Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-19 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: 10/19/2026 Document dates: 10/13/26 – 10/19/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:YIRAN MAO To:Council, City Subject:Please Grant a Full Hearing on the St. Thomas Aquinas Redwood Appeal Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 11:22:19 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 urge you to allow the appeal concerning the four protected coast redwoods at St. Thomas Aquinas Church, 751 Waverley Street, to proceed to a full public hearing. The City's own determination acknowledges that the full church foundation was not assessed. Residents have raised legitimate questions about the need for removal and whether reasonable engineering and preservation alternatives have been adequately investigated. Whatever one's ultimate position on the proposed removal, these questions deserve careful consideration in a transparent public hearing. Please allow the appeal to proceed. Thank you. Yiran Mao A Palo Alto resident This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net To:Council, City Subject:AT&T graffiti Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 10:49:42 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto City Council, Recently you were sent a protest from this home-owner about the unnecessary, property-defiling graffiti marks on our sidewalks & streets by AT&T. It is respected that AT&T must mark sites for future projects by its workmen, but washable products should be used, such as tape or chalk (see tape in photo below), not un-washable neon paint splattered on our sidewalks. This is very ugly, lowers our property values, and defiles our neighborhoods. Below are photos for you, of the block on Middlefield Road, facing the corner near Walter Hays Elementary school, of this home-owner’s complaint. We have owned our home on Middlefield for 32 years. This neon graffiti is not ok. A reply from you would be appreciated. I would like to know what you are doing to communicate this issue to AT&T. Thank you for getting back to me on this, Kim Atkinson 1753 Middlefield Palo Alto View towards corner by Walter Hays: The cross-mark below is tape. The tape medium is acceptable: it is removable. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast I spent an HOUR trying to scrape the neon paint stripe off the bricks: Drips and spots of neon paint are all over the place. This is NOT OK. From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Bryna Chang; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Brian Hamachek; h.etzko@gmail.com; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Mora Oommen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; City Attorney; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Matt Schlegel; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Taylor, Cecilia; Sean Allen; Friends of Cubberley; Vicki Veenker; Gerry Gras; Daniel Kottke; Dana St. George; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Fernandez, Lisa; Jesse Gary; Liz Kniss; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Sameena Usman; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Bramson: We can"t fix homelessness without sharing power - San José Spotlight Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 10:44:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. But while politicians debate what should happen to people experiencing homelessness, far less attention is being paid to what those individuals have to say about their own futures. https://sanjosespotlight.com/?p=241278 From:Carol Kiparsky To:Council, City Subject:Please allow a full hearing on the St Tom’s redwood appeal Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 9:54:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am writing you on behalf of 4 protected redwood trees at St Thomas Aquinas church. You should know that your constituents in this town named after a tree care deeply about our canopy and greenery. The City's own determination acknowledges that the full church foundation was not assessed. Residents have repeatedly requested a more thorough investigation and serious consideration of alternatives before these protected trees are permanently removed. Regardless of one's ultimate position on the proposed removal, this case raises important questions about the City's commitment to protecting mature trees and the standards used to justify their removal. These questions deserve a full and transparent public hearing. Please allow the appeal to proceed so that the evidence, the alternatives, and the concerns of the community can receive the consideration they deserve. Carol Kiparsky This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Hiral Parekh To:shailo@gmail.com Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Jeff Jeff; Sarah Smith Le; City Mgr; Amy Amy; Ethan Lin; Council, City; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 8:28:54 AM Attachments:image003.png image006.png image001.png image005.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Jonathan, I have been emailing your department about the issues at 3935 Duncan Place for a year. I cannot believe the full set of violations has still not been investigated. Shailo's email this morning laid out the facts. Limiting enforcement to the pink and green windows is not enough, and a "negotiated outcome" that keeps clear operable windows facing our children's rooms is not enforcement. I am asking for the basic job: investigate and enforce every violation on this property before any final sign-off. That includes the window violations you already confirmed, the 23-foot house your department approved in violation of the 17-foot Single-Story Overlay, the grading and permitted-hours violations, and the bad-faith "studio" classification that stripped our statutory privacy protections. The same codes, applied equally. No passes for flippers. Hiral On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 7:40 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jonathan, It is completely backwards that our neighborhood is in a position where we have to ask whether the City will enforce municipal codes before closing out a building permit. Ensuring full compliance before issuing a final sign-off and Certificate of Occupancy is the basic job of the Planning and Development Department. Residents pay top dollar to live in Palo Alto, and the level of oversight on this project has consistently failed to meet that bar. Take a look at how this property is currently being marketed: it is actively listed for sale as a single luxury home with 6 Bedrooms, 5 Bathrooms, and 3,001 Square Feet (Redfin Listing: 3935 Duncan Pl). This listing confirms what our community has said from day one: The ADU was purely a loophole. It created zero real housing access for our community. It was designed solely to bypass the Single-Story Overlay and maximize square footage for a quick flip. The "studio" excuse is fiction. City staff justified letting the builder install clear, operable windows directly looking into our kids' study rooms and living spaces by claiming the ADU is an "open studio" where the front door serves as the only egress. Now the house is being sold as a 6-bedroom home. The City allowed a semantic trick to strip away statutory privacy protections, and our families are left dealing with the fallout. This is not an isolated oversight. On this exact property, your department previously approved permits for a 23-foot-tall house in direct violation of our 17-foot Single-Story Overlay. Staff didn’t catch it; the neighborhood had to step in, audit the blueprints, and force the City to correct its own mistake. For the department to now throw up its hands, claim "zero leverage," and suggest that established neighbors spend thousands of dollars planting trees on our own property to block an invasive build is unacceptable. 3 Basic Actions City Planning Needs to Take Now 1. Equal Code Enforcement This developer must follow the exact same municipal codes as every other homeowner in Palo Alto. No passes for house flippers, no rubber-stamping bad- faith "studio" classifications, and strict enforcement of permitted hours and grading limits. 2. Mandatory Safety and Privacy Remediation on Their Lot The developer—not the adjacent neighbors—must bear the physical and financial cost of fixing this intrusion: Remove or permanently seal the windows: All clear, operable windows facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Place must be removed, enclosed, or retrofitted strictly as high, fixed non-operable clerestory glass. Developer-funded screening: The developer must plant mature evergreen screening trees along their side of the fence before any final inspection. 3. Departmental Accountability and an Apology to the Community The recurring failures on this parcel point to a serious breakdown in the planning function. We are asking for: An internal review and necessary staffing reassignments among the personnel handling this file. A formal, written apology to the Duncan Place community for the repeated permitting blunders and the administrative burden forced onto tax-paying residents. Required Verification Checklist Before Permit Closeout The City must complete the following concrete actions before issuing any final inspection sign-off or Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Place: [ ] Administrative Hold: Place an immediate hold on final inspection sign-offs and occupancy certification for 3935 Duncan Place. [ ] Window Correction Notice: Issue a written correction requiring the developer to remove or permanently seal all operable windows overlooking adjacent living spaces. [ ] On-Site Landscaping Inspection: Require verified planting of mature evergreen screening on the subject parcel's property line. [ ] Certified Topographic Survey: Mandate a stamped survey from a licensed civil engineer verifying actual pre-construction natural grade against finished floor height under PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B). [ ] Urban Forestry Sign-Off: Require written confirmation from Urban Forestry that foundation trenching did not compromise protected root zones on neighboring lots under PAMC 8.10. [ ] Executive Escalation: Forward this administrative record directly to the City Manager and City Council for review. Sincerely, Shailo On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 1:51 PM Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, I have reviewed the plans and visited the site. I can confirm that windows shown in pink and green on the diagram below do not comply with municipal code requirements. However, the fix to comply is unlikely to resolve your privacy concerns. Specifically, the windowsill for the window shown in pink needs to be raised approximately one foot to maintain a minimum five-foot distance from the ADU’s finished floor level. The three windows in green need to change the lower half of the window from operable windows to fixed and become opaque. The upper portion of those windows, which are now fixed, may need to become operable to meet building code natural ventilation requirements. These changes are not expected to improve any privacy concerns you or your neighbors may have with the ADU. There may be an opportunity to negotiate an outcome that retains the windows as they have been constructed but require the upper fixed portions of the windows shown in green to become opaque while leaving the bottom half operable and clear. If you and your neighbors would prefer the negotiated outcome described above, I will have a conversation with the ADU owner to explore this path. Alternatively, our department could issue a correction notice to the owner to have the windows brought into compliance with the code in the manner described above, which would not address privacy concerns. Please consider the above and reply with any questions or feedback next week. Thank you. JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 2:44 PM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Jonathan - Thank you for taking responsibility for this organization's utter incompetence. However, do not ever feel comfortable dismissing our community as unproductive or disrespectful. We pay your exorbitant salaries and benefits. Do not disrespect us. If none of you wish to be accountable to tax payers and home owners, you can all resign. This message thread clearly demonstrates that none of your team is earning their paycheck. They have failed countless times and have ignored doing basic tasks. Please clean house and get people on your team who will actually work with the community in a timely and professional manner. This is not how a functioning local government and democracy works. You're all smart enough to know that. On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 1:31 PM Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> wrote: Moved to BCC: Elisa Vargas, David Borjon, Jodie Gerhardt, Garrett Sauls, Kyle Shea, Jennifer Armer, PDS director Retained citymgr email which keeps the city manager’s office and city council informed of our progress. Shailo, Thank you for your emails. I am removing staff from future emails and would request that you continue your engagement directly with me. My review of this communication thread leaves me with the impression that it is neither productive nor particularly respectful. I have asked staff to not engage in further dialogue on this topic. I have placed a hold on any final inspection and occupancy related to this project. I have a copy of the plans and will personally review the project, specifically as it relates to the ADU and the concerns expressed about the offending windows and related glare. I am aware of the prior issue concerning the height of the main residence, which the neighbors brought to our attention, and as I understand it, has been since remedied. If there are specific code sections that you believe the project violates or is not in compliance with, you are welcome to share that with me, but that is not necessary. I hope to complete my review next week and will follow up with my findings and next steps. Thank you, Jonathan JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 10:55 AM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Weeks of no response. You would all lose your jobs in a functioning organization. On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 7:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Armer, Kyle, and Garrett - You have not adequately addressed ANY of the items that are neighborhood has brought up repeatedly for years now. Please resign from your positions if you are not going to serve our community. Our taxes pay your salaries. City Council - Please review this staff budget. Why are these people on the payroll? On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:20 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Armer, I am writing to follow up on the unresponded formal complaint submitted on September 8 concerning the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl, following up on our previous correspondence from September 14. The Planning Department's continued lack of response and refusal to address these documented issues is unacceptable. The department cannot continue to shield itself behind narrow code interpretations while ignoring the severe, ongoing privacy and safety impacts this project imposes on neighboring residents. We expect the Planning Department to exercise its administrative authority and take concrete, actionable steps to hold this development accountable. Specifically, we demand that the City withhold final inspection sign-offs and the Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Pl until the following are completed: 1. An independent, inter-departmental review of the project's window placements, height calculations, and overall code compliance. 2. Independent, on-site field verification of the grade measurements and line-of-sight impacts. We look forward to your immediate response confirming that final sign-off has been paused pending these reviews. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 8:23 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, It's been a week and no response. Do your job. On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:33 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, Thank you for your response. However, your email continues the Planning Department’s troubling pattern of hiding behind selective, narrow readings of the municipal code while absolving itself of any duty to protect the privacy, safety, and livability of long-term Palo Alto residents. The assertion that the City has "evaluated whether these provisions apply" and has "no leverage" to intervene collapses under the documented facts of this project. We require the following issues to be placed squarely into the administrative record and addressed by city leadership: 1. The Department’s Track Record of Oversight on this Exact Parcel Your response asks the neighborhood to trust that staff has properly interpreted and applied every applicable code standard to this build. That trust has been thoroughly eroded by this department’s track record on this exact address: The Planning and Building Department previously reviewed, approved, and permitted a 23-foot-tall structure on this very lot—in blatant violation of the strict 17-foot Single-Story Overlay requirement. That massive, illegal error was not caught by staff’s internal reviews; it was uncovered only because our entire neighborhood was forced to do the department’s job, comb through the plans, and file formal complaints to force the City to rescind its mistake. Given that the City already committed a fundamental regulatory failure on this parcel, the reflexive assertion that the current window layout and ADU specifications are completely lawful and beyond review carries no credibility. 2. Abdication of Duty: Telling Taxpayers to Absorb the Costs of City Errors Acknowledging that shifting the mitigation burden to adjacent homeowners "comes at a cost to you" while brushing it off as "not a unique circumstance" is an unacceptable response from municipal officials. The City allowed a speculative house flipper to install clear, operable windows pointed directly into the private, floor-to-ceiling glass living spaces and children’s study rooms of adjacent Eichlers. Suggesting that long-term tax-paying residents should now spend thousands of dollars to plant mature trees, sacrifice their own open space, block their sunlight, and surrender usable yard area to shield against an invasive build is completely upside down. Any required physical buffer, screening, or architectural retrofit belongs on the developer’s property, paid for by the developer. The victims of poor planning should not be billed for the City's oversight. 3. The Fiction of "Zero Leverage" The statement that the City "does not hold leverage over the property owner" is legally and procedurally incorrect: The City holds the ultimate administrative leverage: the Final Building Inspection sign-off and the Certificate of Occupancy. A permit issued on defective premises or through administrative oversight does not grant a developer blanket immunity against municipal nuisance abatement or health and safety enforcement under California Civil Code § 3479. Furthermore, by accepting the developer’s clever labeling of this ADU as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules under PAMC 18.09.040(D), the City has facilitated a glaring loophole. If a future owner puts up a simple partition wall to create a bedroom, those clear, operable windows instantly become non-compliant egress windows facing an interior property line without the required opaque glazing. The City is knowingly signing off on a latent code violation. 4. Active Nuisance and Failure to Regulate Basic Neighborhood Harmony Dismissing our complaints regarding the blinding, overnight illumination by claiming the Dark Sky ordinance is not retroactive misses the core issue: Blasting stadium-level construction lighting directly into 5 to 6 neighboring bedrooms through the night is not a matter of whether a specific new ordinance applies—it is an active, actionable private and public nuisance under common law and general municipal police powers. That the Building Inspection Manager had to personally phone the job site just to get lights switched off proves that this developer has operated with total disregard for the community throughout the entire process. Next Steps & Formal Escalation Since Planning staff has repeatedly stated its inability or unwillingness to exercise administrative authority to protect our families, we will not allow this issue to be quietly closed out. 1. Withhold Final Sign-Off: We formally demand that the City withhold the final Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Place until an independent, inter-departmental review is conducted on the window operability, grade calculations, and side-yard clearances. 2. City Leadership Review: This entire record—including the initial 23-foot permitting blunder, the multiple verified after-hours citations, the photo documentation of direct privacy intrusion, and staff’s written refusal to require on-site remediation—is being submitted directly to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. If the City Council's adopted policies in 2023 created loopholes so porous that speculative flippers can strip established residents of basic home privacy, then elected leadership needs to confront that failure directly on this case study before final sign-off is granted. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:42 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, As staff noted previously, there are instances where the City can apply privacy measures to ADU projects through its objective review process for a building permit. Those are specifically limited to ADUs built under Table 2 of PAMC Section 18.09.040 and the City’s privacy regulations under (k)(2) apply when an egress window faces a neighbor and/or when non-egress windows face a neighbor on an ADU where the first finished floor is two feet or more above grade. Staff have evaluated whether these provisions apply to this project and have determined that they do not. Separately, the City can only apply its Privacy Guidelines for Two-Story homes when application has been proposed; this is not a process available to homes in a single-story overlay. Staff has suggested some alternatives to consider minimizing impacts from this development and while we understand this comes at a cost to you, it is not a unique circumstance. The City does not hold leverage over the property owner to do more than what is required by the code in place at the time the permit was issued. The City’s recent Dark Skies ordinance only covers exterior lighting fixtures for the building – not interior fixtures or lighting from the building. Additionally, it came into effect after this permit was issued. City staff will look to update its ADU code in the future to ensure the privacy standards we can apply are meeting the community’s needs, but those standards would not be retroactively applicable to this project. While we will continue efforts to encourage the contractor to address the concerns and reduce impacts, we cannot require additional changes to this project that go beyond our code requirements. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:23 AM To: shailo@gmail.com <shailo@gmail.com> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Shailo, I appreciate the documentation that you have provided. I find that full understanding is better accomplished through conversation and would welcome the opportunity, should you want to meet. Based on your email below, we will respond to your requests via email. You can expect a response by the end of the week. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 5:35 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This can be accomplished over email. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) -- This has been documented over countless emails and Police Reports. Our community has reported everything. Unfortunately these reports have been largely ignored. 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) -- Your turn. 3. Discuss next steps (all) -- Thanks in advance for doing your job. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:30 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Below is my expectation for this meeting. I would welcome your input. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) 3. Discuss next steps (all) Goal: Common understanding of issues, concerns, constraints, and options. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:59 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please provide a clear agenda for this meeting, including the meeting goal. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 3:35 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Fridays are a difficult day for site visits and in-person meetings, but I believe you have already had the chance to have Garrett out to the site. With a goal of having an in- person conversation soon, would tomorrow at 2pm or 2:30pm at City Hall be an option for you? Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 1:49 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Jennifer. How about this Friday 8:30 at our house 3905 Duncan Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306? On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:38 AM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good Morning Shailo, Thank you for your detailed emails and efforts to address this situation. I would like to suggest that you, Garrett, and I meet to discuss your concerns and the options and constraints in this situation. For now, I have moved all the other email recipients to bcc, so they don't need to be part of our work to find a time to meet, but if you have other neighbors who wish to join us, please let me know. Is there generally a day of the week and/or time of day that will work well for you? I prefer an in-person meeting if we can find a time that works. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 4:43 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Kyle, and Planning Leadership, Thank you for the updates regarding the temporary outreach to the project manager on the lighting issues. However, suggesting that adjacent homeowners should spend thousands of dollars to plant mature landscaping on our own properties to shield against an invasive build completely misplaces the burden of this The surrounding neighborhood should not bear the financial, spatial, and logistical burden of mitigating a speculative developer’s poor site design. The City has an administrative duty of care to protect the livelihood, privacy, and safety of its established tax-paying residents. We ask that the Planning and Development Services leadership review the following critical points before any final inspections, approvals, or occupancy certificates are granted: 1. Shifting the Remediation Burden is Inappropriate Suggesting that established homeowners plant screening trees on their side of the fence fails basic planning fairness: Our properties are historic Eichlers built around signature glass architecture and established backyard footprints. Forcing neighbors to eliminate their own sunlight, open yard space, and property functionality to shield against clear windows that never should have been approved in this orientation is an unreasonable demand. Any required landscape buffer, physical screening, or architectural mitigation belongs on the developer’s parcel, not on the surrounding community. 2. Operational Band-Aids Do Not Solve the Permanent "Lighthouse" Effect While we appreciate Kyle contacting the site manager regarding job site lighting, this only addresses an active construction infraction. As demonstrated by the photographs submitted across multiple nights, the elevation and unrestricted window placement create an intrusive "lighthouse" beaming directly into the bedrooms and living areas of 5 to 6 neighboring families. Once construction finishes and the house is sold, city staff will not be calling the new tenant every evening. A permanent architectural remedy is required now, while the City still holds regulatory leverage before sign-off. 3. The Failure of Local Enforcement vs. Holistic City Authority The Planning Department continues to rely on technicalities—treating this structure as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules and citing grade thresholds to avoid window restrictions. Relying on these technical loopholes ignores the City’s broader authority under PAMC Chapter 18.12/18.40 (Single-Family Residential Compatibility) and California Nuisance Law (Civil Code § 3479). A Single-Story Overlay was enacted specifically to protect neighborhood light, air, and character. Allowing a speculative developer to construct high, un-screened viewing planes that directly look into our children's study and living spaces represents an active breakdown in local zoning protections. Required Conditions for Final Sign-Off To resolve this issue equitably before occupancy is permitted, we demand that the City attach the following mandatory conditions to 3935 Duncan Place: 1. Mandatory Removal of Invasive Windows: Require the developer to completely remove all clear, operable side- and rear-facing windows overlooking 3905 and 3881 Duncan Place. These walls must be enclosed as solid walls or retrofitted strictly as high, fixed non-operable openings with zero operability or direct line of sight into private living spaces. 2. On-Site Developer Landscaping: Require the developer to install tall, evergreen privacy trees and screening on their property boundary before final inspection sign-off. 3. Lighting & Photometric Compliance: Mandate fully shielded, downward-directed fixtures (Dark Sky compliance) and automated cut-off timers on all exterior/interior boundary-facing illumination. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking the City of Palo Alto to enforce basic standards of safety, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. We look forward to an update from Director Lait and department leadership on how the City intends to enforce these necessary mitigations prior to final sign- off. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 8:16 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi all, It sounds like Kyle spoke to the project manager who agreed to ensure the lights are turned off at the end of the day. If that hasn’t been happening, please let us know and we’ll follow up with them. Unfortunately, our code doesn’t have requirements for landscape screening between properties whether it’s an ADU or a new home and adjacent properties unless they go through the two-story design review process so we cannot require those to be implemented here. We do have privacy measures for ADUs that meet certain criteria which we described before this one does not meet. I have seen other scenarios where neighbors will plant landscaping on their side of the property to provide them more privacy. I understand your frustrations with this project and the limits of the City’s ordinances. Unfortunately, even if the codes change in the future, I haven’t seen us retroactively apply these standards to projects that have permits issued before that ordinance took effect. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:51 PM To: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. What's the long term solution? On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Kyle, but assuming this unprofessional construction company even complies, this is nothing more than just a temporary bandaid. What's the long term solution to the lighthouse created by this house flipper's cheap design? Please be proactive here. The city should never have approved these plans and allowed the construction of this eyesore to get this far. This light was also on for for 2 straight nights. You acted way too slowly here again. You completely ignored Hiral Parekh's email 2 nights ago. Do better. On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:08 AM Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Jeff, I reached out to project manager yesterday regarding lights being left on throughout the night. He returned my call this morning and I have requested that all lights are off at the end of the day. Thank you Kyle Kyle Shea, CASp Building Inspection Manager Planning and Development Department O: (650) 617-3507 C: (650) 313-1897| Kyle.Shea@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:38 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to bring an urgent local issue to your attention regarding a major oversight in city planning and code enforcement in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto recently allowed real estate developers and speculators to construct a massively tall and oversized new house right in the middle of our traditional Eichler neighborhood. Because iconic Eichler homes feature expansive glass walls, floor-to-ceiling windows, and continuous open outdoor spaces, living here is like living in a "fishbowl." Constructing such a massive structure right next to us feels like erecting a giant "lighthouse" directly over these fishbowls. Furthermore, these developers routinely keep all the electric lights on bright late into the night. The harsh light beams directly through the glass windows of 5 to 6 neighboring homes, severe disrupting residents' sleep. Despite these invasive conditions, the City has failed to enforce basic protections: Developers have not been required to turn off or dim lights at night. No temporary blackout curtains have been mandated to prevent light from shining into neighboring windows. Developers have not been required to plant tall privacy trees to buffer the visual and lighting impact on adjacent properties. Jeff Huang 3881 Duncan Place Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>於 2026年8月20日週四，上午8:07寫道： Good morning, Shailo, After speaking with the Chief Building Official and Planning Director, they agreed that Kyle and mine’s on-site measurement confirmed that the proposed building is consistent with the City’s regulations. As they are consistent with the requirements in our municipal code, we cannot require that the applicant do more than that. To your concerns around the tree roots and protection measures, please connect with my colleague Peter Gollinger in Urban Forestry: Peter.Gollinger@PaloAlto.gov. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:27 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. How could this be approved by the city? On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:56 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: It has been 48 days without a response. On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Please respond. This house flipper has created a dangerous situation. They can literally look directly into our kid's study room, living room, and kitchen. We can do the same for their cheaply constructed house. They are also making all neighbors uncomfortable with their viewing area. Please inspect this construction's current state. There are zero fire access reasons for this invasive design, On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Garrett, Thank you for your response and for performing the on-site measurement with Kyle. We appreciate your transparency regarding the methodology used under PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) and your consultation with the Chief Building Official. While we understand that your department is executing a literal application of the text regarding studio egress, we cannot accept that a technical loophole should absolve a speculative project from holistic city compliance. Because this build creates an active, permanent privacy and safety intrusion into our homes, we are maintaining our formal complaint. However, rather than placing the burden on the surrounding neighborhood to absorb this impact or spend personal time drafting municipal petitions, the burden of proof and administrative due diligence must rest squarely on the applicant and the City. To resolve this conflict and ensure absolute compliance before any further structural inspections or occupancy permits are signed off, we request that the City mandate the following actions: 1. Developer Must Provide a Certified Topographic and Civil Survey While we appreciate your field tape-measurement, a manual measurement does not substitute for a certified engineering layout on a sloped R-1 lot where inches dictate code compliance. Because we formally contest the grading baselines used by the applicant, the City should require the developer to submit a certified, stamped topographic survey from a licensed civil engineer validating the exact, un-altered pre-construction natural grade. Construction progress on the ADU envelope should be placed on an administrative hold until the developer funds and provides this precise data to your department for verification. 2. Mandatory Inter-Departmental Referral to Urban Forestry The structural footprint, foundation excavation, and utility trenching for this ADU run directly along our shared property lines, deeply encroaching into the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of our mature, established landscaping. Under PAMC Chapter 8.10, the developer is legally required to maintain strict protection protocols. We request that the Planning Department formally refer this project to the Urban Forestry Division to open an active field investigation file. The developer should be required to submit an independent arborist's report proving that their excavation has not permanently compromised or damaged the protected root systems of adjacent properties. 3. Planning Department Referral to City Council on ADU Ordinance Failures You mentioned that the City Council adopted these rules in 2023 believing they were appropriate. However, this project stands as a textbook case study of how speculative builders can easily manipulate "studio" designations and minor grading thresholds to completely subvert the single-story overlay protections of Palo Alto's historic Eichler neighborhoods. As the administrative body overseeing these codes, we request that the Planning Department flag this active enforcement failure directly to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of your department's ongoing monitoring of state and local ADU policy impacts. The onus shouldn't be on the residents to write policy petitions to fix a clear regulatory gap that your team has now physically witnessed on-site. Moving Forward Ultimately, our neighborhood group is asking for a livable, common-sense resolution. The simplest way for the developer to clear these administrative hurdles, satisfy the neighborhood, and avoid a prolonged timeline is to immediately retrofit the highly invasive windows with factory-frosted opaque glazing or high clerestory openings. Until the developer provides a certified civil survey and arborist compliance verification, we request that the city withhold further inspection sign-offs on the 3935 Duncan Pl structure. Thank you for your continued partnership and for ensuring our city codes are held to the highest standard of accountability. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 9:21 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Kyle Shea and I were able to go out to the property last week to evaluate the height of the structure. Looking at the property, we noted the following: 1. The height of the ADU and window placement comply with the requirements I referenced before. To determine this, we took a measurement from existing grade at the adjacent properties which reflected what grade was prior to construction (consistent with how we measure grade based on PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) for R-1 lots with slope changes of less than 10%) and measured to the first finished floor inside the building. The height did not exceed two feet which is the threshold for when the ADU privacy requirements must be incorporated into the structure. 2. Kyle and I spoke with the Chief Building Official about your concerns about the windows not being classified as EERO windows. The Chief Building Official echoed our previous response that the residential building code only requires one emergency escape and rescue opening. The door is designated as the required opening for this studio and so these windows would not be considered as egress windows. In addition, the windows which face your property are physically limited by the placement of the fence and would not qualify as egress points from the structure. As a result, we cannot apply our ADU privacy regulations to these windows. The City does not have privacy measures for single-story homes, only two-story homes. Council adopted privacy regulations for second dwelling units, but they only apply under the circumstances that I highlighted before. In this case, we are unable to apply these rules to this project. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:52 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thank you for the update and for arranging the upcoming site visit with the inspection manager. We genuinely appreciate your proactive approach in verifying whether the physical construction matches the approved plan sets. While we acknowledge your point regarding the explicit tiering of certain rules under the single-story overlay, we must firmly push back on the notion that the City lacks any administrative framework to address severe, deleterious privacy impacts caused by single-story primary dwellings or ground-level ADUs. Before your site visit, we ask that your department evaluate the following established planning principles and municipal hooks, which we stand by firmly: 1. Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Apply to All Dwellings While PAMC Chapter 18.12 and the Single-Story Overlay (S-Overlay) regulate specific structural metrics like height and floor-area ratios, primary single- family home approvals remain fundamentally bound by the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council resolution). These compatibility standards do not expire or become optional simply because a home is single-story. The guidelines explicitly dictate that window placement must minimize direct privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors, specifically recommending the offset of windows, utilization of high-sill/clerestory openings, and obscured glass when facing the primary living spaces of adjacent properties. The developer’s choice to place low, clear, operable windows directly parallel to our historic, floor-to-ceiling Eichler glass walls directly violates the core compatibility tenets of these city-adopted standards. 2. Strict Field Verification of the ADU "Two-Foot Grade" Threshold (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) We are very glad the inspection manager is visiting the site, as this is where paper schematics must confront real-world topography. Because the lot at 3935 Duncan Pl sits on a natural slope relative to 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl, a measurement that looks compliant on a flat blueprint can easily manifest as a violation in the field. We formally request that the inspector measure the finished floor height relative to the actual, pre-existing natural grade at our shared property lines, rather than an artificial benchmark or modified grade fill imported by the construction crew. If the physical framing or concrete slab sits 2 feet or more above the true adjacent grade facing our yards, the privacy mandates of Section 18.09.040(E) must be retroactively enforced. 3. The Predictable "Studio" Loophole and Future Enforcement Burden By designating the ADU as a "studio" to establish the entry door as the sole legal path of egress, the developer has bypassed the window privacy rule (18.09.040(D)) on paper. However, if a future occupant adds a cosmetic partition wall to create a separated sleeping area—a highly predictable layout modification for a speculative flip—these exact windows will instantly become non-compliant, unpermitted egress openings. The City should not permit a speculative builder to bake a structural code conflict into the property's footprint, leaving long-term residents to bear the future enforcement burden. Coordinating the Site Visit We remain fully committed to working collaboratively with your office to find an equitable, livable solution. A simple, permanent remedy—such as requiring the developer to use factory-frosted opaque glazing or high-set window retrofits on the walls facing our properties—fully protects our families' privacy without reducing the developer's built square footage. Please let us know the scheduled date and time of your site inspection. We would like to ensure we are home to grant you and the inspection manager access to our backyards, allowing you to see the exact, unfiltered line of sight from our living spaces. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:14 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for your email. We appreciate the concerns you raised previously in addition to the items you noted in your email below from yesterday. I am coordinating with the inspection manager to go to the site to determine whether they have built their project according to the approved plans we have on file. If there are any issues that I note which affect the need for privacy measures for the ADU, then I will let all you know. Can you clarify which specific provisions you are referencing in section 3 below regarding privacy from the single-family home? Palo Alto has a design review process and privacy measures for two-story homes, but we do not have privacy measures for single-story homes except as they apply to ADU/JADUs under PAMC 18.09.040 and .050. Given that the properties within this area have a single-story overlay, a two-story home would not be permissible where we would apply privacy measures. If there is a separate neighborhood organization for the eichler neighborhood that manages architectural style or design through CC&Rs, that is a private entity and rules that come from it are only privately enforceable. I stand by the response I provided before regarding egress windows and when privacy measures apply. The Council adopted ordinance, and the conversations I had with them around this issue in 2023, discussed many of the concerns you raised. Ultimately, they adopted these rules and felt they were appropriate. If you have any questions, let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 9:05 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Sauls and Ms. Vargas-Aguilera, Thank you for your response dated May 1, 2026. We appreciate the Planning Department's technical review of the architectural plans for 3935 Duncan Pl. However, we strongly disagree with your narrow interpretation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The current construction creates an unprecedented, severe privacy intrusion that directly violates both the letter and the legislative intent of Palo Alto’s zoning ordinances. This correspondence serves as our formal Notice of Zoning Non-Compliance. We urge the Planning Department to issue an immediate Stop Work Order (Cease and Desist) on all window installations and wall enclosures facing our interior property lines until these issues are legally resolved. We submit the following points for the administrative record: 1. Defective "Studio" Designation and Egress Loophole (PAMC 18.09.040(D)) Your letter notes that because the applicant labeled the structure a "studio unit" rather than a traditional one-bedroom, the entry door is designated as the primary egress path, thereby rendering PAMC 18.09.040(D) inapplicable to the windows. As a matter of law and public safety, this interpretation is deeply defective: Secondary Egress Reality: Under California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 10, any window of sufficient dimension in a habitable space can and will function as a secondary emergency escape and rescue opening. Violation of Mandatory Code Language: PAMC 18.09.040(D) states explicitly: “Where feasible, egress windows... shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize opaque glazing on the whole window.” The code uses the mandatory term “shall.” The "Where Feasible" Standard: The developer had ample alternative orientations (frontage, rear yard depth, or internal courtyard layout) to place these windows. Positioning large, clear, operable windows directly looking into our historic Eichler floor-to-ceiling glass walls fails the legal test of "feasibility." Labeling a unit a studio to bypass neighborhood privacy mandates constitutes an impermissible circumvention of local zoning restrictions. 2. Physical Fact-Checking of Finished Grade Height (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) Your review of the developer's submitted blueprint sets indicates that the first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. We formally challenge the accuracy of the applicant's submitted grade charts: Due to the specific topographical slope of the lots on Duncan Pl, the structure's physical height relative to the actual, existing natural grade bordering 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl creates a severe, elevated vantage point. Plan sets submitted by speculative house-flippers often rely on idealized or altered "finished grades" rather than existing natural topography. We demand an independent, on-site measurement by a city building inspector to verify the exact distance from the actual ground level to the top of the subfloor framing before any further structural inspections are approved. 3. Failure of the Primary Residence to Meet Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Our initial filing concerned privacy violations stemming from both the ADU and the main residential structure. Your response omitted any mention of the primary home. While the 2023 City Council discussions you cited may have limited certain uniform privacy restrictions on one-story ADUs, they absolutely did not strip the City of its authority or duty to enforce privacy mandates on primary single-family residential construction. Under Palo Alto's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Contextual Standards (PAMC 18.12/18.40), new structures must be compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. Constructing clear, direct-sight windows facing the private, glass-walled rears of established Eichler homes violates these long-standing city development standards. 4. Demand for Immediate Administrative Action A house flipper operates on an abbreviated timeline to maximize profit and exit the community, leaving permanent, irreparable damage to the privacy, safety, and property values of long-term residents. To prevent this matter from escalating to formal litigation under California’s private nuisance laws and Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (Inalienable Right to Privacy), we request that the City immediately take the following actions: 1. Halt Construction / Issue a Stop Work Order on the framing, window installation, and siding of the walls directly facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl. 2. Mandate a Corrective Plan Revision requiring the developer to retrofit all side/interiors-facing windows on both structures to utilize high-set, non- operable clerestory windows or permanent, factory-installed opaque/frosted glazing. 3. Conduct an On-Site Inspection alongside the affected neighbors to verify the actual visual impact and lines of sight from our living rooms. We are fully prepared to protect our families and our community's architectural integrity through all available administrative and legal channels. We look forward to your prompt response and the scheduling of an immediate on-site inspection. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident and Property Owner, 3905 Duncan Pl On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:08 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Shailo, Thank you for sharing this additional information. We are going to the Planning and Transportation Commission tomorrow to discuss changes to our ADU ordinance if you want to attend and provide your feedback and experience. The item will be heard around 6:15pm and you are welcome to attend virtually or in person to provide that feedback. Please note that the project complies with our code requirements and any changes to the code in the future would could not be applied retroactively to this project. Best regards Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:14 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached photos. The house flipper has created a mess where they can look directly into both of houses (living / dining areas). This is an invasion of our privacy and risks the safety of our families. If current city codes allow for this situation, they need to be updated. This should not be happening in our community. On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 2:38 PM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for reaching out and I apologize I didn’t respond sooner as I had to confirm a couple things before responding. Firstly, I am removing Brian from this thread as he is on leave. I have included his manager, Elisa Vargas-Aguilera, to this thread instead. Looking into the project further, I have the following feedback: 1. PAMC 18.09.040(D) identifies that egress windows either need to face neighboring property lines or utilize opaque glazing on the whole of the window. Egress windows are windows that are required for emergency exiting in the event of a fire or other life safety event. Typically, these are required from individual bedrooms but in this case, the applicant proposed a studio unit which doesn’t have a closed off bedroom separate from the rest of the unit. When a studio unit is proposed, the entrance to the unit serves as the egress. In speaking with the inspection manager, he confirmed that the plans do not call out the proposed windows as egress windows. Unless these windows were egress windows, we cannot apply this rule to the project. 2. PAMC 18.09.040(E) identifies that when the first finished floor of the ADU is two feet or greater in height from grade, then non-egress windows that face a neighboring property must have a five-foot sill height (if operable) or use opaque glazing on the window (up to five feet from the finished floor of the unit). As shown in the images below from the plan set, the proposed structure’s first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. Unfortunately, we cannot apply this rule to the project either. For some context, I spoke with the Planning Commission and City Council about these rules in 2023 and at that time, there wasn’t majority support to uniformly apply privacy rules to one-story ADUs, just to two-story structures with these specific caveats for certain circumstances. We appreciate the concerns that you’ve raised and want to continue to work with you when there are construction related issues that come up which you highlighted before. Hopefully, those haven’t continued since we spoke last. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov Cc: Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Reynolds, Brian <Brian.Reynolds@paloalto.gov>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov> Subject: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department: We, the residents of 3905 Duncan Pl and 3881 Duncan Pl, are writing to formally submit a collaborative complaint regarding the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl. While we support the thoughtful addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within our community, the current development at this address demonstrates a clear disregard for Palo Alto’s privacy standards and specific zoning ordinances, creating an untenable situation for our families. 1. Violation of ADU Zoning Code 18.09.040 The construction of the ADU and main residence includes clear, operable windows that directly face the interior property lines of our homes. This design stands in direct violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.09.040 (D) and (E), which outlines clear standards for privacy and window placement: Sill Height and Operability (18.09.040.E): Because the first finished floor of this unit is elevated, the current installation of low, clear, operable windows violates the requirement for a minimum five-foot sill height for operable windows or opaque glazing for the lower half of non-operable windows. Glazing Requirements (18.09.040.D): The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are currently clear and operable, directly overlooking our private living spaces. Per the code, egress windows must utilize opaque glazing. 2. Impact on Privacy and Safety Our homes are classic Eichler designs, characterized by signature floor-to-ceiling glass walls at the rear. This architectural style relies heavily on the privacy of our backyards. The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are positioned such that they have a direct, unobstructed line of sight into our: Kitchens and dining areas Family rooms Study rooms and private home offices This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; it is a significant safety and privacy concern. Our households include young children whose daily activities are now completely visible to a revolving door of contractors and future occupants of a "spec" house. 3. Community Standards and Past Precedents When we remodeled our own homes, we worked closely with the City to ensure our designs respected our neighbors' privacy. For instance, the wall at 3905 Duncan Pl facing 3881 Duncan Pl utilizes high-set, non-operable windows to ensure no line of sight into the neighbor’s yard. The developer at 3935 Duncan Pl has shown a pattern of disruption and disregard for these established community norms. As this project is a "house flip," the current owners lack a long-term stake in the harmony of our street, yet their construction choices will leave a permanent negative impact on the privacy and property values of our established homes. 4. Requested Action We respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division conduct a site inspection to verify these violations. We ask that the following corrective measures be mandated before any final permits are signed off: 1. Relocate all windows facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl with opaque/frosted glazing with no viewing ability as required by Code 18.09.040. 2. Modify operable windows to comply with the five-foot sill height requirement to prevent direct overlooking. We value the character of Palo Alto and the safety of our neighborhood. We are happy to meet with a city inspector on-site to demonstrate the severity of the privacy intrusion from our vantage point. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for your dedication to maintaining the standards of our community. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident of 3905 Duncan Pl From:Shailo Rao To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Re: FORMAL COMPLAINT: Escalated Enforcement Needed for 3935 Duncan Place Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 7:36:22 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Jonathan - You never responded to this email. Additional violations happened and the police were notified. You wasted additional city resources here. On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:47 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Thank you for looking into this matter and for directing code enforcement staff to issue an official notice regarding the penalty fee schedule to the property owner. I appreciate your personal attention to our neighborhood’s safety and compliance. However, I must formally correct the information provided to you by the inspection manager regarding the history of after-hours construction at 3935 Duncan Place. The assertion that a review of records failed to validate unpermitted after-hours activity is factually inaccurate. To ensure the City’s administrative record is precise, please consider the following documented facts: 1. Official President's Day Citation The construction crew at this address was actively caught violating permitted city hours and was formally issued a citation and financial penalty on President's Day (February 17, 2026). This incident alone establishes a validated, official record of non-compliance. 2. Documented Call Logs and Response Latency My neighbors and I have placed more than a dozen separate calls to the Palo Alto Police non-emergency line to report ongoing, unpermitted early-morning and late-evening work. Because our police department is appropriately prioritizing high-stakes life-safety calls, the average response time for these non-emergency construction complaints typically exceeds one hour. Consequently, the crew sometimes concludes their unpermitted activity or vacates the site before an officer physically arrives. This logistical lag results in an "unverified" status in the police log, despite a clear violation having occurred. 3. Irrefutable Time-Stamped Video Evidence To clear up any ambiguity, our neighborhood group has compiled a substantial log of time- stamped video recordings documenting multiple distinct violations of permitted construction hours. This evidence independently verifies the recurring nature of these infractions. I am happy to share a link to this digital folder directly with you or the code enforcement division. A More Efficient Use of City Resources While we will continue to utilize the non-emergency police line as you suggested, relying on active law enforcement to repeatedly monitor a speculative house-flipper is a highly inefficient use of city finances and an already understaffed police department. Instead of treating these incidents as isolated or unverified complaints, we respectfully request that the Planning and Development Department take proactive, escalated administrative enforcement action against this developer and house flipper. We value our community deeply and are simply asking for the basic enforcement of city codes to protect the peace and safety of our families. Thank you again for your leadership on this, and we look forward to a swift resolution. Sincerely, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:29 AM Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Thank you for your email. I understand the project planner has been in touch with you and will visit the site to verify a code compliance issue addressed in a prior email. Regarding your three points below, I spoke with the inspection manager who acknowledge there were some issues related to the subject construction but that there are no current incidents of building material falling onto neighboring property. The manager also stated a review of police records for afterhours construction at the subject location did not validate any unpermitted construction activity. I appreciate being adjacent to a construction site can be challenging and upsetting - and recent changes in state law regarding accessory dwelling units limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to address privacy concerns. I do want to make sure the city is able to issue a citation if a violation of afterhours construction is validated. I’ll ask our code enforcement staff to send a notice to the property owner advising of the requirements and penalty fee schedule. If you observe construction activity outside of the permitted hours, please contact the police department at their non-emergency line: 650 329-2413. Sincerely, Jonathan JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:29 PM To: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT: Escalated Enforcement Needed for 3935 Duncan Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Manager and Planning and Development Services Leadership, I am writing to formally request escalated intervention regarding the construction project at 3935 Duncan Place. Despite numerous interactions with your staff—specifically Garrett Sauls, Kyle Shea, and Jodie Gerhardt—since May 2025, the project continues to operate with a systemic disregard for city codes and neighborhood safety. Over the past year, my neighbors and I have documented over a dozen specific incidents of non-compliance. While we appreciate the staff’s responsiveness to our individual reports, the current approach of periodic check-ins and verbal warnings to the general contractor has proven entirely ineffective. The project continues to be a source of ongoing disruption and hazard. Our core concerns remain: Public Safety and Property Damage: We have reported serious safety hazards, including debris (wood boards) falling into neighboring backyards and instances of trespassing. Persistent Code Violations: There is a recurring pattern of construction activity occurring outside of the permitted 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM window, including work on Sundays and early morning disturbances. Lack of Accountability: Repeated warnings from the Building Inspection team have resulted in only temporary compliance. The cycle of violation and subsequent, short-lived "corrections" has created an exhausting and untenable environment for the surrounding residents. The current remediation strategies are not working. I am requesting that the City re- evaluate its approach to this site immediately. We ask that you consider more stringent enforcement mechanisms, such as formal citations, a temporary stop-work order, or active daily oversight, to ensure this project adheres to the standards expected of our community. We are hopeful for a resolution that restores the safety and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these documented issues with you directly. Sincerely, Shailo From:Naveena Bereny To:Council, City Subject:After 15 Years of Managing This Problem, I"m Asking for a Practical Solution Date:Monday, October 19, 2026 6:25:59 AM Attachments:PalmTree.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello City Council, I am reaching out because, after 15 years of attempting to address a recurring concern about a City palm tree on my property through City processes, I have run out of practical options for resolving it. TL;DR: For 15 years, I have managed the impacts of this palm tree myself, dealing with the maintenance, expenses, property damage, and anxiety that came with it. Now that I am seeking to remove what I believe is a legitimate risk to my home, the City is asserting its authority over the tree while leaving me to bear the consequences of keeping it. Here's the longer version: 2011-2023: For more than a decade, I called or wrote to the City every winter asking for help with palm fronds that would fall during storms. I've attached photos showing fronds on my car, on my house, in my yard, and on the street making it a safety hazard.The City would remove fronds after they fell, but would not removethose on my house, requiring me to hire someone at my own expense. Over theyears, falling fronds also damaged my front gutters causing me more expense.Despite these recurring issues, the tree was never proactively pruned ormaintained by the City in spite of my asking several times. 2023: During a Town Hall, I raised the issue directly with the Director of Public Works. The following week, the City arborist inspected the tree and implied it might not even be a City-owned tree. Shortly afterward, a project manager visited to discuss removal. During that conversation, we agreed that regular pruning might address the problem, and that we would try that approach for a couple of yearsbefore pursuing removal. Unfortunately, no one at the City appears to remember thatconversation about removal, and I regret not putting it in writing at the time. Lessonlearned. 2023-2026: I continued contacting the City each year to request pruning before the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast winter rains. The City has never done the pruning proactively. The repeated pruning has also left the tree increasingly top-heavy, and it now sways dramatically during storms. I understand that the City's position is that the tree is structurally sound and does notpresent an imminent risk of failure. However, any assessment has done little toalleviate the very real anxiety of watching a large palm tree whip back andforth in high winds directly next to my home. Every winter storm brings thesame concern: will this be the storm that causes significant damage to my property or a neighbor's? Whether or not the tree is ultimately deemed safe, the constant uncertainty has become a genuine source of stress and frustration for my family and me. What started as a maintenance issue has become a quality-of-life issue. For severalmonths each year, I find myself monitoring weather forecasts, checking on the treeduring wind events, and worrying about potential damage. This is not a situationany homeowner should be expected to simply accept indefinitely. September 2026: I again met with the Director of Public Works and requested thatthe tree be removed, consistent with the plan discussed in 2023. I also offered to remove it at my own expense. I was told that neither they nor I could remove it because it contributes to Palo Alto's tree canopy and because nothing could be replanted in that location due to the nearby utilities. It is frustrating that after 15 years of having to initiate andmanage maintenance myself, the City is now asserting its authority andpolicies to prevent me from removing the tree. I fully support Palo Alto's urban canopy. In fact, my property already contains twomagnolia trees, an apricot tree, a cherry tree, an apple tree, and a large Japanesemaple. I have also offered to plant a replacement tree elsewhere on myproperty, away from the utilities. Given that this palm is tall, narrow, and sparsely leafed, it is difficult to see how preventing its removal meaningfully advances theCity's canopy goals. The frustrating reality is that I likely could have removed this tree years ago withoutthe City even noticing. Instead, I chose to follow the City's process, raise the issuethrough the proper channels, and work cooperatively toward a solution. At this point, it feels as though I am being penalized for doing exactly that. Can we please take a more practical and balanced approach to situationslike this? Palo Alto residents care deeply about trees, and so do I. But withanother El Niño winter approaching, homeowners across the city are takingproactive steps to reduce risks around their homes, whether that meanspruning trees, removing hazardous limbs, or addressing long-standing concernsbefore the heavy rains and winds arrive. That is exactly what I am trying to do here.Safety should be part of that conversation as well. I also understand that if this tree were to fail and damage my home, the City would not be responsible for those damages. Given that reality, denying my request to remove a tree that I sincerely believe poses a risk to my property leaves me in an unreasonable position. The City bears very little consequence if its assessmentproves correct or incorrect, while I bear all of the consequences of keeping repairs, and the responsibility of managing the aftermath. And as a single mom, solely responsible for my household, that concern carries additional weight for me. If this tree were to damage my home, I would be left to manage the aftermath on my own, including repairs, contractors, insurance claims, and the financial and practical burdens that come with them. The prospect of dealing with that alone is a significant part of the stress this situation creates and one of the reasons I am trying to address this concern proactively before the rain begins. Even if the City remains confident that the tree is safe, it is difficult to dismiss thestress and anxiety created by living next to it through every winter storm season. Atsome point, a homeowner's legitimate concerns about safety and peace ofmind should carry weight in the decision-making process, particularly aswe head into another El Niño winter. I am simply asking the City to allow the removal of this tree as a practical and reasonable solution to a concern that has remained unresolved for more than 15 years, despite my repeated efforts to work through the proper channels and manage the impacts on my own. Thanks Naveena From:Aram James To:Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner Cc:City Attorney; Council, City; h.etzko@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; Brian Hamachek; Brandon Pho; Vicki Veenker; Reckdahl, Keith; Sean Allen; Rick Callender; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Mora Oommen; Gerry Gras; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Malinsky, Jason; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; james pitkin; Dana St. George; Sam Liccardo; Senator Becker; Marc Berman; Bill Newell; Ruth Silver Taube Subject:NOTE: In re Eichorn: The Long Awaited Implementation of the Necessity Defense in a Case of the Criminalization of Homelessness - American University Law Review Date:Sunday, October 18, 2026 10:35:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://aulawreview.org/blog/note-in-re-eichorn-the-long-awaited-implementation-of-the- necessity-defense-in-a-case-of-the-criminalization-of-homelessness/ From:Annemarie To:Council, City Subject:Please Allow a Full Hearing on the St. Thomas Aquinas Redwood Appea Date:Sunday, October 18, 2026 4:05:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I urge you to allow the appeal concerning the four protected coast redwoods at St. Thomas Aquinas Church, 751 Waverley Street, to proceed to a full public hearing before the City Council. The City's own determination acknowledges that the full church foundation was not assessed. Residents have repeatedly requested a more thorough investigation and serious consideration of alternatives before these protected trees are permanently removed. Regardless of one's ultimate position on the proposed removal, this case raises important questions about the City's commitment to protecting mature trees and the standards used to justify their removal. These questions deserve a full and transparent public hearing. Please allow the appeal to proceed so that the evidence, the alternatives, and the concerns of the community can receive the consideration they deserve. Thank you for your attention. Best, Annemarie Lekkerkerker 134 Waverley Street Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Council, City Subject:homelessness_letter_8-2-13 Date:Sunday, October 18, 2026 3:54:10 PM Attachments:homelessness_letter_8-2-13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; h.etzko@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Sam Liccardo; Julie Lythcott-Haims; ParkRec Commission; Dave Price; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Roberta Ahlquist; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; nick.enberg@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; City Attorney; Friends of Cubberley; Jay Boyarsky; Lewis james; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Tavera, Samuel; Reckdahl, Keith; Human Relations Commission; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Eduardo Guilarte; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Brian Hamachek; Raymond Goins; Daniel Kottke; james pitkin; Kaloma Smith; Jeff Hayden; Yolanda Conaway; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; Perron, Zachary; Zahra Billoo; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Sameena Usman; Embarcadero Media Support; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Mora Oommen; PD Kristina Bell; David S. Norris; Dave Price; Brandon Pho; Brian Good; Brian Chancellor; Bill Newell; Bill Johnson; Lotus Fong; Seher Awan; Sheree Roth; Shankar Ramamoorthy; steven mcgill; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Sean Allen; Donna Wallach; Penni Wilson; Raging Grannies of the Peninsula; Ann Ravel; Anne Cribbs Subject:Re: No on Measure J! No on Lauing, No on Bryna Chang -and No on Vicki Date:Sunday, October 18, 2026 3:18:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Not a chance! I will not vote for Ed, the pro-Israel Zionist collaborator, or Bryna Chang, the bigot. Vicki, too, is a Zionist sympathizer—she surrounds herself with the likes of Marc Berman and Josh Becker, hardcore Zionists. And no on J, of course. Avram Finkelstein On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 2:56 PM Greer Stone <webster@paloaltocalifornia.us> wrote: Dear Friends, With ballots arriving and Election Day approaching, I wanted to take a moment to share my recommendations in this year’s Palo Alto election. Those of you who know me know that I don’t make endorsements lightly. Having served on the City Council for the past six years, I’ve had the opportunity to see up close what it takes to do this job well, not just how someone votes from the dais, but whether they do their homework, listen to residents, work effectively with colleagues, and are willing to put in the countless hours necessary to move our city forward. That is why I am enthusiastically supporting Ed Lauing, Vicki Veenker, and Bryna Chang for Palo Alto City Council. I’m also pleased that all three have earned the endorsement of the Sierra Club and the Palo Alto Daily Post. While my support for each of them comes from my own experience working alongside them and seeing their commitment to our community firsthand, I think it is significant that the Sierra Club and Daily Post independently reached the same conclusion: Ed, Vicki, and Bryna are three outstanding choices to lead Palo Alto over the next four years. Ed Lauing and I first ran for Council together in 2020, and over the years he has become both a trusted colleague and a close friend. With four years on the Council and thirteen years of service on City commissions before that, there is no guessing about the kind of councilmember Ed will continue to be. He is thoughtful, prepared, pragmatic, and remarkably effective at working with people who may not always agree with one another. Whether the issue is housing, transportation, parks, our budget, or protecting local control, Ed digs into the details and looks for practical solutions that can actually earn the votes needed to become policy. Palo Alto is fortunate to have his experience and judgment, and I very much want him back beside me for another four years. Vicki Veenker has served alongside me on the Council for the past four years, and I have seen firsthand the thoughtfulness and preparation she brings to this work. As an attorney and mediator who has spent her career working at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation, Vicki is particularly well suited to a city where the issues are rarely simple. She listens, asks difficult questions, does her homework, and works to build consensus, but she also understands that eventually we have to make decisions and move forward. Just as importantly, after more than three decades in Palo Alto, Vicki genuinely cares about this community and the people who call it home. She has been a valued colleague, ally, confidant, and friend, and I strongly hope you will help send her back to the Council. And I am incredibly excited to support Bryna Chang. I first got to know Bryna years ago when we served together on the JLS Site Council, me as a teacher and Bryna as a parent. Since then, I’ve watched her devote years to serving Palo Alto, most recently as Chair of our Planning and Transportation Commission. Bryna is someone who sees that something needs to be done, rolls up her sleeves, and gets to work. She has advocated for deeper levels of affordable housing, larger affordable homes that can actually accommodate families, dark- sky and bird-friendly policies, and protection of our trees, creeks, and natural environment. She also understands the important connection between our city and our schools. Most importantly, she listens to residents and takes their concerns seriously. I know she will bring that same work ethic, thoughtfulness, and community focus to the City Council. I am also asking you to vote YES on Measure J. Cubberley has served Palo Alto for decades and has become an important home for education, childcare, health, dance, music, recreation, and other community programs. But the facility is aging, and its plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, accessibility, and other infrastructure badly need investment. Measure J gives us the opportunity to stop putting Band-Aids on a 70-year-old facility and begin building the community center Palo Alto deserves. Measure J would provide dedicated local funding to bring facilities up to modern earthquake, accessibility, and safety standards; repair deteriorating electrical, plumbing, and other infrastructure; improve emergency preparedness; preserve trees and expand outdoor spaces; and support opportunities for childcare, education, senior programming, recreation, and other community services. By law, the funds remain in Palo Alto and are subject to independent financial audits. The Yes on J campaign also estimates that more than 40% of the revenue would be paid by visitors to Palo Alto, while necessities such as groceries and medicine are exempt. There is another reason I believe Measure J matters. For decades, the City has leased much of Cubberley rather than owning it, making it difficult to justify the kind of long-term capital investment the facility needs. The agreement reached between the City and PAUSD would allow the City to purchase seven acres of the site, contingent on voter approval of the funding measure. That agreement was unanimously approved by both the City Council and the PAUSD Board. Cubberley is one of the most important public spaces in our community. We have an opportunity not simply to repair what is broken, but to make a long-term investment in a community center that can serve children, families, seniors, artists, athletes, and community organizations for generations to come. I believe this is the right moment to make that investment. So when you fill out your ballot, I hope you will join me in voting: Ed Lauing for City Council Vicki Veenker for City Council Bryna Chang for City Council YES on Measure J Thank you, as always, for your friendship, your support, and for caring so deeply about our community. Be well, Greer __________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email as a friend of Greer Stone This link will unsubscribe abjpd1@gmail.com from this list: https://greerstone.us3.list-manage.com/unsubscribe? u=957a8402a9900b5694e46b3ab&id=705464b533&t=b&e=0994c36e2a&c=639dc82879 Our mailing address is: Greer Stone friends 751 Layne Ct #15 Palo Alto CA 94306 Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA Our telephone: 650-575-0405 From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; Bryna Chang; h.etzko@gmail.com; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Mora Oommen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Enberg, Nicholas; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Jeff Conrad; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Roberta Ahlquist; Jay Boyarsky; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; B. Wei; Friends of Cubberley; Daniel Kottke; Brian Hamachek; Raymond Goins; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Timothy Gray; Joseph G; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed Subject:Endorsement Cheat Sheet: Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards top picks for Nov. 3 Date:Saturday, October 17, 2026 3:16:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. No on J per the Mercury News https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/10/13/bay-area-news-group-california-election- endorsements-november-2026/ From:Annette Ross To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Bryna Chang; Robert Marinaro; Annette Ross Subject:OSV Issue and City Council Calendar Date:Saturday, October 17, 2026 2:21:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. + Bryna Chang b/c I think she will be elected to CC and Robert Marinaro b/c he and his team continue to do the heavy lifting on the OSV issue by providing Council with relevant data. You are seeing a steady stream of messages from residents and business owners demanding an effective and timely response to the OSV issue. This is a serious matter that requires immediate and highly focused attention. That “key personnel” are out of town and not available for thorough Council discussion is not an acceptable response. Problems grow when not addressed. And they sure as heck do not wait until the timing is right for key personnel. The mere suggestion is ridiculous. With all the staff that we pay, are you wanting us to believe that key people cannot delegate responsibility to a knowledgeable colleague? Or cross-train someone so that absences do not bring important matters to a screeching halt? Isn’t the City Manager responsible for making certain that critical issues can be addressed in a timely manner? The way the OSV issue is being handled causes me to wonder if it is being slow-walked for some reason. Also, calendar management needs to improve. It should never be used to avoid an issue, or as a shield, or as a timing tool to manipulate outcome. Surely there’s a legal way to reschedule routine matters when a time critical, life and safety critical issue such as the OSV issue exists. I think you are obliged to do all that you can to prioritize critical issues. Clear the decks if that’s what’s needed. Here’s a suggestion: skip the City Manager’s report when necessary and direct people to read it online. Or put it as the last item on the agenda. That report is not critical. The Measure J debate is evidence that there’s a serious lack of trust in local government right now. Responsiveness, transparency, and effective management can fix that. Something’s gotta give, as the saying goes, because there are many, many residents and business owners who are fed up with the status quo. From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Bryna Chang; Brian Hamachek; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Lewis james; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith; h.etzko@gmail.com; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Dave Price; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; james pitkin; ParkRec Commission; Gardener, Liz; Jesse Gary; Fernandez, Lisa; Sam Liccardo; PD Kristina Bell; Kaloma Smith; city.council@gilroy.org; GRP-City Council; Council, City; CityCouncil; City Attorney; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Daniel Kottke; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; B. Wei; Friends of Cubberley; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Human Relations Commission; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:homelessness_letter_8-2-13 Date:Saturday, October 17, 2026 11:21:56 AM Attachments:homelessness_letter_8-2-13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Haeyeon Jeong To:sfo.noise@flysfo.com; Council, City Subject:Formal Complaint and Request for Immediate Review of SFO Flight Paths, Air Quality, and Environmental Impacts on Adobe Meadow Date:Saturday, October 17, 2026 10:08:25 AM Attachments:38267.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: SFO Airport Management and Relevant Aviation Authorities Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to formally express my serious and ongoing concerns regarding the disproportionate concentration of aircraft traffic over the Adobe Meadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, California, and its potential environmental and public health consequences. Today, Saturday, October 17, 2026, at approximately 10:00 AM, during another period of heavy aircraft activity, Adobe Meadow recorded a temperature of 73.4°F, significantly higher than several surrounding communities: - Adobe Meadow, Palo Alto: 73.4°F - Atherton: 64.4°F - Crescent Park, Palo Alto: 66.2°F - Barron Park, Palo Alto: 66.2°F - Palo Verde, Palo Alto: 69.8°F - Cuesta Park, Mountain View: 69.8°F Of particular concern is that Adobe Meadow recorded a higher temperature even than Mountain View, which is located farther south. Although the precise cause of these temperature differences requires scientific investigation, the persistent concentration of aircraft traffic over our neighborhood raises legitimate concerns about the potential cumulative effects of aircraft emissions and localized environmental conditions. Furthermore, the air in our neighborhood frequently carries a strong, acrid, chemical-like odor resembling volatile exhaust fumes. These conditions have been accompanied by physical symptoms, including eye irritation and coughing. I am particularly concerned about potential exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ultrafine particles, and other pollutants associated with aircraft operations. These concerns extend beyond aircraft noise. They involve the fundamental right of residents to breathe clean air and live in a healthy and safe environment. Adobe Meadow residents are taxpayers and members of the same Palo Alto and California communities as those living in surrounding neighborhoods. We should not be expected to bear a disproportionate share of the environmental burden associated with SFO aircraft operations. The repeated concentration of aircraft traffic over one residential area raises serious questions regarding environmental fairness, public health protection, and the equitable distribution of aviation-related impacts. Accordingly, I respectfully request the following actions: 1. A formal review of SFO arrival flight paths affecting Adobe Meadow and surrounding Palo Alto neighborhoods. 2. An evaluation of feasible flight path redistribution measures to reduce the concentration of aircraft traffic over Adobe Meadow while maintaining aviation safety. 3. An objective environmental assessment of aircraft-related emissions, including PM2.5, ultrafine particles, and other potentially harmful pollutants affecting residential areas beneath concentrated flight paths. 4. An investigation into the unusual localized temperature differences and whether aircraft operations may contribute to these conditions. 5. A written response outlining the findings, responsible agencies, and any proposed corrective actions or mitigation measures. I respectfully urge SFO Airport Management and the relevant aviation authorities to recognize the seriousness of these concerns and take meaningful steps toward a more equitable distribution of aircraft-related environmental impacts. The health, safety, and quality of life of Adobe Meadow residents deserve the same level of consideration and protection afforded to every other community. We are not asking for preferential treatment. We are asking for fairness, environmental accountability, and meaningful action. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving a formal written response. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident Adobe Meadow Palo Alto, California Attachment: Neighborhood Temperature Comparison – October 17, 2026, 9:57 AM From:Aram James To:Rodriguez, Miguel Subject:Source: The Mercury News Date:Saturday, October 17, 2026 10:01:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: The Mercury News Aram James: Car dwelling ban would demonize the homeless https://share.google/3CY0vxji2f6hYgjtW From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because I also think that rv should also permanently and mandatory banded from neighborhoods that are for the legal United States citi... Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 5:41:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone From:LWV Palo Alto: Voter Services To:Council, City Subject:Special Voter Toolkit to help navigate the Nov. 3 election Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 1:11:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Special Edition: November 3, 2026 Election Palo Altans, it's time to be heard! Received your ballot but still have questions about the candidates and ballot measures before making your choices? Read the nonpartisan election information prepared by the LWV of Palo Alto's Voter Services Team. The League is nonpartisan - but not neutral. While we study, evaluate and take stands on ISSUES, we do not support, nor oppose, any political party or candidate. Overwhelmed by 14 State Propositions, Local Measure J,and the Regional Transit Measure on the Ballot? We can help! Pros & Cons Explore these nonpartisan pros & cons, bringing you what both the proponents and opponents say, and who is paying to promote or defeat it. Watch the Pros/Cons Video Recording covering all the measures on your ballot: Learn how Proposition 40 (“Billionaire’s Tax”), 41 and 42 interact: Explore the 14 State Propositions: Download the LWVC Easy Voter Guide for a comprehensive evaluation of the California Ballot. It's available in many languages. Explore the Local Measures: Measure J: Community Safety/Services Measure (Cubberley Community Center) This measure authorizes a new sales tax in Palo Alto. Read the Measure J Pro/Cons here. SB63: Regional Transit Measure A Regional Sales Tax Measure that would impose a sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Read the Regional Transit Measure Pros/Cons here. Curious where the League stands on these? League recommendations for all measures can be found on the LWV of Palo Alto website. View Candidate Forum recordings; learn where your candidates stand on pertinent issues. 9.19.26 - Palo Alto City Council Candidate Forum (hosted by LWV of Palo Alto) WATCH THE RECORDING HERE 9.24.26 - Palo Alto School Board Candidate Forum (hosted by LWV of Palo Alto) WATCH THE RECORDING HERE 10.7.26 - CA Assembly District 23 (hosted by LWV of South San Mateo County) WATCH THE RECORDING HERE 10.7.26 - Santa Clara Valley Water District 7 Board of Trustees (hosted by LWV Los Altos-Mountain View Area) WATCH THE RECORDING HERE View State Candidate Statements at the Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide. View CalMatters Voter Guide to check candidates’ experience, key endorsements, major donors, and summaries for other statewide offices. How to Cast Your Ballot? STEP 1: Learn about Measures & Candidates on Your Ballot (see above) STEP 2: Decide How, Where & When You will Vote Last Ballot Drop-Off Box Pickup @ 8:00PM 11/3/26 Click to find the nearest Ballot Dropbox Vote Center lines Close @ 8:00PM 11/3/26 Click to find a Vote Center Mail by Tuesday, October 27! Mail very early! Learn Why? Need a ride to the polls? Lyft is partnering with LWV to provide discounted rides: Lyft's 2026 Voting Access Program: Rides to the Polls STEP 3: Vote and Return your Ballot ON TIME! Track your ballot - Click Here Have questions or need more information? Check out LWV of Palo Alto’s website for additional election resources or email us at contact@lwvpaloalto.org. We’d love to hear from you! Vote by November 3—your vote matters! Have questions? Need more information? Reach out to the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto at contact@lwvpaloalto.org. We’d love to hear from you! Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Haeyeon Jeong To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 10:45:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you 2026년 10월 16일 (금) 오전 10:32, Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov>님이 작성: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. ------------------CyberSecurity Safety Note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @paloalto.gov andthere are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on the City’sbehalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations such as thePalo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum& Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department or CityCouncil Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other secure detailsvia email. Contact City Departments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Phone-Directory Contact City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council From:Haeyeon Jeong To:sfo.noise@flysfo.com; Council, City Subject:Air pollution due to aircrafts Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 10:32:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear whom may concern, I am writing to express my serious concern and formally protest the heavy concentration of SFO arrival flights passing over residential neighborhoods especially adobe meadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, California. A large number of SFO arrival flights pass over Palo Alto on their approach to the airport. I am especially concerned that when SFO operates all four runways instead of two, the resulting changes in air traffic could further increase our community's exposure to aircraft exhaust emissions, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and ultrafine particles. Even under current conditions, I frequently notice exhaust-like odors in areas of Palo Alto experiencing heavy aircraft traffic. When the air is stagnant, these odors become particularly disturbing, and I have personally experienced painful irritation in my eyes and throat. My concerns extend far beyond the air we breathe. Aircraft-related pollutants may settle on our homes, cars, backyards, gardens, trees, and soil, potentially contributing to long-term environmental contamination. These pollutants do not simply disappear after an aircraft passes overhead. Their potential accumulation in our residential environment raises serious concerns about long-term exposure and public health. This is not merely a complaint about aircraft noise or inconvenience. It is a serious environmental and public health concern that deserves immediate attention from SFO Airport Management. I strongly urge SFO to take the following actions: 1. Work directly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review and modify SFO arrival flight paths, with the goal of reducing the concentration of arriving aircraft over Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods. 2. Conduct a comprehensive and independent air quality assessment of aircraft-related pollution, including ultrafine particles, PM2.5, and other aviation emissions affecting Palo Alto. 3. Investigate the potential impact of operating four runways instead of two, particularly regarding changes in arrival flight patterns and possible increases in pollution exposure. 4. Explore alternative arrival routes and operational procedures that would reduce the environmental burden on Palo Alto residents without compromising aviation safety. 5. Provide a formal written response explaining what measures SFO is currently taking, or intends to take, to address these concerns. Palo Alto residents should not be forced to bear a disproportionate environmental and health burden for the operational efficiency of SFO. Airport operations must not come at the expense of the health, safety, and quality of life of surrounding communities. I urge SFO to recognize that aircraft-related pollution is not simply an airport operational issue. It is a matter that directly affects the daily lives, homes, and long-term well-being of residents living beneath these flight paths. We have the right to breathe clean air, enjoy our homes and gardens, and live without constant concern about potentially harmful aircraft emissions. I am requesting meaningful action, not merely an acknowledgment of this complaint. Please take immediate steps to work with the FAA to reconsider SFO arrival routes over Palo Alto and provide a substantive written response outlining your proposed actions. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your response and to concrete measures that demonstrate SFO's commitment to protecting the health and environment of neighboring communities. Sincerely, Haeyeon Jeong OCTOBER 2026 INVITES Join us for No Kings 3: Vote Early! From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA: join us tomorrow at No Kings 3: Vote Early! (choice of two local events) Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 9:25:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Meet us tomorrow at noon or 2pm for“No Kings: Vote Early”- Saturday, October 17! We'll be there to remind people to check their registration and vote early, and will share our Pro/Cons and Ballot recommendations. There are two local events - register here - choose the one that best fits your schedule: 1. Noon-2pm: meet in front of Boba Bliss at San Antonio & El Camino at noon 2. 2-4pm: meet at Pioneer Memorial Park in Mountain View No Kings: Vote Early is a nationwide, nonpartisan day of voter participation on Saturday, October 17, 2026, encouraging eligible voters to make a plan, know their options, and cast ballots early where local rules allow. You're Invited! You can support new immigrants and celebrate a local nonprofit who has helped our community for 30 years! On October 24, the Day Worker Center of Mountain View will hold a free celebration of its 30th anniversary at the Mountain View City Hall Plaza from 3 - 5 PM. Due to ICE activity, the organizers decided not to have the day laborers at the event but to focus instead on supporters of this valuable community center. You will enjoy: Music by Los Angeles dance band Los Jornaleros del Norte Songs from our local "Raging Grannies" Dances by Ballet Folklorico A Day Worker's Testimonial, performed by a member of Teatro Nahual A reading by Professor Francisco Jimenez, the renowned memoirist who - as a child would cross the border every year with his family to pick produce in the fields - eventually becoming the head of the Department of Modern Languages and Literature at Santa Clara University. Short proclamations from local officials including Assembly Member Marc Berman. Food and cake! Coming up! O C T O B E R Sept. 24 - Oct. 13: ROV mails county election information guides to all registered voters 5: ROV mails vote by mail packets | 5 thru Nov. 2: Early voting at ROV office 17: NO KINGS: VOTE EARLY! Noon-2pm: meet in front of Boba Bliss at San Antonio & El Camino at noon 2-4pm: meet at Pioneer Memorial Park in Mountain View 19: Last day to register to vote for Nov. 3 election with regular ballot 20 -Nov. 3: Conditional voter registration at any Vote Center or ROV office 24 thru Nov. 3: Vote Centers are open 27: Last day to request vote-by-mail replacement N O V E M B E R 3: ELECTION DAY! All vote centers open Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Hannah Ennerfelt To:Council, City Subject:[URGENT] Request to Move St. Thomas Aquinas Redwood Tree Removal Appeal to the Formal City Council Agenda Date:Friday, October 16, 2026 7:57:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good morning, I am writing to request that the St. Thomas Aquinas Church tree removal appeal, currently listed on the October 19 consent calendar, be moved to a formal City Council meeting for public discussion. In April, St. Thomas Aquinas Church, located at 751 Waverley Street, applied to remove four mature heritage redwood trees from the back of its property. Many neighborhood residents were deeply saddened by this proposal, and 771 people signed a petition opposing the removal (Change.org petition). I also formally appealed the decision back in April. When I spoke with church representatives, they cited structural damage to the church’s foundation, pointing to visible cracks. However, these cracks extend around the building’s entire perimeter, not just the areas near the trees. Given that the church is more than a century old, there are plausible explanations for this damage unrelated to the redwoods. Critically, neither the church nor its arborist established that the trees were responsible for the foundation damage. In a separate conversation, the church’s priest explained that removing the trees would allow more light to reach the stained-glass windows. If the motivation is primarily aesthetic rather than a demonstrated structural necessity, I believe the city should carefully reconsider whether removing these irreplaceable trees is warranted at this time. Furthermore, during the April appeal meeting, the church stated that it did not intend to plant replacement trees on this property, but would instead plant trees on other properties it owns in the area. The loss to this neighborhood’s tree canopy would therefore be permanent. Mature redwoods grow close to buildings throughout Palo Alto. Although these trees require care and maintenance, they are an integral part of our community’s character and environmental heritage. The redwood even appears on the city seal, and Palo Alto proudly holds the designation of Tree City USA. Yet heritage trees continue to be removed across the city, with hundreds of removals documented in the past year alone (City of Palo Alto tree removal notices). I urge the City Council to consider the cumulative consequences of these decisions for our urban forest and the character of This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report our neighborhoods. Although the city determined that the proposed removal meets its “right tree, right place” criteria, I believe it is important to distinguish between a tree that is demonstrably causing harm and one whose removal is being proposed without clear evidence of necessity. I ask the city and the church to give these four mature redwoods more time, preserving a historic neighborhood feature that matters not only to residents but also to the wildlife that depends on it. These trees provide habitat for numerous bird species, including hummingbirds, nuthatches, and crows, and are regularly frequented by a great horned owl, as documented in my appeal to the city. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the unlawful destruction of protected migratory birds, including certain activities involving active nests. I urge the city and the church to ensure that any removal plans comply with applicable federal wildlife protections. At a minimum, this decision deserves a public discussion before the full City Council rather than being placed on the consent calendar, where items are generally considered together without individual discussion unless a member requests otherwise. With 771 community members having signed a petition opposing the removal, there is a clear public interest in this matter. I respectfully ask each City Council member to support moving this item from the October 19 consent calendar to a formal meeting agenda, where the evidence, environmental consequences, and community concerns can receive the thoughtful consideration they deserve. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Hannah Ennerfelt From:Rasarea Chan To:City Mgr Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Tong, Sunny Subject:Temporary Event Parking Inquiry – Hope Technology School (2525 E Bayshore Rd) Date:Thursday, October 15, 2026 12:29:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hi, My name is Rasarea Chan, and I am the Administrative Assistant for Hope Technology School located at 2525 E Bayshore Rd. We noticed that 2575 E Bayshore Rd is currently unoccupied and owned by the City of Palo Alto. As a small, non-profit full-inclusion school (105 students), we host a few daytime family events per year where our on-site parking capacity is temporarily exceeded. We were hoping to discuss the possibility of a temporary, non-exclusive right-of-entry license agreement to utilize a portion of the 2575 E Bayshore parking lot during these isolated event windows for overflow parking. I've been in contact with the city planners and they've told me that I would need a temporary use permit (TUP) to use the 2575 property, even for strictly parking purposes. Unfortunately, as a small, non-profit organization, we cannot afford the $2648 application fee to even apply for the permit. Therefore, we are asking instead for a license agreement or some way to have the application fee waived or lessened. We have been grateful to be in operation with the City of Palo Alto, celebrating our 25th year of providing an inclusive education to students of both typical and special needs. We hope we can come to some sort of arrangement. I can also forward my exchanges with both the city planners and real property manager if those would be helpful. Thank you so much for your time and consideration! Best regards, Rasarea Chan -- Rasarea Chan 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 Hope Technology School Office and Events Coordinator rasarea@hopetech.org Hey City of Palo Alto City Council, Most people have life insurance — but very few truly understand how their coverage works or whether it actually protects their family the way they think it does. I spend a lot of time helping individuals and families get clarity on something that’s often overlooked: protecting income, building accessible liquidity, and creating long‑term financial options outside of traditional retirement accounts. Many people have retirement plans through work, but very few have liquid assets they can access for emergencies or opportunities without penalties. That’s where modern life insurance strategies can play a role. I help people understand: • Whether their current coverage is enough • Term vs. permanent insurance • How cash value life insurance can build tax‑advantaged liquidity • LIRP / supplemental retirement strategies • Emergency and opportunity funds • Long‑term legacy and wealth‑transfer planning A question I often ask is simple: If something happened tomorrow, would your family be financially protected — and are you confident your current policy matches your actual needs? If you’re open to it, I offer a complimentary personal protection and financial strategy review. It’s a brief 15–20 minute conversation, and I can walk you through a few strategies you may not have considered. Meeshie Moves With Purpose. Education first. Strategy second. From:Meeshie G. To:Council, City Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Is your current coverage actually protecting your family? Date:Thursday, October 15, 2026 11:25:23 AM This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization. i This message is suspicious Domain was created recently. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Solutions that move you forward. Meeshie GrenierLife & Wealth AgentCarrollton, TX(781) 678 4350meeshi@mwpfinancialgroup.com Get Started Now! If you wish to unsubscribe from our newsletter, click here From:Haeyeon Jeong To:sfo.noise@flysfo.com; Council, City Subject:Urgent Complaint: Concentrated SFO Arrival Flights, Air Pollution, and Unusual Temperature Differences in Palo Alto Date:Thursday, October 15, 2026 9:51:57 AM Attachments:38247.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 15, 2026 Dear SFO Airport Authorities, I am writing once again to express my serious concerns about the excessive concentration of SFO-bound aircraft flying over the Adobe Meadow neighborhood in Palo Alto. Today, October 15, at 9:38 AM, numerous aircraft were once again flying over our neighborhood on their approach to SFO. What is particularly alarming is the significant temperature difference between Adobe Meadow and nearby communities. According to the temperature readings recorded at 9:38 AM today: Adobe Meadow, Palo Alto: 62.6°F Crescent Park, Palo Alto: 60.8°F Atherton: 55.4°F Menlo Park: 57.2°F Barron Park, Palo Alto: 57.2°F Adobe Meadow was 7.2°F warmer than Atherton and 5.4°F warmer than Menlo Park and Barron Park, despite their relatively close proximity. I am deeply concerned about whether the continuous concentration of aircraft traffic and associated emissions could be contributing to these unusual local environmental conditions. While the exact cause of these temperature differences requires scientific investigation, the potential impact of aircraft emissions should not be overlooked. Aircraft exhaust contains pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ultrafine particles, and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants raise serious concerns about the quality of the air we breathe and their potential effects on our health, homes, soil, water, and surrounding environment. Aircraft noise is only one part of the problem. The possibility of continuous exposure to aviation-related air pollution is an even greater concern. Why must the residents of Adobe Meadow repeatedly bear such a concentrated burden of SFO arrival traffic while neighboring communities experience different levels of aircraft activity? I respectfully but urgently request that SFO and the responsible aviation authorities: 1. Investigate the concentration of SFO arrival flights over Adobe Meadow and surrounding Palo Alto neighborhoods. 2. Conduct comprehensive air quality monitoring, particularly for PM2.5, ultrafine particles, and aircraft-related emissions. 3. Investigate the significant temperature differences between Adobe Meadow and nearby communities. 4. Work with the FAA to evaluate alternative arrival routes and distribute aircraft traffic more equitably among surrounding areas, wherever operationally and safely feasible. 5. Provide a written response explaining what actions will be taken to address these concerns. I have attached a temperature comparison recorded at 9:38 AM on October 15, 2026, as supporting documentation. Our neighborhood should not have to endure a disproportionate environmental burden simply because of its location beneath an arrival flight path. We deserve clean air, a healthy living environment, and fair consideration in decisions affecting aircraft routing. I sincerely urge SFO to take these concerns seriously and pursue meaningful solutions rather than allowing this situation to continue indefinitely. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your response and concrete action. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident Adobe Meadow, Palo Alto, California From:Dan Nitzan To:Planning Commission; Nadia Niak Cc:Council, City Subject:Amicus Brief − Palo Alto Museum Events Permit Date:Thursday, October 15, 2026 8:04:37 AM Attachments:Palo Alto Museum Amicus Brief 2026-10-15.mp3 Hello Planning Commission and Neighbors– I am Dan Nitzan, a lifelong Palo Alto resident, volunteer and close neighbor of Heritage Park. I wanted to participate in today’s community meeting, but I think you’ll agree that my bout of Norovirus might be a respectful reason to defer to email. Instead, I offer this “Amicus Brief”: The Palo Alto Museum’s construction was supported by the City because it’s an enriching community asset. As such, it deserves some deference. Like the Junior Museum, and indeed all museums, this museum must maintain viable financial support structures, including charging for its services, and hosting private fundraising events. "Rentals as a mission, not just a margin." I share a back fence with the American Heritage Museum. This good-neighbor hosts numerous wedding receptions with string/jazz quartets and DJs, which have never disturbed us. I believe there should no restrictions on indoor, or non-amplified outdoor events. Acoustically, this is no different from kids playing in the park ‘til the posted 10:30PM closing time. But what about parking? My conservative count is 58 parking spaces that are adjacent to Heritage Park. This count specifically excludes Residential Parking Program spots in front of residences. Since large events don’t occur during business hours, downtown employee vehicles won’t be competing for parking. Further, virtually all nearby residences have off-street parking. My 4-point compromise suggestion is: 1) The museum’s outdoor amplified sound in the park should be permitted up to 6 nights per year, with a maximum sound level not to exceed 80dBA at the property-line. [For reference, Saturday’s concert was 75dBA at the property-line and 65dBA at the Bryant sidewalk.] This matches Palo Alto’s noise ordinance: 9.10.050b: Sound performances and special events not exceeding 80dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet are exempt as provided in section 22.04.180 of this code. 2) Front courtyard amplified sound should be limited to 12 times per year, with a maximum sound level of 65dBA at the Homer sidewalk. 3) 9:00PM is a completely reasonable shutdown time for amplified sound, with load-out complete by the 10:30PM park closing time. 4) This use permit should be re-evaluated by the commission in future years. I believe we can all benefit from such a compromise, both individually, and as a community, and thank you for your kind consideration. -Dan Below is a 3-minute audio recording of the above text: -- Daniel Nitzan 734 Waverley St Palo Alto CA 94301 dan.nitzan@pobox.com (650) 465-2057 From:callhub To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s proposed new neighborhood cell towers. Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 8:52:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Adcock, Vice Chair Rosenberg, and Members Chen, Hirsch, and Jojarth, As you know, City Council voted unanimously in May, 2025, to restore Architectural Review Board review for new cell towers. So-called “objective standards” for these facilities—as well as unilateral decision-making by the Planning Director—were thrown out. Now, where cell towers are to be located and what they can look like must comply with the provisions of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the subjective judgments of the ARB. Tellingly, in restoring ARB review, City Council unanimously expressed a preference for a significant setback from homes. This stands in sharp contrast to the twenty-foot rule that existed in the now defunct “objective standards” ordinance. I am writing to urge you to insist that AT&T respect the provisions of our Municipal Code and your own aesthetic judgement, as well as the wishes of our unanimous City Council. In particular, please require AT&T to site its cell towers further from residents’ homes, to locate radios and ancillary equipment underground and to lower the height of the poles. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, janet This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Shiloh Curtis To:Council, City Subject:Yet another train collision? Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 7:50:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Look. If you truly can't get your act together to build grade separated crossings, you have to at least get the cops to keep the tracks clear, or block off the cross streets during rush hour, or something. We seriously cannot keep doing this thing twice a month where every train commuter on the Peninsula gets stranded for an hour because drivers in Palo Alto can't figure out what a railroad crossing is. Shiloh Curtis This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Kandikuppa, Nishita; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:Comment on AT&T Tier 2 Application 26PLN-00229 (10/15 Meeting Agenda Item #2) Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 1:35:19 PM Attachments:2026-10-13- GFL Letter to ARB re AT&T Application with Attachment.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Architectural Review Board: On behalf of United Neighbors, attached, please find a comment detailing deficiencies in AT&T’s application and requesting that the Board recommend that the Director deny the application. I look forward to commenting at the meeting tomorrow and will be available if the Board has any questions on these materials. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________ 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law, P.C. 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. From:Scott To:Council, City Subject:Join Calfiornia Senator Grove Congressman Gallagher for a zoom session with pastors! Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 1:34:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Join elected officials and pastors from all over California on a zoom call! Already we have elected officials signed up from the California senate to congress to city councils as well as pastors from all over the state.. We're expecting over 100 to joing us. Already we've had close to 60 register! This gathering was born out of a conversation I had with an elected official who shared something that stuck with me: no one had ever asked if they could pray with him... We are hoping to see that change. Behind every title and elected office is a person carrying real responsibility, pressure, and weight. Regardless of political party, ideology, or the side of the aisle we may represent, we all need prayer, encouragement, and genuine human connection. We want to break through some of the barriers that too often divide us and create a space where California pastors and elected officials can come together with dignity, compassion, and mutual respect. If you are a California pastor or elected official, we would love to have you join us. Click the Eventbrite link to learn more and register. Tuesday, October 27, 2026 10:00 AM California Electeds and Pastors Zoom Call including Senator Shannon Grove Register Scott Thomson 3210 Oro Dam Blvd East , Oroville, CA 95965 US Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy From:Laura Roberts To:Barbara Avery; Hillary Freeman; Jill Williams; Kathy Switky; Liz Hunt; Rabbi Josh Zweiback; <tami@epak.org>; Abi Karlin-Resnick; Accounting LACF; Adin Miller; admin@laefonline.org; ahartman@ymcamidpen.org; ajhartwell@bayshore.org; alan.schroeder@hhs.sccgov.org; Alisse Frandsen; Allison Snopek; allison.leslie@aspirepublicschools.org; allison@intersection.org; Amy Maguire; Amy Peabody; Amy Stock; amy@theintersection.org; Ana; Andrea Cano; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andy Chen; Anna Alioto; Annette Kern; Smita Shukla; applications@groundspring.org; applysvcfgrants@siliconvalleycf.org; Arleen Pickett; arts@krfoundation.org; Asian Art Museum; Bach Society; Barbara Noyola; Bea Herrick; Becky Morgan; Becky Morgan; Bill Langston; bill@billmcfarland.org; billing@groundspring.org; Blanchard, Dominique DNAX; bmcclain@eganschool.org; board; boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; Bobby Chastain; Brenda Birrell; Brenda Dyckman; California Democratic Party; Carol Giraudo; Cathy Dwulet; Chache, Kalamu; Charlene Chang; Charles Scandlyn; Chris Thompson; Chris Wilcox; Cindy Miller; Council, City; ckoehler@employees.org; Claire Woo; coblentze@redcross-pdx.org; cole morgan; CompassPoint Training Program; connie bowie; conny_barton@positivecoach.org; cscandlyn@mppc.org; D"Andrea, Vivien MD; Damon Weitz; Dara Meinerth; Dave Zapp; Dawn Shimel; Dena Zacanti; Deslauriers Richard MD; Diane Holcomb; Dianne Saign; Dianne Shen; donation@kqed.org; Donations at Groundspring.org (via Groundspring.org); dr.colemorgan44@yahoo.com; Eleanor Levin; Elisabeth Ward; Elizabeth Lamson; Elizabeth Morgan; Ellen Jones; Ellie Furey; Em Fackler; email.replies@mobilize2020.org; Emily Socia, Guest Services Assisant; EPAK; Eron Sandler; evelyn schachter; F4Ed; Finance Staff; Fiona Walter; Fisher, George; Forests Forever Alerts; Frederick Hodder; Gail Greely; GeorgeTaylor; Gina Lee; ginna@svlpres.org; grants@lamvcf.org; grants@losaltoscf.org; grants@losaltoskiwanis.org; Gwen Sherman; gwen@gatesfoundation.org; Hanna George; hanson@ymcamidpen.org; Heather Macdonald; Hilliary Freeman; Howard, Adam; info@artslosaltos.org; info@downtownlosaltos.org; info@epak.org; info@foothills-club.org; info@losaltoskiwanis.org; info@mvlafoundation.org; ingeborgmelcher@yahoo.com; Jae Tioseco; James Thurber; Jamie Walsh; janis@sundayfriends.org; Jayne Wallner; jboin@csacares.org; Jean Tyan; Jeannette Hanni; jeff baier; Jeffry Walker; Jessica Agarwal; Jessica Smith; Jessica Steinberg; Jill Armstrong; Jill Lee; Jill Zorn; Jillian Simms; jmahoney@siliconvalleycf.org; jmunchia@seq.org; joanne@losaltoscf.org; joe chan; Joe McCreary; Joel Bartlett; Jorge Gomez; Joyride Harness Support; jrtennis@foothills-club.org; Judith Steiner; Judith Steiner; Judith Steiner; Judy Blumenstein; Judy Hansen; Judy Kaufman; Judy Steiner (E-mail); Julie Mahowald; Julie Mahowald; julie@epak.org; Kane, George (Australia); Karen Brunton; Karen Daubert; Karen Daubert; Karen Douglas; Karen Tobey; karen treiger; Karen Zucker; kate@mfm.org; Katherine Dodson; Kathy Switky; Katie Roper; katrina_zunino@almondschool.org; kdg@jeremiahspromise.org; kelly@artslosaltos.org; ken.siegel@oakarborgroup.com; ken@kenallen.org; khudson@arts4all.org; Kim Parker; Kira Petroff; Koven Smith; Kristin Adams; kyle@heisingsimons.org; Labelle Coordinator; Lara Burenin; larefgrants@losaltosrotary.org; Laura Bajuk; Laura Flavell; Laura Ramirez; Laura Roberts; laura.roberts@mvlafoundation.org; laura@epak.org; Lauren Mason; laurie.cooper@oconnorwoods.org; lcall@almondschool.org; Lee; Lee, Claudia D; Leif Erickson; Leontyne Mbele-Mbong; Leontyne Mbele-Mbong; Leslie Dorosin; Leslie White; lhill@seabeck.org; Liana Mier; Lila Fitzgerald Subject:Fwd: ATTENTION: Please delete the suspicious email from me Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 1:25:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi everyone, My email account was hacked, and a phishing email was sent from my address. The email looks like an EVITE. Please don’t click any links, open attachments, or reply to that message. Delete it and report it as phishing. If you already clicked and entered a password, change that password immediately through the email service’s official website or app. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report I’m sorry for the confusion, and thank you for your understanding. Laura (with 193 invitees, this would have been a heck of a party if it was real!!) From:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan To:Gallegos, JESSICA (NBCUniversal); Council, City Cc:Valle, Kelsey (NBCUniversal); City Mgr Subject:RE: MEDIA REQUEST: TELEMUNDO Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 11:44:46 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image007.png image008.png Hi Jessica and Kelsey, Please see my previous email sent on this topic. Best, Meghan MEGHAN HORRIGAN-TAYLOR Chief Communications Officer (650)329-2607 | Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Gallegos, JESSICA (NBCUniversal) <Jessica.Gallegos@nbcuni.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 10:22 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Valle, Kelsey (NBCUniversal) <Kelsey.Valle@nbcuni.com> Subject: MEDIA REQUEST: TELEMUNDO CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello - good morning, This is the Jessica Gallegos reporter for Telemundo. Would a Spanish/ English speaker be available today before 1:30 pm for an in person or virtual interview to talk about Palo Alto to expand overnight RV parking ban to more residential areas. Attaching this link, https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-to- expand-overnight-rv-parking-ban-to-more- residential-areas/ Let me know, Thanks, Jessica Gallegos From:Gallegos, JESSICA (NBCUniversal) To:Council, City Cc:Valle, Kelsey (NBCUniversal) Subject:MEDIA REQUEST: TELEMUNDO Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 10:21:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello - good morning, This is the Jessica Gallegos reporter for Telemundo. Would a Spanish/ English speaker be available today before 1:30 pm for an in person or virtual interview to talk about Palo Alto to expand overnight RV parking ban to more residential areas. Attaching this link, https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto- to-expand-overnight-rv-parking-ban-to- more-residential-areas/ Let me know, Thanks, Jessica Gallegos From:Haeyeon Jeong To:sfo.noise@flysfo.com; Council, City Subject:Urgent Request to Address Aircraft Traffic Concentration and Air Pollution Over Adobe Meadow Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 10:00:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious Dear SFO Airport Authorities, Today is October 14, 2026, and it is still early in the morning. Yet, numerous aircraft heading toward SFO are already flying continuously over Adobe Meadow in Palo Alto. Our neighborhood continues to experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding communities. Even Mountain View and Cupertino, located farther south, are experiencing lower temperatures than our area. How is it possible that such noticeable temperature differences exist between neighborhoods located so close to one another? Beyond the constant aircraft noise, I am deeply concerned about air pollution, jet exhaust emissions, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with heavy aircraft traffic. These pollutants may negatively affect the air we breathe, our soil, and our overall environment. I am particularly concerned about whether the unusually concentrated aircraft traffic over Adobe Meadow is contributing to the environmental conditions and temperature differences we are experiencing. Why must our neighborhood bear such a disproportionate burden of aircraft traffic and its potential environmental consequences? I urgently request that SFO reconsider its flight approach routes and distribute incoming aircraft more fairly across surrounding communities, rather than concentrating so many flights over Adobe Meadow. Please take our concerns seriously and take meaningful action to reduce the environmental burden placed on our neighborhood. We deserve clean air, a healthy living environment, and fair treatment. I sincerely ask for your understanding, consideration, and prompt action. Thank you. Sincerely, A Concerned Resident of Adobe Meadow Palo Alto, California October 14, 2026 From:Magical Bridge Foundation To:Council, City Subject:Magical Bridge Fall + Winter Update 2026 Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 9:10:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Magical Bridge shares the latest news on programs, projects, and people No images? Click here Programs, Projects, and People Fall + Winter 2026 We hope you had a magical summer! As we look forward to an exciting Fall and Winter, we want to share an update on Magical Bridge Programs, Projects, and People. Highlights: Programs: Check our online calendar for events across our playgrounds— including screenings this week of our documentary by Splicer Films: Magical Bridge: Kind By Design in Palo Alto and Healdsburg. And save the date for Friendsgiving in Palo Alto: November 21, 2026. Projects: We celebrated a Gratitude Ceremony at St. Francis Center, a groundbreaking in Daly City, two grand partnership underway in the Netherlands. People: Help us welcome three wonderful young women to our team in the areas of community programs, advocacy, and graphic design. Thank you for your continued support of our mission to innovate multigenerational playgrounds and programs for more inclusive communities. – Your friends at Magical Bridge Pictured above: Founder and CEO Olenka Villarreal and Magical Bridge board member Joyce Jaffe Reynolds, PhD, during a visit to the new Magical Bridge at Sun Plaza Park in Singapore. PROGRAMS — Upcoming community events Join us for a screening of our new documentary by Splicer Films: Magical Bridge: Kind By Design Learn more about our film and watch the trailer here. If you'd like to host a screening, please email us! UNAFF Palo Alto Saturday, October 17 2pm with Q&A (Session 3) United Nations Association Film Festival, Palo Alto Mitchell Park Community Center TICKETS True West Healdsburg Thursday, October 22 2 Screenings + Q&A 4pm and 5:15pm Wine reception (4:45 - 5:15pm) True West Film Center TICKETS Halloween Costume Party Sunday, Oct 25 Join us for Magical Series Inclusive Community Events in Palo Alto Magical Bridge Playground Wear your costume to the playground and join us for trick-or-treat bag- making, live music from Tank! Jazz Band, sensory-friendly science with Bright Sparks Play Lab, and a costume dance party! LEARN MORE Third Annual Friendsgiving Saturday, Nov 21 5pm - 8pm Lucie Stern Community Center Join us for Friendsgiving — a celebration of food, conversation, and community. This year, we give special thanks to The Palo Alto Players, entertaining us magically for over 95 years! TICKETS Magical Santa Dance Party with SF Autism Society Saturday, Dec 5 5pm - 7:30pm Lucie Stern Community Center Join us for a sensory-friendly holiday celebration. Meet Santa and enjoy DJ dancing, games, prizes, pizza, drinks, and snacks. Tickets are available soon at SF Autism Society PROJECTS — A playground update Redwood City Sept 26, 2026 — St Francis Center celebrated 40 years with a neighborhood block party and a Gratitude Ceremony honoring the many donors who are helping bring Magical Bridge Pocket Park to the North Fair Oaks community in Redwood City. There's still time to donate! LEARN MORE Singapore June 17, 2026 — Magical Bridge at Sun Plaza Park, our 13th playground, held its Grand Opening Ceremony. Hosted by NParks with honored guest Amanda Steckler, who together with her late husband Vince, generosity brought this playground to life. LEARN MORE Daly City July 16, 2026 — Magical Bridge Daly City gathered for a Groundbreaking Ceremony at Hillside Park. Alongside Daly City government officials, staff, and members of the community, we celebrated bringing inclusive play to this wonderful community. Construction starts soon — there's still time to add your name to the donor wall! LEARN MORE Singapore Sept 30, 2026 — Magical Bridge at Eden School for Autism opened as a sensory- friendly playground designed for students with autism — featuring water play, a slide mound, Hideaway Hut, inclusive swings and spinners, and a signature Kindness Bench. Co-developed with CT-Arts in Singapore. LEARN MORE Announcing a Special Partnership: Magical Bridge x Cruyff Foundation Since 1997, Cruyff Foundation has brought signature Cruyff Courts to underserved municipalities around the world to promote health and empower youth. Together, we are bringing Cruyff Courts and Magical Bridge playgrounds to select locations across the Netherlands, setting a new standard for inclusive sport and play. Reanne Lacosta Community Programs Coordinator LEARN MORE PEOPLE — Welcome our new team members Come say hello to Reanne at Magical Bridge Palo Alto as she heads up our inclusive community events. Want to get involved as a volunteer or performer? Email Reanne Sophia Henderson Accessible and Inclusive Engagement Strategist Sophia recently joined our team to lead partnerships and activities focused on our mission and advocacy work. Toni Loew Graphic Designer Toni is the designer behind our social media, programs and events. She keeps our website up to date and occasionally hits the Playhouse stage as a keyboardist performer. We hope to see you on the playground, or at one of our many community events. Visit our website for a list of our locations, family programs and projects in development. If you know of an opportunity to bring Magical Bridge to your community, please get in touch! Magical Bridge Foundation 959A Addison Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 magicalbridge.org • play4all@magicalbridge.org Magical Bridge Foundation is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a Charity Navigator rating of 100%. EIN: 81- 2377796 SUPPORT OUR WORK Questions? Email us at play4all@magicalbridge.org Magical Bridge Foundation. All rights reserved. Preferences | Unsubscribe From:Mary Dimit To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Support Palo Alto Residents over AT&T Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 3:02:23 AM To ARB members Adcock, Rosenberg, Chen, Hirsch, and Jojarth, Please support the wishes Palo Alto residents as well as City Council when they transferred the review for new cell towers to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) last year. At that time, the City Council supported meaningful setbacks (much more than the original 20-ft rule) from homes. In addition, they wanted the locations & appearance of the cell tower to comply with the provisions of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code including the aesthetic judgments of the ARB. We request you require AT&T abide by the provisions of our Municipal Code and your own aesthetic judgement, as well as the direction from our unanimous City Council to: Locate its cell towers farther from residents’ homes, Locate radios and ancillary equipment underground instead of on the poles, and Lower the height of the poles. Please support the wishes of Palo Alto residents over AT&T. Thank you for your service to Palo Alto, Mary Dimit & Mark Sauer Neighbors who live near two of the proposed cell towers From:Aram James To:Council, City; board@pausd.org; SSA board watchers; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Friends of Cubberley; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; h.etzko@gmail.com; CityCouncil; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Bryna Chang; Brian Hamachek; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Human Relations Commission Subject:Source: The Mercury News Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 2:25:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. board member removed from meeting by security after public shouting match, sues agency as her re-election looms https://share.google/u6vygDaQoxAHY8kla From:Aram James To:Robert. Jonsen; Sam Liccardo; Reifschneider, James; Adam.Oberdorfer@shf.sccgov.org; james pitkin; Jeff Conrad; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Bryna Chang; Reckdahl, Keith; Gardener, Liz; Linda Jolley; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Lewis james; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Mohammed; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Vicki Veenker; Roberta Ahlquist; CityCouncil; Council, City; city.council@gilroy.org; Bill Newell; Zahra Billoo; Sean Allen; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; tyree washington; Tim James; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; steven mcgill; Preminger, Steve; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Jay Boyarsky; Raymond Goins; Raj Jayadev; Charisse Domingo; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Enberg, Nicholas; Mora Oommen; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jesse Gary; Fernandez, Lisa; Scheff, Lisa; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; Emily Mibach; HRW Silicon Valley; Marc Berman; Josh Becker; josh@joshsalcman.com; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Brian Hamachek; Kaloma Smith; Board of Directors; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Templeton, Cari; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; patricia.guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Friends of Cubberley; Eduardo Guilarte; Shikada, Ed; Stone, Greer; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Richard Konda; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Jessica Riskin; EXT.Richard.Hobbs; Diana Diamond; Daniel Kottke; David S. Norris; KRISTEN JOHNSON; Jeff Rosen; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Angel, David; Malinsky, Jason; Carla Torres; Doug Minkler; Matt Schlegel; Lotus Fong; Seher Awan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Penni Wilson; Perron, Zachary; Goodell, Erin; Jensen, Eric; Goodell, Erin; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Yolanda Conaway; h.etzko@gmail.com; Yusra Hussain; yolanda; Zelkha, Mila; Donna Wallach; Steve Wagstaffe; walter wilson; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Betty Duong; Embarcadero Media Support; Susan Hayase; Sameena Usman; ParkRec Commission; Richard Konda Subject:Matt Schlegel Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2026 1:21:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. No Tasers in our Jails. Sheriff Robert Jonsen must release all video/digital footage of all Taser deployments from the Taser Pilot Project now. https://youtu.be/PkIx9gOH2zc From:Aram James To:Council, City; h.etzko@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Yudy 4PaloAlto; Brian Hamachek; Human Relations Commission; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Gardener, Liz; Friends of Cubberley; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Gerry Gras; Angel, David; Dana St. George; Mora Oommen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; Sean Allen Subject:Source: Palo Alto Online Date:Tuesday, October 13, 2026 7:09:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: Palo Alto Online Letters to the editor https://share.google/qoVFcI9D3agSuRAxL From:Nate Saal To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Kandikuppa, Nishita Subject:Please reject AT&T’s proposed new neighborhood cell towers Date:Tuesday, October 13, 2026 4:11:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Adcock, Vice Chair Rosenberg, and Members Chen, Hirsch, and Jojarth, As an AT&T mobile customer and owner of the home at 670 Guinda St (an address you might recognize), I'm writing to request that we find an alternate solution to a needed improvement. As you know, City Council voted unanimously in May 2025, to restore Architectural Review Board review for new cell towers. The so-called “objective standards” for these facilities—as well as unilateral decision-making by the Planning Director—were thrown out. Now, the location of cell towers and what they can look like must comply with the provisions of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the subjective judgments of the ARB. In restoring ARB's review, the City Council unanimously expressed a preference for a significant setback from homes. This stands in sharp contrast to the twenty-foot rule that existed in the now defunct “objective standards” ordinance. The house at 670 Guinda St sits in the shadow of the pole and the kitchen window look direct at the pole on the corner which, as you know, is the proposed install location of one of the cell tower additions. No tree coverage... a true eye-sore. I am writing to urge you to insist that AT&T respect the provisions of our Municipal Code and your own aesthetic judgement, as well as the wishes of our unanimous City Council. In particular, please require AT&T to site its cell towers further from residents’ homes, to locate radios and ancillary equipment underground and to lower the height of the poles. Thank you for your consideration. Nate Saal This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:John Shenk To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Andrade, Alex; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Charlie Weidanz Subject:Policy & Services Input Date:Tuesday, October 13, 2026 3:50:11 PM Attachments:palo alto letter 101326.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please find our letter attached. I really hope you take the concerns expressed to heart. I welcome any questions as you all know I am working with you to find market solutions to create more housing AND to support economic vibrancy in our downtowns. John Shenk Thoits Bros., Inc. 629 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 October 13, 2026 RE: Policy & Services Committee Special Meeting October 13, 2026 Agenda Item 1 Dear Chair Lythcott-Haims and Committee Members Reckdahl and Stone: We oppose policies intended to stimulate housing by making commercial development and business investment in Palo Alto less economically viable. Housing production and economic vitality should reinforce each other, not compete. Palo Alto should make housing easier to build—not make business harder to conduct. Commercial disincentives threaten the City’s economy and revenues. Businesses and investors can choose neighboring communities. Added costs and restrictions risk weaker demand for commercial space, lower rents, higher vacancies, reduced property values, and less reinvestment. Under Proposition 8, a property whose market value falls below its Proposition 13 factored base- year value may qualify for a reduced assessment without a sale. Such reductions can affect property tax collections in the applicable assessment year, including revenues benefiting schools and other public agencies. Staff itself notes that commercial activity supports property, business, and sales taxes and development fees—an important consideration following the City’s $17.1 million General Fund deficit. Office workers support our retailers. Downtown and California Avenue restaurants, shops, and services depend heavily on the daytime employment population. The City’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy estimated that hybrid work and the resulting loss of daytime population reduced retail demand by more than 100,000 square feet. Discouraging commercial occupancy and employment risks further weakening retail sales and the vitality the City has identified as a priority. The City’s own economic analysis does not support this approach. Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) concluded that a HARD HATS-style ordinance is highly unlikely to shift redevelopment from commercial to housing. The City’s feasibility work also found rental housing challenged at every test location, while office remained marginally possible Downtown and near California Avenue. Downtown’s small parcels create additional constraints, and the area has seen very little new retail or office construction in more than a decade. Increasing the cost of commercial projects does not lower housing construction costs, change parcel dimensions, or make otherwise infeasible housing projects pencil out. We need to unlock housing production AND encourage additional investment in the Downtown and Cal Ave. markets. Thoits Bros., Inc. 629 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Increased housing capacity offers a more direct path. During the roughly two weeks when SB 79’s full statutory provisions applied, Palo Alto received nine preliminary applications proposing 341 units. Although applications are not completed homes, that response illustrates private sector interest when greater density is allowed. The more productive focus for the City is on greater residential density, increased zoning areas for denser housing, fee reductions, streamlined approvals, and more flexible development standards. Recommendations on the Committee’s two decisions 1. Program 3.9(A): Support staff’s recommendation to find the program’s intent is being achieved and to make no further reductions in commercial development allowances. Do not use higher linkage fees or added commercial building standards as tools to penalize commercial investment. Evaluate any future changes on their independent merits, including cumulative impacts on economic vitality and tax revenues. 2. Construction labor standards ordinance: Do not direct staff to continue drafting a HARD HATS-style ordinance. EPS does not expect it to increase housing production, while additional compliance obligations, costs, and uncertainty could deter commercial reinvestment and make our City less desirable to the very employers we try to attract. Any separate labor policy should require a demonstrated benefit and a full assessment of costs before advancing. We need to focus on solving the very real challenges we face and not create new ones. Palo Alto’s commercial economy is an asset, not an obstacle, to housing production. Please protect that economic base while removing the real barriers to housing production. I look forward to continued work with the Economic Development Committee, Downtown/University Avenue Stakeholders Committee, and all our neighbors to support the Downtown and the City. Best, John R. Shenk C.E.O. Thoits Bros., Inc. From:Jennifer Schmidt To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please reject AT&T’s proposed new neighborhood cell towers Date:Tuesday, October 13, 2026 2:00:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Adcock, Vice Chair Rosenberg, and Members Chen, Hirsch, and Jojarth, Thank you for your important service and for doing your part to keep Palo Alto residents safe. As you know, City Council voted unanimously in May, 2025, to restore Architectural Review Board review for new cell towers. So-called “objective standards” for these facilities—as well as unilateral decision- making by the Planning Director—were thrown out. Now, where cell towers are to be located and what they can look like must comply with the provisions of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the subjective judgments of the ARB. Tellingly, in restoring ARB review, City Council unanimously expressed a preference for a significant setback from homes. This stands in sharp contrast to the twenty-foot rule that existed in the now defunct “objective standards” ordinance. I am writing to urge you to insist that AT&T respect the provisions of our Municipal Code and your own aesthetic judgement, as well as the wishes of our unanimous City Council. In particular, please require AT&T to site its cell towers further from residents’ homes, to locate radios and ancillary equipment underground and to lower the height of the poles. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Schmidt Palo Alto Resident