, 2026 10:13 am at 10:13 am Part 1 should satisfy Palo Alto’s need to be “accommodating.” Part 2 should be dead on arrival! Reply Online Namesays: August 14, 2026 10:21 am at 10:21 am What are the plans for enforcement of existing laws and removal of violators? Reply Moctod says: August 14, 2026 11:02 am at 11:02 am “The program followed a series of meetings by the council’s recently established Oversized Vehicles Impacts and Services Ad Hoc Committee, which is chaired by Councilmember Ed Lauing and includes council members Julie Lythcott-Haims and Keith Reckdahl.” Are these the meetings that included those who are living illegally on our streets along with our City staff, but excluded the residents of Palo Alto? This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did such a terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am disappointed that Ed Lauing was involved. Reply Anne Houghtelingsays: August 14, 2026 11:04 am at 11:04 am I don’t understand: The city would allow RV parking on certain streets (none in northern PA, at first glance) for six months, but then they can stay on the same street for another six months if they move to the other side of the same street? So they have permission to park one year on the listed streets? Reply MJHsays: August 14, 2026 11:24 am at 11:24 am Prior to approximately 2014 sleeping overnight in a street parked vehicle was (is?) a Palo Alto city municipal code violation which the police enforced. Around that time the Palo Alto Weekly reported the case of a woman who was cited for sleeping in her car parked on the Stanford section of El Camino, but not living in her car. Does anyone know if the ban on overnight sleeping in vehicles parked on city streets is still technically a code violation the city could still enforce? Reply Online Namesays: August 14, 2026 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm “This is the sort of solution that I would expect from Julie L-H who did such a terrible job on the Churchill crossing meetings, but I am disappointed that Ed Lauing was involved.” So true. Her outright and repeated lies about the student petition deserved to be called out for what they were. The petition called for the return of human crossing guards which is quite a stretch for her to keep saying the students demanded closing Churchill. How much money was wasted after staff was instructed to explore closing Churchill — and only Churchill — even though more suicides have occurred in South Palo Alto and most suicides occur among middle aged people, not teens. Given her biases and disregard for PA residents while pushing her own agendas, a larger question is why she keeps getting appointed to the most visible and important commissions / task forces. Maybe Mayor Veenker can enlighten us? Other OSV questions are: A) why the city thinks spending MILLIONS of dollars on signage is a good use of our money when it pleads poverty and threatens to cut human crossing guards and library hours, B) who is paying for the OSV utilities: us, the vanlords and/or the OSV dwellers, C) what if anything is being done to determine the employment status of the OSV dwellers and to oust those who are gainfully employed and simply prefer saving money and not paying rent. Reply Concerned Residentsays: August 14, 2026 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve the people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of whom do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto generally). The city staff are completely incompetent and clearly don’t care about Palo Alto at all. Couldn’t find better pencil pushers. Reduce the staff so we stop funding nonsense people with our tax dollars. Reply Charlessays: August 14, 2026 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm “I’m so incredibly tired of this city council who does nothing to serve the people who actually elected them—an overwhelming majority of whom do not want OSVs in residential or business areas (or in Palo Alto generally).” Yes, just say no. And then enforce it. Reply connie kettendorf says: August 14, 2026 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm I laughed out loud when I saw that Meadow Circle will be a part of the 6 months parking allowed on one side of the street, then switcheroo! Of course! OSV parking will continue here in south Palo Alto! Of course it will! Did you ever doubt that our end of town would NOT be looked at for remedy!? What about the businesses there on the Circle? Does the Council care little for the employees who must make their way through the vans there, past the vandwellers, employees who must sequester themselves on breaks because it is uncomfortable to stroll the street? Please, Reader, drive around Meadow Circle and see for yourself. I doubt Julie Lythcott Haimes has done so. Of course, she said in the paper that she would welcome them on her street, so perhaps some of the vans should set up camp in front of her house? The truly needy should be offered the help described, but only a few of the 40 to 60 vans on Meadow Circle belong to the truly needy. The vast majority of the van dwellers there are employed; some own houses at a distance; some own the boats, motorcycles and beautiful cars parked along the Circle as well as late model vans. Could those engineers rent an apartment together? Could Stanford allow parking on its vast campus? Palo Alto is a generous city. We have two food baskets, an Emergency Shelter Program, the Opportunity House , a strong social service division, the housing on San Antonio, services from St. Vincent de Paul and Goodwill, vouchers from the churches, Hotel de Zinc, (may still be operative) overnight parking in the church lots, on and on. The city council members vying for higher office are terrified of being called heartless so fail to act. It is time to elect officials who act responsibly. When will the wishes of the Palo Alto residents be honored? We will spend close to a million dollars on signage, etc. for OSV, but the City cries poormouth when it comes to funding basic fire safety. South Palo Alto continues to be vulnerable to fire since Fire Station 4 has inadequate firefighter coverage. With only four brave firefighters, FS4 can launch an ambulance or the engine but not both at the same time. Would the money spent on serving the vans be better spent staffing another firefighter RTC at Fire Station 4? Stanford has SIX firefighters, but south Palo Alto gets the slim pickens…… yet again. We should pay Bob Marinaro 100K for the work he has done documenting the OSVs. Without his work and advocacy, nothing would have been done. He has continued as a terrier nipping at the heels of city hall; they hoped he would just give up and go away. In fact, our city manager would have hired outside consultants to examine the problem of the OSVs, paid them 300K, and then concluded there was no real issue. Elect Bob for city council! Reply M says: August 14, 2026 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm This just expands where illegal vehicles take over streets and neighborhoods, and now it appears permanently with Council’s blessing. They will be on both sides of the street, and the city will do what they are best at doing — expensive studies with zero concrete actions. Perhaps these council members could offer their driveways and the streets in front of their residences instead. Reply connie kettendorf says: August 14, 2026 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm @M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a van in front will complete her lovely home. Reply connie kettendorf says: August 14, 2026 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm @M: You are correct. Julie Lythcott Haimes has said in the paper she would “welcome them in her neighborhood.” As you say, she should indeed offer her driveway! She just remodeled her upscale property there; a van in front will complete her lovely home. Reply Marc says: August 14, 2026 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm I guess it’s time to let the city know how people feel Proposed Ballot Initiative The Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal Resources Protection Act Section 1. Title This measure shall be known as the “Palo Alto Public Spaces and Municipal Resources Protection Act.” Section 2. Findings and Purpose The People of the City of Palo Alto find and declare: (a) Vehicles used as long-term or permanent dwellings parked on public streets create impacts on neighborhood safety, sanitation, traffic flow, and residential quality of life. (b) City resources are limited, and residents have a right to determine how municipal funds are prioritized. (c) This measure is intended to regulate specific conduct on public property and city expenditures — not to criminalize a person’s housing status. Section 3. Prohibition on Vehicle Habitation on Public Streets (a) No person shall use any RV, camper, trailer, van, car, or other vehicle parked on a public street, alley, or city-owned lot as a place of residence, overnight sleeping quarters, or long-term dwelling. (b) The City shall enforce existing and amended vehicle-parking time limits (e.g., 72-hour or shorter posted limits) uniformly on all vehicles regardless of the occupant’s housing status. Section 4. Prohibition on City-Sanctioned Safe Parking Programs (a) The City of Palo Alto shall not establish, fund, permit, or otherwise authorize any “safe parking” program, off-street vehicle-dwelling lot, or similar site intended to allow overnight habitation in vehicles, whether on public or private property within city limits. (b) The City shall not enter into contracts, leases, or permits with any third party for the purpose of operating such a site. Section 5. Prohibition on Direct or Indirect City Support for Homeless Services (a) The City of Palo Alto shall not appropriate, grant, or otherwise direct city funds, staff time, city-owned property, or in-kind resources to any program whose primary purpose is providing shelter, housing assistance, meal service, storage, hygiene services, or case management targeted at unhoused individuals. (b) This includes indirect support such as subsidized leases of city property, fee waivers, or referral partnerships with outside agencies for such services. Section 6. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this measure is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect. Section 7. Effective Date This measure shall take effect 2 days after certification of the election results, per California Elections Code. Reply connie kettendorf says: August 14, 2026 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm Amen. Reply Online Namesays: August 14, 2026 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm Absolutely, add Julie’s driveway to the list! Add Mayor Veenker’s driveway, too, since she’s long postponed the OSV community “listening session” now scheduled for the August 24th CC meeting — which is obviously 10 days AFTER this plan was released with no community input. Evidently listening to us FIRST would be too sensible; instead we’ll again have to fight City Hall to try to eliminate the worst problems. What a frustrating insulting waste of everyone’s time. The headline of this excellent article reads “Palo Alto looks to limit vehicle dwelling with new permit program” but it’s unclear how PA’s limiting anything, esp since staffers concede this costly pilot program will simply push vehicle dwellers into other PA neighborhoods. Neighboring communities HAVE limited their vehicle dwellers, effectively pushing them into PA. Maybe they’ve listened to their taxpayers? For example Mountain View businesses have withheld almost $3,000,000 in taxes to protest the harm done to their businesses and the declining property values since who’d want to shop, buy or rent in the middle of an RV haven? Given PA’s poor track record on community outreach, I also wonder if this article is the first PA residents and businesses learned their streets were slated to become OSV havens. Also seeing Transport St on the list reminds me of the poor business owner on Transport who’s repeatedly complained on Bob Marinaro’s email list that reaches 165+ people including the Mayor, the OSV Committee, City Council and city staff that PAPD keeps giving parking tickets to his employees but never to the OSVs blocking access to his business. Finally it would have been “polite” if any of our “leaders” had thanked Marinaro for his efforts and/or bothered to respond to specific complaints or questions raised on that biweekly email list. Reply Annettesays: August 14, 2026 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm I sometimes wonder why we need a council. They go in circles. They talk about important issues for years (Exhibit A on that: grade separation). They wordsmith into the wee hours, eventually coming up with something that often creates new problems. And starting at least as far back as Frank Benest, Council has effectively forfeited control of the city to the city manager, a position that is not elected. Maybe we should look at changing the charter and electing a City Manager and Mayor who have to answer to the voters every four years. The status quo is a very costly model that is riddled with shortcomings. Connie Kettendorf, one of the commenters on this issue, often posts details about city shortcomings that should be addressed. Ditto “Online Name”. The Churchill issue was poorly handled. And not fully staffing and equipping a fire station that serves a growing area of town is just plain stupid. Are we trying to emulate LA’s Mayor Bass here? Robert Marinaro has saved the city thousands of dollars and oodles of time by compiling critical information about the OSV problem. It’s very clear that a solution is needed NOW. ASAP. Not next March. Housing is a serious, complicated issue. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I doubt building market rate housing is going to help much. Maybe ask the RV dwellers what they think about that. Affordability is likely the central problem, and that has been true for at least a decade. I don’t think legislation can make any city affordable. It’s time to stop pretending about that. Reply Gary G.says: August 14, 2026 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm I was asked about the issue. It is RV Squatting. It is counter productive to proper zoning and construction. A city needs to have clear laws and enforce those laws for practical reasons, not the ‘humanitarian’ approach. These are a small group of transient libertarians affecting the quality of traditional neighborhoods. The Governor and Courts have ruled that done right, and consistently, a municipality does not have to accept RV Squatting. Basically, we have a choice, supporting RV Squatters or little kids. No mother in her right mind is going to let her little kids go out to play without constant supervision in a town that actively promotes a set of values discordant with raising a young family. So the more we tolerate RV Squatting, the more we send a message that we are not that family oriented as a municipality. Problem is the Pacifica Case, Sean Geary et al, vs. City of Pacifica. Before we make any decision, Palo Alto has to have a clear and consistent policy. You cannot go picking and choosing, and have to document clearly your choices. In 2025, the municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while other townships decided the opposite. This is not about owning an RV. It is about the complicated and very real relationship of purchasing a home or renting an apartment and paying a great deal of money to live in Palo Alto, without receiving any corresponding services for high taxes. Reply Online Namesays: August 14, 2026 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm “In 2025, the municipality chose to expand RV Squatting Services, while other townships decided the opposite.” And when PA people complained, we were assured that County meetings would be the panacea. Julie Lythcott-Haims waxed enthusiastic about the wonders of cooperation and the need for more listening sessions. I remember that and thinking how transparently lame that latest stalling technique was because it was absurd to expect the other communities to jump at the chance to take back the RV dwellers they’d worked so hard to limit. And sure enough those County-wide meetings were never mentioned again. Annette brings up excellent points about why we need a council that accomplishes little, provides no obvious oversight of City Manager spending or performance and wastes an inordinate amount of time virtue-signalling while supporting the poor behavior of their like-minded buddies like Peterson even though he was so prone to temper tantrums he called PAPD EIGHT — 8 — times in a single day to demand special treatment and then blamed his ouster on his pro-density stance, not his behavior. You can’t virtue signal that one away claiming incumbents deserve support (if they agree with you) regardless of their actions. Yes, the housing issue is complicated but it’s become a team sport / litmus test where objectivity and attention to detail have largely been lost as well as any pretense that the housing push is about affordability and helping to keep the kids and poor Grandma close. Maybe start asking tough questions of the big tech employers and demand they contribute to solving the problems instead of throwing money at the most compliant candidates. Let’s hope people pay attention during the CC election and demand real substantive answers, not happy talk. Let’s also consider limiting campaign contributions. Do your research on where the money and endorsements comes from. Reply Lilysays: August 14, 2026 10:54 pm at 10:54 pm The proposed Coyote Hill Road site raises a fire-safety concern that deserves much more attention. The City proposes concentrating up to 20 inhabited oversized vehicles along a road immediately adjacent to dry grassland, and the staff report itself says that landscaping will be needed “to reduce fire risks along Coyote Hill Road.” Many inhabited RVs use generators, propane, and outdoor cooking equipment, all potential ignition sources. Before approving this location, the City should explain what Fire Department review has occurred, what restrictions will apply to generators, fuel, propane, barbecues and other ignition sources, particularly during high-fire-risk conditions, and how those restrictions will be monitored and enforced. Fire- safety rules are only meaningful if there is a realistic plan for ensuring Reply Bystandersays: August 15, 2026 7:35 am at 7:35 am Questions, questions? Does this permit then actually allow them to be called Palo Alto residents? Do they get any city services such as trash pick up as a result of these permits? Will road sweeping mean that they have to move at least once a week? Can a permit give them a street address if these are numbered spaces? Reply Jsydow says: August 15, 2026 8:21 am at 8:21 am I almost laughed when I read the city council’s proposal. Based on what they have done or rather not done on the push for housing and allowing builders to erect 7 stories bookings in residential areas and concentrated density in south Palo Alto I’m not surprised. They are so out of touch with the tax paying residents that elected them. How about enforcing current laws and codes? Would they even know how many OSV vehicles are parked in Palo Alto if it wasn’t for Bob Marinara? What have they been doing date the past few years on this issue-it isn’t new but residents have put up with the noise pollution and threats for OSV dwellers for several years. Why are they now just waking up with a ridiculous plan? Assume the OSV dwellers will comply with the new plan, what if they don’t? Allow another 3-4 years before they come up with a “solution”? Other cities have come up with reasonable solutions. So much so that the word is out-park your OSV in Palo Alto, they don’t do anything. Reply Annettesays: August 15, 2026 8:57 am at 8:57 am AMEN to the comments posted by Gary G, and Lily’s observations are highly concerning. The AdHoc committee needs to scrap the proposed plan and start over. I suggest they invite Robert Marinaro, Gary G, Lily, and a fire safety advocate to the table. Reply connie kettendorf says: August 15, 2026 9:37 am at 9:37 am Lily is correct. There will be an increased fire danger when the vans take up residence next to the dry grasses. The fire danger in the hills is colossal! When looking at our fire response a year ago, I was quite dismayed and shocked when I realized the vulnerability of the hills, in the face of a modest fire response capability there. However, I have had to focus on Fire Station 4 in south Palo Alto, ringing the alarm that south Palo Alto has prolonged fire response times because the engines must come from a distance. (Fire Station 4, staffed by only 4 brave firefighters, can launch an ambulance OR a fire engine but not both at the same time. The Philz fire was an 8 minute 20 second response time from several miles away, so we lost that shopping center.) So… the fire coverage in the hills is also necessarily a prolonged response time. I urge those who live there to research your safety and organize. Ask for written statistics: apparatus availability, manpower, geographic coverage. Please know that a RESPONSE time is not a DISPATCH time; don’t be fooled. As Annette said, it is time to elect our City Manager, rather than appoint him. He squandered 24 million of our 1.02 billion dollar income on consultants, who produced little. All the while, the PAFD has been underfunded and undermanned since 2011. Yes! Lily is correct to sound the alarm as to the increased fire danger posed by this lame OSV plan. However, regardless of the OSV plan, the hills are at great risk. Our fire response would be better served by a fire board which answers directly to Council, such as many a city of our size and wealth has. Instead, we have an at-will fire chief at the mercy of the City Manager. Our wonderful chief cannot ask Council for funding; our city manager has been disinterested in bringing our fire response up to minimal county standards. Look at the LAFCO report, in which Palo Alto was pillaried. Listen to Lily! Thank you for your attention to these comments, Patrick Butler Palo Alto From:Eric Nordman To:Council, City Subject:RV Parking Plan Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 1:27:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members: In general the proposed RV plan seems to be an appropriate solution to a difficult situation. However, Park Boulevard should be removed from the list as it is a heavily used bike route with significant car traffic and many bicyclists would end up riding in the door zone. The Daily Post article said that the pilots would cost $823,800, while citywide restrictions would cost $4.5 million to design and install signs and to monitor and enforce restrictions. I don't understand why $4.5 million would be required and hope that a cheaper solution can be found. Sincerely, Eric Nordman This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Fwd: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 1:22:47 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. *Note: This transmission is a direct resend of the formal public comment package originally submitted on Friday, August 21, 2026. This message redirects the transmission to ensure complete administrative delivery to Project Engineering Manager Charles Coles (Charles.Coles@paloalto.gov) and Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov) due to a corrected name spelling and initial municipal email suffix bounce error.* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 1:13 PM Subject: Fwd: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street To: <Transportation@paloalto.gov>, <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>, <Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov> Cc: <City.Council@paloalto.gov>, <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> *Note: This transmission is a direct resend of the formal public comment package originally submitted on Friday, August 21, 2026. This message redirects the transmission to ensure complete administrative delivery to Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo (Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov) and Project Engineering Manager Charles Cole (Charles.Cole@paloalto.gov) due to an initial municipal email suffix bounce error.* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 12:58 PM Subject: BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street To: <Transportation@paloalto.gov>, <Ria.Lo@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Charles.Cole@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: <City.Council@paloalto.gov>, <City.Clerk@paloalto.gov>, David Hung <dthung1@gmail.com> Date: August 21, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@CityofPaloAlto.org), Charles Cole - Project Engineering Manager (Charles.Cole@CityofPaloAlto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2789 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my property, and me. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my two separate driveways (one on Bryant Street and one on El Dorado Avenue). A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) El Dorado Driveway Risks: The addition of an estimated 2,600 bicycle and pedestrian trips per day presents safety hazards when entering and exiting my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Bryant Street Driveway Risks: If a fraction of those additional cyclists and pedestrians turn right from El Dorado Avenue onto Bryant Street, that volume almost certainly presents safety issues for my driveway exit on Bryant Street. Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound these problems. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Right-Turn Collision Risks: Cars and bicycles making a right turn through the traffic circle from El Dorado onto Bryant may collide into me as I enter or back out of my driveway. Physical Gutter Constraint: To negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between my driveway and the road that is essentially a large bump, I must enter and exit slowly, leaving me highly vulnerable to any sudden oncoming traffic during both maneuvers. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. This provides me some protection, even though some cyclists may not stop. With a traffic circle however, there is no full stop to provide protection for vehicles trying to turn into or exit my property safely. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles in the circle, or about to enter the circle, may not see me entering or exiting until the last moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming From the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Sincerely, David Hung Printed Name: David Hung Address: 2789 Bryant Street *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Deborah Trilling To:Joye, Ken Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: staff report #2606-6479 Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 1:14:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thank you Ken for your thoughtful suggestions. I still do not support any OVS on Park as it is too dangerous for the numerous bikers (many kids and teens) who use the street to grt to school. On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:54 AM Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> wrote: In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting. When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term “neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that manner. I also urge you to look closely at the wording used in the staff report which describes the second pilot program before you. That pilot is said to “prohibit OVS parking on alternating sides of the street on a series of streets”. Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the street. This leads me to some observations: It is an inconvenient truth that 85% of the streets identified for the second pilot are south of Oregon Expwy. City Council members bristle whenever residents discuss a perceived north/south divide but you cannot argue that the neighborhood and business impacts of this program are equally distributed across Palo Alto despite Council adopted values emphasizing equity. Another inconvenient truth is that 30% of the streets are residential and all of those lie within the NVCAP boundaries. I do not recall any part of the NVCAP discussions identifying that area as a place to permit vehicle dwellers. I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program: (1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave (2) the runway of the municipal airport This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating sides of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council are fully supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community. Converting the municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce the GHG emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East Palo Alto residents and support our S/CAP goals. (Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.) thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community, Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto 15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP) South 4000 Block of Transport Street South 900 Block of Commercial Street South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential> South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential> South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential> South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential> South 1000 Block of Elwell Court South 1000 Block of Corporation Way South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way North 2400 Block of Faber Place -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VNA Civic Engagement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to VNACivic+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/VNACivic/F489F274- C2C2-44BA-8CC3-C387CB71BD77%40gmail.com. From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Charles.Cole@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:BPTP Public Comment: Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan* – 2789 Bryant Street Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 12:59:25 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Date: August 21, 2026 To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov), Ria Lo - Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@CityofPaloAlto.org), Charles Cole - Project Engineering Manager (Charles.Cole@CityofPaloAlto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov), Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Public Comment Opposing El Dorado Avenue and Endorsing the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan – South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project To the Office of Transportation, Project Managers, and Members of the City Council: I am a resident and property owner at 2789 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the El Dorado Avenue alternative and to formally request the evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan. The current El Dorado proposals impose severe, disproportionate negative impacts on my family, my property, and me. I urge the City to reject the El Dorado route based on the following distinct factors: PART I: SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report 1. Driveway Safety Hazards and Residential Bottlenecks There are serious safety issues for my family, guests, service providers, myself, and anyone entering and exiting my driveways that would result from the proposals of the bike path on El Dorado Avenue and the traffic circle at Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. These safety issues are layered directly on top of each other across my two separate driveways (one on Bryant Street and one on El Dorado Avenue). A. Bike Boulevard Volume Impacts (2,600 Daily Trips) El Dorado Driveway Risks: The addition of an estimated 2,600 bicycle and pedestrian trips per day presents safety hazards when entering and exiting my driveway on El Dorado Avenue. Bryant Street Driveway Risks: If a fraction of those additional cyclists and pedestrians turn right from El Dorado Avenue onto Bryant Street, that volume almost certainly presents safety issues for my driveway exit on Bryant Street. Compounding Traffic Risks: If the city's proposed changes increase vehicle traffic on these roads, those vehicle volumes would heavily compound these problems. B. Traffic Circle Geometry and Entry/Exit Dangers Higher Safety Hazard: If a traffic circle was implemented, that would present likely even greater safety issues for me, introducing a liability by removing or altering the current intersection geometry that turns both entry and exit into a continuous hazard. Right-Turn Collision Risks: Cars and bicycles making a right turn through the traffic circle from El Dorado onto Bryant may collide into me as I enter or back out of my driveway. Physical Gutter Constraint: To negotiate the rounded street gutter profile between my driveway and the road that is essentially a large bump, I must enter and exit slowly, leaving me highly vulnerable to any sudden oncoming traffic during both maneuvers. Loss of Full-Stop Protection: Presently, a stop sign controls this corner to require vehicles and bicycles approaching on El Dorado to come to a full stop. This provides me some protection, even though some cyclists may not stop. With a traffic circle however, there is no full stop to provide protection for vehicles trying to turn into or exit my property safely. Blind-Spot Inescape: With a traffic circle, vehicles and bicycles in the circle, or about to enter the circle, may not see me entering or exiting until the last moment. I am concerned about collisions resulting from these situations that are not my fault. C. Empirical Evidence from the Ross Road Precedent Highly Comparable Layout: This traffic circle layout hazard has already been physically demonstrated in Palo Alto. I have consulted with a property owner situated at the equivalent corner configuration of the East Meadow Drive and Ross Road traffic circle corridor. That property features a driveway placement and intersection proximity very similar to my layout at Bryant and El Dorado. Real-World Baseline Challenges: The operational history of that intersection confirms that continuous-flow circular geometry creates severe, ongoing safety conflicts for both driveway entry and exit, strips away full-stop protections, and exposes residents to sudden oncoming traffic. Explicit Neighbor Preference: The impacted Ross Road property owner strongly preferred the previous configuration of traditional traffic stop signs, which provided reliable, mandatory stop protections. Documented Corridor Precedent : This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado would repeat these documented challenges, ignoring an active local precedent where a similar experiment caused circulation friction and required subsequent city interventions to restore basic corridor safety. 2. Problems Stemming From the Proposed Traffic Light at Alma and El Dorado A. Regional Vehicle Re-Routing and Shortcuts Induced Localized Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue would likely result in drawing disruptive cut- through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street and vice versa. Commuter Shortcut Creation: It would potentially trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado and vice versa. Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it is likely to act as an inappropriate regional traffic magnet, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. B. Increased Localized Pollution and Noise Air Quality Degradation: Any induced vehicle traffic resulting from this regional signal routing carries the potential to generate elevated vehicle emissions and localized air pollution directly outside my home. Noise Pollution: Any additional influx of regional transit trips may generate substantial localized noise pollution along our quiet residential block. Roadside Litter Accumulation: Any increased traffic volume may result in the more accumulation of roadside litter along our residential corridor. Street Character Degradation: The combined influx of regional bicycle traffic and potential cut-through vehicular traffic carries the potential to fundamentally degrade the quiet residential character of El Dorado Avenue due to the higher overall daily traffic volumes passing directly outside my home. 3. Constitutional Liability and Inverse Condemnation Substantial Impairment of Access: By physically compromising safe driveway entry and exit and altering the traffic metrics of my property, the city’s design carries the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access. Inverse Condemnation Claim: Under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, these actions would constitute an inverse condemnation of my property. Should the city move forward with this design, it would face significant legal liabilities, including structural property devaluation claims and the mandatory payment of homeowners' legal and expert fees. Prior Written Tort Notice: Furthermore, under California Government Code Section 835, this letter serves as formal, prior notice that the proposed roundabout geometry creates an inherently dangerous condition for residential access points, exposing the city to ongoing tort liability for any subsequent injuries and completely stripping the municipality of its standard design immunity. PART II: THE PROPOSED SOLUTION Evaluation of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I formally request that the city evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan, which utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional connectivity goals seamlessly. The comprehensive, five-point engineering blueprint and structural design specifications for this non-destructive alternative were formally introduced and filed into the permanent project record via a separate Formal Project Realignment Submission transmitted on August 19, 2026. I respectfully ask that project engineers evaluate that specific submission as the neighborhood's preferred workaround. Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that it has been formally uploaded into the administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the PABAC agenda packet closes. Sincerely, David Hung Printed Name: David Hung Address: 2789 Bryant Street *Note: The description of the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan was emailed to the Transportation department, the city council, and the city clerk on 8/19/26. For convenience, it is reproduced in the addendum. ADDENDUM: DESCRIPTION OF THE LOMA VERDE-ALMA MEDIAN HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street —an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan From:Loren Brown To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Loren Brown; News@padailypost.com; gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org Subject:OSV Program Comments/Suggestions Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 12:49:53 PM Attachments:American Legal Publishing.png Geng Road 10.5 Acre Property.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 8-21-2026 Dear City of Palo Alto Leaders, The staff-proposed “solution” on Monday’s City Council Agenda FAILS to solve the OSV parking problems in Palo Alto. The City cannot allow OSV’s to continue to park in Palo Alto business districts. Allowing OSVs to park on only one side of a street is a non-solution. Staff has their proposal half correct - the key is finding more alternative land where OSVs can park, even if the land can only be used on a temporary basis. The below email succinctly identifies the OSV parking problem and suggests how/where the City can find alternative locations for OSV parking. City staff needs to revise the proposal sent to City Council for review/approval to move OSV parking from Palo Alto business districts to alternative land designated by the City. Loren Brown 3-06-2026 Dear City Representatives, I attended the City Council Study Session OSV parking on Monday, February 23rd, and left very depressed, frustrated, and angry. It is my conclusion that the City of Palo Alto is taking the wrong path forward with respect to OSV parking on the streets of Palo Alto. To date, the City’s plan to deal with the huge problem of OSVs parking on City streets is not comprehensive, has not identified an ultimate solution, and has no timeframe to end the problem. In this email, I am going to frame the OSV parking issue and then offer the City suggestions on how the City can quickly and comprehensively resolve the OSV parking issue in a cost-efficient manner. Loren Brown Property Owner/Landlord on Park Blvd. ORIGINS OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS DISTRICTS: OSVs began parking in approximately five Palo Alto business districts approximately 8-10 years ago. Parking of these OSVs (in certain cases) was a violation of the City’s existing laws (as codified in the City’s Municipal Code). Despite complaints lodged by property owners and commercial tenants of parked OSVs, which were observed violating the City’s municipal code, enforcement was largely non-existent, weak or ineffective. Lax regulation of parked OSVs in commercial business districts merely led to an increased number of OSVs parked in Palo Alto business districts. In response to the violations that my company reported to the City, the City responded that OSV parking issues were a part of a greater homeless problem, which the City wanted to deal with more comprehensively. And so, the continued lack of police department enforcement, coupled with a City Council philosophy, resulted in even more OSVs parking in the Palo Alto business parks. The Palo Alto Weekly reported on February 23, 2026, that the number of OSVs parking on the streets of Palo Alto had doubled between 2023 and 2025. As of last fall, there were over 200 OSVs parking in six specific areas of Palo Alto (see the list below). The Palo Alto Weekly also reported on February 23, 2026 that neighboring cities to the north and south of Palo Alto have all but banned OSV parking, driving much of the rise in the population of OSVs in Palo Alto. In conclusion, the OSV parking problem in Palo Alto business parks, etc. is a result of the City not enforcing its own regulations, not timely responding to a growing issue before it became a huge problem, allowing incompatible uses immediately adjacent to eachother in Palo Alto neighborhoods, etc., and the City not being willing to do what is required to eliminate the OSV parking problem on public streets. It is not a problem that the Palo Alto property owners, tenants, or residents could/can head off because the OSVs are parking on city streets, where city streets are the exclusive domain of the City of Palo Alto. LOCATION OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO (Six General Areas): 1. Embarcadero Road/Faber Place/Embarcadero Way. 2. Elwell Court and Corporation Way. 3. Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue/Olive Avenue /Sheridan Avenue/Portage Avenue/Ash Street/Acacia Avenue/Orinda Street. 4. Fabian Way/East Meadow Circle. 5. San Antonio Road/Transport Street, Commercial Street, and Industrial Avenue. 6. Other: Including Mitchell Park, Greer Park, Colorado Avenue, Amarillo Avenue, etc. Note: The City of Palo Alto effectively forces OSV parking into these six locations through inconsistent enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code by the police department. Enforcement of illegal OSV parking in downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, Professorville, Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto is purposely high, while enforcement in the above-listed areas is purposely lax. CURRENT MAGNITUDE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM IN PALO ALTO: Palo Alto citizen, Robert Marinaro, reported to the City that as of February 13, 2026, there are approximately 180 OSVs parking on the public streets in Palo Alto (excluding OSVs parking at the Life Moves facility on Geng Road). On or about November 19, 2025, the total number of OSVs parked on City streets was approximately 217. As of March 3, 2026, the number of OSVs parking on City streets may be closer to 150 OSV’s (to be confirmed by Bob in his next count). NATURE OF THE OSV PARKING ISSUE IN PALO ALTO: The OSV parking issue is a two-prong issue; it is a housing-affordability issue, and it is a residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue. A) Housing Affordability Issue: The housing-affordability issue is related to a greater long-term, national/regional housing crisis that may never be solved in our country, our state, our county, or the City of Palo Alto. The cost housing in a building (house, apartment, etc.) is now unaffordable to a subset of Americans. The high cost of housing relative to income levels has resulted in a large number of people living on the streets or in their vehicles (including OSVs). This email does not address this issue nor try to solve the housing affordability issue related to OSVs in Palo Alto. B) Residential/Business Neighborhood Deterioration Issue: The residential/business neighborhood deterioration issue within Palo Alto is created by the simple incompatibility of OSVs parking in both residential neighborhoods and business parks (as documented to the City staff innumerable times over years and years). Parking of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods is a zoning use incompatibility. Zoning use incompatibility refers to the spatial conflict between different types of land development, such as placing residential areas near high-noise, polluting, or high-traffic industrial zones . These conflicts often reduce property values, create nuisances, and hinder the community. Parking of OSVs in Palo Alto residential/business neighborhoods results in a variety of objections from the adjacent business and residential properties, which include visual blight of OSV vehicles, blocked sidewalks, littering (trash, human waste, etc.), safety concerns, difficulty leasing property where OSVs park, lost rental income where properties cannot be leased due to OSVs continuously parked in front of properties, negative impacts to businesses operating where OSVs are continuously parked. etc. Mitigation strategies for zoning use incompatibility include strict zoning separation, buffer zones, or phasing out nonconforming uses to protect the quality of life. CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTIONS TAKEN TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: A) Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking. B) Enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 10.47 Large Vehicle Parking. C) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit unattached trailer parking - effective December 8, 2025. D) Emergency Ordinance amending Municipal Code to prohibit vanlording - effective December 8, 2025. E) Police Department Enforcement of Items D and E. ARE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS EFFECTIVE? NO: There are still a huge number (in excess of 150 OSVs) of OSVs parked on City of Palo Alto streets in business and residential neighborhoods. DEFICIENCIES WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO LIMIT/DECREASE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: A) The City is not yet fully committed to removing OSVs from parking on City streets. The City Council is not willing to enact an outright ban on OSV parking on City streets. By not banning OSVs outright, the City Council has effectively granted OSVs an entitlement to park on City streets - resulting in hesitation on the part of the City to adopt additional measures required to eliminate OSV parking on City streets. B) The City has not seriously pursued identifying and procuring off-street land for the purposes of providing safe parking for OSVs. C) The City has not taken action to relocate OSVs from parking in existing City of Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods. D) The City has not taken action to prohibit additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto (Prohibiting additional OSVs from locating in Palo Alto would cap the OSVs' parking in Palo Alto at their present level). E) Existing City of Palo Alto Police Department policy on towing OSVs in violation of the City’s Municipal Code is capped by towing yard space availability. OSVs then know that enforcement of OSV parking regulations is lax. F) Existing City ordinances and enforcement do not serve to decrease the number of OSVs parking on City streets. Instead, existing City ordinances and enforcement allow OSVs to merely relocate their parked location on City streets (similar to a game of musical chairs where no chairs are ever eliminated). This allows new OSVs to begin parking their OSVs on the streets of Palo Alto. WHAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NEEDS TO DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF OSVS PARKING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS: A) Enact an OSV Permit Program where all OSVs must be registered in the OSV Permit Program in order to park their OSV in Palo Alto. Enacting this program will serve to cap the number of OSVs at their current level. New OSVs that want to park in Palo Alto must meet Program eligibility criteria (eligibility criteria to be created and determined by the City). If the number of OSVs is not capped, new OSVs will just replace every OSV that leaves Palo Alto or finds alternative housing. B) Enact a program element designed to find alternative housing for those people currently living in OSVs who have obtained a permit. Once housing is found for the redeints of each OSV, that OSV will no longer be allowed to park on City of Palo Alto streets or in a City of Palo Alto Safe Parking lot. C) Identify, procure, and zone land that can/will be used for OSV Safe Parking lots. This land should not be located near business or residential neighborhoods. D) Relocate OSVs parked on City streets to newly-created Safe Parking locations. E) Amend the Municipal Code to ban all OSV parking on City of Palo Alto streets. F) Revise City policies to fully enforce the City’s Municipal Code on OSV parking (including immediate towing of OSVs from City streets). PROCUREMENT OF LAND IS THE KEY ELEMENT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE OSV PARKING ON CITY STREETS: Realistically, the OSV parking problem in the six Palo Alto business and residential neighborhoods is going to continue to exist until an alternative location is found for the OSVs to park. The City Council is both unwilling to allow OSVs to park in other areas of the City and unwilling to force OSVs out of their existing locations. WHAT KIND OF LAND IS NECESSARY FOR OSV PARKING? A) Land that can be procured very soon. The OSV parking problem in business/residential neighborhoods will not be solved until an alternative OSV parking site can be identified, procured, zoned, and set up to house OSVs. B) Publicly-owned land. It is unrealistic to think that the private sector will contribute/donate land to the City of Palo Alto for OSV parking use. Buying private-sector land will also be very expensive. Land for OSV Safe Parking will likely come from the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara or State of California (i.e. Caltrans). HOW MUCH LAND IS NEEDED? Currently, land is needed to park between 150 and 175 OSVs plus any support amenities required for a Safe Parking facility. A parcel of land that could accommodate this number of OSVs would mean that NO OSVs would need to park on City of Palo Alto business district or residential streets. The City of Palo Alto determined in August 2025 that a 13,334 SF parcel at 2000 Geng Road could accommodate 13 parked OSVs. Using this data, approximately 3.5 to 4.2 acres of land would be required to accommodate 150 to 175 parked OSVs. If the City can cap the number of OSVs permitted to park in Palo Alto and then decrease this number by finding OSV residents alternative housing situations, the amount of land required to park OSVs would decrease over time. If the City can reduce the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as a result of the new van lording ordinance, the land requirement could also be lessened. HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME IS THE LAND NEEDED TO HOUSE OSVs? This is up to the City to decide. Does the City plan to have a permanent OSV Safe Parking program (in perpetuity) or does the City plan to entirely phase the OSV Safe Parking program out over a finite time span? Land for parking OSVs is required only for the finite period during which the City operates a Safe Parking program. The amount of land required for the Safe Parking program depends on the size of the Safe Parking program operated by the City. PUBLIC LAND PROCUREMENT IDEAS: As the land requirement for OSV parking likely reduces over time (see above discussion), potential sources of land for OSV parking can include a temporary use of land that is not currently used for other purposes, yet may be earmarked/dedicated for another long-term use (i.e. parkland, Caltrans right- of-way, etc.). As the City can find alternative housing for OSV residents, the amount of land required to park remaining OSVs in the City’s Safe Parking program decreases. Land required to park an initial 150 to 175 OSVs can come from some combination of the following potential land sources. A) Street parking on the City of Palo Alto portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is OSV parking potential of approximately 300 yards on Deer Creek Road and 450 yards on Coyote Hill Road. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, approximately 1,500 yards of roadway could accommodate between 100 and 150 OSVs (depending upon the average length of OSV). Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the City of Palo Alto controls these roadways, this location could be put into service quickly. Concentrating OSVs at this location will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very- inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is immediately available (subject to signage and pavement re-striping). B) Street parking on the County of Santa Clara-controlled portion of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road: There is a length of roadway on each of these streets that is undeveloped on each side of the street. There is a considerable length of Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road under County control. If all of this roadway length were used for OSV parking on both sides of the roads, the combined capacity of Palo Alto-controlled streets and County-controlled streets may be sufficient to accommodate the entire contingent of OSVs currently parking in Palo Alto. Both streets are wide enough to accommodate OSV parking on each side of the street. There are some hills on these roads that may be too steep for OSVs to park. There is a VTA busroute on Deer Creek Road. As the County controls this section of roadway, the City would have to negotiate its usage for OSV parking with the County. Concentrating all OSVs at the Deer Creek Road and Coyote Hill Road locations will be more efficient for the City than the current OSV parking locations. Trash/water/electricity/sanitation/transportation services offered by the City would be more efficient, and police department enforcement costs would be dramatically reduced (because there would be no complaints from businesses/residents). This land option is a very-inexpensive option for the City of Palo Alto and is available fairly quickly (subject to negotiating a deal with the County, installing signage, and re-striping pavement). C) 1.81 Acre San Antonio/101 CalTrans Property (currently leased/used by Ciardella’s Garden Supply): This site could potentially accommodate 77 OSVs. The City would need to equip this site similarly to their Geng Road Safe Parking Site. The City would need to negotiate a lease with Caltrans. Note: State of California laws (i.e., SB211) authorize Caltrans to lease (for a nominal amount), non-surplus property to a local government for shelter (including interim housing). A copy of the lease between Caltrans and Ciardellas was provided to the City Manager’s office last year. D) Geng Road 10.5 Acres: In 2015, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was reconfigured. After the reconfiguration, a 10.5-acre area of land became unused and is currently undeveloped and unused (See attached aerial photos showing this property). While this parcel of land may be part of the original Municipal Golf Course land dedicated as parkland, it is not currently utilized as publicly accessible parkland. This land abuts Geng Road and is adjacent to the OSV Safe Parking facility located on Geng Road that is operated by Move Mountain View. Where a local shelter crisis exists, the State of California Government Code 8698.4 allows cities to temporarily use undeveloped parkland for temporarily housing a Safe Parking facility. This site could be an ideal location for a temporary Safe Parking lot (i.e. immediately available, no land purchase/lease cost to City, immediately adjacent to Move Mountain View Safe parking facility on Geng Road, not adjacent to businesses/residents, can be easily/cheaply transformed to a Safe Parking lot, is of sufficient size to accommodate all 150-175 OSVs, other than a temporary parking surface and perimeter fence, no other improvements to this land need to be made - OSVs that utilize this parking lot can use Safe Parking amenties at 2200 Geng Road, etc. See attached literature supporting this site as a temporary OSV Safe parking lot. Suggestion: The City should identify a 4-acre section of this land that is most adjacent to 2200 Geng Road and create a Safe Parking lot for OSVs that can use/share any amenities at 2200 Geng Road. Once the OSV parking lot is established, the City should require any/all OSVs that are then parking on Palo Alto streets to instead park at this OSV lot or be banned from parking their OSV in Palo Alto. The City should then work with OSV residents to find them alternative housing. The City would then decrease the size of this temporary OSV parking lot over time to the point where there are no OSVs left at this parking lot, and the land can be restored for parkland use. E) Stanford Industrial Park (Stanford land GUP): Stanford University owns vacant land adjacent to Coyote Road and Deer Creek Roads that could be utilized as temporary parking for OSVs. The City of Palo Alto would have to negotiate the upcoming County/Stanford GUP to secure land for Palo Alto OSV parking use and the duration of that use. F) Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: I drove through the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park today. There are approximately 10 unoccupied vehicle spaces at this site that could potentially be used to park OSVs. The City of Palo Alto should work with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to determine whether there is capacity at this property to house OSVs that currently park on City of Palo Alto streets. CONCLUSION: The City of Palo Alto needs to take immediate action to define a Safe Parking Program (program duration and size) and then take action to procure the land necessary to operate the Safe Parking program. Once the land has been procured, the City of Palo Alto needs to enact a ban on OSVs parking on City streets. From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Source: Justia Law Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 11:41:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: Justia Law In re Weller (1985) https://share.google/KR51MAQ0sXBUnItqn From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; Robert Marinaro; Barry M Katz Subject:NO NO NO - Monday Night August 24 - OSV Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 10:57:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members: Your generosity in offering permanent parking in the disadvantaged neighborhoods while protecting privileged areas is elitist and Nimbyist. Why not start with parking OSVs all around City Hall and other City owned properties? And for the remainder, let all neighborhoods share equally in solving this problem. If rich people had to deal with this in front of their homes, you bet there'd be some action. The City's lack of will to enforce existing laws has caused this problem, yet you propose to solve it on the backs of working people in this town. Where is your moral compass in this? And don't talk to us of compromise. We have borne the brunt of this sad business in South Palo Alto for years. I personally have had regular campers outside my fence non-stop for over 5 years, running their generators, defecating and tossing garbage over the fence into my yard for my grandchildren to discover. Why are you proposing to weigh down already embattled Ventura with OSVs? Why are you going to permanently persecute the businesses in the commercial zones? What is your motive, to drive us out of town, to drive us out of business? You are not listening to us! What's with tone deaf City Hall? Seriously. Sincerely, Becky Sanders Disgusted in Ventura From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Cc:Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed Subject:Flock Audit Scope - Requesting 6 Additions Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 10:13:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I support OIR’s proposed ALPR audit scope. Many residents have raised legitimate privacy concerns about Flock. I’m asking the City Council and PAPD to make six specific questions explicit within the audit. Under Section 2, Internal Access and Appropriate Use, please add: 1. Review prohibiting PAPD from searching historical travel data for traffic citations, infractions, other low-level offenses, and exploratory use. Under Section 3, Data Sharing and External Access, my biggest concern is outside- agency searches. Palo Alto plates are searched up to 200,000 times a month, often through partner-system searches that may include minor offenses. A traffic stop should not expose someone’s travel history. Flock recently added offense-specific filters, which PAPD is reviewing. 2. Review the outside-agency search settings and recommend how searches can be limited, as narrowly as practical, to felonies, sex crimes, and narrowly defined crimes of regional concern, such as organized retail theft. Under Section 4, Data Retention and Storage, Flock now defaults new customers to seven days. 3. Review the impact of reducing Palo Alto’s retention period from 30 days to 7 for data not preserved for a specific investigation. Under Section 7, Policy, Procedures, and Oversight, the public search logs are useful but need more detail. 4. Review adding the offense type by name to Palo Alto’s online search logs. Finally, under Section 9, Best Practices and Benchmarking, I’m asking the audit to evaluate Genetec as an alternative vendor that, to date, does not carry Flock’s history of privacy controversies and access problems. Stanford recently switched to Genetec, which can keep data on Sheriff-controlled servers. 5. Conduct a paper evaluation of Genetec as an alternative to Flock, comparing security architecture, cost, capabilities, and tradeoffs, and consulting with Stanford about its experience. 6. Evaluate switching Palo Alto’s cameras to Genetec while retaining Flock only at Stanford Shopping Center to preserve access to regional Flock searches. These six requests fit directly within OIR’s proposed framework. I’m asking Council and PAPD to make them explicit in the audit. From:Ken Joye To:Council, City Subject:staff report #2606-6479 Date:Friday, August 21, 2026 8:55:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. In the past, I have spoken in-person before Council about vehicle dwellers, must submit my input in writing regarding agenda item #10 for the 24 August 2026 meeting. When this topic was before you previously, I stated that I was glad that staff used the term “neighbors” when discussing vehicle dwellers and I urge you to frame your thinking in that manner. I also urge you to look closely at the wording used in the staff report which describes the second pilot program before you. That pilot is said to “prohibit OVS parking on alternating sides of the street on a series of streets”. Of course, that pilot could have been said to permit parking on alternating sides of the street. This leads me to some observations: It is an inconvenient truth that 85% of the streets identified for the second pilot are south of Oregon Expwy. City Council members bristle whenever residents discuss a perceived north/south divide but you cannot argue that the neighborhood and business impacts of this program are equally distributed across Palo Alto despite Council adopted values emphasizing equity. Another inconvenient truth is that 30% of the streets are residential and all of those lie within the NVCAP boundaries. I do not recall any part of the NVCAP discussions identifying that area as a place to permit vehicle dwellers. I would like to propose that you consider two additional spaces for the second pilot program: (1) 200 Block of Hamilton Ave (2) the runway of the municipal airport Each of those is rich in symbolic value. Allowing vehicle dwellers to live on alternating sides of the street in front of City Hall would show that the City Manager and City Council are fully supporting a humane response to the affordability issues in our community. Converting the municipal airport to a place for vehicle dwellers would significantly reduce the GHG emissions from pleasure craft, reduce the spread of lead-filled emissions over East Palo Alto residents and support our S/CAP goals. (Naturally, if the airport runway were needed for some sort of emergency response, the vehicles parked there could be moved for the duration of the emergency response.) thank you for considering this perspective and for your service to our community, Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto 15% North, 85% South; 30% residential blocks (all NVCAP) South 4000 Block of Transport Street South 900 Block of Commercial Street South 900 Block of Industrial Avenue South 100 Block of Page Mill Road <Residential> South 2800-3200 Block of Park Boulevard <Residential> South 200-400 Block of Olive Avenue <Residential> South 2900 & 3200 Block of Ash Street South 200-400 Block of Lambert Avenue <Residential> South 1000 Block of Elwell Court South 1000 Block of Corporation Way South 1000 Block of East Meadow Circle North 2400 Block of Embarcadero Way North 2400 Block of Faber Place From:Derek Gurney To:Council, City Subject:RVs are too big for 2800-3200 Park Blvd, which is on a Safe Route to School Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:24:21 PM Attachments:image.png image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Council, I recently learned of the plan to allow long-term RV parking on the 2800-3200 block of Park Blvd. Allowing RVs to park in this area will require cyclists, including the students who use it as a Safe Route to Gunn High School, to veer into the car lane while riding. Here's a screenshot of a satellite view to demonstrate this. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Notice that the space in the bike lane beside the RVs is much narrower than the area beside the cars, as RVs are 1.5 to 2 feet wider than even the average SUV and about 2 feet wider than the average car. Below is a photo of a bicycle beside a parked car in the 2800-3200 block of Park Blvd. The photo shows that the bicyle lane is sufficient but not overly generous for passing a parked car. I wasn't able to take the equivalent photo beside an RV, but I think its fair to assume that ther extra 2 feet of width of an RV over would require a cyclist to leave the bike lane in order to pass the RV. Multiply that by several RVs and the bike lane is no longer effective in providing a Safe Route. And here's a section of the Gunn Safe Route to School map indicating that 2800-3200 Park Boulevard is part of the Safe Routes network I hope this information convinces you that the 2800-3200 Block of Park Blvd is an inappropriate place for long-term RV parking. Moreover, I would urge you to direct staff to remove all the blocks where there is a bike lane. Bike lanes and long-term RV parking are not compatible. Yours truly, Derek Gurney From:DiHuyen Van Ho To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Subject:Action Item 10: OSV pilot feedback Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 8:44:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager Staff, I am writing to inform you about the tremendous emotional distress that your pilot program of OSVs has caused me. No criteria for selecting the streets included in the pilot were presented. One clear aspect is that the Ventura neighborhood is heavily targeted, especially Olive Avenue. If you view Bob Marinaro's weekly spreadsheet, you will see that the maximum number of OSVs on Olive has been 3. And yet you are proposing an unlimited number. This intentional targeting makes me feel like a second-class citizen. Now, the city is further undermining the quality of life and depreciating property values by allowing OSVs to park along the entire length of Olive Avenue. OSV parking comes with an uptick in trash, animal and human waste, unsafe biking, noise and air pollution from generators. Historically, the Ventura neighborhood has the lowest property values in all of Palo Alto. Furthermore, Olive Avenue was one of the few streets where people of color were allowed to purchase a home. Including Olive Avenue in the pilot program is blatant discrimination against people of color, people of low income, and immigrants. To answer Ms. Griffin’s comments as printed in the Daily Post article on Wednesday, August 18, “Living an RV lifestyle can be so much fun….” I would say I do respect other people’s choices, provided they are responsible for their own fun and not use This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report taxpayers’ money for their fun. Please don’t lecture me about “You don’t know what it is like to be poor”. I came to this country in 1980 with two empty hands. I did not even possess the most basic skill of speaking English. That did not prevent me from being a law-abiding citizen or from behaving in a civilized manner. Please don’t tell me that because RV dwellers are poor, they can live on my street rent-free and trash the street in the process. I would like the city to answer the following questions: 1. Signage has been posted. Signage has been amended. Signage has been completely ignored by OSV dwellers. Why is the city considering spending more money on more signage? 2. Has the ad hoc committee consulted with Menlo Park to see how they were able to ban OSVs without any budget expenditure? 3. What are the criteria for a street or a block to be included in the pilot program? 4. I am directly impacted by the plan. How come I was not notified? (Note recurrent theme: being treated like a second-class citizen -> aggravated emotional distress) In Summary, drop your plan and go with Loren Brown's plan, or else remove Olive Ave completely from the list. With respect from a law-abiding citizen, D.H., homeowner, Olive Avenue From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 7:03:31 PM Attachments:icon.png warning_triangle.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 7:02 PM Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.com>, City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> DO NOT LET THE REDWOOD TREES AT ST AQUINAS BE CUT DOWN!!! R. AHLQUIST ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 6:50 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail. LEARN MORE This link will take you to a third-party site This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast The response from the remote server was: 550 Invalid Recipient - https://community.mimecast.com/docs/DOC-1369#550[YCLuAouVPRSg-h3X0Ugecg.usb69] From:Jeff Truskey To:Council, City Subject:RV parking and Homelessness Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 7:01:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i As a 20 year resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to oppose the “compromise” on RV parking. The proper approach is to severely limit parking for RVs as San Francisco does or outright ban overnight RV parking as Cupertino does. Everyone likes to be a “humanitarian” with someone else’s money, but City Council cannot ignore the real life negative impacts of the RV created problems. On another point, how does the City Manager have the authority to open libraries and other facilities to the homeless? This should be publicly discussed by the City Council with the City Council making such a decision. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Jeff Truskey Palo Alto, Ca. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:luizinhouuuu@icloud.com To:Council, City Subject:URGENT – RVs Being Used as Homes – Tow Warning Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:17:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Mayor and City Council Members, I am reaching out to ask for your urgent help regarding several people who are currently living in RVs in Palo Alto and have recently received 72-hour tow warnings. These are not abandoned vehicles. These RVs are our homes. We are living in them because we currently do not have the financial means or another realistic housing option available to us. There are several of us in the same situation. We are not trying to disregard the City’s parking regulations or create problems for the community. We are simply trying to find a safe and legal way to remain housed while we work through an extremely difficult financial situation. The possibility of our RVs being towed is extremely serious for us because, if our RVs are removed, we will have nowhere to live and nowhere else to go. We have already contacted the City’s Transportation Department and the Human Relations Commission, but we have not yet found a realistic solution. We are asking the Mayor and City Council to please help us connect with the appropriate City officials and find a way to address this situation before our RVs are towed. We would be very grateful if someone from the City could meet with us in person, hear our situation, and help us identify any possible temporary or long- term solution. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for help because these RVs are currently our homes, and we genuinely have nowhere else to go. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Thank you for taking the time to read this and for any assistance you can provide. We sincerely hope the City will work with us to find a humane, safe, and legal solution. Sincerely, Luiz Santos Enviado do meu iPhone From:Shweta Bhatnagar To:Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; McDonough, Melissa Subject:Comments for Item 10 (OSV Pilot) - 8/24 Council Mtg Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:39:59 PM Attachments:image001.png 2026-08-20_Stanford OSV Pilot.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Attached please find a letter from Stanford University regarding the Oversized Vehicle Pilot to be discussed at your upcoming August 24, 2026, City Council meeting. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information. With regards, Shweta Shweta Bhatnagar Senior Director, Government Affairs Office of Government Affairs Stanford University 702-290-9217 |shwetab@stanford.edu Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10 Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council August 20, 2026 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Comments on proposed Oversized Vehicle street parking pilot program Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 12-month pilot program for Oversized Vehicle (OSV) street parking. We appreciate Staff’s extensive efforts to develop a program that addresses ongoing neighborhood, business, public health and safety impacts associated with OSVs. Stanford has a long history of support for the unhoused in our local region. For example, the Haas Center for Public Service and Stanford Medicine students and clinicians have for many years served with LifeMoves, Peninsula Healthcare Connections and other organizations through clinical placements, internships, courses and student service groups. And though we share the common value for helping the unhoused, Stanford has serious concerns with the Coyote Hill Road OSV parking location as it will significantly increase wildfire threat and could compromise habitat species management and cultural resources. While Stanford also has concerns about the location’s proximity to the Stanford Research Park (SRP) related to attraction and retention of tenants (SRP comprises 18% of Palo Alto’s sales and use tax), we’ve focused our comments on safety and environmental risk. We are concerned about locating the OSV pilot in Palo Alto’s vulnerable Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Around-the-clock human activity in this WUI area is certain to increase wildfire risk with the potential for devastating fire and smoke impacts to the City, its residents and businesses. Fire ignition from OSV parking is not uncommon. BBQ ashes, floating embers, and smoking are all common causes. The proposed parking area is adjacent to open space with natural grass, which in the summer is very dry, presenting a unique wildfire risk to the community in this unmonitored area. There have been two fires in the past year near this location – one next to Deer Creek Road and the other near Coyote Hill Road. These fires were in close proximity to buildings in the Stanford Research Park. The Coyote Hill fire occurred just this past July and was caused by human activity. The Deer Creek fire in 2025 burned a number of acres very quickly before being suppressed by responding Palo Alto firefighters. Stanford's Fire Marshal and retired Palo Alto Fire Captain, Rich Dean, who was on scene during the Deer Creek fire, believes this incident would have developed into a much larger fire had Stanford, only by pure luck and circumstance, not had a mowing contractor working in the same field where and when the fire originated. The mowing contractor was able to control the fire until the Fire Department arrived. The fire was rapidly moving toward an upslope tree line. If it had reached the tree line, the fire would have been significantly more difficult to control and could have potentially reached Stanford Research Park buildings. Increasing wildfire risk in the WUI is inconsistent with our extensive efforts and investments to reduce wildfire risk across all Stanford lands. Stanford Real Estate Academy Hall Stanford Fire Marshal 415 Broadway, 3rd Floor 480 Oak Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Stanford CA 94305-2040 T: 650.723.8902 T: 650.725.2129 Docusign Envelope ID: 133E5D8F-AF5C-8354-8367-0B073864FC10 We are concerned that an OSV pilot program on Coyote Hill Road may negatively impact the environmentally sensitive Deer Creek. Acknowledging the importance and fragility of our local watersheds, Stanford has placed a conservation easement over Deer Creek aimed to protect natural resources, preserve wildlife habitats, and maintain the ecological integrity of this area. As stewards of these conservation lands, we are concerned that domestic animals and OSV dwellers could encroach into the easement and negatively impact flora and fauna. We appreciate the opportunity to share these comments, and we look forward to full and careful consideration of these safety and environmental concerns associated with the proposed 12-month pilot program. We also hope that the City Council will include outreach to affected Stanford Research Park tenants as part of its implementation plans. Sincerely, Robert Reidy Rich Dean V.P. Land, Buildings & Real Estate Fire Marshal Stanford University Stanford University From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker Cc:Board of Directors; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; city.council@menlopark.gov; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; Bill Newell; Council, City; Raymond Goins; Ann Ravel; Anne Cribbs; Reifschneider, James; Emily Mibach; Dave Price; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; Enberg, Nicholas; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Braden Cartwright; board@pausd.org Subject:What Is AI Superintelligence? Why Critics Warn Against Developing Such Technology Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 12:22:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.democracynow.org/2026/8/20/ai_superintelligence_connor_leahy_controlai <External Email> From:Nam, Sooji E To:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: CBS News Bay Area Inquiry Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:30:29 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Meghan for getting back to me. I really appreciate your help with our coverage. Sincerely, Sooji From: Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@paloalto.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:28 AM To: Nam, Sooji E <Sooji.Nam@cbs.com>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@paloalto.gov>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: RE: CBS News Bay Area Inquiry Hi Sooji, Thanks for your emails and several calls yesterday. Confirming I am working on a response to you and will follow-up directly. Best, Meghan From: Nam, Sooji E <Sooji.Nam@cbs.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:23 AM To: Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@paloalto.gov>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: CBS News Bay Area Inquiry CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, My name is Sooji Nam and I am a reporter for CBS News Bay Area. I am working on a story about the RV permit pilot program, and had been attempting to reach out to Meghan Horrigan-Taylor for an interview request! I was wondering if someone from the city would be available to speak with me via zoom either today or early next Monday about the nuts/bolts of this proposal? The interview would only take a few minutes, and we would be asking about a breakdown of this program, looking ahead to Monday’s council meeting, etc. My cell is 415-791-3599 if that is easier. Thank you so much! Sooji Nam Reporter KPIX-TV KBCW-TV SAN FRANCISCO O: (415) 765-8601 C: (415) 791-3599 E: Sooji.nam@CBS.com From:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan To:Nam, Sooji E; Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: CBS News Bay Area Inquiry Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:27:50 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Sooji, Thanks for your emails and several calls yesterday. Confirming I am working on a response to you and will follow-up directly. Best, Meghan From: Nam, Sooji E <Sooji.Nam@cbs.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:23 AM To: Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@paloalto.gov>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: CBS News Bay Area Inquiry CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, My name is Sooji Nam and I am a reporter for CBS News Bay Area. I am working on a story about the RV permit pilot program, and had been attempting to reach out to Meghan Horrigan-Taylor for an interview request! I was wondering if someone from the city would be available to speak with me via zoom either today or early next Monday about the nuts/bolts of this proposal? The interview would only take a few minutes, and we would be asking about a breakdown of this program, looking ahead to Monday’s council meeting, etc. My cell is 415-791-3599 if that is easier. Thank you so much! Sooji Nam Reporter KPIX-TV KBCW-TV SAN FRANCISCO O: (415) 765-8601 C: (415) 791-3599 E: Sooji.nam@CBS.com From:Nam, Sooji E To:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Council, City Subject:CBS News Bay Area Inquiry Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:23:09 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, My name is Sooji Nam and I am a reporter for CBS News Bay Area. I am working on a story about the RV permit pilot program, and had been attempting to reach out to Meghan Horrigan-Taylor for an interview request! I was wondering if someone from the city would be available to speak with me via zoom either today or early next Monday about the nuts/bolts of this proposal? The interview would only take a few minutes, and we would be asking about a breakdown of this program, looking ahead to Monday’s council meeting, etc. My cell is 415-791-3599 if that is easier. Thank you so much! Sooji Nam Reporter KPIX-TV KBCW-TV SAN FRANCISCO O: (415) 765-8601 C: (415) 791-3599 E: Sooji.nam@CBS.com From:Greg McShea To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Regarding the new OSV parking proposal Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:08:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am a long time (30+ year) Palo Alto resident writing to provide feedback on the city's latest proposal to address OSV (over sized vehicle) parking in the city. The proposal produce by the committee should be considered a non-starter and the committee itself should be disbanded as they clearly are not trying to serve Palo Alto residents, but serving the OSV dweller community instead. As I read about the latest proposal in the PA Weekly article I could not help but feel very angry at the continued unwillingness or inability for Palo Alto city council to respect residents wishes and either enforce current laws, or pass new ones to address the OSV parking problem that has plagued the city for nearly a decade now. While responsible city councils in towns like Mountain View and Menlo Park are listening to their constituents and have passed stricter regulations on OSV parking, with the current proposal the Palo Alto city council seems to want make Palo Alto a mecca for even more OSVs. The duty of city council members is to serve their constituents and PA council members are NOT doing this with the latest proposal. The OSV dwellers have no standing here, they are NOT residents. They do not pay rent or property taxes, and have no legal address to establish residency. They are squatters who have exploited the goodwill of Palo Alto for a very long time. I'm sure there are some true hard cases among the RV dwellers who have nowhere else to go, but suspect there are just as many, if not more, who have chosen this lifestyle to avoid long commutes or live free the financial obligations that come with having a residence. It is beyond me why the city even feels a need to serve the OSV dweller community, and continuously place the needs of this community above the wishes of its own residents. I often walk/jog around East Meadow Circle and to this day there are still so many OSVs there, nearly 50 from what I can tell. I have observed the following behaviors in this area on a regular basis: This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 1. I see the mess the OSVs leave on the rare occasion that a vehicle moves out, which the city has to clean up at residents' expense. 2. The OSV dwellers extend the bump out section of their RVs in to the street, effectively narrowing the street for traffic. 3. The OSV dwellers mark the area around their vehicle with cones as if they are laying claim to the property as their own. 4. The OSV dwellers store/dump personal items on the city strip/sidewalk. 5. Some of the OSV dwellers turn public spaces around their vehicles in to their own personal workshops. 6. The OSV dwellers park extremely close together making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street 7. There is often a sewage like smell near some of the vehicles leading me to believe human waste is not being properly disposed of. 8. And, they run their gas generators for hours on end causing pollution from the noise and fumes. Palo Alto passed an anti-idling ordinance to prevent residents from running their cars for too long, but non-resident OSV dwellers are allow to run their generators (which pollute so much more than a modern car) for hours on end. This is a clear example of the City of Palo Alto having a double standard where they are prohibiting residents from engaging in a harmful behavior but turning a blind eye to the non-resident RV dwellers engaging in a significantly more harmful behavior. Why have these behaviors from the OSV dwellers been tolerated/allowed? Yet with the latest proposal from the committee it seems the city is willing to welcome more our OSVs to our city with little to no regulations to address behaviors like mentioned above. I was astonished to read that not only will the committee proposal fully allow OSV permit parking in 2 locations in the city, it will also allow non-permitted OSV parking on over 2 MILES of city streets. Regarding the price of the OSV parking permit, the bargain price of $15 a month will just serve to attract more OSVs to our city, is that the city council's goal? While I am not in favor of the permitted parking, if it is to happen the fee should be much, much higher. You charge your own city residents $42 A NIGHT to camp in Foothills park but somehow the non-resident OSV dwellers are given the bargain price of $15 A MONTH for similar accommodations. Another double standard where non residents are being treated much better than actual city residents. I will close with a short story. About 15 years ago I had an older vehicle of mine that I parked on the street in front of my house. The vehicle was rarely used and would sit on the street for weeks at a time. Eventually I guess a neighbor complained and I received a notice on the car of the 72-hour parking limit (which I was not previously aware of) and potential towing. THAT SAME DAY I tried to move the car but it would not start since the battery had died, so my son and I pushed the car into our driveway to immediately remove it from the street and be in compliance with the law. I did this because I wanted to be a good citizen and I genuinely feared the potential enforcement consequences and my car being towed. Years later, after seeing how the city has handled the OSV problem I feel like a fool doesn't seem to be much enforcement of anything by the City of Palo Alto. Most issues (including OSV parking) that I entered in to the 311 app or city's website form never are addressed and never receive any response. I urge you to do your duty and respect the wishes of your actual residents instead of non-resident OSV dwellers. Shut down the OSV parking proposal from the committee that will do nothing but encourage more OSV parking in the city, aggressively enforce our existing laws against OSV dwellers (e.g. 72 hour parking limit, illegal dumping) and to pass new laws to further reduce/eliminate OSV parking in the city like our neighboring cities have done. -Greg McShea From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins Cc:Vicki Veenker; Gerry Gras; Stone, Greer; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Sean Allen; Council, City; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; GRP-City Council; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Perron, Zachary; Zahra Billoo; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Clerk, City; Human Relations Commission; Bill Newell; Nancy Goodban; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; DuJuan Green; Board of Directors; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; City Attorney; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Eric Diesel; Jensen, Eric; Veenker, Vicki; Veenker, Vicki; Enberg, Nicholas; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; San José Spotlight; Brandon Pho; Susan Hayase; HRW Silicon Valley; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Friends of Cubberley; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; Jeff Rosen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; Lewis james; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steve Wagstaffe; Palo Alto Renters" Association; Seanjames143@yahoo.com Subject:Source: The Mercury News Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:59:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From the archives of Aram James Don't Demonize The Homeless Source: The Mercury News Aram James: Car dwelling ban would demonize the homeless https://share.google/CJ0W8sspj05MTXe5P From:Giselle Roohparvar To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Follow-up - Item 10, Aug. 24 Oversized Vehicle Pilot Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:15:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff, I recently wrote in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking pilots, while urging Council to build in a clear escalation mechanism to address displacement into surrounding neighborhoods and community areas. I am writing ahead of Monday’s vote because I am now seeing exactly the type of displacement I raised as a concern. Oversized vehicles are now parking in the Mitchell Park lot. I observed two there this morning, and I have seen as many as eight. They park parallel across the stalls rather than within them, meaning each vehicle occupies roughly two parking spaces. (See attached picture.) At eight vehicles, that represents approximately sixteen public parking spaces displaced. This is significant because Mitchell Park is not simply another parking area. It is one of Palo Alto’s most heavily used community facilities, serving the library, Community Center, fields and playground, pickleball courts, and near-continuous youth programming. It is also adjacent to a school and a heavily used bicycle corridor. More importantly, this is now the second park where I have observed OSVs after previously reporting RVs at Ramos Park. I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of residential homes on East Meadow. That makes the issue larger than whether RVs leave the pilot streets. The pilot should measure success by what happens beyond the pilot streets My concern is that a narrowly defined pilot could produce a misleading result: RVs disappear from the restricted streets, the City records that as success, and the vehicles simply relocate to nearby parks, residential streets, or other public facilities. That is not a reduction in the problem. It is a relocation of the problem. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report I therefore urge Council to make displacement itself a trigger for escalation, rather than merely something the City monitors. Specifically, I recommend that the City establish predetermined criteria under which restrictions or enforcement areas expand when OSVs begin concentrating in surrounding sensitive locations. Those triggers could include: Sensitive public facilities: OSV concentrations at parks, schools, libraries, community centers, or other heavily used public facilities should trigger additional enforcement or restrictions. Residential displacement: An increase in OSVs on surrounding residential streets following implementation of the pilot should trigger expansion of the restricted area. Concentration: Multiple OSVs gathering in a single location should be treated as a concentration problem rather than as a series of individually permissible parking events. Repeated relocation: Vehicles repeatedly moving among nearby locations should not be considered a successful outcome simply because they have moved off the original restricted street. This would give the City a predictable, objective framework rather than requiring Council to revisit the issue each time a new neighborhood experiences spillover. Mitchell Park illustrates why this matters Mitchell Park is precisely the kind of location that should receive heightened attention under an objective enforcement framework. In my previous letter, I pointed to San José’s OLIVE program, which considers factors including proximity to schools and parks, pedestrian and bicycle safety, sanitation issues, and vehicle concentrations when prioritizing enforcement. Mitchell Park scores highly on several of those factors. The parking capacity issue also has a direct traffic-safety dimension. The lot already serves substantial family and youth activity, and the adjacent school (Fairmeadow Elementary) directs families to use the lot for drop-off and pickup in order to keep queues off East Meadow. When the lot fills, traffic backs up heavily on East Meadow between Middlefield and Waverley, reintroducing congestion onto a street used by young children walking and biking to both Fairmeadow Elementary and JLS next door. I would therefore ask that the City include Mitchell Park and the surrounding streets in its baseline OSV counts before the pilot begins, and continue tracking them throughout the pilot. The same should be done for other parks and sensitive community facilities surrounding the pilot areas. Please incorporate the escalation mechanism into Monday's action I support moving forward with the pilots on Monday. The situation has been under discussion for long enough, and I do not want to slow down much-needed action from the City. But the pilot will be much more effective if the City incorporates the escalation mechanism at the outset, rather than waiting for displacement to become a larger problem and then having to restart the policy discussion. This does not require a complicated new program. The City can establish baseline counts, identify sensitive locations and surrounding streets, and define objective thresholds that trigger expansion of restrictions or enforcement when displacement occurs. That would allow Council to approve the pilots Monday (or after a short 30-day turnaround, if time is needed) while also ensuring that the pilots are designed to evolve when the data show they are not achieving their intended purpose. The goal should be straightforward: reduce the impact of oversized and lived-in vehicles on Palo Alto neighborhoods—not simply move them from one location to another. I continue to support the City's efforts to pair enforcement with services and realistic alternatives for people living in vehicles. At the same time, residential neighborhoods, parks, school-adjacent areas, and community facilities should not become a rotating network of substitute RV parking locations. I urge Council to approve the pilots on Monday and incorporate a clear, objective escalation mechanism into their implementation so that demonstrated displacement triggers expansion rather than being counted as a successful outcome. Thank you for your consideration and for your work on this difficult issue. Respectfully, Giselle R. Palo Alto, CA From:Shailo Rao To:Council, City Subject:Formal Complaint and Request for Enforcement: Off-Leash Dogs in Palo Alto Parks, Schools, and Public Areas Date:Thursday, August 20, 2026 8:00:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing as a Palo Alto resident, homeowner, taxpayer, and parent to file a formal complaint and request immediate City action regarding the widespread and repeated issue of dogs being off leash in public areas, including parks, school grounds, sidewalks, and children’s play areas. This is not a minor inconvenience or a matter of personal preference. It is a public safety issue. My children and their friends have been rushed by off-leash dogs five times in Palo Alto. These incidents have occurred because some dog owners knowingly ignore basic safety, common courtesy, and City law. Almost all dog owners are aware that dogs must be leashed in public areas, but too many continue to behave as though our parks, playgrounds, and school grounds are optional off-leash zones. The current situation reflects a breakdown in education, signage, and enforcement. Palo Alto already has clear municipal codes and park regulations governing leashed dogs, animals at large, nuisance animals, dangerous animals, and enforcement authority. Yet families continue to encounter off-leash dogs in areas where children should be able to play safely. The City is often quick to issue fines for minor infractions, yet when it comes to repeated violations that directly affect child safety in parks and school-adjacent areas, families do not feel adequately protected or supported. I am respectfully asking the City Council to direct staff to take the following actions: 1. Improve signage at parks, playgrounds, school-adjacent fields, trail entrances, and other high-traffic public spaces. Signs should clearly state: “Dogs must be leashed. Off- leash dogs are allowed only in designated dog parks. Violators may be cited.” 2. Increase enforcement in known problem areas, especially parks, school grounds, playgrounds, athletic fields, and walking paths where children are present. 3. Issue actual citations, not just warnings, for violations of Palo Alto’s leash, animal-at- large, nuisance-animal, dangerous-animal, and park regulations. 4. Publish a public enforcement plan, including which departments are responsible, how residents should report violations, expected response times, and how repeat offenders will be handled. 5. Review and increase the fine structure for off-leash dog violations, including fines starting at $10,000 for first time offenders and $100,000 for repeat offenders, egregious violations, dogs rushing or threatening children, or violations in playgrounds, school approach is clearly not creating sufficient deterrence. 6. Coordinate enforcement and communications across City departments, Animal Control, Palo Alto Police, Parks, PAUSD, and school-site administrators so families are not left to navigate a fragmented system. 7. Add this issue to an upcoming Council agenda or refer it to the appropriate committee so the public can understand what the City is doing to address the problem. This is a solvable problem. Palo Alto already has the legal framework. What is missing is visible enforcement, consistent communication, and a clear message that parks, school grounds, and playgrounds are not informal off-leash dog areas. I appreciate responsible dog owners who follow the rules and use designated dog parks appropriately. This complaint is not about them. It is about the minority of dog owners who disregard the law and create unsafe conditions for children and families. Our city is better than this. I am asking the Council to treat this as a real public safety and quality-of-life issue and to ensure that Palo Alto’s existing laws are meaningfully enforced. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and let me know what steps the City will take in response. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Palo Alto Resident, Homeowner, and Taxpayer Appendix: Relevant Palo Alto Codes and Regulations Palo Alto Municipal Code § 6.16.100 — Leash Required No person owning or harboring a dog may allow that dog, licensed or not, to be on any public street, sidewalk, park, school ground, public place, or unenclosed lot or land unless the dog is held under leash by an able-bodied person. Violation is an infraction. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 6.20.010 — Animals at Large No person owning or controlling an animal, except cats, may allow that animal to stray, run, or otherwise be at large on any public street, sidewalk, park, school ground, or unenclosed lot or land. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 6.20.040 — Nuisances by Animals It is unlawful for an owner or custodian, whether willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, to allow a dog or other animal to create a nuisance on sidewalks, walkways, paths, grass areas, play areas of parks or schools, or other common areas used by the public. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 6.20.100 — Penalty Violations of Chapter 6.20 constitute infractions unless otherwise provided. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 6.28.020 — Dangerous Animals at Large A dog known to be dangerous may not be allowed to run loose or remain unrestrained on public streets, sidewalks, parks, schoolyards, or another person’s property. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 22.04.030 — Compliance Required People in City parks and open space lands must comply with the Municipal Code and City Manager regulations, and it is unlawful to disobey posted park or open-space regulations. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 22.04.035 — Enforcement The City has authority to enforce park and open-space regulations through citations, including by park rangers and other designated City personnel. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 22.04.155 — Dogs in City Parks and Open Space Lands Dogs are prohibited where park regulations and posted signs prohibit them, and dog conduct in parks and open space lands is specifically regulated. Palo Alto Park and Open Space Regulation R1-30 — Animals Dogs and other animals in park facilities must be leashed and under the full control of their owner or custodian, with off-leash exceptions only where the City has specifically designated them. Palo Alto Park and Open Space Regulation R1-31 — Nuisance Dogs No person may allow or have on park or open-space land a dog that is threatening or a nuisance to people, other animals, or property. The regulation specifically notes that care should be taken with leashed pets in playgrounds so that their presence does not interfere with children’s use. Palo Alto Park and Open Space Regulation R1-32 — Dog Exercise Area Dogs may be off leash only within designated dog exercise areas, and must be leashed until safely inside the dog park and returned to a leash before exiting. Owners must remain in the fenced area and monitor and manage their dogs at all times. From:Aram James To:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Raymond Goins Cc:citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Friends of Cubberley; City Attorney; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Bill Newell; board@pausd.org; Board of Directors; Jay Boyarsky; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Sean Allen; Supervisor Betty Duong Subject:L.A. City Council repeals homeless camping bans in Echo Park, Silver Lake, Hollywood Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:56:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. L.A. City Council repeals homeless camping bans in Echo Park, Silver Lake, Hollywood https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-19/la-city-council-repeals-homeless- camping-bans-in-echo-park-silver-lake-hollywood From:Shailo Rao To:Hiral Parekh Cc:Shea, Kyle; City Mgr; Reynolds, Brian; pdsdirector; Council, City; Gerhardt, Jodie; Ethan Lin; Jeff Jeff; Sarah Smith Le; Amy Amy; kibert724@yahoo.com Subject:Re: 3935 Duncan Place - intrusive bright lights and big windows Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:00:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Response please. Please stop reckless house flippers from ruining our community. On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 8:27 AM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, As a brief follow-up, I wanted to highlight the Palo Alto standards that appear most relevant to the impacts we are experiencing at 3905 Duncan Place: ADU privacy standards — PAMC §18.09.040: Palo Alto includes objective privacy protections for ADUs, including requirements addressing windows that face adjacent residential properties. First-floor windows: For certain first-floor windows facing an adjacent interior property line, the Code requires additional privacy protection depending on the height of the finished floor above grade and whether the window is an egress window. These protections can include opaque glazing, elevated sill heights, or alternative window placement. Egress windows: Where feasible, first-floor egress windows should not face an adjacent interior property line. Where that cannot be avoided, opaque glazing may be required. Window placement: The Code also encourages the use of skylights instead of operable windows facing adjacent properties where feasible, reflecting the City’s intent to reduce direct privacy impacts. ADU exterior lighting — PAMC §18.09.040(k)(2)(G): Exterior lighting must be directed downward and may not direct light toward adjacent interior property lines. Outdoor lighting — PAMC §18.40.250: Palo Alto requires outdoor lighting to be shielded and directed to prevent light trespass and minimize impacts on neighboring properties. In low-density residential areas, spillover lighting onto adjacent properties is not allowed. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Given these provisions, I am asking the City to review both the approved plans and the completed construction at 3935 Duncan Place and determine specifically whether the window placement, glazing, sightlines, exterior lighting, and as-built conditions comply with the applicable standards. I would also appreciate confirmation of which ADU ordinance and privacy standards were applied to this project when it was approved. Thank you, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 9:20 PM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning Department, I am writing about the ADU expansion and rebuild approved at 3935 Duncan Place and the direct impact it has had on our home at 3905 Duncan Place. The result is unacceptable. The new structure sits in extremely close proximity to our property and directly overlooks our home and backyard. Bright indoor and outdoor lighting faces our property and are left on all night. We have lost privacy and peace and now feel exposed in our own home. I understand the City’s desire to support ADUs and additional housing. But development should not come at the expense of the basic privacy and quality of life of the family living next door. In this case, the City allowed a developer to dramatically increase the size and value of a property while leaving our family to bear the consequences. I find that deeply frustrating and, frankly, disgusting. I am a working mother raising three children in Palo Alto. We work extremely hard to live in this community, and it is upsetting to see how little weight our family’s privacy appears to have carried in this process. I am asking members of the Planning Department and City Council to come to 3905 Duncan Place and see the impact firsthand. I also ask the City to identify what mitigation can now be required to address the lighting and privacy impacts created by this project. The developer won here, and our family was left to bear the consequences. That is not acceptable. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place From:David Hung To:Transportation; Lo, Ria; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; David Hung Subject:Formal Administrative Submission: Technical Realignment Alternative (The Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan) - David Hung Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 7:39:35 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! FORMAL PROJECT REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION Date: August 19, 2026 Project Reference: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project (Phase 3 Public Draft Review / 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update) Submission Type: Individual Administrative Record Anchor Document To: Office of Transportation, City of Palo Alto (Transportation@paloalto.gov) Chief Transportation Official (Ria.Lo@PaloAlto.gov) Charlie Coles (charlie.coles@paloalto.gov) Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) CC: This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Palo Alto City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov) Office of the City Clerk (City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov) RE: Formal Notice and Administrative Submission of 'The Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid' Plan To the Office of Transportation, Lead Engineers, and Project Consultants: This document formally submits and introduces 'The Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan' (hereafter referred to as "The Hybrid Plan") into the permanent administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project. I am submitting this proposal strictly as an individual property owner and resident during the active Phase 3 Public Draft Review window. The purpose of this submission is to establish a technically viable design alternative on public land that accomplishes 100% of the city’s regional multi-modal connectivity goals while bypassing the structural liabilities, civil safety risks, and private property infringements introduced by the current El Dorado Avenue layout draft. This document serves as formal administrative notice that a less damaging, code- compliant alternative exists within the existing public right-of-way. I respectfully ask that city staff formally log, model, and evaluate the specific parameters detailed below. THE 5-POINT ENGINEERING BLUEPRINT OF THE HYBRID PLAN The Hybrid Plan utilizes an all-public right-of-way footprint to achieve regional multi- modal connectivity goals seamlessly, bypassing the subsurface water and electrical utility lines that blocked a full tunnel farther south at Loma Verde by decoupling the surface signal route from the physical underpass slot. The City of Palo Alto and its consultants are asked to evaluate the following five integrated technical parameters: 1. Traffic Signal Realignment: Place the new vehicular traffic light and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street—an established, high-capacity collector street designed to safely absorb vehicle queues without cutting through quiet residential grids. Crucially, Loma Verde Avenue provides a robust, continuous arterial link all the way to West Bayshore Road, providing a safe bi-directional connection for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars that naturally routes cross-town traffic along an appropriate corridor. 2. Lateral Roadway Lane-Shift: Shift the active vehicular driving lanes of Alma Street eastward. Between the edge of the existing parking cutouts on the east side of Alma Street and the residential sidewalk sits exactly 79 inches of available public greenspace. Realignment of the active asphalt into this space clears an identical operating envelope on the west side of the street. Because the city is already actively proposing lane shifts in its own technical project designs, this lateral adjustment uses established municipal engineering precedents and keeps the apartment parking cutouts fully intact. 3. West-Side Class IV Protected Bikeway: Utilize the newly cleared operating envelope to construct a premier Class IV Protected Two-Way Bikeway entirely on the west side of Alma Street, running parallel to the Caltrain tracks from Loma Verde Avenue directly northwest to the El Dorado Avenue rail axis. This routes the 2,500 daily regional active transit trips completely off residential blocks. 4. Comprehensive Rail Corridor Security: Fully secure the west-side parallel bikeway by installing standard Caltrain 8-to-10-foot anti-climb steel safety fencing and dense, environmental buffer planting (CPTED compliant) between the bike path and the rail line. The wide Class IV layout will seamlessly accommodate mountable curbs and removable entry bollards, ensuring absolute compliance with California fire and life-safety codes by providing emergency personnel with immediate, continuous access. 5. Optimal Underpass Tunnel Slot & Zero Private Property Acquisition: Terminate the west-side path at the El Dorado rail axis, slicing directly under the railroad tracks to Park Boulevard. This utilizes the shortest possible physical excavation span beneath the Caltrain rail line, capturing maximum infrastructure savings for the city budget while completely avoiding any eminent domain or private property acquisition along the residential stretch. The graphic showing this plan is included below: Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INCLUSION Pursuant to Palo Alto public review guidelines, the Office of Transportation is required to log this individual submission into the project records. I respectfully ask that project engineers formally model the 79-inch Alma Street lateral lane-shift and the Loma Verde signal realignment as a standalone, non-destructive public land option prior to authorizing any funding allocations or advance engineering design locks for the El Dorado alternative. This document will be referenced directly in all subsequent advisory board meetings, public workshops, and city council hearings to track municipal accountability and planning completeness. Please reply directly to this email to verify receipt of this formal document and confirm that it has been uploaded into the permanent administrative record for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project before the upcoming PABAC agenda packet lock. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, David Hung Palo Alto Resident and Property Owner Address: 2789 Bryant St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reasons for this mobile cell phone email message is because the most expensive big homes in the city all ready have ADU and there’s also the group of RV owners that are college football... Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 6:52:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Sent from my iPhone From:Scott Van Duyne To:Council, City Cc:rmarinaro@mac.com; Barry Katz; Rebecca Sanders Subject:Regarding Aug. 24 RV Pilot: Please Consider a Distributed, Citywide Alternative Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 3:40:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am a Palo Alto resident writing about the RV parking pilot scheduled for Council consideration on August 24. I support the City's effort to create a humane, orderly system for people living in vehicles. But I believe the proposed pilot has a fundamental weakness: it concentrates a citywide responsibility on a very small number of streets. The proposal would provide 20 permitted spaces on Coyote Hill Road and 17 near the end of Embarcadero Road -- 37 spaces in total -- while the City counted 133 RV dwellers in May. At the same time, parking restrictions would be imposed on 22 commercial and industrial blocks, where people spend their working days making a living. And many of these streets are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. I would ask Council to consider a different model: distributed permitted parking throughout Palo Alto, with no more than one vehicle-dwelling permit on any eligible block or defined street segment. City staff could determine eligibility based on street width, fire access, bike lanes, driveways, visibility, parking demand, and other legitimate safety constraints. Not every block would qualify, nor would every qualifying space necessarily be occupied. This approach has several advantages. It distributes responsibility fairly rather than concentrating impacts on a few businesses and neighborhoods. It avoids creating large clusters that can produce sanitation, parking and neighborhood problems. And one RV per block would make routine street sweeping and sanitation much easier: permit holders could simply be required to move during scheduled cleaning. Importantly, this model could retain the constructive parts of the current proposal— insurance, the $15 permit, a good-neighbor agreement, housing-service participation, sanitation requirements and enforcement. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast The City's own analysis reportedly recognizes that a geographically limited pilot may simply cause unpermitted oversized vehicles to move into areas outside the pilot. A distributed system addresses that problem directly: instead of repeatedly moving concentrations from one neighborhood to another, manage the population by dispersing permitted spaces throughout the city. Before committing to concentrated locations, I respectfully ask Council to direct staff to answer one straightforward question: How many safe, eligible spaces would Palo Alto have if vehicle-dwelling permits were distributed citywide at a maximum of one per qualifying block or street segment? If that number is sufficient to accommodate most or all of Palo Alto's vehicle-dwelling population, I believe this alternative deserves serious consideration as a pilot. If Palo Alto considers providing safe parking a community responsibility, then the fairest policy is for that responsibility to be shared by the whole community, not disproportionately by a handful of streets and neighborhoods. Thank you for considering this alternative on August 24. Sincerely, Scott Van Duyne Palo Alto Resident From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr Cc:Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Leslie Bulbuk; Nicole Fernandez; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jensen, Christopher; 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; Theron 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; Greg Schmid (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; 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; Apple, Kara; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Gary Gechlik; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Bulatao, Eric Subject:City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 1:13:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Community, Here is another alternative proposal/solution for the OSV parking problem that was recently submitted to the City. Please let your city leaders know how you view this alternative versus the proposal by the City staff and submitted to the City Council for approval. Best, Bob Marinaro Begin forwarded message: From: Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com> Subject: City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Problem/Solution Date: August 18, 2026 at 9:02:39 AM PDT To: "Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov" <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>, "Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org" <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>, Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, "Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov" <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, "George.Lu@paloalto.gov" <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>, "CityMgr@paloalto.gov" <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, "McDonough, Melissa" <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> Cc: Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com> 8-18-2026 Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Manager Staff, I would like to offer a potential solution to the OSV parking problem that the City has been experiencing for years and has yet to solve. This proposal is not all of my own making; I have also incorporated elements that have been suggested by others. Loren Brown OSV PARKING PROBLEM ORIGINS: First, we need to understand the problem. Associated with the high cost of housing and the deterioration of livable wages in this country, people began living in recreational vehicles or oversized vehicles (OSVs). Between 10 and 15 years ago, OSVs began parking in increasing numbers on City of Palo Alto streets. The number of OSVs in Palo Alto has since grown to between 150 and 250 in 2026 (including OSVs parked in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road) . The problem can be defined as an influx of OSV dwellers deciding that Palo Alto is their home and having few parking alternatives other than parking their OSVs on public streets. CITY OF PALO ALTO RESPONSE TO OSV PARKING PROBLEM: The City of Palo Alto (like many municipalities) likely did not anticipate the large number of OSVs that came to call Palo Alto home. Because the City did not anticipate the large number of OSVs parking on Palo Alto streets, the City did not take action to either limit the total number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto or to prevent the OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods. Parked OSVs are incompatible with business districts and residential neighborhoods, but because the City was not proactive in preventing OSVs from parking on City streets, the OSVs, over time, became “entitled” by City Council, by City Staff, and by City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement. City Council is apparently unwilling to impose a City-wide ban on OSVs parking on Palo Alto streets. To date, the City of Palo Alto has been unwilling to tackle this issue head-on and find a comprehensive solution. Yes, the City has effected some changes that have slightly reduced the magnitude of the OSV parking problem; however, the OSV parking problem is still large in magnitude. Every attempt by the City to lessen the negative impact of OSVs in business and residential neighborhoods has been ineffective because the City is unwilling to ban OSV parking in Palo Alto, unwilling to cap the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto, and unwilling to find an alternative location for the OSVs to park. CURRENT STATE OF THE OSV PARKING PROBLEM: The inability of the City to date to enact an effective and comprehensive solution to the OSV parking problem has resulted in a very large set of unhappy business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. OSV residents are not happy with the reception they receive from business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. City leaders, City staff, and City code enforcement personnel are not happy with the situation either. CREATION OF OSV PARKING PROGRAM AND PROGRAM GOALS: It is time for City leaders to develop a comprehensive and effective OSV parking program. The OSV parking program needs to accomplish the following goals: 1. Immediately stop all OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business districts and residential neighborhoods. 2. Prevent additional out-of-town OSVs from migrating to park on Palo Alto streets. 3. Provide designated locations where OSVs that are currently parking in Palo Alto can park. 4. Provide behavioral rules for OSV occupants to adhere to while parked in Palo Alto. 5. Decrease the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto over time. 6. Other? OSV PARKING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS: 1. The City of Palo Alto creates off-street OSV parking for approximately 150 OSVs. Total capacity = the current number of OSVs parking on CPA public streets + the number of OSVs parking in the Life Moves lot on Geng Road) 2. The City of Palo Alto caps the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto as of a designated date (these OSVs become pre-existing). After the designated date, no new OSVs (OSVs migrating to Palo Alto from outside Palo Alto) can begin parking in Palo Alto without express approval by the City. 3. The City of Palo Alto creates an OSV registration system and a set of behavioral rules for OSV registrants. The purpose of the registration system is for the City to identify every OSV/OSV occupant that is parking on Palo Alto public property. With an OSV registration system, the City can then detect pre-existing OSVs from new migrating OSVs that arrive in Palo Alto after the designated date and attempt to park their OSVs on public property. 4. The City of Palo Alto requires all pre-existing OSVs to register their OSVs. Any OSVs that are unwilling to register in the City’s OSV parking program must immediately leave Palo Alto. 5. The City of Palo Alto provides all registered OSVs the privilege of parking in one of PA’s designated OSV parking locations if and only if the OSVs commit to complying with City of Palo Alto OSV Parking Program rules. All OSVs then parking on public property in Palo Alto must relocate to City-designated OSV parking locations. OSVs are banned from parking anywhere else in the City of Palo Alto. 6. The OSV Parking Program rules define where OSVs can park as well as define acceptable living behaviors. The OSV Parking Program rules also require OSV occupants to join a City of Palo Alto wait list for more permanent housing (non-OSV housing). 7. If/when a more permanent housing option becomes available, OSV occupants must either accept the housing assignment and remove their OSV from Palo Alto, or they must relocate their OSV outside of the City of Palo Alto. 8. Over time, the number of OSVs parking on public property will decline for the following reasons: a). OSVs will accept more permanent housing options. b). OSVs will decide to vacate Palo Alto. c). There will be no new out-of-town OSV’s migrating to Palo Alto. 9. Over time (as the number of OSVs parking in Palo Alto declines), the City of Palo Alto can shrink or eliminate some/all of its designated OSV parking locations as well as the extent of public services provided to parked OSVs. OSV PARKING PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 1. The OSV Parking Program eliminates OSVs from parking in Palo Alto business parks and residential neighborhoods (thereby revitalizing those neighborhoods). 2. The OSV Parking Program respects current OSV dwellers and improves their living conditions. 3. The OSV Parking Program reduces/eliminates the current friction between OSV occupants, business owners, business tenants, business customers, and Palo Alto residents. 4. The OSV Parking Program puts an end to out-of-town OSVs migrating to park in Palo Alto. With no influx of OSVs into the City of Palo Alto, the number of OSVs parking on public property will decrease over time (thereby reducing the City of Palo Alto's OSV Parking Program costs). 5. OSVs are concentrated in designated areas, thereby making it easier for the City of Palo Alto to provide services to the OSV community (i.e., sanitation services, Wi-Fi, power, water, etc.) 6. Police Department code enforcement costs associated with responding to OSV parking issues should decrease. CITY RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR THIS OSV PARKING PROGRAM: 1. City of Palo Alto Staff time required to formalize and implement the OSV Parking Program. 2. Land in the form of parking spaces for approximately 130 OSVs (150 total required less 20 spaces at Geng Road Life Moves lot = 130 OSV parking spaces). These spaces can be on Coyote Hill Road, Embarcadero Road, the Caltrans lot at Highway 101 and San Antonio Road, on City-owned surplus land located on Geng Road directly across Geng Road from Life Moves or other City-owned land. Virtually all of this land can be utilized for this purpose with little cost. 3. City of Palo Alto funds to prepare designated land for OSV parking use (gravel surfacing, perimeter fences, portable toilets, power, etc.). 4. City of Palo Alto funds to provide limited services to parked OSVs. 5. City of Palo Alto funds for OSV Parking Program registration system and OSV Parking Program administration. 6. City of Palo Alto funds for street signage? 7. Other? MISCELLANEOUS: 1. A program element could be included that allows existing City of Palo Alto residents who lose their housing and are forced to live in an OSV to register (after the designated date) their OSV in the OSV Parking Program. END Sent from my iPad From:Rodrigo Baptista To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City; Nicholas A Bloom; Eric Madrigal Subject:Exploring Additional Soccer Field Opportunities in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 12:33:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Council Members, I am the Executive Director of Palo Alto Soccer Club and Silicon Valley Soccer Academy, as well as a Palo Alto resident. Our programs serve approximately 1,600 competitive boys and girls players and more than 800 recreational players. The shortage of available field space continues to be a significant challenge for our PA players and local families. Over the years, we have discussed several possible solutions with the City, including installing permanent lights at the Cubberley turf field and Greer Park Fields 1 and 2. These improvements would significantly increase the usable hours of existing facilities and provide some immediate relief. We would also like to revisit the potential development of additional athletic fields in the Baylands. As part of the City’s 2013 Municipal Golf Course reconfiguration project, the City studied incorporating approximately 10.5 acres of the former golf course into the Baylands Athletic Center for future recreational use. The initial concept contemplated up to 5 full-size soccer fields and a gymnasium. At the time, the Club engaged a development firm to evaluate the site. Based on its assessment of the property and the surrounding wetlands, the firm determined that the site could accommodate 3 full-size soccer fields and a gymnasium. Although the athletic complex was not ultimately developed, the golf course reconfiguration added approximately 10.5 acres to the Baylands Athletic Center for future recreation. Given the City’s previous planning work, the Club’s preliminary site evaluation, and the continued shortage of youth athletic fields, we believe it would be worthwhile to review the current status of the property and determine whether all or a portion of the original concept remains feasible. We are very interested in working with the City to develop additional athletic fields at This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast the Baylands, at a minimum, a soccer facility comparable in size to the Mayfield Soccer Complex. This project could be developed through a public private partnership or a long-term lease agreement with the Club. We believe PASC/SVSA has the organizational expertise, operational experience, and financial capacity to be a strong partner in developing, maintaining, and operating a new facility in collaboration with the City of Palo Alto. Would you be available for a meeting? I would be joined by representatives from PASC and SVSA management team. Thank you for your consideration. We would be thrilled with the opportunity to discuss how the Club and the City could work together to create additional field capacity for Palo Alto’s youth and broader community. Rodrigo Baptista Executive Director Palo Alto Soccer Club & Silicon Valley Soccer Academy Palo Alto Resident -- Rodrigo Baptista Executive Director I Palo Alto Soccer Club | Silicon Valley Soccer Academy C: 650-704-4456 rodrigo.baptista@pasoccerclub.org https://pasoccerclub.org/ 4000 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA From:Giselle Roohparvar To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Support for Agenda Item #10 OSV Parking Pilots — and Recommendations to Strengthen the Program Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:40:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Staff, I am a Palo Alto property owner writing in strong support of the proposed Oversized Vehicle (OSV) parking pilots. My property is immediately adjacent to the 1000 block of East Meadow Circle, which is specifically included in the alternating-side pilot, so I have a direct interest in seeing this program succeed. I appreciate the City's approach of pairing enforceable restrictions with designated parking, services, and accountability for people currently living in vehicles. I urge Council to approve the pilots. I would, however, encourage Council to treat them as the first step toward a stronger, neighborhood-wide strategy, particularly because I am already seeing evidence of the displacement problem the City is anticipating. First, please measure success by what happens to the surrounding neighborhood—not simply whether RVs leave the designated streets. The 1000 block of East Meadow Circle is primarily commercial, but it sits within a residential neighborhood and immediately adjacent to homes and community uses. Since the recent restrictive signage went up, I have personally observed what appears to be spillover into surrounding areas: on two separate occasions I have seen RVs parked in front of Ramos Park, and I have also observed an RV parked directly in front of residential homes on East Meadow. I recognize these observations are anecdotal, but they are precisely the type of displacement the City should be monitoring. I encourage the City to establish baseline OSV counts before the pilot and then track, by street, OSV counts, duration, complaints, citations, tows and sanitation issues—not just on the pilot streets but throughout the surrounding neighborhood. If the data show that vehicles are simply spilling over from restricted streets onto nearby residential streets, the City should have a clear mechanism for expanding restrictions rather than considering the pilot successful. Second, East Meadow Circle and other sensitive locations should receive heightened enforcement priority. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report East Meadow Circle is close to schools, parks and heavily used bicycle paths, in addition to being embedded in a residential neighborhood. San José's OLIVE program provides an excellent model: it prioritizes enforcement based on factors including proximity to schools and parks, waterways and storm drains, vehicle concentrations, sanitation issues, and pedestrian and bicycle safety. San José now conducts citywide inventories and establishes up to 50 temporary tow-away sites annually, with a supplemental program for lower-priority locations. Palo Alto could adopt similar objective criteria, allowing limited enforcement resources to be directed toward the locations where OSVs create the greatest public impact. Third, make "rotation" meaningful. A restriction is much less effective if an RV can simply move a short distance across the street and return. Cupertino's ordinance, which took effect in 2025, allows residents limited overnight permits but requires an oversized vehicle to move at least 1,500 feet after a permit expires and prohibits returning within that distance for the following 72 hours. Palo Alto should consider a similar minimum relocation distance and return period in its longer-term framework so that rotation actually disperses vehicles rather than simply moving them from one block or parking space to another. Fourth, the City needs to solve the practical towing and storage constraint. The ability to tow is only useful if the City has sufficient towing and storage capacity. Palo Alto should determine the true all-in cost of towing, storage and disposal and structure its contracts accordingly. The City should also look beyond Palo Alto for storage capacity. San Francisco provides a particularly useful local example: SFMTA has used a primary storage facility in San Francisco together with a designated long-term storage facility at 2650 Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City. Vehicles requiring longer-term storage can be moved to the Daly City facility, demonstrating that a city does not necessarily need to locate all of its impound capacity within its own boundaries. Palo Alto could explore a similar arrangement with a neighboring jurisdiction or private industrial/storage operator. Fifth, I encourage Palo Alto to explore an RV buyback program paired with housing assistance. This is one of the most promising developments in neighboring cities. Berkeley has tested an RV buyback model paired with shelter and housing services, and Sunnyvale's City Council voted in April 2026 to pursue an RV buyback program alongside interim housing and designated OSV permit parking. Sunnyvale's approach is particularly interesting because it concluded that conventional safe parking was not a viable solution at meaningful scale and instead moved toward a combination of enforcement, permitted parking, housing and vehicle buyback. This provides something enforcement alone cannot: an exit strategy. For people willing to transition out of vehicle living, a properly structured buyback and housing program could permanently remove vehicles from the public right-of-way rather than repeatedly moving them from one neighborhood to another. Finally, I encourage Council to use the pilot period to evaluate whether Palo Alto should eventually move beyond a list of individual restricted streets toward a more comprehensive framework based on objective criteria such as street width, pedestrian and bicycle safety, proximity to schools and parks, sight distance, sanitation impacts, and demonstrated neighborhood displacement. I support the City's efforts to provide meaningful alternatives and services for people currently living in vehicles, but I also believe residential neighborhoods should not be used as de facto long-term RV parking or housing. Residents deserve streets that are safe, sanitary, accessible and appropriate for their intended use. I urge Council to approve the proposed pilots, but also to build in a clear escalation mechanism: if the pilot merely moves RVs into adjacent residential streets, the City should respond by expanding enforcement rather than considering the pilot successful. The goal should not simply be to move the problem. It should be to reduce the impact of oversized and lived-in vehicles on Palo Alto neighborhoods while creating realistic pathways out of vehicle living for those who need them. Thank you for your work on this difficult issue and for taking the concerns of affected neighborhoods seriously. Respectfully, Giselle R. Palo Alto, CA From:Bianca Patel To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program - August 24 Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:03:02 AM Attachments:The Foster Museum_City Council Letter.pdf Enclosure_The Foster Museum Vehicle Log 2021-2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the City Council, Attached is a public comment letter and vehicle reporting log from The Foster Museum regarding the Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program on your August 24 agenda. Our museum is located at 940 Commercial Street - on the 900 block specifically named in the staff report. We've been documenting oversized vehicle impacts at this location since 2021 and have outlined four specific requests for the Council's consideration. We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment at the meeting as well. Thank you, Bianca Bianca Patel Executive Director The Foster Museum 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.thefoster.org | (o) 650-209-7181 (m) 737-352-3833 This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast August 18, 2026 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Public Comment — Oversized Vehicle Parking Pilot Program (August 24, 2026) Dear Members of the City Council, Oversized vehicles have been parked in front of The Foster Museum (a free, public cultural institution at 940 Commercial Street) continuously since 2021. As Executive Director, I am writing because our block is specifically named in the staff report as part of the proposed “alternating sides” parking restriction, and we have serious concerns about the adequacy of this approach for our block. We recognize that the City is navigating a difficult and deeply human challenge, and we do not take lightly the circumstances that lead people to live in vehicles. Our concern is not with the City’s goals, which we share, but with the specific implementation on our block. The Foster Museum was founded by Jane Woodward, a native Palo Altan, lifelong resident, and internationally recognized businesswoman who has invested millions of dollars to create a free, world- class cultural institution that is open to everyone in this community. The museum offers free admission six days a week, hosts over 6,000 guests annually, is ranked #4 among TripAdvisor’s Top Attractions in Palo Alto, and provides free programming for schools, seniors, and community groups. We purchased the building in 2024, permanently committing to this neighborhood. More about the museum can be found at www.thefoster.org. A Documented, Worsening Problem Museum staff have logged oversized vehicle incidents in front of 940 Commercial Street continuously since 2021. A detailed vehicle reporting log is enclosed. The impacts are concrete: • Visibility and access: RVs block our facade and signage, making the museum invisible to first- time visitors and tourists. • Safety: Sightlines from our driveway are blocked; generators, propane tanks, wiring, and debris occupy the public right-of-way. • Accessibility: Children, seniors, and visitors with disabilities are forced to park far from the entrance. • Events and programming: The museum hosts community events, exhibitions, and programming that draw visitors to the building. Oversized vehicles parked directly outside affect the experience for event attendees and reduce available street parking for guests. Our Concerns with the Proposed Plan • The plan treats our block like a residential street. The Foster Museum is a public-facing cultural venue that depends on street visibility and a welcoming exterior. The impact of RVs in front of a museum entrance is qualitatively different from the impact on a residential block. • Displacement is acknowledged but unaddressed. The staff report itself states the program “will likely drive some vehicles to other blocks.” Without stronger protections, Commercial Street could absorb displaced vehicles from other segments. • The City’s own approach could be expanded. The City has already identified low-traffic corridors like Coyote Hill Road and Embarcadero Road as effective permit-zone locations. We encourage the Council to expand this approach to additional similar corridors, such as segments of Fabian Way. These corridors could accommodate more designated parking without impacting cultural institutions, schools, or business frontages. • Six months is too long. For a visitor-facing business, six months of RVs on one side of the street represents an entire exhibition season of impaired access. We are not asking the City to eliminate the oversized vehicle program. We are asking the Council to ensure that its implementation protects Palo Alto’s community assets. Our Specific Requests 1. Establish a no-parking buffer zone directly in front of 940 Commercial Street so the museum’s facade, signage, and driveway sightlines remain clear regardless of the rotation schedule. 2. Shorten the rotation cycle for the 900 block to 90 days instead of six months. 3. Prioritize enforcement and monitoring on this block, tracking whether displaced vehicles concentrate near the museum. 4. Expand designated permit zones to additional low-impact corridors such as Fabian Way. We have documented this problem for over four years, and have worked cooperatively with the Police Department and city staff. We welcome the opportunity to speak during public comment and invite any Council member or staff to visit the museum and see the situation firsthand. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bianca Patel Executive Director, The Foster Museum 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto (737) 352-3833 Enclosures: • Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log, 2021–Present • Photographs of current conditions (see next page) Photographs: Oversized Vehicles at 940 Commercial Street RVs parked in front of the museum (approaching guest’s view of 940 Commercial St) Museum entrance with adjacent RVs RVs in front of museum (note propane tanks on the sidewalk) Oversized and Abandoned Vehicle Reporting Log The Foster Museum, 940 Commercial Street, Palo Alto Documented incidents: 2021 – Present Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved Itasca by Winnebago, License #2KCA015, in front of 940 Commercial White, blue pinstripes 10/14/21, 10/19/21 10/18/21 10/22/21 5th Wheel Camper Trailer (No Plate) + Van License #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White w/ silver detail, "Wilderness"; White van w/ teddy bear 5/31/22 6/4/22 6/6/22 Jamee Camper, License #8UJM381, in front of 940 Commercial Cream w/ brown, orange, tan detail 7/13/22 7/19/22, 7/22/22 7/25/22 5th Wheel + Van #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 7/14/22 7/14/22 7/20/22 5th Wheel + Van #10373, in front of 940 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 3/22/23 3/28/23 5th Wheel + Van #10373, at 950 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 4/15/23 8/28/23 8/31/23 RV, License #5RGS155, in front of 950 Commercial Grey-Silver, blue/tan trim, Trek Safari 9/13/23 9/15/23 9/16/23 9/18/23 Storage Trailer, License #4SU3290, at 950 Commercial White, Titanium Cargo Trailers LLC 9/20/23 9/29/23, 10/5/23, 10/18/23 10/22/23 Camper Van (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial GMC, pink/blue w/ black painted emblems 9/22/23 9/29/23 Truck w/ custom wooden camper (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial Older Ford, green truck 9/22/23 9/29/23 5th Wheel + Van #10373, at 950 Commercial White "Wilderness" + van w/ teddy bear 10/24/23 11/13/23 (Holly Knapp Board Member, w/ Officer Brill) 11/18/23 Camper Van (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial GMC, pink/blue w/ black emblems 11/17/23 11/24/23 Truck w/ custom wooden camper (no plate), in front of 940 Commercial Older Ford, green truck 11/17/23 11/24/23 Bounder RV, License #3PQD855, in front of 940 Commercial Light tan w/ gray/burgundy stripes 6/15/24 6/19/24 (Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 6/21/24 Camper Trailer, License #RN 4959 Prowler, white w/ yellow trim 9/18/24 9/18/24 9/23/24 Abandoned microwave and generator found in front of building 10/17/24 Camper Trailer, License #4LV4021 Sierra by Cobra, white w/ brown pinstripe 10/22/24 10/25/24 10/27/24 10/31/24 Truck w/ custom wooden camper, License #053 S10 Older Ford, green truck 11/6/24 11/7/24 RV, AZ License #BXE8049 Mallard, white w/ blue trim 11/15/24 11/20/24 11/21/24 11/22/24 5th Wheel Trailer, License #1KY4872 Wanderer Wagon, white w/ blue/grey trim 11/24/24 11/26/24 11/26/24 11/27/25 Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved Inoperable pickup truck in museum back lot (placed by RV dweller) Gray pickup, broken windshield 12/13/25 12/18/25 12/18/24 Dodge van (no plate), in front of museum White, "Mazzy's Fire Protection Services" 12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25 1/14/25 Ford van, License #8L10716 Blue and light blue Ford van 12/29/24 1/3/25, 1/7/25, 1/14/25 1/20/25 5th Wheel + Van #10373 (no plate) White "Wilderness" + GMC van 3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 3/14/25 RV, AZ License #BXE8049 White w/ dark blue trim 3/11/25 3/12/25 (+ Holly Knapp w/ Officer Brill) 3/14/25 Chevrolet pickup, License #51910W1 Light brown/bronze 5/23/25 5/23/25 (emailed Officer Jun) 5/27/25 3 vehicles in front of museum Big wooden one, blue/pink van, white/yellow one 7/24/25 7/28/25 7/29/25 2 RVs: PaceArrow License #8DMW047 + SeaBreeze License #3EMV964 White RV w/ blue trim; White RV w/ faded blue/purple trim 7/31/25 8/1/25, 8/7/25 Black Van Make: Toyota or Subaru Unable to get the license number Black Van - 4 door The van belonged to the people in the RV reported above 9/9/25 Asked the owners to move out of our designated parking space on 9/9/25 RV CA License #9HJN053 White RV with blue trim and pinstriping 9/17/25 9/19/25 5th Wheel Trailer CA License #1NM6643 White 5th wheel with black/gray trim and pinstriping 9/18/25 9/19/25 RV CA License #2RUL916 White Ford RV with gray/blue/maroon trim 10/7/25 10/10/25 10/12/25 5th Wheel Trailer License: Unknown White 5th Wheel with green trim Model: Layton 10/12/25 10/14/25 RV CA License #9HJN053 White RV with light and dark blue trim 10/29/25 11/3/25 RV CA License #5SSJ533 White RV with tan and black trim 10/30/25 11/4/25 5th Wheel CA License #1LN261 White 5th wheel trailer with tan and brown trim 11/5/25 11/8/25 11/10/25 RV License #K3975 White RV with light blue and dark blue trim 11/13/25 11//17/25, 12/2/25 12/5/25 RV CA License #8MYH017 White RV with light and dark green detailing 11/15/25 11/19/25, 12/2/25, 12/9/25 The RV was tagged on 12/3/25. The tag was removed on 12/4/25. 12/7/25 RV CA License #9MBD743 White RV with gray and green detailing 12/5/25 12/9/25 12/12/25 5th Wheel Trailer License unknown White 5th Wheel with green trim 1/8/26 1/10/26 1/13/26 Vehicle Information Vehicle Description Arrived Called/Reported Tagged Moved RV CA License #3EMV96 White RV with faded blue and purple trim Model: SeaBreeze 2/16/26 2/17/26 2/18/26 RV CA License #9EMD349 White RV with pink and blue trim 3/1/26 3/3/26 RV CA License #4DMV996 White RV with tan and burgundy trim 3/1/26 3/3/26 RV CA License #8BRV295 White RV with teal green and grey detailing 3/4/26 3/6/26 5th Wheel Trailer CA License #1KW2883 White 5th wheel trailer with red and grey pinstriping 3/10/26 3/11/26 3/11/26 5th Wheel Trailer License #: Unknown White and grey 5th wheel trailer 3/10/26 3/11/26 3/12/26 RV CA License #63470B White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 5/6/26 5/9/26 5/13/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 5/16/26 5/20/26 5/21/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 7/14/26 7/22/26 RV CA License #63470B4 White and blue RV Make/model: Vacationer 7/28/26 7/31/26 8/3/26 RV CA License #5DHD039 White and green/multi- colored details 7/29/26 8/1/26 8/3/26 Note: This log documents more than 50 separate incidents of oversized vehicles parked in front of or adjacent to The Foster Museum at 940 Commercial Street, many involving the same vehicles returning multiple times. Reports were filed with the Palo Alto Police Department Abandoned Auto Hotline and individual officers including Officer Brill and Officer Jun. From:Peter Rice To:Council, City; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Coles, Charlie; Transportation Subject:Near Miss at Oberlin and Stanford Ave Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:21:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto CIty Council and Transportation Staff, I am writing after a frightening near-miss last Thursday, August 13, while walking my children to school on the first day of the new school year. As we approached the intersection of Oberlin Street and Stanford Avenue, a driver in a large SUV came down Oberlin from College and turned right onto Stanford Avenue without stopping at the stop sign. My kids were hurrying a few steps ahead of me, and they came frighteningly close to being hit. I work as a transportation professional for a neighboring city, so I am familiar with traffic engineering, warrants, and the process of evaluating potential safety improvements. But I am not writing this letter in that capacity. I am writing as a dad who watched a driver nearly hit his children while they were walking to school. I also do not think what happened was simply an isolated case of a bad driver. The design of the intersection contributes to the problem. Stanford Avenue has a steady stream of traffic, and drivers coming out of College Terrace on Oberlin often have difficulty finding a gap. In this case, it seemed clear what happened. The driver saw a gap in traffic on Stanford Avenue and went for it. Her attention appeared to be focused to the left, on the approaching traffic and the opportunity to make the turn, rather than on the people in front of her and to her right. She accelerated through the stop sign just as my children were approaching her path. That interaction is predictable at an intersection designed this way. Drivers waiting on Oberlin are looking for relatively infrequent gaps in Stanford Avenue traffic, while people walking toward Stanford are crossing directly through the path of those turning vehicles. Yesterday, the consequences of that conflict came within a few steps of being devastating. This intersection is part of the primary walking and biking route between College Terrace and Escondido Elementary. Families should be able to walk their children to school without an intersection like this feeling like a gamble. I am asking Palo Alto and Stanford to take another look at Oberlin and Stanford Avenue and This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report identify changes that can make it safer. That should include consideration of a marked crosswalk, improved visibility and intersection treatments, and especially whether all-way stop control or another form of traffic control would reduce the conflicts we see here. I understand that some treatments may require engineering analysis and that there are established warrants for certain traffic-control devices. But I hope the response to last week's incident is not simply that the intersection has not yet accumulated enough crashes to justify action. We can see the conflict now. We should address it before a near-miss becomes a serious injury. Sincerely, Pete Rice College Terrace From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Meet the JMZ’s Newest Community Engagement Specialist Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:04:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Meet the JMZ’s Newest Community Engagement Specialist August 19, 2026  Dear Friends, Empowering every child to see themself as a capable scientist is at the heart of our work at the Friends, and this issue of our newsletter offers a powerful example of that mission in action. This month, I am delighted to introduce you to Jada Medina, the JMZ's newest Community Engagement Specialist and a true embodiment of what it means to give back to the community that shaped you. As a student in East Palo Alto, Jada was a participant in the JMZ’s Science Outreach Program, which the Friends has funded in under-resourced schools in East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park since 1999. In her role today, Jada assists in creating meaningful hands-on science experiences for families in communities like the one she grew up in. Jada's story is a reminder of why this work matters: When we invest in children's curiosity today, we never quite know where it will lead. We are so grateful to have her as a partner in our shared mission. I invite you to read Jada's story and consider how your support of the Friends makes moments like hers possible for the next generation of scientists, educators, and community builders. Separately, I’m excited to share that the Friends is hiring a Development Associate, a full-time role responsible for supporting fundraising and donor relations activities. If you know someone who might be a great fit, please share the opportunity with them. Warmly, Lauren Angelo President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo A Full Circle Moment at the JMZ After participating in the JMZ’s Science Outreach Program as a student in East Palo Alto, Jada Medina’s curiosity in health, science, and education was sparked. In a full circle moment, Jada joined the JMZ in March 2026 as a Community Engagement Specialist where she has been focused on welcoming children and families from historically underserved communities to the JMZ and its educational programs. “Growing up in East Palo Alto has shaped so much of who I am and has taught me the importance of resilience, community, and giving back,” Jada shares. “Being able to now create those same meaningful experiences for students and families in the community that raised me feels especially rewarding.” Meet Jada Medina, the JMZ's Community Engagement Specialist. This summer, Jada has already begun strengthening relationships with families, educators, and community organizations. Working closely with the Friends, Jada helped ensure that 42 summer camp scholarship recipients and four students receiving fee coverage for Science Camp Assistant roles had the support they needed for successful and memorable science camp experiences. This included a phone call to every family, ensuring they felt welcomed, informed, and set up for success before the first day of camp. For families who may not have had the opportunity to send their children to summer camp before, having a personal connection and a trusted contact in Jada made a world of difference. JMZ Educators brought All Five families face-to-face with the JMZ's amazing ambassador animals. Jada is also representing the JMZ at community events, sharing accessibility programs such as discounted tickets and memberships for income-eligible families. In July, she attended All Five’s Open House along with JMZ educators and animals! This event helped All Five’s preschool families become familiar with the JMZ and the programs available to make attendance accessible. Jada said, “One of the highlights of my role has been building relationships with schools and families and connecting them to science opportunities, and I’m most proud of seeing students become curious and excited about science.” Jada’s work at the JMZ embodies the Friends’ mission to expand access to nature and science education through community engagement, and we look forward to closely collaborating with Jada in our shared goals. “I hope to continue working closely with the Friends to create more opportunities, strengthen community connections, and make sure more families know what the JMZ has to offer,” Jada notes. “Every child deserves access to opportunities that inspire curiosity and help them see what’s possible, and I’m grateful to play a part in making those opportunities more accessible to the community.” DONATE TODAY   Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:CaraSilver@proton.me To:Council, City; IPA+ Team; Tim MacKenzie Subject:Invitation to August 20, 5:30 - 6:30 PM anti-Flock Rally at King Plaza Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:00:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council: I would like to remind you that Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto will be co-sponsoring an anti- Flock/ALPR rally at King Plaza TOMORROW, August 20, from 5:30 - 6:30 PM. See Mobilize ad here: https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/event/1001542/. Brian Hofer, from Secure Justice, a privacy organization based in Oakland, and Kim Woo, an immigration activist at SIREN, among others, will be speaking. The Mitchell Park Band and Raging Grannies will also be performing! This event is part of the National Week of Action against ALPR's. We hope to see you there! Cara Silver Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto During the week of August 16–22, Americans across the country will be observing a NationalWeek of Action Against ALPRs. They will be speaking out that week against Flock, againstALPRs, against unsafe surveillance, and against a growing police state. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From:Mike Emrick To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Video - Re: August 24, 2026 Staff Report Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:37:57 AM Attachments:2a106d9e-750c-4ce2-9a19-7c8d8aabe0f0.mp4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Attached is a video taken in front of our building. As the video shows, individuals associated with the RVs attempted to remove a branch from a tree located within the City’s easement. I wish I could say that incidents like this are rare, but unfortunately, they are part of an ongoing pattern of activity. We have witnessed double parking, RV repairs being conducted on the street, dumping of trash, attempts to take water from our irrigation system, and employees of the RV owners moving multiple RVs from one side of the street to the other shortly before street sweeping. Despite these ongoing issues, the “vanlords” continue to use Palo Alto as a location for RV rentals. I question whether City staff have conducted a thorough review of the various online platforms and websites to determine whether RVs located in Palo Alto are being actively rented. I respectfully ask the City to investigate these activities, including whether the RVs are being rented commercially from locations within Palo Alto, and to take appropriate enforcement action where violations are identified. The continued use of our streets and public easements for these activities is creating significant problems for our neighborhood and should not be allowed to continue unchecked. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a response regarding what steps the City intends to take to address these ongoing issues. Sincerely, Michael Emrick Mozart Development 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, Ca 94303 From:Hiral Parekh To:Shea, Kyle; City Mgr; Reynolds, Brian; pdsdirector; Council, City Cc:shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie; Ethan Lin; Jeff Jeff; Sarah Smith Le; Amy Amy; kibert724@yahoo.com Subject:Re: 3935 Duncan Place - intrusive bright lights and big windows Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:27:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Department, As a brief follow-up, I wanted to highlight the Palo Alto standards that appear most relevant to the impacts we are experiencing at 3905 Duncan Place: ADU privacy standards — PAMC §18.09.040: Palo Alto includes objective privacy protections for ADUs, including requirements addressing windows that face adjacent residential properties. First-floor windows: For certain first-floor windows facing an adjacent interior property line, the Code requires additional privacy protection depending on the height of the finished floor above grade and whether the window is an egress window. These protections can include opaque glazing, elevated sill heights, or alternative window placement. Egress windows: Where feasible, first-floor egress windows should not face an adjacent interior property line. Where that cannot be avoided, opaque glazing may be required. Window placement: The Code also encourages the use of skylights instead of operable windows facing adjacent properties where feasible, reflecting the City’s intent to reduce direct privacy impacts. ADU exterior lighting — PAMC §18.09.040(k)(2)(G): Exterior lighting must be directed downward and may not direct light toward adjacent interior property lines. Outdoor lighting — PAMC §18.40.250: Palo Alto requires outdoor lighting to be shielded and directed to prevent light trespass and minimize impacts on neighboring properties. In low-density residential areas, spillover lighting onto adjacent properties is not allowed. Given these provisions, I am asking the City to review both the approved plans and the completed construction at 3935 Duncan Place and determine specifically whether the window placement, glazing, sightlines, exterior lighting, and as-built conditions comply with the applicable standards. I would also appreciate confirmation of which ADU ordinance and privacy standards were applied to this project when it was approved. Thank you, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 9:20 PM Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning Department, I am writing about the ADU expansion and rebuild approved at 3935 Duncan Place and the direct impact it has had on our home at 3905 Duncan Place. The result is unacceptable. The new structure sits in extremely close proximity to our property and directly overlooks our home and backyard. Bright indoor and outdoor lighting faces our property and are left on all night. We have lost privacy and peace and now feel exposed in our own home. I understand the City’s desire to support ADUs and additional housing. But development should not come at the expense of the basic privacy and quality of life of the family living next door. In this case, the City allowed a developer to dramatically increase the size and value of a property while leaving our family to bear the consequences. I find that deeply frustrating and, frankly, disgusting. I am a working mother raising three children in Palo Alto. We work extremely hard to live in this community, and it is upsetting to see how little weight our family’s privacy appears to have carried in this process. I am asking members of the Planning Department and City Council to come to 3905 Duncan Place and see the impact firsthand. I also ask the City to identify what mitigation can now be required to address the lighting and privacy impacts created by this project. The developer won here, and our family was left to bear the consequences. That is not acceptable. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place From:Hiral Parekh To:Shea, Kyle; City Mgr; Reynolds, Brian; pdsdirector; Council, City Cc:shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie; Ethan Lin; Jeff Jeff; Sarah Smith Le; Amy Amy; kibert724@yahoo.com Subject:3935 Duncan Place - intrusive bright lights and big windows Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:21:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning Department, I am writing about the ADU expansion and rebuild approved at 3935 Duncan Place and the direct impact it has had on our home at 3905 Duncan Place. The result is unacceptable. The new structure sits in extremely close proximity to our property and directly overlooks our home and backyard. Bright indoor and outdoor lighting faces our property and are left on all night. We have lost privacy and peace and now feel exposed in our own home. I understand the City’s desire to support ADUs and additional housing. But development should not come at the expense of the basic privacy and quality of life of the family living next door. In this case, the City allowed a developer to dramatically increase the size and value of a property while leaving our family to bear the consequences. I find that deeply frustrating and, frankly, disgusting. I am a working mother raising three children in Palo Alto. We work extremely hard to live in this community, and it is upsetting to see how little weight our family’s privacy appears to have carried in this process. I am asking members of the Planning Department and City Council to come to 3905 Duncan Place and see the impact firsthand. I also ask the City to identify what mitigation can now be required to address the lighting and privacy impacts created by this project. The developer won here, and our family was left to bear the consequences. That is not acceptable. Sincerely, Hiral Parekh 3905 Duncan Place From:Michael Hindery To:Council, City Subject:Compliant Technologies -- electric shock gloves Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:45:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi -- I am a Palo Alto resident. Does the Palo Alto Police Department have available for use electric shock gloves made by Compliant Technologies? Thank you. Mike m: 650-740-0004 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Edward Curran To:palyattendance@pausd.org Cc:president@palyptsa.org; RegistrationServices@pausd.org; bkline@pausd.org; jglass@pausd.org; scdavis@pausd.org; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Police; mvpamusalla@gmail.com; info@MuslimGuide.com; sanjose@thedawoodibohras.com; superintendent@cde.ca.gov; SBE@sbe.ca.gov; GAD@cde.ca.gov; San Francisco Chronicle; The San Diego Union-Tribune; Readers Representative; Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Sfba Cair Info; Cairaustin Info; Mn Cair Info; Library, Pa; info@paloaltochamber.com; board@pausd.org; palylink@paloaltopta.org Subject:Palo Alto, CA: FALSE Prophet Muhammad/Islam Is A Godless Lie Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1:48:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. i Most Muslims know that Islam is a Godless lie. Palo Alto school district sued for school trip to mosque | KRON4 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Edward Curran <rocky2371@cs.com> To: alicia@divinechild.org <alicia@divinechild.org> Cc: nathanhayes.src@gmail.com <nathanhayes.src@gmail.com>; info@stkateridearborn.org <info@stkateridearborn.org>; info@ap.org <info@ap.org>; Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) <info@cair.com>; Americanmuslimsfilm Info <info@americanmuslimsfilm.com>; pressoffice@aljazeera.net <pressoffice@aljazeera.net>; impact@aclu.org <impact@aclu.org>; Islamic Society of North America <info@isna.net>; contact@austinmosque.org <contact@austinmosque.org>; admin@cliftonmosque.org <admin@cliftonmosque.org>; Democratic Governors Association <info@democraticgovernors.org>; bronxmuslimcenter@masnewyork.org <bronxmuslimcenter@masnewyork.org>; Southern Poverty Law Center-Comments <webcontact@splcenter.org>; contact@sahanjournal.com <contact@sahanjournal.com>; contact@islamophobia.com.au This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report <contact@islamophobia.com.au>; contact@globalextremism.org <contact@globalextremism.org>; Exmuslims Info <info@exmuslims.org>; fahmad@muslimjusticeleague.org <fahmad@muslimjusticeleague.org>; The Young Turks <feedback@tytnetwork.com>; Islamic Games Info <info@islamic-games.com>; muslimsoflongisland@gmail.com <muslimsoflongisland@gmail.com>; zeteojournal@gmail.com <zeteojournal@gmail.com>; HOPE not hate <digital@hopenothate.org.uk>; Muslimamericansociety Info <info@muslimamericansociety.org>; Whyislam Info <info@whyislam.org>; Islamic Relief USA <ma@irusa.org>; Masnewyork Info <info@masnewyork.org>; Salam Mosque Info <info@salam-mosque.org>; New York University <islamiccenter@nyu.edu>; Islamiccenter Info <info@islamiccenter.com>; Muslimcharitiesforum Org Info <info@muslimcharitiesforum.org.uk>; Islamicsocietyoftoronto Info <info@islamicsocietyoftoronto.com>; Religionnews Info <info@religionnews.com>; Rairfoundation Info <info@rairfoundation.com>; The Wall Street Journal <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>; mediarequests@mlfa.org <mediarequests@mlfa.org>; membership@muslimamericansociety.org <membership@muslimamericansociety.org>; public.relations@tmoamerica.org <public.relations@tmoamerica.org>; police- complaints@dearborn.gov <police-complaints@dearborn.gov>; readerrep@chron.com <readerrep@chron.com>; teamzeteo@zeteonews.com <teamzeteo@zeteonews.com>; Muslimsagainstantisemitism Info <info@muslimsagainstantisemitism.org>; Islamicfoundation Info <info@islamicfoundation.ie>; Abdulforsenate Info <info@abdulforsenate.com>; ibdnews@investors.com <ibdnews@investors.com>; madmoney@cnbc.com <madmoney@cnbc.com>; clientandpartnergroup@citadel.com <clientandpartnergroup@citadel.com>; jpmcinvestorrelations@jpmchase.com <jpmcinvestorrelations@jpmchase.com>; gs-investor- relations@gs.com <gs-investor-relations@gs.com>; editors@barrons.com <editors@barrons.com>; editor@money.com <editor@money.com>; Michigan Democratic Party <midemparty@michigandems.com>; Michigan Republican Party <communication@migop.org>; corpvps@kroger.com <corpvps@kroger.com>; Walmart Contacts <service@walmartcontacts.com>; Target <guest.relations@target.com>; Jcp Support <support@jcp.com>; press@zohranfornyc.com <press@zohranfornyc.com>; dtletters@telegraph.co.uk <dtletters@telegraph.co.uk>; Journal <journal@c-span.org>; Readers Representative <readers.representative@latimes.com>; chicagoland@chicagotribune.com <chicagoland@chicagotribune.com>; The New York Times <letters@nytimes.com>; CNN <tips@cnn.com>; msnowinfo@ms.now <msnowinfo@ms.now>; Atlantablackstar Info <info@atlantablackstar.com>; LGBTQ Nation <info@lgbtqnation.com>; advertise@chron.com <advertise@chron.com>; The Nation <press@thenation.com>; team@americanmajority.org <team@americanmajority.org>; eric@votevets.org <eric@votevets.org>; rich@leavingmaga.org <rich@leavingmaga.org>; Independentveteransofamerica Info <info@independentveteransofamerica.org>; bannonswarroompr@protonmail.com <bannonswarroompr@protonmail.com>; benoitstownclerk1@gmail.com <benoitstownclerk1@gmail.com>; mayor.mcgee@ridgelandms.org <mayor.mcgee@ridgelandms.org>; info@lumberton.ms <info@lumberton.ms>; tjerome@mooresvillenc.gov <tjerome@mooresvillenc.gov>; iclnmooresville@gmail.com <iclnmooresville@gmail.com>; contact-citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org <contact-citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org>; facebook@friscotexas.gov <facebook@friscotexas.gov>; info@andygipson.com <info@andygipson.com>; citydesk@houstonchronicle.com <citydesk@houstonchronicle.com>; prteam@huffpost.com <prteam@huffpost.com>; help@kenburns.com <help@kenburns.com>; Letters <letters@nypost.com>; Republican Party of Texas <chairman@texasgop.org>; contact@quantusinsights.org <contact@quantusinsights.org>; editor@thehill.com <editor@thehill.com>; endorsements@votevets.org <endorsements@votevets.org>; Letters <letters@washpost.com>; Fortune Support <support@fortune.com>; opinion@forbes.com <opinion@forbes.com>; Club for Growth <hello@clubforgrowth.org>; Rashida for CONGRESS <info@rashidaforcongress.com>; Ilhanomar Info <info@ilhanomar.com>; BBC <haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk>; majorityreporters@gmail.com <majorityreporters@gmail.com>; gmb@itv.com <gmb@itv.com>; Guardian Letters <guardian.letters@theguardian.com>; LOWE Rupert (MP) <rupert.lowe.mp@parliament.uk>; report@kickitout.org <report@kickitout.org>; press@amnesty.org <press@amnesty.org>; Irishmuslimcouncil Info <info@irishmuslimcouncil.ie>; dpo@amnesty.org <dpo@amnesty.org>; Nfarage Info <info@nfarage.com>; Nationalparty Info <info@nationalparty.ie>; Religionmediacentre Org Info <info@religionmediacentre.org.uk>; AfD-Kontakt | Alternative für Deutschland <kontakt@afd.de>; Team Johnson Info <info@team-johnson.org>; Gop Info <info@gop.com>; Restorebritain Org Info <info@restorebritain.org.uk>; Sikhcouncil Co Info <info@sikhcouncil.co.uk>; Faith Matters Co Info <info@faith-matters.co.uk>; centreforhatestudies@leicester.ac.uk <centreforhatestudies@leicester.ac.uk>; enquiries@churchofengland.org <enquiries@churchofengland.org>; investigations@telegraph.co.uk <investigations@telegraph.co.uk>; info@onenationpaulinehanson.com.au <info@onenationpaulinehanson.com.au>; info@lma.org.au <info@lma.org.au>; Democratic National Committee <democraticparty@democrats.org>; National Rifle Association of America <ila-contact@nrahq.org>; American Bar Association <service@americanbar.org>; San Francisco Chronicle <membership@sfchronicle.com>; ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov <ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov>; questions@adelsonfoundation.org <questions@adelsonfoundation.org>; Press <press@americafirstpolicy.com>; Dan Patrick for Lieutenant Governor of Texas <info@danpatrick.org>; PBS <frontline@pbs.org>; FOX News <contactus@foxnews.com>; The Heritage Foudation <info@heritage.org>; Clinton Foundation <forms@clintonfoundation.org>; Info <info@gopmayors.org>; Info <info@rondesantis.com>; Info <info@rga.org>; Karl <karl@rove.com>; dickmorris <support@dickmorris.com>; letters@nationalreview.com <letters@nationalreview.com>; Letters <letters@chicagotribune.com>; Obama Library <obama.library@nara.gov>; News Tips <news.tips@abc.com>; advertise@politico.com <advertise@politico.com>; Chairman <chairman@republicanags.com>; info@nfl.com <info@nfl.com>; info@nba.com <info@nba.com>; customerservice@website.mlb.com <customerservice@website.mlb.com>; tickets@ncaa.org <tickets@ncaa.org>; info@msgop.org <info@msgop.org>; info@ncgop.org <info@ncgop.org>; askpublicaffairs@state.gov <askpublicaffairs@state.gov>; United States Attorney S. Office <askdoj@usdoj.gov>; Congressman Tom Emmer <mn06teima@mail.house.gov>; Office of U.S. Senator Ashley Moody <enewsletters@moody.senate.gov>; Feedback <feedback@washingtonexaminer.com>; gregabbott <info@gregabbott.com>; Congressman Glenn Grothman <congressmangrothman@mail.house.gov>; Hq <hq@tpusa.com>; Johnjamesmi Info <info@johnjamesmi.com>; Rep Nathaniel Moran <rep.nathaniel.moran@mail.house.gov>; National Federation of Republican Women <mail@nfrw.org>; Yourletters <yourletters@washingtontimes.com>; kalsawafy@dearborb.gov <kalsawafy@dearborb.gov>; info@dearbornchamber.com <info@dearbornchamber.com>; info@dearborncountygop.com <info@dearborncountygop.com>; correct@detroitnews.com <correct@detroitnews.com>; info@rogersforsenate.com <info@rogersforsenate.com>; press@tomtiffany.com <press@tomtiffany.com>; press@nancymace.org <press@nancymace.org>; kvandenbosch@dearbornareachamber.org <kvandenbosch@dearbornareachamber.org>; mayor@dearborn.gov <mayor@dearborn.gov>; mayor@ci.dearborn.mi.us <mayor@ci.dearborn.mi.us>; ask@cbc.ca <ask@cbc.ca>; media@lincolnproject.us <media@lincolnproject.us>; bridge@georgetown.edu <bridge@georgetown.edu>; admin@meidastouch.com <admin@meidastouch.com>; Investigates <investigates@cbsnews.com>; Investigations <investigations@npr.org>; chair@mngop.com <chair@mngop.com>; press@vivekforohio.com <press@vivekforohio.com>; info@naacp.org <info@naacp.org>; info@icofa.com <info@icofa.com>; americanmuslimcenter@gmail.com <americanmuslimcenter@gmail.com>; msm8599@gmail.com <msm8599@gmail.com>; press@tnr.com <press@tnr.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 08:39:04 AM EDT Subject: Dearborn, MI Christians Defending Godless Lie Islam Are SINNERS! Most Muslims know that Islam is a Godless lie. Dearborn Christian leaders speak out against Christian Crusader March | Watch 1. Islam's Allah is NOT the Abrahamic God Yahweh. Islam's Allah is Satan. Christian leaders in Dearborn, MI are breaking the first commandment: "You shall have no other Gods (entities) before me." 2. Islam's Muhammad was a FALSE Abrahamic Prophet of God. Christian leaders in Dearborn, MI are committing a sin of omission by not telling Godless Muslims the truth! ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Edward Curran <rocky2371@cs.com> To: info@naacp.org <info@naacp.org> Cc: Ap Info <info@ap.org>; Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) <info@cair.com>; Americanmuslimsfilm Info <info@americanmuslimsfilm.com>; pressoffice@aljazeera.net <pressoffice@aljazeera.net>; impact@aclu.org <impact@aclu.org>; Islamic Society of North America <info@isna.net>; contact@austinmosque.org <contact@austinmosque.org>; admin@cliftonmosque.org <admin@cliftonmosque.org>; Democratic Governors Association <info@democraticgovernors.org>; bronxmuslimcenter@masnewyork.org <bronxmuslimcenter@masnewyork.org>; Southern Poverty Law Center-Comments <webcontact@splcenter.org>; contact@sahanjournal.com <contact@sahanjournal.com>; contact@islamophobia.com.au <contact@islamophobia.com.au>; contact@globalextremism.org <contact@globalextremism.org>; Exmuslims Info <info@exmuslims.org>; fahmad@muslimjusticeleague.org <fahmad@muslimjusticeleague.org>; The Young Turks <feedback@tytnetwork.com>; Islamic Games Info <info@islamic-games.com>; muslimsoflongisland@gmail.com <muslimsoflongisland@gmail.com>; zeteojournal@gmail.com <zeteojournal@gmail.com>; HOPE not hate <digital@hopenothate.org.uk>; Muslimamericansociety Info <info@muslimamericansociety.org>; Whyislam Info <info@whyislam.org>; Islamic Relief USA <ma@irusa.org>; Masnewyork Info <info@masnewyork.org>; Salam Mosque Info <info@salam-mosque.org>; New York University <islamiccenter@nyu.edu>; Islamiccenter Info <info@islamiccenter.com>; Muslimcharitiesforum Org Info <info@muslimcharitiesforum.org.uk>; Islamicsocietyoftoronto Info <info@islamicsocietyoftoronto.com>; Religionnews Info <info@religionnews.com>; Rairfoundation Info <info@rairfoundation.com>; Londonmuslimcentre Org Info <info@londonmuslimcentre.org.uk>; Liverpoolmuslimsociety Org Info <info@liverpoolmuslimsociety.org.uk>; The Wall Street Journal <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>; mediarequests@mlfa.org <mediarequests@mlfa.org>; membership@muslimamericansociety.org <membership@muslimamericansociety.org>; public.relations@tmoamerica.org <public.relations@tmoamerica.org>; police- complaints@dearborn.gov <police-complaints@dearborn.gov>; supporterservices@qpr.co.uk <supporterservices@qpr.co.uk>; readerrep@chron.com <readerrep@chron.com>; vote@shakeelafsar.co.uk <vote@shakeelafsar.co.uk>; teamzeteo@zeteonews.com <teamzeteo@zeteonews.com>; dr.qadri@icloud.com <dr.qadri@icloud.com>; Muslimsagainstantisemitism Info <info@muslimsagainstantisemitism.org>; Islamicfoundation Info <info@islamicfoundation.ie>; Abdulforsenate Info <info@abdulforsenate.com>; ibdnews@investors.com <ibdnews@investors.com>; madmoney@cnbc.com <madmoney@cnbc.com>; clientandpartnergroup@citadel.com <clientandpartnergroup@citadel.com>; jpmcinvestorrelations@jpmchase.com <jpmcinvestorrelations@jpmchase.com>; gs-investor-relations@gs.com <gs-investor-relations@gs.com>; editors@barrons.com <editors@barrons.com>; editor@money.com <editor@money.com>; Michigan Democratic Party <midemparty@michigandems.com>; Michigan Republican Party <communication@migop.org>; corpvps@kroger.com <corpvps@kroger.com>; Walmart Contacts <service@walmartcontacts.com>; Target <guest.relations@target.com>; Jcp Support <support@jcp.com>; press@zohranfornyc.com <press@zohranfornyc.com>; dtletters@telegraph.co.uk <dtletters@telegraph.co.uk>; letitia.james@ag.ny.gov <letitia.james@ag.ny.gov>; Journal <journal@c-span.org>; Readers Representative <readers.representative@latimes.com>; chicagoland@chicagotribune.com <chicagoland@chicagotribune.com>; The New York Times <letters@nytimes.com>; CNN <tips@cnn.com>; msnowinfo@ms.now <msnowinfo@ms.now>; shop@hersheys.com <shop@hersheys.com>; Atlantablackstar Info <info@atlantablackstar.com>; LGBTQ Nation <info@lgbtqnation.com>; advertise@chron.com <advertise@chron.com>; The Nation <press@thenation.com>; team@americanmajority.org <team@americanmajority.org>; eric@votevets.org <eric@votevets.org>; office@archbishopofyork.org <office@archbishopofyork.org>; bannonswarroompr@protonmail.com <bannonswarroompr@protonmail.com>; benoitstownclerk1@gmail.com <benoitstownclerk1@gmail.com>; mayor.mcgee@ridgelandms.org <mayor.mcgee@ridgelandms.org>; info@lumberton.ms <info@lumberton.ms>; tjerome@mooresvillenc.gov <tjerome@mooresvillenc.gov>; iclnmooresville@gmail.com <iclnmooresville@gmail.com>; contact- citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org <contact-citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org>; facebook@friscotexas.gov <facebook@friscotexas.gov>; info@andygipson.com <info@andygipson.com>; enquiries@secularism.org.uk <enquiries@secularism.org.uk>; Eastlondonmosque Org Info <info@eastlondonmosque.org.uk>; citydesk@houstonchronicle.com <citydesk@houstonchronicle.com>; prteam@huffpost.com <prteam@huffpost.com>; help@kenburns.com <help@kenburns.com>; Letters <letters@nypost.com>; Republican Party of Texas <chairman@texasgop.org>; contact@quantusinsights.org <contact@quantusinsights.org>; enquiries@quaker.org.uk <enquiries@quaker.org.uk>; editor@thehill.com <editor@thehill.com>; Volunteerblue Support <support@volunteerblue.org>; endorsements@votevets.org <endorsements@votevets.org>; Letters <letters@washpost.com>; Islaminireland Info <info@islaminireland.com>; Fortune Support <support@fortune.com>; opinion@forbes.com <opinion@forbes.com>; Club for Growth <hello@clubforgrowth.org>; Rashida for CONGRESS <info@rashidaforcongress.com>; Ilhanomar Info <info@ilhanomar.com>; mayor@london.gov.uk <mayor@london.gov.uk>; Manchestercentralmosque Info <info@manchestercentralmosque.org>; Manchester City FC <mancity@mancity.com>; soccerschools@liverpool.com <soccerschools@liverpool.com>; soccerschools@liverpoolfc.com <soccerschools@liverpoolfc.com>; BBC <haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk>; majorityreporters@gmail.com <majorityreporters@gmail.com>; gmb@itv.com <gmb@itv.com>; Guardian Letters <guardian.letters@theguardian.com>; Labour <london@labour.org.uk>; Longwellpartners Info <info@longwellpartners.com>; LOWE Rupert (MP) <rupert.lowe.mp@parliament.uk>; report@kickitout.org <report@kickitout.org>; media@kickitout.org <media@kickitout.org>; jobs@kickitout.org <jobs@kickitout.org>; Premierleague Info <info@premierleague.com>; enquiries@manutd.co.uk <enquiries@manutd.co.uk>; press@amnesty.org <press@amnesty.org>; complaints@irishnews.com <complaints@irishnews.com>; Irishmuslimcouncil Info <info@irishmuslimcouncil.ie>; services@irishtimes.com <services@irishtimes.com>; Irishrugby Info <info@irishrugby.ie>; Network Irl Tv Info <info@network-irl-tv.com>; Services <salesforce@irishtimes.com>; Islamireland Info <info@islamireland.ie>; aimember@aiusa.org <aimember@aiusa.org>; dpo@amnesty.org <dpo@amnesty.org>; pressoffice@garda.ie <pressoffice@garda.ie>; admin@sinnfein.ie <admin@sinnfein.ie>; admin@olympicsport.ie <admin@olympicsport.ie>; bishop.london.correspondence@london.anglican.org <bishop.london.correspondence@london.anglican.org>; Cambridgecentralmosque Info <info@cambridgecentralmosque.org>; communications@gaa.ie <communications@gaa.ie>; welshnews@dailypost.co.uk <welshnews@dailypost.co.uk>; lordmayor@dublincity.ie <lordmayor@dublincity.ie>; Defence Info <info@defence.ie>; paschal.donohoe@oireachtas.ie <paschal.donohoe@oireachtas.ie>; Education Gov Info <info@education.gov.ie>; Nfarage Info <info@nfarage.com>; Nationalparty Info <info@nationalparty.ie>; newsdesk@birminghammail.co.uk <newsdesk@birminghammail.co.uk>; contact@newcultureforum.org.uk <contact@newcultureforum.org.uk>; press.office@taoiseach.gov.ie <press.office@taoiseach.gov.ie>; Rte Info <info@rte.ie>; Religionmediacentre Org Info <info@religionmediacentre.org.uk>; radio2enquiries@bbc.co.uk <radio2enquiries@bbc.co.uk>; representation@bod.org.uk <representation@bod.org.uk>; Rugby Football Union Enquiries <enquiries@rfu.com>; Support <viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk>; welcome@christchurch.ie <welcome@christchurch.ie>; AfD- Kontakt | Alternative für Deutschland <kontakt@afd.de>; Team Johnson Info <info@team-johnson.org>; Gop Info <info@gop.com>; Restorebritain Org Info <info@restorebritain.org.uk>; commissioner@south-wales.police.uk <commissioner@south-wales.police.uk>; bbcnewsni@bbc.co.uk <bbcnewsni@bbc.co.uk>; info@belfastislamiccentre.org.uk <info@belfastislamiccentre.org.uk>; james@lbc.co.uk <james@lbc.co.uk>; online@lbc.co.uk <online@lbc.co.uk>; ask@cbc.ca <ask@cbc.ca>; office@irishecho.com <office@irishecho.com>; ISS-Data Subject Rights (MULTIUSER) <ukstratcomdd-fi-is-dsr@mod.gov.uk>; Sikhcouncil Co Info <info@sikhcouncil.co.uk>; Citysikhs Org Info <info@citysikhs.org.uk>; Thebuddhistsociety Info <info@thebuddhistsociety.org>; Humanists Info <info@humanists.uk>; Britishsikhreport Info <info@britishsikhreport.org>; Countryside Alliance <info@countryside- alliance.org>; Faith Matters Co Info <info@faith-matters.co.uk>; islamlewis97@gmail.com <islamlewis97@gmail.com>; Fabians Org Info <info@fabians.org.uk>; admin@hinducounciluk.org <admin@hinducounciluk.org>; hello@ex-muslim.org.uk <hello@ex- muslim.org.uk>; Independent Info <info@independent.ie>; us-editorial@theconversation.com <us-editorial@theconversation.com>; alliance@allianceparty.org <alliance@allianceparty.org>; uup@uup.org <uup@uup.org>; news@irishmirror.ie <news@irishmirror.ie>; info@midulstercouncil.org <info@midulstercouncil.org>; midulster@psni.police.uk <midulster@psni.police.uk>; info@islamiccentre.ie <info@islamiccentre.ie>; enquiries@oxford-union.org <enquiries@oxford-union.org>; membership@atheists.org <membership@atheists.org>; press@barcouncil.org.uk <press@barcouncil.org.uk>; customercare@bims.co.uk <customercare@bims.co.uk>; enquiries@britishchambers.org.uk <enquiries@britishchambers.org.uk>; enquiries@centralmosque.org.uk <enquiries@centralmosque.org.uk>; centreforhatestudies@leicester.ac.uk <centreforhatestudies@leicester.ac.uk>; enquiries@churchofengland.org <enquiries@churchofengland.org>; comms@churchofengland.org <comms@churchofengland.org>; Jeremy CORBYN <jeremy.corbyn.mp@parliament.uk>; Jeremy Vine <jeremyvine@channel5.com>; news@irishstar.com <news@irishstar.com>; sales@thestar.ie <sales@thestar.ie>; info@iccdny.org <info@iccdny.org>; connect.amac@gmail.com <connect.amac@gmail.com>; investigations@telegraph.co.uk <investigations@telegraph.co.uk>; annabel.denham@telegraph.co.uk <annabel.denham@telegraph.co.uk>; mail@sarakhan.co.uk <mail@sarakhan.co.uk>; contactus@mccsandiego.org <contactus@mccsandiego.org>; admin@icsd.org <admin@icsd.org>; ed@masdfw.org <ed@masdfw.org>; info@masjidalislam.org <info@masjidalislam.org>; press@raisethecolours.org.uk <press@raisethecolours.org.uk>; sarah.sackman.mp@parliament.uk <sarah.sackman.mp@parliament.uk>; info@onenationpaulinehanson.com.au <info@onenationpaulinehanson.com.au>; info@lma.org.au <info@lma.org.au>; council@cbcity.nsw.gov.au <council@cbcity.nsw.gov.au>; khal.asfour@cbcity.nsw.gov.au <khal.asfour@cbcity.nsw.gov.au>; Barbara.Coorey@cbcity.nsw.gov.au <barbara.coorey@cbcity.nsw.gov.au>; Democratic National Committee <democraticparty@democrats.org>; National Rifle Association of America <ila-contact@nrahq.org>; American Bar Association <service@americanbar.org>; Bsky Support <support@bsky.app>; San Francisco Chronicle <membership@sfchronicle.com>; ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov <ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov>; media@lincolnproject.us <media@lincolnproject.us>; questions@adelsonfoundation.org <questions@adelsonfoundation.org>; Press <press@americafirstpolicy.com>; Dan Patrick for Lieutenant Governor of Texas <info@danpatrick.org>; PBS <frontline@pbs.org>; FOX News <contactus@foxnews.com>; The Heritage Foudation <info@heritage.org>; Clinton Foundation <forms@clintonfoundation.org>; Info <info@gopmayors.org>; Info <info@rondesantis.com>; Info <info@rga.org>; Karl <karl@rove.com>; dickmorris <support@dickmorris.com>; letters@nationalreview.com <letters@nationalreview.com>; Letters <letters@chicagotribune.com>; Obama Library <obama.library@nara.gov>; News Tips <news.tips@abc.com>; advertise@politico.com <advertise@politico.com>; Chairman <chairman@republicanags.com>; info@nfl.com <info@nfl.com>; info@nba.com <info@nba.com>; customerservice@website.mlb.com <customerservice@website.mlb.com>; tickets@ncaa.org <tickets@ncaa.org>; info@msgop.org <info@msgop.org>; info@ncgop.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 08:54:02 AM EDT Subject: Islam's FALSE Prophet Muhammad Traded And Owned Slaves Most Muslims know that Islam is a Godless lie. Two Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet Why Mohammed Was Not a Real Prophet | Catholic Answers Q&A Muhammad’s Personal Slaves. Names, Narratives, and Nightmares | by Dismantling Islam | Medium "What is more, no wise man, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him (lying, FALSE Prophet Muhammad) from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed FORCED others to become his followers by the violence of his arms." SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS "He (FALSE Prophet Muhammad) perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments (Holy Bible) by making them into fabrications of his own (the koran), as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to FORBID his followers to read the Old and New Testaments (Holy Bible), lest these books convict him (FALSE Prophet Muhammad) of FALSITY. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly." SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS "Show me just what (Godless, FALSE Prophet) Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the (FALSE) faith he preached." BYZANTINE EMPEROR MANUEL PALEOLOGOS II From:Forrest Mozart To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:RE: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:59:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and City Council, I would like to piggyback on the below email. This has become a serious problem for business on East Meadow Circle. The other day I saw a man showering outside his mobile home. I saw a person trying to rip a branch off a street tree so he could have better access to his mobile home. People place their trash outside. This has become a complete joke and honestly there is no one to blame but our elected officials. We have great sympathy for this situation but as our elected officials you all need to come up with a better solution. Maybe get Stanford University involved? They have plenty of land that could be converted to help this situation. Stanford claims to be a philanthropic institution – let’s see. Forrest Mozart California Communities Mozart Development 650-380-5399 From: Mike Emrick Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02 AM To: 'city.council@paloalto.gov' <city.council@paloalto.gov> Cc: 'citymgr@paloalto.gov' <citymgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report. While I understand that the City is attempting to address a difficult and complex issue, I do not believe the proposed plan is a meaningful long-term solution. Instead, it risks institutionalizing and concentrating a problem that has already had serious consequences for Palo Alto residents, businesses, and property owners. For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning. Property owners have invested substantially in Palo Alto based on the expectation that the City will maintain safe, clean, accessible, and economically viable commercial areas. Allowing long-term RV habitation on public streets—even under a permit system —can negatively affect the appearance, accessibility, desirability, and ultimately the value of surrounding commercial properties. It also creates a serious concern for future leasing. Businesses considering leasing space in an area where long-term RV habitation is permitted may reasonably question whether the location is appropriate for their employees, customers, clients, and operations. A policy intended to manage RVs should not inadvertently make Palo Alto commercial properties less attractive to prospective tenants. I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long- term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence. We have already witnessed situations in which RV owners or “vanlords” have taken advantage of available public parking by operating a long-term rental arrangement from vehicles parked on Palo Alto streets. The City has recognized this problem and has taken steps to prohibit vanlording, but simply designating additional locations for RV parking does not address the broader incentive created when public streets become a dependable place for long-term habitation. The proposed alternating-side parking approach is also troubling. Moving RVs from one side of a street to the other every six months does not eliminate the impact on surrounding businesses and property owners. It simply moves the problem back and forth. For those of us who live and work in affected areas, this is not a solution—it is a redistribution of the burden. The City should also carefully consider what message this policy sends to businesses that have complied with Palo Alto's rules, paid taxes, maintained their properties, and invested in the community. Businesses should not be expected to absorb the consequences of a policy that effectively converts public streets adjacent to their properties into long-term RV living areas. I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider this approach before moving forward. At a minimum, the City should require clear and measurable evidence that the proposed program will actually reduce the number of RVs on Palo Alto streets rather than simply relocate them. The City should also establish enforceable limits on duration, meaningful consequences for violations, protections for adjacent businesses and property owners, and a clear plan for preventing spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies. We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to become the place where the problem is concentrated. I sincerely hope the City Council will consider the long-term consequences of this proposal—not only for those currently living in RVs, but also for the residents, businesses, employees, customers, and property owners who will be living with the consequences of this policy for years to come. The community deserves a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than one that merely moves it from one block to another. After the significant concerns that residents and businesses have already raised, I do not believe the current proposal represents meaningful action. I respectfully urge the City Council to reject or substantially revise the proposed plan and pursue a strategy that protects Palo Alto's neighborhoods, commercial properties, businesses, and quality of life while addressing the underlying causes of vehicle habitation through a genuine regional and long-term solution. Sincerely, Michael Emrick Mozart Development 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, Ca 94303 From:Steven Hsu To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:RV Parking Phase2 Issue Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:03:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veekner and Members of the City Council, I am writing to respectfully object to the current Phase 2 proposal. As a resident of the Echelon community since 2021, I and my neighbors have endured the impacts of long-term RV parking in this area for five years. We urge the City to pursue a more effective solution, including prohibiting RV parking in residential neighborhoods and adjacent industrial and commercial areas. The biweekly street-cleaning program has produced minimal improvement and has not resolved the underlying issue. While the number of RVs on East Meadow Circle has decreased from approximately 60 to 35, the cleaning schedule often causes vehicles to relocate temporarily in front of our complex. This creates overnight engine noise and air pollution, directly impacting our quality of life and neighborhood security—the very reasons we chose to live in Palo Alto. Please consider utilizing the proposed budget of over $800,000 to pursue a lasting and humane solution. This could include providing temporary motel accommodations and supportive services, or establishing a designated site for these 130-plus vehicles away from residential neighborhoods. As currently proposed, Phase 2 is unlikely to address the root of the problem and risks spending substantial public funds without achieving meaningful results. Respectfully, Steven Hsu 4088889926 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 &nbsp; From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Teen Arts Council Presentation at June 15th Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:20:17 AM From: Teen Arts Council <teenartscouncil@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:57 PM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Teen Arts Council Presentation at June 15th Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, We are sending this email as a follow-up to a request during the June 15th City Council meeting where we, the teens of the Palo Alto Teen Arts Council, spoke about our gratitude for the city's continued funding, reintroduced ourselves and what we do to city c ! This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, We are sending this email as a follow-up to a request during the June 15th City Council meeting where we, the teens of the Palo Alto Teen Arts Council, spoke about our gratitude for the city's continued funding, reintroduced ourselves and what we do to city council members, and most importantly, advocated for our needs. Below is the information we had spoken about. The Teen Arts Council is a group run by Palo Alto teens, dedicated to planning free art events where students can express themselves creatively in a safe space. Every Tuesday at the Palo Alto Children’s Theater, about 10 motivated teen members meet to plan our events: buying food and decorations, marketing through posters and social media, and running the event itself. Our motto is “by teens, for teens.” Thanks to your $8,500 grant for our summer festival, Wavefest, we were given breathing room to fund our other events, and ultimately served over 350 teens in the Palo Alto community. Here are the events that we held: We kicked off the year with our Candlelit Concert, where teen musicians performed among Halloween decorations and a backyard barbeque In February, we hosted a Valentine’s Masquerade Ball. Teens decorated Powered by Mimecast masks, danced together, and filled out ice-breaker bingo cards. Afterward, many teens told us they had an amazing time hanging out with their friends and meeting new people. We also hosted our biannual Clothing Swap & Open Mic, where teens sipped on boba, learned about sustainability, thrifted for clothes and art supplies, and performed on stage. Then, we had our annual film festival, Luminescence, which gave creative teens from across the Bay Area the chance to share their work and win prizes. We also premiered Picture Perfect, a film by our Teen Arts Council sponsored committee, the Film Lab, that will be shown annually at Palo Alto High School to teach students about healthy relationships. Right after AP tests and prom, we held our DIY Self-Care Night, where teens made perfumes and lip scrubs, played board games, painted tote bags, and enjoyed service dogs. May is usually the most stressful month for students, as everyone is cramming for AP tests, studying for finals, and grappling with the end of the school year. We wanted to break this cloud of stress by creating an event where teens could just relax and take their minds off of academics. Finally, to kick off the summer, we held Wavefest, our annual art and music festival. Teens bought jewlery, stickers, keychains, and other goodies from local teen art vendors and listened to teen bands and performers. Teens also participated in various arts and crafts stations, played field games, and won raffle prizes. And thanks to the City’s grant, this year, we had a food truck as well, which we are extremely grateful for! These fun, community art events matter to us because of how the Teen Arts Council started. The Teen Arts Council was initially a student group founded in 2009 as a community response to a suicide cluster. The recent student tragedies underscore the urgency of raising awareness of teen mental health, and creating inclusive spaces for teens to be themselves, outside of home or school. Moreover, when facing the constant pressure as a Bay Area teen that makes everything a competition—from your grades to your extracurriculars to even your own creative expression—a space where no one expects you to be better than those around you is invaluable. To address this, we’ve laid out three main goals for the council: 1. Create free third spaces where teens can truly express who they are through engaging in arts activities, whether that’s painting a tote bag, upcycling jeans, or singing their heart out. 2. Build a relaxed, non-competitive community, where everyone gets the most applause and support, and people can choose how engaged they want to be. We always have an option in our events to just sit down at the back and enjoy 3. Offer inclusive leadership opportunities without barriers—we don’t have an application, we host public meetings, and we provide volunteer hours. Today’s teens will be the future someday, so TAC cultivates good leaders and representatives of our generation by offering a space where we can learn, fail, and get back up again with constant support. We, as teens, know that you, as adults, care. You care about our mental health and you care when we’re struggling. But you can’t always know what we need without hearing from us directly. By being here, we want to stress the importance of teens having their own voice and say in how their mental health is addressed by adults. And so, we’re going to tell you exactly what we, teens, need—a dedicated space of our own. Through our event planning experience and proven impact, we are eager to further our goals. That’s why we’re asking to use the new Bryant Street Teen Center for our meetings and events for the 2026-2027 school year. Teens need a designated space, and the Teen Center is just that. Right now, we meet at the Children’s Theater, which has worked well for our meetings and events. However, since we share the space with the many other great programs that the Children’s Theater has, we’re struggling to find uninterrupted time and space for us. It is not a dedicated teen space. It was an honor to be chosen by the city to paint the very first mural in the Teen Center after its reopening. As we’ve already familiarized ourselves with this space, we would love to be able to do even more by taking on the responsibility of arts programming at the Teen Center. Specifically, if we were to have access to the Teen Center, we would use the space to: Hold our weekly meetings Host our previously mentioned events Large open space and comfy furniture is perfect for our DIY Self-Care night We also have new ideas of Organizing monthly arts and crafts space for teens to just hang out However, currently, the Teen Center doesn’t work for us. It closes at 6 pm when we hold our meetings from 6:30-7:30 pm with events going even later, and transportation is difficult, especially for Gunn High School students since it’s on the other side of town. Later hours Such as having it open at 4pm and close at 8pm on weekdays and 9pm on Friday-Sunday. The current hours are 3-6pm on weekdays, but if our school ends at 3:30 at the earliest and it takes at least 20 minutes to get there when combating peak traffic, teens would only be able to enjoy the space for 2 hours maximum. Also, simply put, TAC would also not be able to hold meetings if the Teen Center is closed. Transit support Such as making the Teen Center a free destination through the Palo Alto Link Additionally, having designated Links drive teens from Gunn and Paly to the Teen Center would greatly increase our member count and more Gunn students could benefit from TAC. I am one of only three Gunn students who have been on TAC’s exec board in the last 16 years. I have a lot of friends who would love to be a part of TAC, but they just don't have a way to get to our meetings. We ask that the city provide two Link cars, one for Gunn and one Paly, which reach the schools at 6pm, leave them at 6:10, and come to the Teen Center by 6:30. Having city-sponsored safe and reliable transportation is crucial to increasing accessibility and equity for the hundreds of teens that don’t have their own transportation. Continued funding to sustain our events and initiatives. As we mentioned earlier, some of the main attractions in our events are only possible because of the City’s funding, and we are so grateful that we are able to have them. As we have not seen any notice of the Teen Center's hours post-grand opening ceremony, we reiterate our interest and continue our advocacy for the downtown Teen Center's full functionality. Thank you for your time, your support, and your belief in what Palo Alto teens can accomplish within our community through art and arts programming. Attached to this email are the slides we presented as well. Please let us know if you have any trouble accessing them. Sincerely, Avni Lochan, Co-President, In collaboration with Palo Alto Teen Arts Council members 6/15 City Council Presentation -- Teen Arts Council A Creative Community of Palo Alto Teens www.teenartscouncil.org Follow us on Instagram An Initiative of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre and the City of Palo Alto Teen Services From:Arya Devanath To:Council, City Subject:Request for Proclamation — Dementia Awareness Month (November 2026) Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:10:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Arya, and I am a junior at California High School in San Ramon and the founder of Memory Matters, a youth-led nonprofit raising awareness about dementia and building community support for those affected by the disease. Memory Matters reaches advocates in over 30 countries through our newsletter and global researcher network. I am writing to respectfully request that the County of Contra Costa issue an official proclamation recognizing November 2026 (or June 2027) as Dementia Awareness Month. More than 6 million Americans live with Alzheimer's disease, and countless families in our community are navigating this journey without adequate awareness or support. A proclamation from San Ramon would signal to our residents that this cause matters — and would amplify the work our community is already doing. I have drafted a proclamation language I am happy to share for your convenience. I would welcome the opportunity to present at a City Council meeting or attend a signing ceremony. Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration. Arya Devanath Founder, Memory Matters arya.devanath@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Mike Emrick To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Response to Staff Report Regarding RV Parking and Vehicle Dwelling Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:02:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approach to RV parking and vehicle dwelling outlined in the staff report. While I understand that the City is attempting to address a difficult and complex issue, I do not believe the proposed plan is a meaningful long-term solution. Instead, it risks institutionalizing and concentrating a problem that has already had serious consequences for Palo Alto residents, businesses, and property owners. For businesses located near the proposed parking areas, this is particularly concerning. Property owners have invested substantially in Palo Alto based on the expectation that the City will maintain safe, clean, accessible, and economically viable commercial areas. Allowing long-term RV habitation on public streets—even under a permit system —can negatively affect the appearance, accessibility, desirability, and ultimately the value of surrounding commercial properties. It also creates a serious concern for future leasing. Businesses considering leasing space in an area where long-term RV habitation is permitted may reasonably question whether the location is appropriate for their employees, customers, clients, and operations. A policy intended to manage RVs should not inadvertently make Palo Alto commercial properties less attractive to prospective tenants. I am also deeply concerned that the proposed program will not actually deter RVs from coming to Palo Alto. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. If Palo Alto becomes known as a city where RV residents can obtain permits and remain in designated locations for extended periods, word will spread that Palo Alto is a place where long- This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast term vehicle habitation is tolerated and accommodated. That creates a very real risk that the City will attract additional RVs rather than reduce their presence. We have already witnessed situations in which RV owners or “vanlords” have taken advantage of available public parking by operating a long-term rental arrangement from vehicles parked on Palo Alto streets. The City has recognized this problem and has taken steps to prohibit vanlording, but simply designating additional locations for RV parking does not address the broader incentive created when public streets become a dependable place for long-term habitation. The proposed alternating-side parking approach is also troubling. Moving RVs from one side of a street to the other every six months does not eliminate the impact on surrounding businesses and property owners. It simply moves the problem back and forth. For those of us who live and work in affected areas, this is not a solution—it is a redistribution of the burden. The City should also carefully consider what message this policy sends to businesses that have complied with Palo Alto's rules, paid taxes, maintained their properties, and invested in the community. Businesses should not be expected to absorb the consequences of a policy that effectively converts public streets adjacent to their properties into long-term RV living areas. I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider this approach before moving forward. At a minimum, the City should require clear and measurable evidence that the proposed program will actually reduce the number of RVs on Palo Alto streets rather than simply relocate them. The City should also establish enforceable limits on duration, meaningful consequences for violations, protections for adjacent businesses and property owners, and a clear plan for preventing spillover into surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. Most importantly, Palo Alto should not become known as a destination for long-term RV parking simply because neighboring jurisdictions have adopted more restrictive policies. We should be pursuing a coordinated regional solution rather than allowing Palo Alto to become the place where the problem is concentrated. I sincerely hope the City Council will consider the long-term consequences of this proposal—not only for those currently living in RVs, but also for the residents, businesses, employees, customers, and property owners who will be living with the consequences of this policy for years to come. The community deserves a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than one that merely moves it from one block to another. After the significant concerns that residents and businesses have already raised, I do not believe the current proposal represents meaningful action. I respectfully urge the City Council to reject or substantially revise the proposed plan and pursue a strategy that protects Palo Alto's neighborhoods, commercial properties, businesses, and quality of life while addressing the underlying causes of vehicle habitation through a genuine regional and long-term solution. Sincerely, Michael Emrick Mozart Development 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, Ca 94303 From:Tonu Pale To:Council, City Subject:OSV to park on OLIVE ST for 6th month Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:29:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i My name is Tonu Pale, I live on 265 olive ave. And I would like the CITY to please explain WHAT are they trying to DO with OSV parking ON our street and WHY. Please FEEL the poor and let ME understand this IDEAS. Please HELP ME i need to communicate with you /City of Palo Alto for Real Thanks T pale Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Josh Jordan To:Council, City Subject:What your council may ask about police data oversight this fall Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2026 5:33:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor Veenker, On August 13, Flock Safety's CEO announced that by January 1 every law enforcement customer must run its audit tool, with mandatory case codes (emergency bypass auto-flagged) and a 7- day default retention. (Coverage: https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/13/tech/flock-cameras-police- auditing-controls) As residents and council members start asking who watches police use of this data, it helps to have a clear answer ready. CrossCheck is an independent, agency-owned audit layer, with an optional public transparency dashboard that lets a city show its community the oversight is real. 15 minutes maps where Palo Alto stands against the January 1 landscape: rA9pu0dJOVjQCcYd3 One more thing, so it's not a surprise: I'm reaching out to Palo Alto Police Department's leadership about CrossCheck as well. Josh Jordan superhero Software Development Independent oversight software for law enforcement https://superherosoft.com/contact/ Every agency deserves a hero behind the scenes: we build technology services, applications, and websites for law enforcement and other municipal bodies. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Flock Safety, Inc. 75 George St, Green Island, NY 12183 Don't want these emails? Reply "unsubscribe" or click: https://superherosoft.com/u/Y2l0eS5jb3VuY2lsQHBhbG9hbHRvLmdvdg.xTXryWXJGmtU7e5ERTdXuIBl This message is suspicious Domain was created recently. No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:Martin Cuyegkeng To:Council, City Subject:Compilation of feedback regarding Staff Report Addressing OSV impacts to be discussed at 8/24 Council Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 11:18:42 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2026-08-16 at 2.56.41 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Multiple Palo Alto residents have not been able to reach you and the Palo Alto council due to emails being rejected despite using emails listed on https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Council/Public-Letters-to-City- Council. Sending those here now even while there is growing with frustration with why emails to the city council are repeatedly getting blocked. Thank you in advance for working toward an even better proposal before voting happens. Martin Begin forwarded message: From: Oksana Selavri <oksana.selavri@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Staff Report Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts - - To Be Discussed at Aug 24th City Council Meeting Date: August 16, 2026 at 7:18:21 PM PDT To: Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com> Cc: Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>, Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, George Lu <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>, Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, Kevin Mayer This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>, Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>, Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>, Cassandra Paige <Acacia@dividendhomes.com>, Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>, Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>, Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>, Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>, "Titan (Zhengtian) Gu" <gu_zt@yahoo.com>, Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>, Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>, Taryn Sanford <tsanford@polaresmedical.com>, Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>, Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>, Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@sofia.edu>, Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>, Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>, Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>, Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>, Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>, Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>, Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>, Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>, Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>, Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>, Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>, Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>, Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>, Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>, Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>, Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>, Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>, Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>, Scott Petersen <scottepetersen@gmail.com>, Alex Smelik <shmeltex@gmail.com>, fred@bockmann.com, Janie Sydow <Jsydow@comcast.net>, Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, Boyd Smith <boyd@smithdevelopment.com>, Lund Smith <lund@wsjproperties.com>, Milan Milan <milan@willisandproperties.com>, Elliott Lee <Lee@palomoarchery.com>, Robert Berkovich <rberkovich@yahoo.com>, Letizia Rodriguez <scheduling@franztermite.com>, Brennan Pang <brennan.pang@ridepanda.com>, Brad Eggleston <Brad.Eggleston@paloalto.gov>, Raphael Ruis Andrade <Alex.Andrade@paloalto.gov>, Bob Kennis <ckennis@comcast.net>, Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com>, "Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen" <peggyc3@hotmail.com>, Julia Sun <jsun39872@gmail.com>, Aki Hirsa <akietaki@yahoo.com>, Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com>, Andrew Li <ali@lfrep.com>, Evan Mathews <evan@mathewscarlsen.com>, Efrain Monttano Velazquez <efrain@mathewscarlsen.com>, "Ignacio Montelongo Jr." <jr@mathewscarlsen.com>, Joseph Montelongo <Joe@mathewscarlsen.com>, Nayirie Tashjian <ntashjian@alpfamed.com>, Fernanda Prado <fprado@alpfamed.com>, Dave Rubenstein <drubenstein@andersonhonda.com>, Johnny Vo <jvo@andersonhonda.com>, Priyanka Raghuraman <praghuraman@hammonplating.com>, Andrew Koo <andrew.koo@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>, Joseline Sotomayor <Joseline@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>, Dmitri Samsonov <argument@gmail.com>, Gerson Bers <gbers@abbae.com>, Mike Emrick <memrick@mozartdev.com>, Anand Srinivasan <sanand108@gmail.com>, Zohar Gillai <zgillai@gmail.com>, Maria Orlova <marlova123@gmail.com>, Marc Husemann <Marc.Husemann@tesa.com>, Niklas Sprungmann <Niklas.Sprungmann@tesa.com>, Kara Apple <Kara.Apple@paloalto.gov>, Joe Sinnott <joe@jsinnott.net>, Linda Zausen <llzausen@att.net>, Danny Whelan <dwhelan@pacamgroup.com>, Gulya Gulya <gtimokhina@gmail.com>, Matt Lynch <matt@gryphonstrings.com> Good evening Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, I absolutely agree with Martin and strongly object to the current Phase 2 proposal. I am a resident of Echelon Community and Fabian Way and East Meadow Circle is my immediate neighborhood. We have suffered long enough (for 6 years now) from this problem and are asking for a better solution which involves banning RVs in areas such as ours which are residential and adjacent industrial/commercial areas. These vehicles do not belong on our streets. In fact the currently implemented biweekly street cleaning showed minimal improvement and did not fix the problem at all. We used to have 55 back to back RVs on East Meadow and now have about 35 RVs that continue to stay. And to make the matters worse the street cleaning flushes them out and they now park right in front of our complex and run their motors overnight creating noise and pollution. Please use the current $800K plus budget to either move these people into Motels and truly help them get off the streets or identify a lot for these 130 plus vehicles that are not disturbing tax paying Palo Alto residents. I see it as a waste of money with no result. Oksana Selavri On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 3:10 PM Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Staff Report Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts - - To Be Discussed at Aug 24th City Council Meeting Date: August 16, 2026 at 3:07:18 PM PDT To: Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>, Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>, Julie Lythcott- Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>, Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>, George Lu <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>, Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Cc: Josh Becker <senator.becker@senate.ca.gov>, Marc Berman <Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov>, Leslie Bulbuk <Leslie.Bulbuk@asm.ca.gov>, Nicole Fernandez <nicole.fernandez@sen.ca.gov>, Margaret Abe- Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>, Christopher Jenson <Christopher.Jensen@PaloAlto.gov>, Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>, Stephen Lindsey <stephen.lindsey@cityofpaloalto.org>, Nick Marinaro <njmarinaro@gmail.com>, Jennifer Kain <kainjennifer@google.com>, Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>, Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>, Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>, Ceci Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>, Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>, Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>, John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>, Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>, Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>, Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>, Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>, David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>, Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>, Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>, Theron Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>, Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>, Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or-builders.com>, Bryna Chang <bryna.chang@gmail.com>, Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>, Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>, Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>, Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>, David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>, Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>, Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>, CMEI Wong <cmei@wongelectric.com>, DMA Wong <dma@wongelectric.com>, Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>, Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>, K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>, Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>, Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>, Victor Sloan <vic52@victor-aviation.com>, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net>, Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>, Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>, Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>, Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>, Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>, Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>, Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>, Nathan Baird Post <News@padailypost.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>, Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>, Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>, Maury Green <mauryg3@comcast.net>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>, Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>, Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>, Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>, William Ross <wross@lawross.com>, Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>, Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>, Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>, Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com> Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council, Before proceeding with a vote, can we have a comprehensive review of the locations and overall proposal that actively incorporates feedback directly from the affected tax-paying community in the proposed locations? The 1000 Block of E Meadow Cir serves as an important example of problems with the proposal: This location sits directly across from hundreds of residents in the Echelon Community and less than 100 feet from hundreds more in the Vantage Community (at the E. Meadow Dr and E. Meadow Cir intersection) These neighborhoods are already materially affected by the OSVs situation daily If not already done, please check the logs of the Palo Alto police team who have received numerous reports about OSV behavior since last year and continue to do so. This data should provide additional context to the visual evidence also being sharing on-going by Bob Feasibility does not guarantee efficacy; just because an action is possible does not mean it will solve the problem. We urge the team to have a better solution prior to voting. Thank you. Martin Begin forwarded message: From: Anand Srinivasan <sanand108@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Staff Report Addressing Oversized Vehicle Impacts - - To Be Discussed at Aug 24th City Council Meeting Date: August 17, 2026 at 10:04:15 PM PDT To: Dmitri Samsonov <argument@gmail.com> Cc: Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com>, Oksana Selavri <oksana.selavri@gmail.com>, Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com>, CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Palo Alto City Council 2026 <city.council@paloalto.gov>, Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>, Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>, Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@paloalto.gov>, Patrick Burt <Pat.Burt@paloalto.gov>, George Lu <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>, Ed Shikada <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, Josh Becker <senator.becker@senate.ca.gov>, Marc Berman <Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov>, Leslie Bulbuk <Leslie.Bulbuk@asm.ca.gov>, Nicole Fernandez <nicole.fernandez@sen.ca.gov>, Margaret Abe-Koga <District5@bos.sccgov.org>, Christopher Jenson <Christopher.Jensen@paloalto.gov>, Eric Bulatao <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov>, Stephen Lindsey <stephen.lindsey@cityofpaloalto.org>, Nick Marinaro <njmarinaro@gmail.com>, Jennifer Kain <kainjennifer@google.com>, Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com>, Loren Brown <loren.brown@vancebrown.com>, Dana Dahlstrom <danadahlstrom@yahoo.com>, Chris Berg <chris@carpetworksflooring.com>, Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>, Barry Katz <bmkatz1950@gmail.com>, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com>, John Schafer <JSchafer@andersonhonda.com>, Jeanette Baldwin <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>, Alina Martinez <amartinez@andersonhonda.com>, Micah Murphy <Manager@parkerpaloalto.com>, Danielle Dunne <danielle.dunne@wework.com>, David Famero <david.famero@intapp.com>, Carly Lake <carly@bioscienceprop.com>, Sandy Freschi <sandy.freschi@vancebrown.com>, Theron Bullman <tbullman@pacamgroup.com>, Dave Stellman <davstellman@gmail.com>, Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>, Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>, Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dmdsystems.com>, Osbaldo Romero <osbaldo@or-builders.com>, Bryna Chang <bryna.chang@gmail.com>, Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>, Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>, Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>, Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>, Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>, Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>, Pete Moffat <pete@petemoffat.com>, Jacob Hakmo <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>, David Perez <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>, Nancy Powers <nancy@drewmaran.com>, Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>, John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>, Stacey Tomson <staceytomson@gmsshields.com>, CMEI Wong <cmei@wongelectric.com>, DMA Wong <dma@wongelectric.com>, Jin Wong <jin.wong@gmail.com>, Maggie Madlangbayan <mmadlangbayan@stanfordhealthcare.org>, K Norris <knorris@stanfordhealthcare.org>, Elidia Tafoya <etafoya@atandordhealthcare.org>, Scott Hayes <shayes236@gmail.com>, Victor Sloan <vic52@victor- aviation.com>, John Seltzer <woodgood@pacbell.net>, Kandace Kopensky <kkopensky@ifrep.com>, Moiz Sonasath <sonu786@gmail.com>, Peter Longanecker <plonganecker@sayrayautorepair.com>, Karsyn Smith Development <karsyn@smithdevelopment.com>, Raphael Zahnd <raphael.zahnd@gmail.com>, Riley Cooke <rcooke@paweekly.com>, Sophie Pigman <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>, Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@paloalto.gov>, Palo Alto Daily Post <News@padailypost.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>, Louis Hsiao <louis@popconcepts.com>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Ann Lafargue Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>, Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>, Maury Green Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>, Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>, Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>, Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>, William Ross <wross@lawross.com>, Ron Chun <ron.chun.esq@gmail.com>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Becky Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>, Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>, Janet Hartley <jhartley@spiekercompanies.com>, Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com>, Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>, Boris Folsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Ian Halker <Ian.Halker@cbre.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, Heather Brownlee <heather_brownlee@yahoo.com>, Ken Brownlee <Kenneth.Brownlee@gmail.com>, Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>, Cassandra Paige <Acacia@dividendhomes.com>, Brad Watson <bradwatson888@yahoo.com>, Alisa Pendicini <apedicini@dividendhomes.com>, Ron Ellickson <rellickson@yahoo.com>, Chantal Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>, "Titan (Zhengtian) Gu" <gu_zt@yahoo.com>, Stephanie Wansek <stephanie.wansek@gmail.com>, Taryn Sanford <tsanford@polaresmedical.com>, Maia Harris <mharris@jaypaul.com>, Sayuri Kabutogi <skabutogi@inphatec.com>, Bernadette Zimmerman <Bernadette.Zimmerman@sofia.edu>, Doreen Chew <doreen_usa@yahoo.com>, Kshama Jirage <jirage.kshama@gmail.com>, Jenni Simon <jennivlnelee@yahoo.com>, Subadhra Arunasalam <subadhra@att.net>, Robert Russell <russell_robert@hotmail.com>, Doug Bacon <dougbacon@yahoo.com>, Chuan Wang <wangchuan1989@gmail.com>, Shchopra <shchopra21@gmail.com>, Al Dorsky <ADorsky@yahoo.com>, Phil Wettersten <philwettersten@gmail.com>, Ann Wettersten <annwettersten@gmail.com>, Todd Jin <todd_jin@yahoo.com>, Emily Emily <emilyki79@gmail.com>, Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>, Anil Rachakonda <arachak@gmail.com>, Linda Vanderhule <lindavanderhule@gmail.com>, Adriana Hernandez <ahernandez@padailypost.com>, Stuart Kreitman <stuart.kreitman@gmail.com>, Scott Petersen <scottepetersen@gmail.com>, Alex Smelik <Jsydow@comcast.net>, Deborah j Marinaro <djmarinaro@mac.com>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, Boyd Smith <boyd@smithdevelopment.com>, Lund Smith <lund@wsjproperties.com>, Milan Milan <milan@willisandproperties.com>, Elliott Lee <Lee@palomoarchery.com>, Robert Berkovich <rberkovich@yahoo.com>, Letizia Rodriguez <scheduling@franztermite.com>, Brennan Pang <brennan.pang@ridepanda.com>, Brad Eggleston <Brad.Eggleston@paloalto.gov>, Raphael Ruis <rafael.rius@paloalto.gov>, Lo Ria <ria.lo@paloalto.gov>, Alex Andrade <Alex.Andrade@paloalto.gov>, Bob Kennis <ckennis@comcast.net>, Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com>, "Peggy (Margaret) Christiansen" <peggyc3@hotmail.com>, Martin Cuyegkeng <martin.cuyegkeng@gmail.com>, Julia Sun <jsun39872@gmail.com>, Aki Hirsa <akietaki@yahoo.com>, Colin Swindells <colin.swindells@gmail.com>, Andrew Li <ali@lfrep.com>, Evan Mathews <evan@mathewscarlsen.com>, Efrain Monttano Velazquez <efrain@mathewscarlsen.com>, "Ignacio Montelongo Jr." <jr@mathewscarlsen.com>, Joseph Montelongo <Joe@mathewscarlsen.com>, Nayirie Tashjian <ntashjian@alpfamed.com>, Fernanda Prado <fprado@alpfamed.com>, Dave Rubenstein <drubenstein@andersonhonda.com>, Johnny Vo <jvo@andersonhonda.com>, Priyanka Raghuraman <praghuraman@hammonplating.com>, Andrew Koo <andrew.koo@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>, Joseline Sotomayor <Joseline@paloaltoelectricmotor.com>, Gerson Bers <gbers@abbae.com>, Mike Emrick <memrick@mozartdev.com>, Zohar Gillai <zgillai@gmail.com>, Maria Orlova <marlova123@gmail.com>, Marc Husemann <Marc.Husemann@tesa.com>, Niklas Sprungmann <Niklas.Sprungmann@tesa.com>, Kara Apple <Kara.Apple@paloalto.gov>, Joe Sinnott <joe@jsinnott.net>, Linda Zausen <llzausen@att.net>, Danny Whelan <dwhelan@pacamgroup.com>, Gulya Gulya <gtimokhina@gmail.com>, Matt Lynch <matt@gryphonstrings.com>, "Larry & Francine Geller" <frannylarry@gmail.com>, Magdalena Cabrera <magdalenac@gmail.com>, Susan Kemp <skemp650@gmail.com>, Yvonne LeMaster <lamaster@msn.com>, Lissy Bland <lissybland@gmail.com>, Tina Dever <devertina@gmail.com>, <cjennywang@gmail.com>, Claire <clairee44@gmail.com>, Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com>, mag <zjazzyz@yahoo.com> Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am also a long-term resident of South Palo Alto, and have seen the increase of OSVs in our neighborhood over the last few years. I wanted to add on to the topic of compassion, and highlight that some occupants of OSVs may not be experiencing the extreme financial hardship that we think they are. And asking them to move will not make them unhoused. For example, I have observed several OSVs occupied on a long-term basis where the occupants also appear to have other substantial vehicles, including newer European automobiles, Teslas, newer pickup trucks, and, in some cases, motorcycles in addition to an automobile. I recognize that vehicle ownership does not establish someone's financial circumstances, but these observations raise questions about whether all long-term OSV occupants are genuinely without other options. I understand the broader concern that requiring people living in OSVs to move could simply make them unhoused. That is a valid concern for people experiencing genuine homelessness or economic hardship. However, I am concerned that we are assuming everyone living in an OSV is in that situation. Some may be choosing to live in their vehicles despite having other resources and alternatives. Asking these individuals to move would not necessarily make them unhoused. It simply requires them to make a different housing choice. My concern is not about any particular individual. Rather, I believe the City should have strict and consistently enforced rules against long-term vehicle habitation to ensure public streets do not become a permanent housing option for anyone, especially for those who have other choices. Thank you for your attention to this issue and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Anand On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 9:14 PM Dmitri Samsonov <argument@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City's current approach toward RV parking in residential neighborhoods and to any proposal that would legalize or permanently accommodate long-term RV parking in our neighborhood, East Meadow circle. The City continues to spend public funds on programs addressing RV occupancy, yet residents see little measurable progress. As taxpayers, we deserve transparency, accountability, and results. The current approach appears to lack all three. One of my primary concerns is the lack of accountability regarding RV owners who are being permitted to live in their vehicles as part of City assistance programs. I understand that people may experience temporary hardships such as job loss, unexpected financial difficulties, or other personal crises, and I support providing short-term assistance during those times. However, such assistance cannot be indefinite. The City should maintain clear records identifying who is receiving assistance, the reason assistance is being provided, the duration of that assistance, the services being offered, and the expected path toward a more permanent housing solution. Without documented records, timelines, and measurable goals, there is no way to determine whether the program is effective or whether public resources are being used responsibly. Compassion should not mean allowing unlimited occupation of public streets without oversight or accountability. If the City chooses to permit individuals to remain in RVs due to temporary hardship, there must be clear eligibility requirements, regular reviews of each case, and a defined timeframe for assistance. Residents have a right to know that these programs are being managed responsibly and that temporary assistance is not becoming a permanent arrangement. There must also be clear expectations and timeframes. Assistance programs should be designed to help individuals regain stability and move toward permanent housing solutions within a reasonable period. Public support should not become an indefinite arrangement with no measurable goals, no review process, and no accountability. Compassion is important, but compassion without accountability is not a sustainable public policy. I am particularly concerned by discussions that could result in the legalization of long-term RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Such a policy would be a serious mistake and a failure to protect the interests of Palo Alto residents. Residential streets were never intended to function as permanent RV living locations, and the City should not redefine them as such. When our condominium complex was approved and built, the City authorized it as a residential community. Residents purchased homes with the expectation that surrounding streets would remain residential in character. We should not be expected to live with conditions resembling vehicle storage areas or encampments. The City has a responsibility to preserve the character, safety, and quality of life of established residential neighborhoods. If certain individuals require long-term support due to age, disability, or other circumstances, the City should work with appropriate social service agencies, housing organizations, senior support programs, and county resources to identify better solutions. Residential streets should not become permanent housing alternatives. The City has a duty to ensure accountability, enforce its own laws, and protect the rights of Palo Alto residents. The current approach fails to meet these fundamental responsibilities. Existing regulations should be enforced consistently and fairly. No individual or group should be exempt from reasonable standards that apply to everyone else. I would also like to remind the City Council that its members were elected to represent the residents of Palo Alto. Your first responsibility is to the people who live in these neighborhoods, pay taxes, and rely on the City to protect the character and livability of their community. Therefore, I respectfully but firmly demand that the City: Reject any proposal that would legalize permanent or indefinite RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Establish clear records and reporting regarding individuals receiving assistance and the outcomes achieved. Implement defined timelines, goals, and accountability measures for assistance programs. Enforce existing parking and neighborhood regulations consistently. Develop long-term housing solutions that do not place the burden on residential neighborhoods. Residents deserve safe, clean, and properly regulated neighborhoods. The City must balance compassion for those in need with accountability, effective use of public funds, and respect for the rights of Palo Alto residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to meaningful action on this issue. Sincerely, Dmitri. On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 6:14 PM Penny Brennan <plynnbrennan@gmail.com> wrote: Below is the letter I have just sent to City Council and its individual members. I plan to express these opinions at the August 24 meeting. Subject: Please, Vote NO on Both OSV Pilot Programs! Dear Palo Alto City Council: I urge you to vote NO on both OSV pilot programs recommended to you by the OSV subcommittee and staff. · As usual, even after community inquiries, the OSV subcommittee and staff have acted with zero input from the Palo Alto residents and businesspeople most directly affected and negatively impacted by presence of OSVs on Palo Alto streets. · The OSV subcommittee and staff continue to base their OSV policy recommendations on stereotypes and feelings, rather than actual empirical data, regarding the use and need characteristics of individuals who park their OSVs in Palo Alto. For example, there are two OSVs parked in my Ventura neighborhood (Matadero and Orinda Aves) that are routinely left vacant for days and weeks on end, with no sign of overnight use. Seemingly these are not being used as “humanitarian” shelters by their owners but as storage spaces and way stations for cooling and car-charging via gas-powered generators. The primary need of these users seems to be finding a parking space sufficiently large to accommodate the enormous length and width of their vehicles. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that some OSV users park where they do not out of unemployed or destitute status but out of preference for proximity to their Palo Alto workplaces. The Palo Alto City Council should base its OSV policies on OSV use and need facts rather than stereotypes and “gut feelings” labeled as “humanitarianism” and “moral obligation.” · Both recommended pilot programs are illogical in their conception. If pilot permitted spaces are filled by new OSV arrivals, this will just add to the more than 130 OSVs that already occupy Palo Alto streets. If the idea is to shift existing OSVs to new pilot program spaces: Isn’t it obvious that the left-behind, empty OSV parking spaces will be immediately backfilled by the arrival of yet more new OSVs? · Both pilot programs will be utterly unenforceable. · Attempted implementation of the pilot programs will be costly, using resources that would be much better spent strictly enforcing Palo Alto’s 72-hour parking and public nuisance ordinances. Currently, Palo Alto is not doing so. · When will Palo Alto City Council focus its humanitarian compassion and resource allotment more on Palo Alto residents and businesspeople, whose safety, security, physical and mental health, livelihoods, and property values are being jeopardized by the OSV users, than on the circumstances and needs of OSV users who have chosen to park their vehicles in our city? Both recommended OSV pilot programs are built on false premises, ill-conceived, unenforceable, and destined to further harm Palo Alto residents and businesspeople. I urge you to vote “NO” on both of them. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood Thank you. Martin From:Dmitri Samsonov To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Oppose Legalization of Long-Term RV Parking in Residential Neighborhoods Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 9:18:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City's current approach toward RV parking in residential neighborhoods and to any proposal that would legalize or permanently accommodate long- term RV parking in our neighborhood, East Meadow circle. The City continues to spend public funds on programs addressing RV occupancy, yet residents see little measurable progress. As taxpayers, we deserve transparency, accountability, and results. The current approach appears to lack all three. One of my primary concerns is the lack of accountability regarding RV owners who are being permitted to live in their vehicles as part of City assistance programs. I understand that people may experience temporary hardships such as job loss, unexpected financial difficulties, or other personal crises, and I support providing short-term assistance during those times. However, such assistance cannot be indefinite. The City should maintain clear records identifying who is receiving assistance, the reason assistance is being provided, the duration of that assistance, the services being offered, and the expected path toward a more permanent housing solution. Without documented records, timelines, and measurable goals, there is no way to determine whether the program is effective or whether public resources are being used responsibly. Compassion should not mean allowing unlimited occupation of public streets without oversight or accountability. If the City chooses to permit individuals to remain in RVs due to temporary hardship, there must be clear eligibility requirements, regular reviews of each case, and a defined timeframe for assistance. Residents have a right to know that these programs are being managed responsibly and that temporary assistance is not becoming a permanent arrangement. There must also be clear expectations and timeframes. Assistance programs should be designed to help individuals regain stability and move toward permanent housing solutions within a reasonable period. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Public support should not become an indefinite arrangement with no measurable goals, no review process, and no accountability. Compassion is important, but compassion without accountability is not a sustainable public policy. I am particularly concerned by discussions that could result in the legalization of long-term RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Such a policy would be a serious mistake and a failure to protect the interests of Palo Alto residents. Residential streets were never intended to function as permanent RV living locations, and the City should not redefine them as such. When our condominium complex was approved and built, the City authorized it as a residential community. Residents purchased homes with the expectation that surrounding streets would remain residential in character. We should not be expected to live with conditions resembling vehicle storage areas or encampments. The City has a responsibility to preserve the character, safety, and quality of life of established residential neighborhoods. If certain individuals require long-term support due to age, disability, or other circumstances, the City should work with appropriate social service agencies, housing organizations, senior support programs, and county resources to identify better solutions. Residential streets should not become permanent housing alternatives. The City has a duty to ensure accountability, enforce its own laws, and protect the rights of Palo Alto residents. The current approach fails to meet these fundamental responsibilities. Existing regulations should be enforced consistently and fairly. No individual or group should be exempt from reasonable standards that apply to everyone else. I would also like to remind the City Council that its members were elected to represent the residents of Palo Alto. Your first responsibility is to the people who live in these neighborhoods, pay taxes, and rely on the City to protect the character and livability of their community. Therefore, I respectfully but firmly demand that the City: Reject any proposal that would legalize permanent or indefinite RV parking in residential neighborhoods. Establish clear records and reporting regarding individuals receiving assistance and the outcomes achieved. Implement defined timelines, goals, and accountability measures for assistance programs. Enforce existing parking and neighborhood regulations consistently. Develop long-term housing solutions that do not place the burden on residential neighborhoods. Residents deserve safe, clean, and properly regulated neighborhoods. The City must balance compassion for those in need with accountability, effective use of public funds, and respect for the rights of Palo Alto residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to meaningful action on this issue. Sincerely, Dmitri. From:Leela Hebbar To:Council, City Subject:Comments on agenda topic #6 (ADUs), 8/17/2026 meeting Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 6:38:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, I am writing to share two suggestions about topic 6 on the 8/17/2026 agenda related to ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) 1. I encourage the council to add the provision that allows separate ADU ownership. This provision expands the mechanisms that support affordable housing in our community. I think our community has to do more to support affordable housing because we have a shortage of homes that are affordable for young professionals just starting their careers, elders looking to downsize their living space, and non-tech professionals, such as public school teachers and nurses. 2. And within that provision, I suggest the requirement for notifying homeowners within 600 feet be dropped from the ADU ordinance because there is no public meeting or hearing requirement for converting an ADU into a separately owned property. Moreover, when a homeowner decides to build an ADU, there is no requirement for them to notify homeowners within 600 feet nor for a public hearing. The rule seems to replicate the public notice rules from the city’s “guidelines for the review of subdivision projects”, which also includes a meeting or hearing. However, in this instance there is no meeting or hearing. Therefore, I suggest eliminating the notification rule. Sincerely, Leela Hebbar From:Penny Brennan To:Council, City Subject:Please, Vote NO on Both OSV Pilot Programs! Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 5:47:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council: I urge you to vote NO on both OSV pilot programs recommended to you by the OSV subcommittee and staff. · As usual, even after community inquiries, the OSV subcommittee and staff have acted with zero input from the Palo Alto residents and businesspeople most directly affected and negatively impacted by presence of OSVs on Palo Alto streets. · The OSV subcommittee and staff continue to base their OSV policy recommendations on stereotypes and feelings, rather than actual empirical data, regarding the use and need characteristics of individuals who park their OSVs in Palo Alto. For example, there are two OSVs parked in my Ventura neighborhood (Matadero and Orinda Aves) that are routinely left vacant for days and weeks on end, with no sign of overnight use. Seemingly these are not being used as “humanitarian” shelters by their owners but as storage spaces and way stations for cooling and car-charging via gas-powered generators. The primary need of these users seems to be finding a parking space sufficiently large to accommodate the enormous length and width of their vehicles. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that some OSV users park where they do not out of unemployed or destitute status but out of preference for proximity to their Palo Alto workplaces. The Palo Alto City Council should base its OSV policies on OSV use and need facts rather than stereotypes and “gut feelings” labeled as “humanitarianism” and “moral obligation.” · Both recommended pilot programs are illogical in their conception. If pilot permitted spaces are filled by new OSV arrivals, this will just add to the more than 130 OSVs that already occupy Palo Alto streets. If the idea is to shift existing OSVs to new pilot program spaces: Isn’t it obvious that the left- behind, empty OSV parking spaces will be immediately backfilled by the arrival of yet more new OSVs? · Both pilot programs will be utterly unenforceable. · Attempted implementation of the pilot programs will be costly, using resources that would be much better spent strictly enforcing Palo Alto’s 72- hour parking and public nuisance ordinances. Currently, Palo Alto is not doing so. · When will Palo Alto City Council focus its humanitarian compassion and resource allotment more on Palo Alto residents and businesspeople, whose safety, security, physical and mental health, livelihoods, and property values are being jeopardized by the OSV users, than on the circumstances and needs of OSV users who have chosen to park their vehicles in our city? Both recommended OSV pilot programs are built on false premises, ill-conceived, unenforceable, and destined to further harm Palo Alto residents and businesspeople. I urge you to vote “NO” on both of them. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood From:John Kelley To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Frick, Coleman; Sauls, Garrett Cc:Jeremy Levine; Scott O"Neil; Steve Levy; Bryan Baker; Rika Yamamoto; Allan Feldman; Jessica Resmini Subject:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Action Item #6 re Amending Municipal Code re ADUs -2026-08-17 -- with exhibits Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 5:45:23 PM Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Amending Municipal Code re ADUs -2026-08-17 -- Summary.pdf PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Amending Municipal Code re ADUs -2026-08-17 -- with exhibits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and City Staff, Please see the attached summary and letter regarding Action Item #6 on tonight’s City Council agenda. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley From:Christian A. Hothem To:Council, City Subject:RV Parking Near 844 E. Charleston Road – Impact on Local Businesses Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 4:51:31 PM Attachments:pag-logo-email2_4095fa7b-f6df-42a4-99d6-4052b8405145.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor and Members of the City Council, My name is Christian Hothem with Pacific American Group. Our family has owned the commercial property at 844 E. Charleston Road since 1994. I am writing regarding the concentration of RVs currently parked on the street near our property. We have contacted the City and have been told that the vehicles are legally parked. We recognize that homelessness and vehicle dwelling are difficult issues and that the City has obligations to residents experiencing homelessness. We are not asking the City to simply move people from one neighborhood to another. However, the current situation is beginning to create a separate problem for the surrounding business community. We recently had a prospective tenant decide not to lease space at 844 E. Charleston specifically because of concerns about security associated with the RVs and the condition of the surrounding street. That means the issue is now directly affecting Palo Alto's ability to attract and retain businesses at this location. We would like to work constructively with the City to find a solution that treats the people living in these vehicles appropriately while also ensuring that commercial streets remain safe, accessible and attractive places for businesses, employees and customers. We would appreciate the Council's assistance in determining what options are available, whether through parking regulation, enforcement, outreach services, managed parking programs, or another approach the City believes would be effective. We have been invested in Palo Alto for more than three decades and want to continue being a responsible long-term member of the community. I would be happy to meet with Councilmembers or City staff at 844 E. Charleston to show you the situation firsthand. Help your local businesses succeed! Please vote NO on Action Item 10 in the august 24th This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast special city council meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Christian Hothem Pacific American Group CHRISTIAN HOTHEMManaging Partner104 Caledonia St, Ste. 101Sausalito, CA 94965415.331.3838 office From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Robert Salonga; Brandon Pho; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Gennady Sheyner; Human Relations Commission; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Zelkha, Mila; Zahra Billoo; board@pausd.org; Board of Directors; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Ann Ravel; Anna Griffin; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Salem Ajluni; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Friends of Cubberley; Bill Newell; Nancy Goodban; Vicki Veenker; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Afanasiev, Alex; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Eric Diesel; Donna Wallach; Ruth Silver Taube; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; GRP-City Council; Council, City; Sean Allen; Carla Torres; Dana St. George; David Piper; Angel, David; Yusra Hussain; Hans-Peter Tiemann; Ari Tarver Cc:DuJuan Green; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Enberg, Nicholas; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC Subject:Re: You are doing no favor to us Jews —your biased reporting is shameful Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 4:16:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:12 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hey Dave, Today’s ( Monday, August 17, 2026) Dave Price pro-zionist editorial only increases hostility towards all Jews. You are doing us Jews no favor with your misinformed editorials. Do your homework before you put out such provocative misinformation. Jews are the most privileged and wealthy minority in this country. And the ongoing genocide in Palestine —supported by U.S. bombs and billions of dollars of military aid-and pushed down the throats of the American public by wealthy zionist lobbies like AIPAC - understandable increases anti-zionism.Your misinformed editorials on the ongoing genocide in Palestine continue to confuse legitimate anti-zionism with antisemitism. Young Jewish adults want to know the truth about the vile colonial nature -the apartheid nature -the genocidal nature- of Israel. We Jews are NOT raised to be the fragile, uninformed individuals your writing makes us out to be. Jewish culture, unlike zionism encourages truth-telling- not the censorship of the truth about Israel that the zionists promote along with uninformed Journalists like yourself. We, Jews, are NOT the victims you make us out to be; do your homework, Dave! Income and Wealth Statistics High Household Income: Data from the Pew Research Center shows that roughly 50% of Jewish American households report an annual income of $100,000 or more, and about 23% to 25% earn $200,000 or more. [] Billionaires and Top Wealth: While Jewish people make up for about 20% to 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. [1] There is no increase in anti-Semitism except that which is self-inflicted. As some of my Jewish friends remind me: Our government, our Congress, is Israeli-occupied territory. Why not expose this truth rather than promote false claims of antisemitism? Noted Israeli historian and professor Ilan Pappe, who served in the Israel military ( IOF), made the following observation regarding the propaganda machine that is Israel in his 2024 book, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic: …” But the Israeli lobby insists on being present in town halls, schools, churches, synagogues, community centers, and campuses on both sides of the Atlantic. In 2024, Israel will not allow any show of solidarity with the Palestinians in Britain and the U.S., even by one person, to escape its radar. It will do all it can to push for the dismissal of every person who condemns its ethical violations and the proscription of every organization calling for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. It will brand these activities as anti-Semitic and tantamount to holocaust denial….“ Dave, where is all of your bias coming from? Are you not telling us why you are so pro-zionist? Are you a whack-job Christian Zionist? It's time you be transparent with your readers. Your credibility is on the line big time!! Dave, please stop spreading dangerous misinformation. You're a journalist not a propagandist for Israel and vile zionists. Peace, Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Robert Salonga; Brandon Pho; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Gennady Sheyner; Human Relations Commission; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Zelkha, Mila; Zahra Billoo; board@pausd.org; Board of Directors; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Ann Ravel; Anna Griffin; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Salem Ajluni; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Friends of Cubberley; Bill Newell; Nancy Goodban; Vicki Veenker; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Afanasiev, Alex; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Eric Diesel; Donna Wallach; Ruth Silver Taube; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; GRP-City Council; Council, City Cc:DuJuan Green; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Enberg, Nicholas; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC Subject:You are doing no favor to us Jews —your biased reporting is shameful Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 4:13:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hey Dave, Today’s ( Monday, August 17, 2026) Dave Price pro-zionist editorial only increases hostility towards all Jews. You are doing us Jews no favor with your misinformed editorials. Do your homework before you put out such provocative misinformation. Jews are the most privileged and wealthy minority in this country. And the ongoing genocide in Palestine —supported by U.S. bombs and billions of dollars of military aid-and pushed down the throats of the American public by wealthy zionist lobbies like AIPAC - understandable increases anti-zionism.Your misinformed editorials on the ongoing genocide in Palestine continue to confuse legitimate anti-zionism with antisemitism. Young Jewish adults want to know the truth about the vile colonial nature -the apartheid nature -the genocidal nature- of Israel. We Jews are NOT raised to be the fragile, uninformed individuals your writing makes us out to be. Jewish culture, unlike zionism encourages truth- telling- not the censorship of the truth about Israel that the zionists promote along with uninformed Journalists like yourself. We, Jews, are NOT the victims you make us out to be; do your homework, Dave! Income and Wealth Statistics High Household Income: Data from the Pew Research Center shows that roughly 50% of Jewish American households report an annual income of $100,000 or more, and about 23% to 25% earn $200,000 or more. [] Billionaires and Top Wealth: While Jewish people make up roughly 2% of the U.S. population, they consistently account for about 20% to 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest There is no increase in anti-Semitism except that which is self-inflicted. As some of my Jewish friends remind me: Our government, our Congress, is Israeli-occupied territory. Why not expose this truth rather than promote false claims of antisemitism? Noted Israeli historian and professor Ilan Pappe, who served in the Israel military ( IOF), made the following observation regarding the propaganda machine that is Israel in his 2024 book, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic: …” But the Israeli lobby insists on being present in town halls, schools, churches, synagogues, community centers, and campuses on both sides of the Atlantic. In 2024, Israel will not allow any show of solidarity with the Palestinians in Britain and the U.S., even by one person, to escape its radar. It will do all it can to push for the dismissal of every person who condemns its ethical violations and the proscription of every organization calling for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. It will brand these activities as anti-Semitic and tantamount to holocaust denial….“ Dave, where is all of your bias coming from? Are you not telling us why you are so pro-zionist? Are you a whack-job Christian Zionist? It's time you be transparent with your readers. Your credibility is on the line big time!! Dave, please stop spreading dangerous misinformation. You're a journalist not a propagandist for Israel and vile zionists. Peace, Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James From:James Lloyd To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty; Lait, Jonathan Subject:public comment re item 7 for tonight"s Council meeting Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 3:59:26 PM Attachments:Palo Alto - 762 San Antonio Road - HAA Letter - CC.pdf CalHDF v LCF compressed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment (and referenced court case) regarding item 7 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 228-unit housing development project at 762 San Antonio Road, which includes 30 units affordable to low-income households. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because did you also know that if city buildings and also the libraries are being used for the homeless people during the winter seaso... Date:Monday, August 17, 2026 3:30:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent from my iPhone