From: Evan Reade
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Lu, George; Lythcott- Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Robustelli, Sarah; ParkRec Commission Subject: Re: Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:30:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mr. Mayor, Dear City Council Members:
I recently read that the City continues to face a tight budget and that efforts must be made to cut spending in the Capital Improvements Budget.
Accordingly, I am taking
this opportunity to resend to you the letter I sent on May 15.
You can cut
$1 million
immediately by deferring or cancelling construction of a restroom in Eleanor Pardee Park, not to mention the funds you will save on the costs of daily maintenance and cleaning.
Spend our precious tax dollars on projects or organizations that can do the most good for the most people.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
Palo Alto
On Thursday, May 15, 2025, 04:55:35 PM PDT, Evan Reade <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
First, thank you to those of you who have taken the time to speak with me personally since my appearance before the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 25 and the Council on April 7 concerning my opposition to the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park.
I would like to make several additional points
further to those outlined in my letter to the Parks and Rec Commission, copied to you, dated March 31, 2025.
On Monday, May 12, I observed your discussion of the city's proposed budget for FY2026.
The Proposed Capital Budget mentions at pages 250-252 an intent to continue to install one new park restroom per year and notes that Eleanor Pardee Park is next on the list for FY2026.
However, in your discussions it became clear
that given current economic conditions and uncertainties it may well be necessary to cut $6 million (out of a proposed $12 million) from the Capital Improvements Plan in order to protect a needed reserve fund, particularly if the city wishes to continue to adequately fund the critically important work being done by a number of non-profit organizations which receive city dollars to implement programs with direct positive impacts upon various segments of our community.
The slides presented at last Monday's meeting indicated that to realize CIP reductions of 5,10 and 15 percent it would be necessary to evaluate proposed project timing with a priority to delay or defer projects to manage funding availability and project prioritization. The slide also listed factors to be considered in making such determinations.
Might I suggest that the city can save $1 million right off the bat by foregoing construction of a restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park?
Even if one
concedes that this project is in the "nice to do" category (which I do not) rather than in the "must do" category, it is clear that those funds can be better spent on other more pressing and necessary priorities, some of which are ongoing and would be severely impacted if continued funding were to cease.
Spend the money where it
is needed the most.
Consider "luxury" or "nice to have" projects later.
I would also like to know whether the city has complied with or is planning to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") before proceeding with the Eleanor Pardee Park restroom project.
It is my
understanding that CEQA applies to projects requiring discretionary government approval, and this includes construction of new facilities like park restrooms.
The
city's decision to approve the construction of new park restrooms is clearly a discretionary action, as the city has control over the project's location, design, and construction methods.
As I have asserted in my earlier letters, the construction and operation of a new restroom in Eleanor Pardee Park could have potential impacts on the environment in our neighborhood, such as increased traffic, increased waste generation, or changes to the park's and the neighborhood's aesthetics.
If I am
correct in assuming that CEQA applies, then the city must conduct an environmental review process, potentially including an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report, or a Negative Declaration.
Has the city conducted or
initiated such a process with regard to the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park?
And if not, when is the city planning on doing so?
Finally, let me reiterate the points I've made in my earlier letters:
Eleanor Pardee Park has served our community well for 100 years without a restroom.
For those parents who want to take their kids to a park with a restroom, Rinconada Park - with two restrooms and with numerous other city maintained restrooms within close walking distance - is less than half a mile away.
A restroom will change the park from one designed to serve the neighborhood into a regional park.
A restroom will be expensive - perhaps $1 million to design and construct (according to a press report I have read), never mind the ongoing costs required for daily maintenance (estimated in the proposed budget at $9,000 per year).
A restroom could present public safety issues - vandalism, loitering, narcotics transactions - and attract the unhoused.
The process of community outreach to date has been totally inadequate; the "survey" the city did was hopelessly flawed and, to my knowledge (and I live right next to the park) the city has not made any attempt to engage with those of us in the neighborhood who stand to be most directly impacted by the addition of restroom in the park.
Thank you again for your time and willingness to engage with me and to listen to my concerns, which I know are shared by a number of other residents.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
cc: City Manager
Parks and Recreation Commission
Community Services
From: Lauren Angelo
To: Council, City
Cc: Jill Hartnett
Subject: Council Vote 9/8 – Support for JMZ Event Coordinator Position Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 7:30:09 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
We are writing on behalf of the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (Friends) regarding the City staff’s recommendation to the Council Finance Committee to cut the Program Assistant I position at the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). As President of the Friends, and together with Jill Hartnett — a Friends board member and professional events planner with over 25 years of experience — we want to underscore the critical importance of maintaining a full-time, onsite event planner within the JMZ organization. Drawing on Jill’s decades of professional expertise in event planning, as well as the Friends’ commitment to supporting the JMZ, we know that the success of the JMZ events program depends on skilled coordination that strengthens community engagement and operational sustainability.
An onsite event planner is essential to maximizing the JMZ’s limited physical space and operating hours. By ensuring events are thoughtfully designed, efficiently staffed, and aligned with the JMZ mission, this role directly supports the JMZ’s ability to generate revenue while protecting both accessibility and the quality of the visitor experience. Without dedicated onsite oversight, revenue opportunities and the long-term success and reputation of the JMZ’s events program and the institution as a whole are at risk.
Equally important, this position serves as a bridge between staff and customers. Having a consistent, accessible point of contact fosters collaboration across departments and ensures that the families the JMZ serves feel welcomed and supported. This need is especially urgent given the staff report’s recommendation to also eliminate the JMZ’s Community Engagement Specialist — a loss that will further strain the JMZ’s ability to uphold its commitments to equity and accessibility.
In addition to these programmatic benefits, the onsite event planner role pays for itself and is thus a net revenue generator for the City. Even modest event scheduling generates well over $160,000 annually, with greater potential under moderate or aggressive booking models. Incorporating Monday events alone contributes an additional $90,000 in annual revenue.
Sustaining the onsite event planner role is both a strategic and mission-driven choice. It enables the JMZ to grow responsibly, safeguard accessibility, and maintain the high standards of programming and service our community deserves. We respectfully urge the Council to preserve this essential position as a cornerstone of the JMZ’s service and success.
Sincerely,
Lauren Angelo and Jill Hartnett
on behalf of the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo