HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-01 City Council EmailsDOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 12/1/2025
Document dates: 11/24/2025 - 12/1/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:Sonic Mail
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove item 12 from the December 1 2025 Consent Calendar
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:49:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Palo Alto is not the grassroots Community that honored community values.The Peninsula is now Silicon Valley &
own by the corporate rich. The Baylands was jewel of peace & nature. Now it is lost in a destroyed ecosystem. Why,
not askMoffet/ Google for the tarmac to make a Silicon Valley Airport. And by the way, siding with Trump FAA for
the money, is disgraceful. It would be a gift to all if you got the priorities for Palo Alto, not Silicon Corporations.
Susan Juhl
From:Mark Grossman
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for electric cooking
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:46:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This is in response to Item 5 on the Dec 1 City Council consent calendar. I want to
register my support for having the City encourage residents and businesses to avoid
use of fossil (so-called "natural") gas for cooking. Induction cooktops are an
inexpensive addition to any kitchen. The City should:
1) fully disclose the health risks and climate impacts of the use of gas in its mailings
2) promote use of induction cooktops wherever possible.
thank you
Mark Grossman
coordinator, 350 Silicon Valley
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:crosswalks on Stanford Avenue
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:34:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing & Council Members,
I am writing to ask that the department of transportation implement crosswalks to Stanford Avenue given your
authorization. In a staff report from 2004 the PTC agreed that crosswalks are needed at Oberlin and Wellesley
Streets. Yet these were not added.
Now traffic has accelerated greatly on Stanford Avenue. I am a resident of College Terrace and have witnessed
friction on the avenue. Stanford Avenue is a main cut through from Junipero Serra to the El Camino Real. We have
pedestrians crossing the avenue regularly.
The city needs to add more than just the two mentioned above. Right now there are crosswalks at Yale, Bowdoin
Streets and another near Escondido School. It isn’t prudent to have only three on this busy corridor.
We need to keep residents and especially children safe as they cross Stanford Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration of these critically needed crosswalks.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
CMR:486:04 Page 1 of 5
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 CMR: 486:04
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
SELECTED TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN IN THE COLLEGE
TERRACE AREA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the following:
1. Adopt the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H of staff report to the
Planning and Transportation Commission);
2. Direct staff to implement the physical traffic calming devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to Commission) on a trial basis in the College Terrace
area; and,
3. Evaluate and report on the effectiveness of Plan A within one year of completion of its
construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project was initiated in response to a request signed by over 225 College Terrace
residents who raised their concerns regarding cut-through traffic and excessive speeding.
The request was submitted to the City Council on September 27, 1999. Development of the
College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan was funded by the Stanford University General Use
Permit (GUP). Design and implementation of the Plan will be fully funded by the
mitigations fund of 2475 Hanover Street. The Planning and Transportation Commission
requested tha t the subject condition of approval be stated in the staff report to Council. The
approval condition states: “The applicant shall pay the City the sum of $150,000.00 before
commencement of new construction at 2475 Hanover Street to be used by the City to assist
with traffic calming improvements in the College Terrace neighborhood.” This condition of
approval (No. 11.4) was adopted by City Council on February 19, 2002.
7
CMR:486:04 Page 2 of 5
Following a comprehensive process of data collection, traffic analysis, identification of
alternative traffic calming plans and community consultation, the devices shown on Plan A
(Attachment B of staff report to the Commission) were selected and are now recommended
for trial implementation. The selected Plan does not include any additiona l closures and
employs less restrictive physical traffic calming devices namely traffic circles, speed tables
and raised crosswalks as listed below:
- Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A recommends a
speed table west of Wellesley Street and a raised crosswalk just west of Oberlin
Street. The Plan also recommends speed tables west of Amherst Street and
Dartmouth Street.
- College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale
Street, Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street.
- Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale
Street.
- California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with
Wellesley Street, and a speed table west of Princeton Street.
Detailed description of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Project, its background,
performed analysis, developed alternative plans, and costs breakdown of selected alternative
is provided in the staff report to Commission (Attachment B).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended the
trial implementation of this project during the Commission’s meeting held on October 13,
2004. Minutes of the Commission’s meeting are provided under Attachment C.
Commission member Bonnie Packer requested that the staff report to Council note the
following:
- Relevant section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan that illustrates consistency with
the project; and,
- Performance measures to be emp loyed during the project’s trial period that are
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document.
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the application of traffic calming.
Policy T-34 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Implement traffic calming measures to
slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over
congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among
these measures.”
The recommended one -year trial period will be utilized to monitor the project in terms of its
effectiveness and level of community acceptance, as well as in terms of any potential
CMR:486:04 Page 3 of 5
impacts and possible corrective measures. The MND developed for the trial implementation
of this project (detailed in Attachment H of staff report to the Commission) covers
performance measures controlling potential projects’ impacts as summarized below:
· With regard to short-term impacts during project’s construction, the MND identified
mitigations covering truck movements to and from the neighborhood, construction
hours, dust control and other construction specifications.
· Pursuant to the guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the project should not cause deterioration in the operational level of
service of the two signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue/Escondido Road and
Stanford Avenue/Hanover Street during either of the AM or PM peak hours. Should
any significant deterioration is detected, appropriate corrective actions will be taken
that could include improvements in signal timing and phasing plans.
· In compliance with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), the
plan should not cause significant traffic diversion impacts on neighboring streets.
Significant traffic diversion is identified by a 25 percent increase in traffic volume on
local and/or collector streets with “before” counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day
(vpd), and more than 10 percent increase on local streets with a “before” count of
2500 vpd or greater. In the event that monitoring shows substantial traffic
diversions, corrective actions will be taken that could be removing, relocating, or
replacing one or more of the constructed devices.
· The traffic calming plan should not significantly impact response rates of emergency
services. For example, travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the
College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department’s mission goals of 4
minutes for 90 percent of fire and basic medical respons es, and 6 minutes for 90
percent of advanced medical responses (paramedics). Also, establishment of the
recommended traffic calming devices should not increase the demand for police
protection services nor substantially delay response times within the College Terrace
neighborhood. The Police Department has a 3-minute response time goal for
emergency calls. In the event that monitoring shows substantial increases in response
travel times, the necessary changes will be applied that could include removal,
relocation, or replacement of one or more of the traffic calming devices contained in
the Plan.
Additional Crosswalks
The Planning and Transportation Commission also requested that staff investigate the
feasibility of establishing additional pedestrian/school crosswalks across Stanford Avenue,
particularly at Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street. It should be noted that the establishment
of a pedestrian/school crosswalk at an uncontrolled location could give pedestrians a false
sense of security. Transportation staff typically establishes a pedestrian/school crosswalk at
CMR:486:04 Page 4 of 5
stop or signal controlled intersection approach. The establishment of a crosswalk could also
be considered at a physical device (such as a refuge center median, or a speed table)
constructed to increase motorists’ awareness/visibility of pedestrians and improve crossing
safety.
From site observations, Stanford Avenue is an east-west collector roadway bordering the
north side of the College Terrace area. This collector street has two vehicular travel lanes
and bike lanes. Curb-side parking is allowed only on the south side of the roadway. A
pedestrian sidewalk is also provided on the south side only. Pedestrian crosswalks across
Stanford Avenue are established on the easterly and westerly legs of the intersection of
Stanford Avenue/Yale Street, which is controlled by an all-way stop control. Marked school
crossings of Stanford Avenue are provided on the easterly leg of the intersection of
Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue and westerly leg of Hanover Street/Stanford Avenue.
Both of the intersections of Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue and Hanover Street/Stanford
Avenue are signalized. School crosswalks are also painted across Stanford Avenue on the
easterly and westerly legs of its intersection with Bowdoin Street, which is controlled by an
all-way stop control. Each of the intersections of Stanford Avenue/Wellesley Street and
Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue is a four-legged intersection with stop signs only on the two
minor approaches (i.e., only on Wellesley Street and Oberlin Street, respectively).
During staff’s site evaluation, a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic to and from
Escondido Elementary School was observed using the sidewalk on the south side of
Stanford Avenue and crossing at the signalized intersections of Stanford Avenue with
Escondido Road and Hanover Street was noted. Some pedestrians also choose to cross
Stanford Avenue at Yale Street, then travel along the frontage road that runs parallel to
Stanford Avenue within the Stanford campus. This frontage road has two travel lanes with
available side shoulders used for 90 degree angle parking. There is a paved sidewalk
provided along the north side of this frontage road.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that crosswalks
should be marked at intersections where there is a substantial conflict between vehicular and
pedestrian movements. The MUTCD criteria for establishing an all-way stop control and
associated analysis are provided under Attachment A.
It has been concluded from the performed MUTCD analysis that the establishment of an all-
way stop control is not presently warranted at either of the intersections of Stanford
Avenue/Wellesley Street, or Oberlin Street/Stanford Avenue. Consequently, without the
traffic calming plan, it is not recommended to paint pedestrian crosswalks across Stanford
Avenue at these evaluated intersections. The requested crosswalks can only be considered if
physical traffic calming devices are established at the intersections.
CMR:486:04 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Criteria and Analysis of All-Way Stop Control Based on Provisions of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
B. Staff Report to Commission, dated October 13, 2004 (including its attachments A–J).
C. Additional correspondence received from Mr. William D. Ross dated October 13 and
November 1, 2004 (Mr. Ross’s concerns are addressed in the report to Commission and
other attached documents).
Minutes of October 13 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting
PREPARED BY:
HEBA EL-GUENDY
Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:______________________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_______________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Mana ger
cc: Traffic Advisory Committee of the College Terrace Residents’ Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
To:Council, City
Subject:Spark Curiosity: Donate This GivingTuesday!
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:30:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
December 1, 2025
Dear Friends,
As shared in our Annual Report, the generosity of our donors enabled the Friends
to bring hands-on JMZ science education to more than 3,500 children this year—
sparking curiosity, creativity, and a love of learning in young minds across our
community.
GivingTuesday is tomorrow, and we hope you will consider including the Friends in
your year-end giving. Every gift, big or small, helps us continue our mission to
expand access to nature and science education through community engagement
and support of the JMZ. Join the Friends and help ensure that every child can
explore, discover, and experience the joy of science.
DONATE NOW
Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301
US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
From:Victoria A Reich
To:Council, City
Subject:REMOVE ITEM #12 from the December 1, 2025 Consent Calendar.
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:30:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Please REMOVE ITEM #12 from the December 1, 2025 Consent Calendar.
FAA-funded projects prohibit using funds for gender programs, elective abortions, or shielding
undocumented immigrants from deportation. This contradicts Palo Alto's September 29, 2025 resolution to
join the lawsuit against these Trump Administration grant conditions
City staff confirm contracts can be extended beyond December 31, 2025—there's no rush.
Victoria Reich
1144 Greenwood Ave
Palo Alto
From:Sonic Mail
To:Council, City
Subject:REMOVE ITEM #12 from the December 1, 2025 Consent Calendar.
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:14:40 AM
Request real transparency, meaningful community engagement, data-supported answers, and rejection of the new
FAA grant restrictions. Staff has confirmed that contracts can be extended beyond December 31, 2025—there’s no
rush.
August Dan Juhl
757 Oregon Ave, Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Crosswalks in College Terrace
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:12:17 AM
Attachments:WebPage.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2004/11-
november/3967.pdf
From:Navaz Ahmed
To:Council, City; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; mayorandcouncil@santaclaraca.gov; city.council@mountainview.gov;
mayor@sunnyvale.ca.gov; piu@doj.ca.gov; dlse2@dir.ca.gov; governor@gov.ca.gov; sundar@google.com;
press@fb.com; tcook@apple.com; elonmuskoffice@tesla.com; linkedin_ceo@linkedin.com; ceo@intel.com;
ceo@cisco.com; whistleblower@sec.gov; info@eeoc.gov; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov; tips@fbi.gov; Navaz Ahmed;
Shaheda Begum Shaik; Shaik AFROZ; fahamedshaik89@gmail.com
Subject:Request for Investigation — Alleged Coercion, Forced Separation, Extortion & RSU Violations Involving Broadcom
(NASDAQ: AVGO)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:20:30 AM
Attachments:DOC-20251117-WA0009..pdf
DOC-20251117-WA0008..pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To all concerned officials, leaders, and agencies,
I am writing this email because Broadcom — headquartered in Palo Alto, California — has
engaged in actions that appear to constitute corporate extortion, payroll manipulation,
retaliation, and financial abuse.
This is not a simple HR dispute.
This is a multi-stage pattern of misconduct that includes:
• Issuing an ILLEGAL negative Full & Final (F&F) settlement of –₹14,76,055 (–$17,700) on
18 January 2024.
• Forcing me into a Mutual Separation Agreement (MSA) under duress.
• And most disturbing: AFTER 20 MONTHS, Broadcom AGAIN demanded the same money,
reopening a closed payroll period and attempting to collect an impossible, unlawful “debt.”
No company accidentally demands illegal recovery twice — 20 months apart.
This is intentional. This is targeted. This is retaliation.
Broadcom used payroll, tax systems, and RSU accounting as WEAPONS against an employee
who was already mentally distressed. This is coercion, intimidation, and extortion under any
reasonable interpretation of law.
I am requesting:
1. Immediate review of this complaint.
2. Forwarding to appropriate enforcement or oversight bodies.
3. Examination of Broadcom’s payroll, RSU tax handling, and negative F&F practices.
4. Protection as an international whistleblower.
5. Guidance on formal investigation channels for corporate misconduct originating from a
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Respected Deputy Commissioner and Authorities,
I, Shaik Navaz Ahmed, S/o Kaleeha, currently residing at Door No. 7-1-880, Isukadonka,
Ranganayakula Peta, Nellore – 524001, submit this formal complaint and urgent request
for immediate action under relevant labour and criminal laws.
Currently staying at My home Town Nellore with my 4 small kids and old mother who is
not well since many years. With my family.due could not be able afford school fees, pay
rent, daily groceries for my kids, un bearable loan agents from bank.
Current AddressAddress door number 7 1 880Isukadonka Ranganayakula pet Nellore
524001
1. Brief:
I worked as R&D Engineer III with Broadcom., Hyderabad (subsidiary of Broadcom Inc.,
USA) from 28 August 2017 to 18 January 2024. I submit that during my employment and
after separation I was subjected to sustained workplace harassment, coercion to sign a
Mutual Separation Agreement (MSA) under threat of termination, extortionate demands
of ₹14,76,055 via negative Full & Final settlement even after job loss of 20 months,
repeated intimidation, retaliation for ethics/whistleblower complaints, denial of dues and
RSUs, and severe mental trauma. I have collected and preserved 472+ pieces of evidence
(emails, chats, audio recordings, WebEx recordings, payroll statements, medical
certificates). I am attaching the list of evidence and a link to the Google Drive evidence
folder.
2. Reliefs sought (summary):
a) Immediate direction to summon Broadcom. and all named officials (see Annexure:
Accused list) and initiate an independent, government-supervised investigation into
labour violations and criminal offences.
b) Registration of appropriate criminal cases / FIR and coordination with local police &
Cyber Crime for authentication of digital evidence and cyber-forensics.
c) Interim protective orders to prevent further harassment or retaliation against me and
my witnesses.
d) Immediate relief in respect of wages / unpaid dues / RSUs (direction to preserve funds
and records), and urgent administrative steps to ensure non-disposal of company record.
Compensation:₹20 Crores (INR) or equivalent compensation for severe harassment,
defamation, mental trauma, unlawful retaliation, and damages suffered. Company has
made a huge loss of more than 50 crores to me by not giving promotion and shares as part
of retaliation.
Reinstatement:Immediate reinstatement to my employment at Broadcom (or an
equivalent role/level) with full back pay, benefits, RSUs, and arrears, if reinstatement is
feasible.
e) Any further relief the office deems fit in the interest of justice.
3. Accused / Entities to be Summoned & Investigated:
(Full names, designations, communications and addresses in Annexure) — includes
Broadcom India Pvt Ltd; Mr Hock Tan (Broadcom Inc. CEO); Avinash Garg; Babu B N;
Jiju George; Soujanya Pilla; Daeun Lee; Poh Suan Tong; John O’Brien; Clayton Donley;
Broadcom Payroll Team India; JSA Law Firm (Sandeep Mehta and associates).
(Complete list in Annexure A — please serve summons to the registered corporate office
in Hyderabad and Broadcom HQ in the USA.)
4. Jurisdiction & Basis:
This complaint falls within the jurisdiction of Nellore because many communications
were received while I resided in Nellore and because the harassment and threatening
communications affected my life here.
Legal grounds invoked include labour law statutes (Industrial Disputes Act, Standing
Orders), whistleblower protection principles, relevant sections of IPC (extortion,
intimidation, cheating — see Annexure B for exact sections requested), IT Act and other
applicable civil and criminal provisions. (Detailed legal grounds in Annexure B.)
5. Important facts (highlights, evidence ready to be produced):
I was forced/coerced to sign an MSA under threat of termination — MSA is voidable for
coercion/undue influence.
Broadcom later produced a negative Full & Final settlement demanding ₹14,76,055;
repeated demands and threats were made to collect this amount.
I lodged 5+ ethics & compliance complaints internally; US team took remote interviews
but no fair local investigation or remedial steps were taken.
My email accounts and internal Broadcom channels were blocked after I sent multiple
legal notices — I have screenshots and delivery receipts showing blocked/bounced
messages. (Proof in Annexure C.)
My RSUs were withheld; promotions denied despite awards and satisfactory
performance; arbitration meeting cancelled without notice.
Witness available: Mr Rameez (Content Technical Writer, formerly Broadcom India) —
mobile +91 96647 32346. He will cooperate and produce relevant emails.
Google Drive link to evidence: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C3zkfY-
mNXkFHO9mqN8uTFSaNKu52fV3?usp=drive_link (credentials and access details to be
shared with investigating officer on request).
6. Request for Criminal Investigation & FIR:
Given the nature of offences (coercion, criminal intimidation, extortion, obstruction of
grievance redressal, harassment), I request the labour office to:
a) Direct the local police to register an FIR under appropriate IPC sections and cooperate
with the labour enquiry.
b) Request Cyber Crime to immediately preserve and examine digital logs, email server
records, WebEx recordings and payroll communications.
c) Summon the accused individuals for statements and produce documents / payroll /
emails / WebEx recordings related to my employment and separation.
7. Administrative & Interim Reliefs:
a) Direct Broadcom (India) to provide immediate statement on RSU holdback and , and
preserve all documents.
b) Issue notice to Broadcom for urgent production of payroll records, emails, HR case
files, arbitration/correspondence records and any internal investigation documents.
c) Issue interim direction preventing Broadcom from transferring / deleting records or
RSUs related to my employment until the conclusion of the enquiry.
d) Provide me with immediate protective measures and inform me about available
grievance redressal and compensation processes.
Company Notification & Internal Escalations
Company CEO has been notified with audio and vedio recordings of the performance of
work and harrasment situation explanation numerous times but no response or
acknowledgement from him when two years back this incident I have reported it whole
was working
Raised multiple ethcics and compliance complaints nearly 5 plus but US TEAM has
taken the complaint and interviewed me where the case is belongs to hyderabad office
and but no justice.
Managers and senior managers have been notified many times via emails chats instead of
supporting me they taken revenge and Retaliation. Uses many bad words on me. Daily
coming to my seat and threatening me
Witness
6. Witness. I have witness ready who can come and support for the investigation.
Name: Mr RameezMobile: +91 96647 32346Designation: Content Technical Writer
(Formerly Broadcom India Pvt Ltd)Current Location: Hyderabad, Telangana
Statement: Mr Rameez worked on the same floor as me and personally witnessed the
harassment I faced. He accompanied me to Broadcom’s in-house doctor during incidents
of stress and illness. He too was subjected to managerial politics and left Broadcom one
month after my exit. He is willing to cooperate fully and produce relevant emails
evidencing the toxic environment.
Broadcom Office Addresses
Below is the Broadcom office address
Address:Survey No. 115/1, 115/16, 115/21, Building No. 2,Nanakramguda Village,
Serilingampally Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500032, Telangana, India.
United States (Corporate Headquarters)Address:3421 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto,
California 94304, United States.
Accused Persons / Teams to be Investigated
Category — Name / Designation — Official Emails (for police)
1 Company & CEO — Broadcom India Pvt Ltd / Mr Hock Tan (CEO Broadcom Inc.,
USA) — [hock.tan@broadcom.com]2 Managers — Avinash Garg, Babu B N —
[avinash.garg@broadcom.com, babu.bn@broadcom.com]3 HR Team — Jiju George,
Soujanya Pilla — [jiju.george@broadcom.com, soujanya.pilla@broadcom.com]4 Ethics
& Compliance — Daeun Lee, Poh Suan Tong, John O’Brien —
[daeun.lee@broadcom.com, poh-suan.tong@broadcom.com,
john.obrien@broadcom.com, ethics@broadcom.com]5 Payroll — Broadcom Payroll
Team India — [payroll@broadcom.com (if applicable)]6 VP / Manager of Managers —
Clayton Donley, John O’Brien — [clayton.donley@broadcom.com]7 External Legal
Counsel — JSA Law Firm – Mr Sandeep Mehta (Partner) —
[sandeep.mehta@jsalaw.com] Thomas • varghese.thomas@jsalaw.com
maneesh.upadhyay@jsalaw.com
Broadcom Management and Law Firm Contact Details
1. Avinash Garg current ManagerMobile: +91 98186 42207
2. John O’BrienHead of Engineering, IMS DivisionBroadcom SoftwareOffice: +1
917 881 7157
3. Babu B N manager previousOffice: +91 40 6687 8764Mobile: +91 98494
22984Address: 115, IT Park Area, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad
4. Sandeep MehtaPartner – JSA LawDirect: +91 22 4341 8902Mobile: +91 98200
31158Board Line: +91 22 4341 8600Email: sandeep.mehta@jsalaw.com
5. Poh Suan payroll team BroadcomPhone: +65 6215 4587
6. Avinash Garg current ManagerMobile: +91 98186 42207
7. John O’BrienHead of Engineering, IMS DivisionBroadcom SoftwareOffice: +1
917 881 7157
8. Babu B N manager previousOffice: +91 40 6687 8764Mobile: +91 98494
22984Address: 115, IT Park Area, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad
9. Sandeep MehtaPartner – JSA LawDirect: +91 22 4341 8902Mobile: +91 98200
31158Board Line: +91 22 4341 8600Email: sandeep.mehta@jsalaw.com
10. Poh Suan payroll team BroadcomPhone: +65 6215 4587
I, Shaik Navaz Ahmed, was employed with Broadcom I. and performed my duties
diligently and in compliance with all company policies. During my tenure, I experienced
repeated instances of workplace harassment, unethical managerial behavior, and
retaliatory actions that severely affected my mental and physical [health.at] Broadcom
India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, serving as R&D Engineer 3 on Broadcom-related projects
name SOI ON one project since then with the same team almost 6 managers got changed
since then and huge team was reduced to 3 hcl contractors plus I am alone one resource
along with one Architect since joined August 28th 2017 to January 18th 2024.
After escalating the issue internally, I faced unjust treatment and termination without due
process, in violation of Indian labor laws and the company’s own ethical standards.
2. Chronology of Events
3. Initial Harassment and Health Impact:During my employment, I was subjected to
repeated harassment by my reporting managers. The environment became so toxic
that I was forced to take a two-month health leave due to stress and anxiety. They
used say " are you an engineer", " you are on radar" " you are on red list" " you
ship will sink soon" "you will be terminated soon" on daily basis coming to my
seat. Same manager later who has been a manager since so many years since I
was escalated to Broadcom HR etchis compliance Vp leader ship and CEO with
so many emails sent and then they changed him to IC role invidual role but they
have punished me since then by giving un unrealistic no targets.
4. Post-Leave Retaliation:Upon returning, I was called into a meeting by Manager
(Avinash) and assigned unrealistic targets despite my medical condition. The HR
response was dismissive and pressurizing instead of providing reasonable
accommodation. Medical Leave Due to health complications arising from this
harassment, I took two months of medical leave. Upon returning, my new
manager given direct written rank 3 and kept in PIp and said that you will be
terminated if youbdont perform well or due to the objectionable behaviour which
which here I am a victim and asking for justice since one year before my exit I
have numerous complaints emails with evidances inspite of that an di have got
award above and beyond award from the same manager and same team was
working well with me since injoined all existing mangers were very happy with
me and achieved so many milestones in Broadcom success and delivered many
releases to Broadcom clients successfully. Sent with WebEx recording of my
work about harrasment by showing the rally and workday system to CEO multiple
emails and raised 4 plus ethocs and compliance cases but they just said they have
conducted interviews multiple an dall or unfounded.
5. Escalation Attempts Ignored:I sent multiple emails to Broadcom HR,
management, and the CEO, describing the workplace harassment and unfair
treatment. No acknowledgment or formal investigation report was shared with
me. All my meeting invites to HR etchis compliance managers meeting invites
declined I begged them to give me time of one hour to prove my self with
evidence and all of them declined I even had to take company provided
counseling service due to the anxiety and .y manager did not allowed me to sit on
non AC conf room or area instead he forced me to sit at designated area only.
Each everything's recorded in email conversation which is attached in drive.
6. Legal Firm Response (JSA Law):Only after public awareness campaigns on social
media did JSA Law, Broadcom’s external legal counsel, respond. Their statement
claimed that an internal audit was conducted and that my allegations were
“unfounded” but no report or proof of such an investigation was ever shared.
7. Public Awareness and Justice Campaign:I started the
#BroadcomJusticeCampaign, posting daily updates on X (Twitter) to bring
visibility to my case (e.g., “Day 649 of Waiting for Justice”). Despite continued
efforts, there has been no resolution, acknowledgement, or fair hearing.
3. Legal Grounds and Violations
4. Violation of Indian Labour and Employment Laws:The company’s actions
constitute a breach under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,
and the Shops and Establishments Act (Telangana). Termination without cause or
due process is unlawful dismissal under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
5. Workplace Harassment and Mental Health Discrimination:The behavior of HR
and management violates the POSH Act (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at
Workplace Act, 2013) and broader protections against workplace bullying. The
company failed to provide a safe and non-hostile work environment, as mandated
under Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity) of the Indian Constitution.
6. Retaliation Against Whistleblowing and Grievances:My internal complaints were
ignored, and retaliation followed immediately after raising concerns, violating the
Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014.
7. Negligence of Duty by Legal Representatives:JSA Law Firm, acting on behalf of
Broadcom, made misleading statements without disclosing investigation reports,
which is unethical and obstructive to justice under professional legal conduct
standards.
I sent three legal notices one after the other by giving two weeks even followed by a final
notice with legal format saying inspite of this they have blocked my email addresses
which was working since last 20 months and even I tried to send multiple accounts they
blocked I had to send with new email address of mine, wifes and mother and son
accounts but no response no acknowledgement even I mention and given time if no
acknowledgement then I will assume I will have to for media and global authorities even
after this no response after escalated to global authorities then a JSA LAW FIRM HAD
sent an email from Broadcom
This issue has been escalated to gloabal authorities INDIA USA AND international.
Broadcom has given me awards but no promotion as a Retaliation.
This is likely the first case of its kind where, in a rush to suppress the issue, Broadcom
removed me without granting my rightful RSUs (Restricted Stock Units), withheld my
promotions, and terminated me instead of addressing the real cause — managerial
misconduct.
Ironically, the manager responsible for harassment was not held accountable. He has
merely been moved from a managerial role (after many years) to an individual
contributor position, while I — the victim — was punished with termination and
complete professional loss.
Unprecedented Negative Full & Final Settlement
In a completely unethical and unprecedented act, Broadcom issued a negative Full &
Final Settlement (FFS) of ₹14,70,000 against me — even after 20 months of my job loss.
Instead of compensating me for my years of dedicated service, RSUs, and promotions, I
was wrongfully shown as owing money to the company. This may be the first case in the
world where an employee was penalized with a negative FFS after contributing nearly
seven years of successful work that directly supported Broadcom’s business growth. Such
an action is not just retaliatory — it is financially coercive, unethical, and damaging to an
individual’s dignity and career.
Unfair Retaliation and Misuse of Power
This is likely the first corporate case where, instead of punishing the harassing manager,
Broadcom removed the victim in haste — denying me RSUs, promotions, and rightful
dues, while allowing the manager (with many years of tenure) to remain, merely demoted
to an individual contributor role. The manager retained employment — but I was
terminated and defamed, despite being one of the employees who contributed to
Broadcom’s success and stability.
List of Violations & Applicable Laws (as stated)
Failure to Provide a Safe and Respectful WorkplaceLaw / Framework: Constitution of
India, Article 21 – Right to life and dignity ILO Convention C190 – Violence and
HarassmentViolation: The company failed to ensure a safe, harassment-free workplace
and did not conduct a transparent internal inquiry upon receiving complaints.
Retaliation and Wrongful TerminationLaw / Framework: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Shops and Establishments Act (state-specific) ILO Convention C158 – Termination of
EmploymentViolation: Termination following the reporting of harassment and
compliance concerns constitutes retaliation and unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. No due process or opportunity to be heard was provided
before dismissal.
Obstruction of Communication and Grievance RedressalLaw / Framework: IT Act, 2000
– Sections 66 & 72 (Unauthorised blocking or interference) Companies Act, 2013 –
Section 177 (Whistleblower protection and ethics compliance)Violation: Blocking of four
official email accounts and internal communication channels prevented lawful grievance
reporting and directly violated whistleblower and employee protection norms.
Failure to Acknowledge and Investigate Formal NoticesLaw / Framework: POSH Act,
2013 (Sections 9–11) Companies Act, 2013 (Sections 134 & 166 – Director
duties)Violation: Multiple legal notices sent by me were ignored and left
unacknowledged. This violates the statutory obligation of the employer to investigate and
respond to formal complaints and legal representations.
Denial of Natural Justice and Due ProcessLaw / Framework: Principles of Natural Justice
– “Audi alteram partem” (Right to be heard) Constitution of India, Articles 14 &
21Violation: Actions were taken against me without an opportunity to be heard or to
present my defense. This breaches procedural fairness and fundamental rights under the
Indian Constitution.
Violation of Mental Health and Dignity at WorkLaw / Framework: Mental Healthcare
Act, 2017 Constitutional Right to Life with Dignity (Article 21)Violation: Sustained
harassment, retaliation, and isolation caused severe emotional distress and trauma,
violating my right to mental well-being and dignity at work.
Breach of International Human Rights and Labour StandardsLaw / Framework: Universal
Declaration of Human Rights – Articles 23 & 25 ILO Conventions (C111, C158, C190)
OECD Guidelines for Multinational EnterprisesViolation: Blocking communication,
ignoring complaints, and retaliating for lawful disclosures violate globally recognized
employee and human rights principles applicable to multinational corporations like
Broadcom.
Lack of Transparency and Corporate AccountabilityLaw / Framework: Companies Act,
2013 – Section 134(5)(f) (responsibility of directors for internal controls) Corporate
Ethics and Governance GuidelinesViolation: Failure to ensure ethical compliance,
internal investigation, and transparent communication violates corporate governance
standards expected of multinational organizations.
Summary Statement
In summary:These cumulative actions represent serious violations of employment law,
workplace ethics, and human rights under Indian, international, and corporate governance
frameworks. Despite my multiple notices and final warnings, no corrective or transparent
measures have been taken, compelling me to seek justice through lawful public and
regulatory channels.
Additional incident's
Manager did not responded for 8 days even after hr and ethics team could not do anything
after the escalation when he was sitting next to me. Etchis and compliance and hr team.di
mo responded to the email when I was working fornbradcom
Forcefully Termination with letter or mutual seperation harrasment. I have both letters as
evidnace
When I requested ethcics and complainace thatbshall I share the evidances they did not
responded.
Medical Leave & Harassment (verbatim points)
1. “Due to psychological stress and hostile work environment, I had to take two
months of medical leave, which was approved by Broadcom management.
2. Cancelled Arbitration“A meeting scheduled with a third-party arbitrator was
cancelled without valid reason, denying me a fair hearing.
3. Ballot Feedback Request Ignored“I formally requested a ballot-based feedback
process for fairness and impartial evaluation — involving the Ethics Team,
Compliance Office, and CEO — but this was never conducted.”
4. Ethics & CEO Non-Response“Even after escalating five or more cases and
sending multiple emails, the Ethics, Compliance, HR, Directors, VP Team, and
CEO failed to provide justice
5. Retaliatory HR & Payroll Actions“My F&F settlement was reduced from negative
to zero only after 20 months and after my multiple escalations. Still Broadcom
payroll was asking to pay back the negative instead of compensating . Fn F not
settled until 20 months since they have removed me.
6. RSUs Withheld“RSUs withheld without legal justification.”
7. No Promotion Despite Award“Continuous harassment, lack of promotion despite
receiving an ‘Above and Beyond’ award.”
8. Vote of Confidence Ignored“Request for a vote of confidence and fair feedback
process ignored.”
9. Unfair Targets & Bias“Unfair targets and biased evaluation by those involved in
the ethical conflict.”
10. Manager Role Conflict“New manager appointed and existing manager became IC
role.”Indicates conflict of interest in investigation oversight
B. Denial of Fair Hearing & Arbitration
4. Cancelled Arbitration Meeting — A scheduled third-party arbitration session was
cancelled without valid reason, depriving you of fair hearing and resolution.
5. Denied Voice in Meetings — Your repeated requests for meetings with HR, your
manager, director, or higher officials were ignored or declined.
6. No Ballot-Based Feedback Process — Your formal written request for a fair and
impartial “ballot-based feedback process” involving Ethics, Compliance, and
CEO was ignored.
7. No Vote of Confidence Conducted — Your request for a vote of confidence on
management behavior and fairness was disregarded.
C. Ethics & Escalation Failures
8. Multiple Escalations Ignored — Over five written escalations were made to Ethics,
HR, Compliance, Directors, VPs, and CEO with no response.
9. Non-Response from Global Ethics & CEO — Emails to Broadcom’s U.S. Ethics
and Compliance teams were ignored.
10. Remote Investigation by U.S. Employees — The internal investigation interviews
were conducted by U.S.-based employees remotely, without jurisdiction in India.
11. Lack of Transparency in Internal Probe — The internal investigation’s findings
were never disclosed to you and were conducted without independent oversight.
D. Payroll, Settlement & Retaliation
12. Negative Full & Final (F&F) Settlement — Broadcom initially showed a negative
balance in your F&F settlement, asking you to “repay” the company.
13. Retaliatory Payroll Demands — After escalation, you received multiple harassing
emails from payroll demanding repayment.
14. Delayed F&F Closure — Your F&F settlement took 20 months to finalize, and
only after multiple escalations it was adjusted from negative to ₹0 — but still
unpaid.
15. RSUs Withheld — Your Restricted Stock Units were withheld without legal
justification or explanation.
16. Unrealistic Targets — You were assigned biased and unrealistic performance
goals.
17. Unfair Performance Review — Evaluation handled by conflicted or ethically-
involved individuals.
E. Employment Discrimination & Career Impact
18. No Promotion Despite “Above & Beyond” Award — Despite receiving formal
recognition for performance, you were denied a promotion.
19. Continuous Harassment — Daily hostile behavior from managers continued post-
award.
20. Managerial Conflict of Interest — A new manager was appointed while your
existing manager was demoted to an IC (Individual Contributor) role, creating
conflict and instability.
21. Project Discrimination — You were isolated in project work while others
(contractors and Broadcom employees) were favored.
22. Audit Suppression — Third-party audit requests and verifications were not
honored.
F. Retaliation for Whistleblowing
23. Retaliation After Ethical Complaints — Actions such as F&F harassment, RSU
denial, and ignored promotions happened after you raised ethics concerns.
24. Suppression of Communication — Your official Broadcom communication
channels were blocked or restricted after escalation.
25. Silence from Broadcom Legal — Despite multiple legal notices (including final
notice), Broadcom and its counsel (JSA Law Firm) remained unresponsive or
evasive.
26. Legal Threats Post Escalation — After you indicated plans to approach global
authorities and media, JSA Law began direct communication.
27. Violation of Whistleblower Protection — Your whistleblower disclosures were
ignored, constituting retaliation under Indian and international laws.
G. Evidence & Legal Action
28. 472 Evidence Documents Submitted — You compiled and submitted a verified
dossier to:• Ministry of Labour (India)• CPGRAMS (Government grievance portal)•
EEOC (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)• UNHRC (United Nations
Human Rights Council)
29. Legal Notices Sent — Multiple legal notices, including final notice, were sent to
Broadcom and its counsel with no resolution.
30. Open for Amicable Settlement — You remain open to resolution through judicial
mediation or neutral authority.
Complainant Details
Complainant:Name: Shaik Navaz AhmedMobile: +91 9916699149, 9885127321,
8008558149Email: navazshaik89@gmail.comAddress: Plot No. 67, Street No. 5, Al
Hasnath Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad – 500008, Telangana, India
Respondent
Respondent:Company Name: Broadcom India Private LimitedAddress: Broadcom India
Pvt. Ltd., Broadcom India Pvt Ltd (Subsidiary of Broadcom Inc., USA) 115, ISB Rd,
Financial District, Nanakramguda, Telangana 500032 Hyderabad, Telangana,
IndiaRepresentatives: Soujanya (HR), Jiju Reporting Manager (Babu BN earlier changed
to new manager Avinash Garg after the escalation), Legal Counsel (JSA Law Firm)
H. Key Legal Violations (Based on Facts Above)
1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Unfair labour practice, victimization, and non-
payment of dues.
2. Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 – Retaliation for raising ethical misconduct.
3. Code on Wages, 2019 – Non-settlement of wages within statutory period.
4. Mental Harassment & Workplace Stress – Violation under Indian labour law &
IPC §503/504 (criminal intimidation/harassment).
5. Title VII, Civil Rights Act (U.S.) – If cross-border retaliation affected you via
U.S. compliance teams.
6. ILO Convention C158, UNHRC Article 23, OECD Guidelines – International
human rights and fair labor standards violated.
Declaration
I, Shaik Navaz Ahmed, hereby declare that all information provided in this complaint is
true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and supported by factual evidence. I am
filing this complaint to seek justice and to prevent further mistreatment of employees in
similar circumstances.
Date: 17 Nov 2025Place: Nellore, APSignature: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Warm Regards,Shaik Navaz AhmedNellore, Andhra PradeshMobile: 99166 99149,
9885127321, 8008558149Email: navazshaik89@gmail.com
To
The Superintendent of Police
Nellore District Police Headquarters
Andhra Pradesh
Subject:
Request to Register FIR Against Broadcom and Named Officials for Harassment, Coercion,
Extortion, Criminal Intimidation, Cheating, and Related Offences under IPC § 385, § 420, § 503,
§ 506, § 507, § 509, and Other Applicable Laws
Complainant
Name: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Father’s Name: S/o Kaleeha
Current Address: Door No. 7-1-880, Isukadonka, Ranganayakula Peta, Nellore – 524001,
Andhra Pradesh
Mobile: 99166 99149 / 98851 27321 / 80085 58149
Email: navazshaik89@gmail.com
1. Background
2. I was employed as R&D Engineer III with Broadcom India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, a
subsidiary of Broadcom Inc., USA.
3. In January 2024, under direct threat of termination, I was forced to sign a Mutual
Separation Agreement (MSA). The alternative presented to me was a termination letter
that would destroy my career. The MSA was thus executed under coercion and undue
influence, making it voidable under Sections 15, 16 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act
1872. I worked here for nearly 6.5 years and for same project and with the same team. It
had huge impact on my mental health and I have my family with 4 small kids and my old
mother has not well since many years.
4. After separation of 20 Months, Broadcom and its representatives began demanding ₹
14,76,055, claiming a “negative Full & Final (F&F)” amount — despite the settlement
being complete 20 months back and I have escalated it at that time. Such actions amount
to criminal intimidation, extortion, and coercion. I feel unsafe , vulnerable and threatened
now.
5. Post-Separation Harassment & Extortion
6. I have received multiple communications demanding payment of ₹ 14.7 lakhs,
unparliamentary words have been used on me daily basis
7. These acts constitute offences under:
Important facts (highlights, evidence ready to be produced):
I was forced/coerced to sign an MSA under threat of termination — MSA is voidable for
coercion/undue influence.
Broadcom later produced a negative Full & Final settlement demanding ₹14,76,055; repeated
demands and threats were made to collect this amount.
I lodged 5+ ethics & compliance complaints internally; US team took remote interviews but no
fair local investigation or remedial steps were taken.
My email accounts and internal Broadcom channels were blocked after I sent multiple legal
notices — I have screenshots and delivery receipts showing blocked/bounced messages. (Proof
in Annexure C.)
My RSUs were withheld; promotions denied despite awards and satisfactory performance;
arbitration meeting cancelled without notice.
Witness available: Mr Rameez (Content Technical Writer, formerly Broadcom India) — mobile
+91 96647 32346. He will cooperate and produce relevant emails.
Google Drive link to evidence: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1C3zkfY-
mNXkFHO9mqN8uTFSaNKu52fV3?usp=drive_link (credentials and access details to be shared
with investigating officer on request).
Company Notification & Internal Escalations
Company CEO has been notified with audio and vedio recordings of the performance of work
and harrasment situation explanation numerous times but no response or acknowledgement from
him when two years back this incident I have reported it whole was working
Raised multiple ethcics and compliance complaints nearly 5 plus but US TEAM has taken the
complaint and interviewed me where the case is belongs to hyderabad office and but no justice.
Managers and senior managers have been notified many times via emails chats instead of
supporting me they taken revenge and Retaliation. Uses many bad words on me. Daily coming to
my seat and threatening me
IPC Section Description
§ 385 Extortion – putting a person in fear of injury to obtain property
§ 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
§ 503–506–507 Criminal intimidation & threats by electronic means
§ 509 Insulting the modesty/dignity of a person
3. Workplace Harassment & Retaliation
4. Hostile Environment: Continuous harassment and bias from my manager and HR.
5. Medical Leave & Retaliation: I took two months’ medical leave due to psychological
distress; on return, I was assigned unrealistic targets.
6. Arbitration Cancelled: The arbitration meeting scheduled for fair hearing was cancelled
without cause.
7. Ignored Escalations: My repeated emails to HR, Ethics, CEO, and Global Compliance
were unanswered.
8. Unprecedented Negative F&F: Instead of settlement, Broadcom illegally demanded ₹
14.7 lakhs.
9. RSUs Withheld: My restricted stock units were unlawfully withheld.
10. Denial of Promotion: Despite receiving an “Above and Beyond” award, promotion was
denied.
11. Managerial Misconduct: Managers involved in the conflict were retained; I was removed.
12. Misuse of Power & Corporate Retaliation
The company failed to act against the responsible manager and instead removed me, withheld
RSUs, denied dues, and attempted to coerce me financially. This is clear retaliation for
whistleblowing and ethical escalation.
5. Accused Persons / Teams to be Investigated
Category Name / Designation Official Emails
(for police)
1 Company & CEO Broadcom India Pvt Ltd / Mr Hock Tan (CEO Broadcom Inc., USA)
[hock.tan@broadcom.com]
2 Managers Avinash Garg, Babu B N [avinash.garg@broadcom.com, babu.bn@broadcom.com]
3 HR Team Jiju George, Soujanya Pilla [jiju.george@broadcom.com,
soujanya.pilla@broadcom.com]
4 Ethics & Compliance Daeun Lee, Poh Suan Tong, John O’Brien [daeun.lee@broadcom.com,
poh-suan.tong@broadcom.com, john.obrien@broadcom.com, ethics@broadcom.com]
5 Payroll Broadcom Payroll Team India [payroll@broadcom.com (if applicable)]
6 VP / Manager of Managers Clayton Donley, John O’Brien [clayton.donley@broadcom.com]
7 External Legal Counsel JSA Law Firm – Mr Sandeep Mehta (Partner)
[sandeep.mehta@jsalaw.com]
Thomas • varghese.thomas@jsalaw.com
maneesh.upadhyay@jsalaw.com
Below are broadcom management and law firm contact details
1. Avinash Garg current Manager
Mobile: +91 98186 42207
2. John O’Brien
Head of Engineering, IMS Division
Broadcom Software
Office: +1 917 881 7157
3. Babu B N manager previous
Office: +91 40 6687 8764
Mobile: +91 98494 22984
Address: 115, IT Park Area, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad
4. Sandeep Mehta
Partner – JSA Law
Direct: +91 22 4341 8902
Mobile: +91 98200 31158
Board Line: +91 22 4341 8600
Email: sandeep.mehta@jsalaw.com
5. Poh Suan payroll team Broadcom
Phone: +65 6215 4587
Company CEO has been notified with audio and vedio recordings of the performance of work
and harrasment situation explanation numerous times but no response or acknowledgement from
him when two years back this incident I have reported it whole inwas workin g
Raised multiple ethcics and compliance complaints nearly 5 plus but US TEAM has taken the
complaint and interviewed me where the case is belongs to hyderabad office and but no justice.
Managers and senior managers have been notified many times via emails chats instead of
supporting me they taken revenge and Retaliation. Uses many bad words on me. Daily coming to
my seat and threatening me
6. Witness
Name: Mr Rameez
Mobile: +91 96647 32346
Designation: Content Technical Writer (Formerly Broadcom India Pvt Ltd)
Current Location: Hyderabad, Telangana
Statement: Mr Rameez worked on the same floor as me and personally witnessed the harassment
I faced. He accompanied me to Broadcom’s in-house doctor during incidents of stress and
illness. He too was subjected to managerial politics and left Broadcom one month after my exit.
He is willing to cooperate fully and produce relevant emails evidencing the toxic environment.
I, Shaik Navaz Ahmed, was employed with Broadcom I. and performed my duties diligently and
in compliance with all company policies. During my tenure, I experienced repeated instances of
workplace harassment, unethical managerial behavior, and retaliatory actions that severely
affected my mental and physical [health.at] Broadcom India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, serving as
R&D Engineer 3 on Broadcom-related projects name SOI ON one project since then with the
same team almost 6 managers got changed since then and huge team was reduced to 3 hcl
contractors plus I am alone one resource along with one Architect since joined August 28th 2017
to January 18th 2024.
After escalating the issue internally, I faced unjust treatment and termination without due
process, in violation of Indian labor laws and the company’s own ethical standards.
2. Chronology of Events
3. Initial Harassment and Health Impact:During my employment, I was subjected to
repeated harassment by my reporting managers. The environment became so toxic that I
was forced to take a two-month health leave due to stress and anxiety. They used say "
are you an engineer", " you are on radar" " you are on red list" " you ship will sink soon"
"you will be terminated soon" on daily basis coming to my seat. Same manager later who
has been a manager since so many years since I was escalated to Broadcom HR etchis
compliance Vp leader ship and CEO with so many emails sent and then they changed
him to IC role invidual role but they have punished me since then by giving un unrealistic
no targets.
4. Post-Leave Retaliation:Upon returning, I was called into a meeting by Manager
(Avinash) and assigned unrealistic targets despite my medical condition. The HR
response was dismissive and pressurizing instead of providing reasonable
accommodation. Medical Leave Due to health complications arising from this
harassment, I took two months of medical leave. Upon returning, my new manager given
direct written rank 3 and kept in PIp and said that you will be terminated if youbdont
perform well or due to the objectionable behaviour which which here I am a victim and
asking for justice since one year before my exit I have numerous complaints emails with
evidances inspite of that an di have got award above and beyond award from the same
manager and same team was working well with me since injoined all existing mangers
were very happy with me and achieved so many milestones in Broadcom success and
delivered many releases to Broadcom clients successfully. Sent with WebEx recording of
my work about harrasment by showing the rally and workday system to CEO multiple
emails and raised 4 plus ethocs and compliance cases but they just said they have
conducted interviews multiple an dall or unfounded.
5. Escalation Attempts Ignored:I sent multiple emails to Broadcom HR, management, and
the CEO, describing the workplace harassment and unfair treatment. No acknowledgment
or formal investigation report was shared with me. All my meeting invites to HR etchis
compliance managers meeting invites declined I begged them to give me time of one
hour to prove my self with evidence and all of them declined I even had to take company
provided counseling service due to the anxiety and .y manager did not allowed me to sit
on non AC conf room or area instead he forced me to sit at designated area only. Each
everything's recorded in email conversation which is attached in drive.
6. Legal Firm Response (JSA Law):Only after public awareness campaigns on social media
did JSA Law, Broadcom’s external legal counsel, respond. Their statement claimed that
an internal audit was conducted and that my allegations were “unfounded” but no report
or proof of such an investigation was ever shared.
Public Awareness and Justice Campaign:I started the #BroadcomJusticeCampaign, posting daily updates
on X (Twitter) to bring visibility to my case (e.g., “Day 649 of Waiting for Justice”). Despite continued
efforts, there has been no resolution, acknowledgement, or fair hearing.
I sent three legal notices one after the other by giving two weeks even followed by a final notice
with legal format saying inspite of this they have blocked my email addresses which was
working since last 20 months and even I tried to send multiple accounts they blocked I had to
send with new email address of mine, wifes and mother and son accounts but no response no
acknowledgement even I mention and given time if no acknowledgement then I will assume I
will have to for media and global authorities even after this no response after escalated to global
authorities then a JSA LAW FIRM HAD sent an email from Broadcom
This issue has been escalated to gloabal authorities INDIA USA AND international.
Broadcom has given me awards but no promotion as a Retaliation.
This is likely the first case of its kind where, in a rush to suppress the issue, Broadcom removed
me without granting my rightful RSUs (Restricted Stock Units), withheld my promotions, and
terminated me instead of addressing the real cause — managerial misconduct.
Ironically, the manager responsible for harassment was not held accountable. He has merely
been moved from a managerial role (after many years) to an individual contributor position,
while I — the victim — was punished with termination and complete professional loss.
Unprecedented Negative Full & Final Settlement
In a completely unethical and unprecedented act, Broadcom issued a negative Full & Final
Settlement (FFS) of ₹14,70,000 against me — even after 20 months of my job loss. Instead of
compensating me for my years of dedicated service, RSUs, and promotions, I was wrongfully
shown as owing money to the company. This may be the first case in the world where an
employee was penalized with a negative FFS after contributing nearly seven years of successful
work that directly supported Broadcom’s business growth. Such an action is not just retaliatory
— it is financially coercive, unethical, and damaging to an individual’s dignity and career.
Unfair Retaliation and Misuse of Power
This is likely the first corporate case where, instead of punishing the harassing manager,
Broadcom removed the victim in haste — denying me RSUs, promotions, and rightful dues,
while allowing the manager (with many years of tenure) to remain, merely demoted to an
individual contributor role. The manager retained employment — but I was terminated and
defamed, despite being one of the employees who contributed to Broadcom’s success and
stability.
Additional incident's
Manager did not responded for 8 days even after hr and ethics team could not do anything after
the escalation when he was sitting next to me. Etchis and compliance and hr team.di mo
responded to the email when I was working fornbradcom
Forcefully Termination with letter or mutual seperation harrasment. I have both letters as
evidnace
When I requested ethcics and complainace thatbshall I share the evidances they did not
responded.
Medical Leave & Harassment (verbatim points)
1. “Due to psychological stress and hostile work environment, I had to take two months of
medical leave, which was approved by Broadcom management.
2. Cancelled Arbitration“A meeting scheduled with a third-party arbitrator was cancelled
without valid reason, denying me a fair hearing.
3. Ballot Feedback Request Ignored“I formally requested a ballot-based feedback process
for fairness and impartial evaluation — involving the Ethics Team, Compliance Office,
and CEO — but this was never conducted.”
4. Ethics & CEO Non-Response“Even after escalating five or more cases and sending
multiple emails, the Ethics, Compliance, HR, Directors, VP Team, and CEO failed to
provide justice
5. Retaliatory HR & Payroll Actions“My F&F settlement was reduced from negative to zero
only after 20 months and after my multiple escalations. Still Broadcom payroll was
asking to pay back the negative instead of compensating . Fn F not settled until 20
months since they have removed me.
6. RSUs Withheld“RSUs withheld without legal justification.”
7. No Promotion Despite Award“Continuous harassment, lack of promotion despite
receiving an ‘Above and Beyond’ award.”
8. Vote of Confidence Ignored“Request for a vote of confidence and fair feedback process
ignored.”
9. Unfair Targets & Bias“Unfair targets and biased evaluation by those involved in the
ethical conflict.”
10. Manager Role Conflict“New manager appointed and existing manager became IC
role.”Indicates conflict of interest in investigation oversight
B. Denial of Fair Hearing & Arbitration
4. Cancelled Arbitration Meeting — A scheduled third-party arbitration session was cancelled
without valid reason, depriving you of fair hearing and resolution.
5. Denied Voice in Meetings — Your repeated requests for meetings with HR, your
manager, director, or higher officials were ignored or declined.
6. No Ballot-Based Feedback Process — Your formal written request for a fair and
impartial “ballot-based feedback process” involving Ethics, Compliance, and CEO was
ignored.
7. No Vote of Confidence Conducted — Your request for a vote of confidence on
management behavior and fairness was disregarded.
C. Ethics & Escalation Failures
8. Multiple Escalations Ignored — Over five written escalations were made to Ethics, HR,
Compliance, Directors, VPs, and CEO with no response.
9. Non-Response from Global Ethics & CEO — Emails to Broadcom’s U.S. Ethics and
Compliance teams were ignored.
10. Remote Investigation by U.S. Employees — The internal investigation interviews were
conducted by U.S.-based employees remotely, without jurisdiction in India.
11. Lack of Transparency in Internal Probe — The internal investigation’s findings were
never disclosed to you and were conducted without independent oversight.
D. Payroll, Settlement & Retaliation
12. Negative Full & Final (F&F) Settlement — Broadcom initially showed a negative balance in
your F&F settlement, asking you to “repay” the company.
13. Retaliatory Payroll Demands — After escalation, you received multiple harassing emails
from payroll demanding repayment.
14. Delayed F&F Closure — Your F&F settlement took 20 months to finalize, and only after
multiple escalations it was adjusted from negative to ₹0 — but still unpaid.
15. RSUs Withheld — Your Restricted Stock Units were withheld without legal justification
or explanation.
16. Unrealistic Targets — You were assigned biased and unrealistic performance goals.
17. Unfair Performance Review — Evaluation handled by conflicted or ethically-involved
individuals.
E. Employment Discrimination & Career Impact
18. No Promotion Despite “Above & Beyond” Award — Despite receiving formal recognition
for performance, you were denied a promotion.
19. Continuous Harassment — Daily hostile behavior from managers continued post-award.
20. Managerial Conflict of Interest — A new manager was appointed while your existing
manager was demoted to an IC (Individual Contributor) role, creating conflict and
instability.
21. Project Discrimination — You were isolated in project work while others (contractors
and Broadcom employees) were favored.
22. Audit Suppression — Third-party audit requests and verifications were not honored.
F. Retaliation for Whistleblowing
23. Retaliation After Ethical Complaints — Actions such as F&F harassment, RSU denial, and
ignored promotions happened after you raised ethics concerns.
24. Suppression of Communication — Your official Broadcom communication channels
were blocked or restricted after escalation.
25. Silence from Broadcom Legal — Despite multiple legal notices (including final notice),
Broadcom and its counsel (JSA Law Firm) remained unresponsive or evasive.
26. Legal Threats Post Escalation — After you indicated plans to approach global authorities
and media, JSA Law began direct communication.
27. Violation of Whistleblower Protection — Your whistleblower disclosures were ignored,
constituting retaliation under Indian and international laws.
G. Evidence & Legal Action
28. 472 Evidence Documents Submitted — You compiled and submitted a verified dossier to:•
Ministry of Labour (India)• CPGRAMS (Government grievance portal)• EEOC (U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission)• UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council)
29. Legal Notices Sent — Multiple legal notices, including final notice, were sent to
Broadcom and its counsel with no resolution.
30. Open for Amicable Settlement — You remain open to resolution through judicial
mediation or neutral authority.
7. Legal Grounds
Indian Contract Act § 15, 16, 19 – Coercion, Undue Influence, Voidable Agreements
IPC § 385, 420, 503, 506, 507, 509 – Extortion, Cheating, Intimidation
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 – Constructive Dismissal / Unfair Labour Practice
Whistleblower Protection Act 2014 – Retaliation for Ethical Disclosures
Mental Healthcare Act 2017 & Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
8. Reliefs & Demands
I respectfully request that the Hon’ble Authorities consider and grant the following:
1. Criminal Relief:
Register an FIR under IPC §§ 385, 420, 503, 506, 507, 509 against Broadcom India Pvt. Ltd. and
the named officers.
Conduct a full investigation into harassment, coercion, extortion, and criminal intimidation.
Summon the accused persons and preserve all digital evidence (emails, payroll records, HR logs,
WebEx recordings).
Direct the Cyber Crime Cell to authenticate the communications trail.
Ensure protection from further harassment or retaliation.
2. Civil / Restorative Relief:
Award ₹ 20 Crores (INR) as compensation for harassment, defamation, mental agony, and
economic loss.
Order immediate reinstatement to my previous or equivalent position at Broadcom India with
full back pay, RSUs, and benefits (if reinstatement feasible).
Mandate an independent, government-supervised audit of Broadcom India’s HR, Ethics and
Compliance practices to prevent recurrence.
Direct Broadcom India to issue a public acknowledgment/apology for mishandling my
grievances.
Impose regulatory oversight by Indian and US labour and corporate authorities to monitor
Broadcom’s conduct.
3. Human Rights Relief:
Forward this matter to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and relevant
international labour bodies (ILO & EEOC) for independent examination.
9. Evidences will be provided the goggle drive live while investigation starts. 462 plus
evidances.
10. Mutual Separation Agreement & Termination Letters
11. Email and Chat Logs (printed and digital)
12. Payroll Statements showing Negative F&F
13. Medical Certificates & Approved Leave Records
14. Audio Recordings (HR Meetings – available on request)
15. Screenshots of Threats / Coercive Demands
16. Google Drive Evidence Folder (Link – to be provided privately to investigators)
Jurisdiction & Basis:
This complaint falls within the jurisdiction of Nellore because many communications were
received while I resided in Nellore and because the harassment and threatening communications
affected my life here.
Legal grounds invoked include labour law statutes (Industrial Disputes Act, Standing Orders),
whistleblower protection principles, relevant sections of IPC (extortion, intimidation, cheating —
see Annexure B for exact sections requested), IT Act and other applicable civil and criminal
provisions. (Detailed legal grounds in Annexure B.)
Below is the Broadcom office address
Address:
Survey No. 115/1, 115/16, 115/21, Building No. 2,
Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500032, Telangana, India.
United States (Corporate Headquarters)
Address:
3421 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304, United States.
10. Declaration
I, Shaik Navaz Ahmed, solemnly affirm that all statements herein are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I am presently residing in Nellore with my family (four minor children
and aged mother) and seek immediate police protection and legal remedy against continued
harassment and retaliation.
Signature: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Name: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Date: 17 November 2025
Place: Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
Witness: Mr Rameez – (details as above)
Judicial View / Legal Advisor Notes
The facts demonstrate a prima facie case under IPC § 385 and § 503.
Jurisdiction lies with Nellore Police as the communications were received while the complainant
resided there.
The complaint satisfies both criminal (intimidation/extortion) and labour (constructive dismissal)
grounds.
Police should register an FIR and proceed under CrPC § 154.
California-based company.
This email is being sent to:
• California city mayors (Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View)
• California DOJ & Labor authorities
• U.S. DOJ, SEC, EEOC, FBI
• Leading Silicon Valley CEOs and governance teams
Because the scale of misconduct and repeated financial harassment by a globally
headquartered company demands scrutiny at every applicable level.
I have full documented evidence:
— F&F settlement (showing negative payout)
— Form-16 (showing false perquisite taxation)
— RSU grant & vesting records
— Email threads
— HR call transcript
— Medical-leave harassment record
— MSA file
— Timeline of retaliatory actions
I am prepared to submit ALL evidence, including forensic document copies, upon request.
Please acknowledge receipt and direct this to the appropriate investigative or legal authority.
This matter is no longer just an employment issue — it is a question of corporate
accountability, financial integrity, and protection of whistleblowers.
My name is Shaik Navaz Ahmed, from Andhra Pradesh, India. I respectfully submit this
complaint requesting your offices to review serious allegations involving Broadcom and
related personnel connected to Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ: AVGO). Attached all the details of
the CEO, Managers, etchics and complainace , Payroll and HR member names.
I believe the circumstances surrounding my employment and separation involve possible
coercion, forced mutual separation, extortion, harassment, negative full-and-final settlement
demands, withholding of RSUs, threats, and denial of fair process, which may also raise
concerns about corporate governance, disclosure accuracy, employment compliance, and
whistleblower retaliation.
1. Summary of Core Allegations
Based on my documented evidence (472+ items: emails, messages, call logs, recordings):
I was allegedly pressured into signing a Mutual Separation Agreement under duress.
My F&F settlement was shown as negative ₹14.76 lakh, and I was repeatedly asked to repay
it.
I was subjected to coercion, intimidation, and harassment during my employment and medical
leave.
Broadcom allegedly withheld RSUs I had earned, without lawful justification.
Broadcom declined arbitration and ignored multiple legal escalations.
The conduct may reflect internal control failures at Broadcom Inc., involving potential risks to
investors or undisclosed liabilities.
2. Why U.S. Agencies Have Jurisdiction
Broadcom Inc. is a U.S.-listed company (NASDAQ: AVGO), and RSUs as well as corporate
governance matter fall under U.S. securities regulations.
The alleged behaviour of Broadcom India employees may have:
Disclosure implications
Corporate governance impacts
Securities reporting consequences
Whistleblower retaliation implications
Therefore, I believe the matter is within the oversight responsibility of the SEC, NASDAQ,
FINRA, DOJ, and other agencies receiving this email.
3. Request to U.S. Authorities
I respectfully request:
1. A review of the evidence regarding
coercion,
forced separation,
extortion,
harassment,
RSU withholding,
mismanagement of employment practices.
2. An examination of whether Broadcom Inc.
properly disclosed such risks,
adhered to U.S. securities laws,
ensured adequate oversight of its India operations.
3. Guidance on next steps, including:
Where to submit detailed evidence securely
Any formal whistleblower channels you recommend
Applicable legal protections or escalation procedures
4. Supporting Evidence
I possess 472+ pieces of documented evidence, including:
Emails
Chat logs
Call recordings
Date-wise documentation of events
Medical leave records
F&F settlement documents
Screenshots of demands and coercive actions
Names of involved officers
5. My Contact Information
Name: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Mobile: +91 99166 99149
Email: navazshaik89@gmail.com
Location: Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
Preferred Contact: WhatsApp / Email
I respectfully request acknowledgment of this complaint and guidance on how to submit
complete evidence.
Thank you for your time and for protecting employee rights, investor transparency, and
corporate accountability.
Please note that I have also filed related criminal and civil complaints in India against
Broadcom India Pvt. Ltd. and the involved personnel.
Sincerely,
+91 9916699149
From:Matt Schlegel
To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com
Subject:Dress rehearsal and performance - How the Grump Stole Democracy
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:16:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi FFF crew,
Please see this email from Ingrid for details about our upcoming performance of How the
Grump Stole Democracy.
Thanks everyone!
Matt
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Ingrid Rogers <ingridnrogers@gmail.com>
To: Matt Schlegel <matt@evolutionaryteams.com>
Cc: Rick Moody <hrmoody@yahoo.com>, Carol Peyser
<scienceandsanity2025@gmail.com>, George Koernor
<georgek@birketthouse.com>
Date: 12/01/2025 9:12 AM PST
Subject: Dress rehearsal and performance
Matt -
Could you please forward the letter below to your newsletter subscribers?
Ingrid
Dear Friends of Fridays for Future -
We need your help! On December 9 at 12:30, we will present a street
theater performance of “How the Grump Stole Democracy.” It will be part
of the Stand up for Science and Sanity rally at Lytton Plaza in Palo Alto.
Members of the audience (= hopefully you) will be invited to be part of this
short impromptu play, taking the roles of citizens or oligarchs. The lines
are super easy and scripted.
Please take a look at the script below. There will be a dress rehearsal this
coming Friday at noon in front of the Palo Alto City Hall. It would be great
if at least six volunteer “actors” could join us for the speaking parts and
would also make a commitment to take part at Lytton Plaza on Tuesday,
Dec. 9, at 12:30.
Thank you! We hope to see you there.
Ingrid
HOW THE GRUMP STOLE DEMOCRACY
Characters:
Narrator, Lady Liberty, a group of Citizens,, Mr. Grump, and a group of
Oligarchs
Narrator Greeting the Audience
Ladies and Gentlemen -
You are about to see a performance with a certain
“would-be king” character named Mr. Grump.
On your left, imagine a house where Lady Liberty lives. [
LL waves and takes a bow.] It’s the House of Democracy. A group
of citizens is waiting to present certificates of appreciation for
the ways Lady Liberty has served us well. [Citizens line up.]
On your right is the golden and shiny residence of Mr.
Grump, a rich guy who thinks about nothing but his own
accumulation of power and wealth. Oligarchs have assembled
there to pay homage to him. [MG nods, points at himself, and raises
his fist.]
Welcome to the world premiere of our play, “How the Grump
Stole Democracy.”
Scene 1: At the House of Lady Liberty
[Lady Liberty, wearing the crown of the Statue of Liberty, welcomes
the citizens, stage right.]
LL: Welcome to the house of democracy, dear citizens. What
can I do for you?
Citizen Leader: Lady Liberty, we come to honor you for 250
years of serving us well. You have done so much for the
people of this country as a guardian of democracy. In
gratitude, we now present you with these certificates of
appreciation.
[Each citizen states what they are grateful for, holding up the color
side of their poster. A drum roll or gong sound follows. Then they
turn to Lady Liberty, reading the note of appreciation pasted on the
back of their poster. Lady Liberty who graciously receives the gift
and places it on a table next to her. After each statement, Mr.
Grump, wearing his kingly crown, meanders around facing the
audience, mumbling objections.]
Citizen 1 [Holds up the first certificate]: I’ve come to celebrate
Freedom of Speech. [Drum roll or gong sounds. Applause and cheers
from the other citizens. This will be the reaction after each (underlined)
achievement is announced.]
Lady Liberty, we thank you for the right to speak our mind in
this country, without fear of retribution.
MG [Angrily moving around, facing the audience] :
Just wait until I come after people who criticize me!
Citizen 2: My certificate celebrates research. We are grateful
for how you have supported public education, research, and
universities.
MG: Surely I’ll find a way to stop that.
Citizen 3: It is wonderful that we can feel safe because of
Social Security and Medicare.
Citizen 4: We are grateful for environmental protection through
the Inflation Reduction Act.
MG: Dream on! I am in charge of the law now.
Citizen 5: I want our immigrants to be protected. It is wonderful
to live in a country where people who are persecuted can
apply for asylum.
MG: Sure. Give me some names, and I’ll send my ICE men
over.
Citizen Leader: Thank you, Lady Liberty, for being our
guardian. We love our democracy. [General cheers and applause]
LL: My dear citizens, it sure is good to be appreciated. But
now, after having done so much all these years, I feel a bit
worn out and exhausted. I think I’ll take a nap for a while.
Thank you for your visit!
[She sits down on a chair and falls asleep. The citizens look at each
other, a bit puzzled, then shrug shoulders and step aside, their
backs turned toward Lady Liberty. Mr. Grump approaches
cautiously, wearing a golden crown or MAGA hat.]
MG: Oh, look at that! Democracy has fallen asleep!
Let’s see whether there is something I can steal from
the House
of Liberty.
[He snatches three signs from the pile, reads, and makes
derogatory comments.]
What crazy nonsense.
What’s this all about?
Well, that’s certainly something we can do away
with.
[He snickers, makes typical MG hand signs, and takes the three
signs back to his own place, making more snide remarks on the
way.]
Scene 2: At the House of Mr. Grump
[An oligarch stands waiting, stage left, wearing a T-shirt with fake
dollar bills attached. Others in the group include Elon Musk, RFK
Jr., and the Ghost of Jeffrey Epstein. Costumed MAGA supporters
join them. A reporter welcomes those present and encourages the
audience to boo. Grump returns with a couple of the certificates he
has already taken. The Oligarchs bow deeply and applaud.]
O: I was wondering how I could be of service to you, Mr.
Grump. I have a lot of plans that may be of interest.
MG: How so?
O: For instance, I can help convince the people that it is a
great idea to follow a brilliant leader like you. I love your vision
for this nation and for the world.
MG: Sounds interesting. Maybe I can do something
for you in
return, like offering you a nice contract, for example.
O: You are such an excellent thinker! That’s exactly what I had
in mind.
MG: I’ve already taken some of those things that will
help us.
Here! And this! This one, too. [Hands him the signs.
O nods. ]
And I know there is more where that came from.
O: I am totally at your service, and I will do what I can to return
your generosity. We make good partners.
MG: I am glad that you are willing to help me take
down that
House of Democracy. I already took care of
some of their
nonsense. [Waves the certificates he took earlier.]
Come on.
Let’s see what more we can get away with.
[They go over to Lady Liberty’s house, where she continues to sleep. The
Oligarch and Grump sneak in, tiptoeing, and take the rest of the
recognition awards.]
Scene 3: At the House of Lady Liberty
[The citizens return and are aghast.]
Citizen 1: What on earth happened here?
Citizen 2: All those things we were so proud of, where have
they gone?
Citizen 3: I can’t believe this. Look at how this house itself has
been damaged! I thought it was our house! Did anyone ask for
a golden ballroom?
Citizen 4: Look at that, there’s Lady Liberty, fast asleep!!!
Citizen 5: Should we wake her up?
Citizen Leader: Of course, let’s get busy and get our
democracy back! And Let’s invite everybody to join us.
[They surround Lady Liberty, shouting and shaking her awake,
inviting the audience to join in the chorus.]
Chorus: “WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
From:Bill Rust
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Infrastructure Improvement Contract
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:14:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a local pilot and member of the West Valley Flying Club, I would like to thank you for the
improvements that have been made to Palo Alto Airport since the city assumed responsibility for
the airport from the County of Santa Clara. Those improvements have greatly contributed to the
airport being a truly regional resource, supporting emergency operations in event of natural
disasters, flight training for those interested in aviation both vocationally and avocationally,
employment for those that work at the airport and an ideal base for pilots like me that enjoy giving
back to the community through charitable flying.
I'd like to ask for your continued support of the airport by approving the Seven Items supporting
the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential to replace unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain
equipment with state-of-the-art systems that are fully compliant with current FAA standards,
improving reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Rust
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Carine Schneider
To:Council, City
Subject:approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto
Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:08:24 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As the owner of an airplane based at the Palo Alto AirPort, I urge you to approve
the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project,
AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more
than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain.
The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve
the accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly,
better weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports
better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carine Schneider
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Carine Schneider
+1-650-862-8628
carine.m.schneider@gmail.com
From:Gorey, Kevin
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport Improvement Plan
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:06:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a flight instructor at the Palo Alto airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
Rather than list the benefits of the project, which really revolve around flight safety – something
close to my heart, I’ll repeat what you’ve likely already heard: The project has been years in the
making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to accommodate city
processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Gorey
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Navaz Ahmed
To:Council, City; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; Navaz Ahmed; Shaik AFROZ; Shaheda
Begum Shaik; fahamedshaik89@gmail.com
Subject:Request for Investigation — Alleged Coercion, Forced Separation, Extortion & RSU Violations Involving Broadcom
(NASDAQ: AVGO)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:05:37 AM
Attachments:DOC-20251117-WA0009..pdf
DOC-20251117-WA0008..pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Authorities,
My name is Shaik Navaz Ahmed, from india having 4 small kids and old mediculy ill mother
since long time . I respectfully submit this complaint requesting your offices to review serious
allegations involving Broadcom and related personnel connected to Broadcom Inc.
(NASDAQ: AVGO). Attached all the details of the CEO, Managers, etchics and complainace ,
Payroll and HR member names.
I believe the circumstances surrounding my employment and separation involve possible
coercion, forced mutual separation, extortion, harassment, negative full-and-final settlement
demands, withholding of RSUs, threats, and denial of fair process, which may also raise
concerns about corporate governance, disclosure accuracy, employment compliance, and
whistleblower retaliation.
1. Summary of Core Allegations
Based on my documented evidence (472+ items: emails, messages, call logs, recordings):
I was allegedly pressured into signing a Mutual Separation Agreement under duress.
My F&F settlement was shown as negative ₹14.76 lakh, and I was repeatedly asked to repay
it.
I was subjected to coercion, intimidation, and harassment during my employment and medical
leave.
Broadcom allegedly withheld RSUs I had earned, without lawful justification.
Broadcom declined arbitration and ignored multiple legal escalations.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
The conduct may reflect internal control failures at Broadcom Inc., involving potential risks to
investors or undisclosed liabilities.
2. Why U.S. Agencies Have Jurisdiction
Broadcom Inc. is a U.S.-listed company (NASDAQ: AVGO), and RSUs as well as corporate
governance matter fall under U.S. securities regulations.
The alleged behaviour of Broadcom India employees may have:
Disclosure implications
Corporate governance impacts
Securities reporting consequences
Whistleblower retaliation implications
Therefore, I believe the matter is within the oversight responsibility of the SEC, NASDAQ,
FINRA, DOJ, and other agencies receiving this email.
3. Request to U.S. Authorities
I respectfully request:
1. A review of the evidence regarding
coercion,
forced separation,
extortion,
harassment,
RSU withholding,
mismanagement of employment practices.
2. An examination of whether Broadcom Inc.
properly disclosed such risks,
adhered to U.S. securities laws,
ensured adequate oversight of its India operations.
3. Guidance on next steps, including:
Where to submit detailed evidence securely
Any formal whistleblower channels you recommend
Applicable legal protections or escalation procedures
4. Supporting Evidence
I also have witness ready n this case a former Broadcom employee and along with
I possess 472+ pieces of documented evidence, including:
Emails
Chat logs
Call recordings
Date-wise documentation of events
Medical leave records
F&F settlement documents
Screenshots of demands and coercive actions
Names of involved officers
5. My Contact Information
Name: Shaik Navaz Ahmed
Mobile: +91 99166 99149
Email: navazshaik89@gmail.com
Location: Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
Preferred Contact: WhatsApp / Email
I respectfully request acknowledgment of this complaint and guidance on how to submit
complete evidence.
Thank you for your time and for protecting employee rights, investor transparency, and
corporate accountability.
Please note that I have also filed related criminal and civil complaints against Broadcom. and
the involved personnel.
Sincerely,
Shaik Navaz Ahmed
+91 9916699149
From:Ghyrn Loveness
To:Council, City
Subject:Critical Airport Upkeep / Maintenance upgrades
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:03:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and active pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo
Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult and more costly to
maintain than modern industry standard equipment. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially
improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide
continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot
decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions and more often
than not will avoid flight operations to visually check weather conditions that otherwise
would have been avoided with current and accurate remotely reported data.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Regards,
Ghyrn
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:DAVID SCHNEIDER
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport AWOS Project
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:56:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council members,
As the owner of an airplane based at the Palo Alto AirPort, as a certified flight instructor who works at Palo Alto
and as a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System
Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable,
outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with
current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They
will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness, and
availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it
simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to
accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Schneider, CFI
From:Helene Grossman
To:Council, City; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; Lo, Ria; Transportation
Subject:Slides for Tonight’s Council Meeting – Vision Zero & Safety Process Concerns
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:25:08 AM
Attachments:Helene_Grossman_Dec1_Agenda_item2.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Shikada, Chief Ria, and Transportation
Department,
I wanted to share the slides I’ll be presenting at the City Council meeting tonight (attached).
These are topics I’ve raised in the past, and I believe they frame an important question: how
do we make Vision Zero real in Palo Alto?
I am fully supportive of Vision Zero and of prioritizing bike and pedestrian safety over vehicle
convenience. But I’m still perplexed by design decisions made in past projects -- particularly
at locations that don’t meet MUTCD standards, have poor visibility, or place children too
close to moving cars. I’ve asked for the engineering rationales for these decisions but have not
been able to obtain clear explanations.
To avoid repeating past mistakes, I believe we need clarity on why these design choices were
made and what our process will be going forward. If we want residents to trust Vision Zero,
we need to ensure:
Designs follow MUTCD and state-required standards (and if staff proposes a deviation,
there is a documented engineering justification).
There are clear project plans, timelines, and accountability for delivery.
Both longer-term infrastructure investments and small, high-impact safety fixes occur in
reasonable timeframes.
The slides show that even the simplest safety fixes -- sight-distance improvements, correct
stop-sign placement, red curbs near schools -- can take years to complete, if they ever get done
at all. This makes it difficult to trust that much larger Vision Zero projects will be delivered
safely and effectively.
I’m sharing these slides in advance to provide context. I greatly appreciate the work and
dedication of staff, and my aim is to help us build a system that works better -- one that earns
and keeps the trust of families who rely on these streets daily.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to the discussion tonight.
Many thanks,
Helene Grossman
Vision Zero in Palo Alto:
Supporting safer streets while demanding standards,
accountability, and timely action
I fully support Vision Zero and prioritizing bike and pedestrian safety over
driver convenience.
However, based on years of experience with our Transportation Department's
designs and follow-through, I do not trust current processes to design to
MUTCD standards, produce transparent project plans with timelines, or be
responsive and accountable to residents.
Tonight I'm asking Council to affirm Vision Zero goals while pausing major new
implementation authority until staff demonstrates they can execute these
projects effectively and safely.
Where Trust Breaks Down: Design Standards
I'm not asking for perfection4I'm asking for basic professional standards. Follow MUTCD and state-required design guidance. If staff
deviates from standards, conduct an engineering study and explain why.
Ross Road & East Meadow Roundabout
The City Traffic Engineer admitted at a PABAC meeting that this roundabout did not meet design standards when it was built.
Yet, it took:
Multiple years
Countless meetings and multiple City Council members getting involved
Petition of >400 residents
To fix a design that was obviously broken. How do we have faith the next design will be built to standards?
Ohlone sidewalk is another example of inexplicable
design
Rolling Curbs
Rolling curbs consistently result in cars parking on the sidewalk
and blocking access for pedestrians
Ohlone Sidewalk
Yet 4 when a brand new sidewalk was built at Ohlone, it used this
same flawed design. The sidewalk is so flat that cars routinely
drive on it, right next to kids walking and scootering 4 resulting in
no meaningful separation between kids and cars.
The City has provided no justification for this design.
Greer & Thomas: the ultimate example of a clearly
unsafe intersection the City won't fix
Per MUTCD, minor streets stop for major streets
Exceptions require an engineering study 4 which does not
exist
Sight lines are noncompliant and dangerous
You can't see cross-traffic until you're halfway into the
intersection
It's on a Safe Route to School used by student
cyclists daily
We should prioritize kids over motorists exiting a cul-de-sac
A cyclist was already seriously injured here
Despite stopping and looking, cyclist did not see vehicle
emerging from cul de sac
The City risks liability
By maintaining a non-compliant intersection, the City gives up
design immunity
The City has given no justification as to why this
design is safer
Staff just repeat that there's not enough traffic for a 4-way
stop, without considering the direction of the current stop
signs
And yet 4 despite all of these reasons 4 the Transportation Department refuses to bring this intersection into compliance and insists
on prioritizing motorists exiting a cul de sac over kids biking to school
Visibility at Greer and Thomas doesn't meet
standards & is not sufficient to yield appropriately4
but *still* no action
The curvature of the road, combined with tall hedges, means that
Greer traffic cannot see approaching traffic on Thomas until you are
halfway across the intersection 4
It is not possible to yield to traffic you cannot see; this is common
sense and a basic design principle
This is the first point of visibility in both directions 4 but the
vehicle is already halfway through the intersection, so it is too late
It is similar in the other direction 4 you do not obtain the
necessary visibility to yield until 2 car lengths past the stop sign
Daylighting: Clear Council Direction, No Execution
Council has given clear direction on daylighting at multiple meetings. Yet, as of my last Public Records Request: not a single new curb
painted red, no tickets issued, no warnings issues. Staff reports no project plan, no schedule to share.
Cars park in front of the crosswalk at Ohlone, blocking visibility
for kids 1Initial 311
Request
Simple ask: red curb
near Ohlone
crosswalk
2 Months & 7
Escalations
Multiple
Councilmember
involvement
required
3City Manager
Response
Personal assurance
of action 4 3 more weeks;
more
escalations
required
Finally, a response:
no action; no
timeline
If it takes years to paint a single red curb on a Safe Route to School, how can we expect timely implementation of Vision Zero across the
entire city?
What Other Cities Are Doing
Leading the Way
San Francisco has daylighted >900 intersections, with plans to
daylight ALL intersections citywide by end of 2026
Caltrans has implemented bike lanes and no-turn-on-red
protections on El Camino
Mountain View is using quick-build tools4paint, posts, signal
timing4to respond quickly to safety issues
Daylighting is stalled in Palo Alto
We talk extensively about safety, but as of my last public records
request, we still have zero new daylighted curbs from the recent
law, and intersections remain out of compliance with basic
standards.
0
Daylighted
Intersections
Despite clear Council direction
0
Warnings or Tickets
Issued
For parking violations
The Transportation Department has not taken action
on a single request I've filed, without petitions and
escalations
I Appreciate the Intent4But We Need Better
Systems
I believe staff cares about safety goals. I also believe they are overextended and lack clear internal accountability mechanisms.
Missing: MUTCD Compliance
Following standards unless there's a
documented engineering reason not
to
Missing: Public Project Plans
Producing timelines and milestones
that residents can track
Missing: Responsiveness
Responding to residents within
reasonable timeframes
Vision Zero will fail if residents don't trust that designs will be safe and standard-compliant, and that concerns will be heard and acted on.
A Path Forward: Yes to Vision Zero, Fix the
Implementation
7 Vision Zero Goals
Affirm commitment to safety
¥ MUTCD Compliance
Standards or justification
¥ Public Timelines
Project plans & milestones
¥ Fix Known Hazards
Greer & Thomas and similar intersections
Check these boxes before scaling up
What I'm Asking Council To Do
Affirm Vision Zero goals4prioritize bike and pedestrian safety over vehicle
convenience
1.
Require basic reforms before major new projects: MUTCD compliance in
writing, public project plans with timelines, quarterly progress reports to
Council
2.
Direct immediate fixes for known safety issues3.
Only then authorize larger, long-term Vision Zero capital projects4.
From:Martin Michaud
To:Council, City
Subject:PAO AWOS
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 8:30:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
Please add my name to the list of those supporting the AWOS project at the Palo Alto airport.
I have been a member of the Palo Alto community for more than 30 years as a small business
owner providing training to the next generation of pilots. I have aircraft based at PAO and rent
hangar and tiedown space here.
As a flight instructor I continuously strive to enhance my student’s understanding of how they
can operate aircraft more safely and I ask you to join me in this endeavor by moving forward
with the AWOS project.
Regards,
Martin Michaud
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Alan Wachtel
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Study Session (Dec 1 meeting, Agenda Item 2)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 8:14:18 AM
Attachments:Separated Facilities Discussion.pdf
Separated Bikeway Research--A Response.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Members of the Council:
The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update that will be presented during
your study session reflects the enormous time and effort that have gone into it, and it has many
good points. But I want to focus here on areas where there is room for significant
improvement. For reference, some of my concerns are set out in greater detail in the attached
documents.
FYI, I'm a long-time member of the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC), but I'm not speaking here for the committee. I'm also a member of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, and I was a member of the California Bicycle Advisory Committee
(CBAC), which advised Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento, from its formation in 1992 until
it was dissolved in 2018. From 1999 to 2013, I served as CBAC's chair.
Roadways Are for All Users
The draft plan's proposals for bicycle infrastructure are limited almost exclusively to
designated bikeways. But even the most optimistic scenario, in which the Complete Vision
Network is fully built out at some distant future date, would provide bikeways on only about
half of City streets. What about the other half? Cyclists will always have a significant need to
travel on most of the remaining non-bikeway streets, because their origins and destinations
often don't lie on designated bikeways. As long ago as 1978, Caltrans's "Planning and Design
Criteria for Bikeways in California" found that "Probably the most important effort that could
be undertaken to enhance bicycle travel would be improved maintenance and upgrading of
existing roads that are used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are
designated."
And in fact, Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.5 already states, "When constructing
or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users." Other policies and programs
set out, to a limited extent, how this is to be done, but much more could be added, in the
Comprehensive Plan or elsewhere.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
The BPTP draft cites Policy T-1.19, to "Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling
and walking," but none of the other relevant policies and programs, notably Policy T-3.5. The
update's lack of guidance for facilitating and improving bicycling on all roadways, not only
designated bikeways, is a major omission that calls out to be rectified. Some possibilities not
already enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan might include striping wide outside lanes or
shoulders on busier streets, removal of on-street parking (granted that this is a politically
sensitive issue), shared-lane markings, speed limits and traffic calming, signal timing, and
roadwork and temporary traffic control. The plan should not only describe desirable policies,
but indicate what procedures and workflows in the Office of Transportation, Public Works
Department, or other bodies might be established to assure that these policies are carried out.
This approach would help to make the City bicycle-friendly everywhere, in both the short and
long term, at relatively little cost.
Separated Bikeways
The draft's uncritical enthusiasm for Class IV separated bikeways--often, though misleadingly,
referred to as "protected bike lanes"--should be replaced by a more balanced approach. It's true
that the Council has shown a preference for separated facilities in the Safe Streets for All
Safety Action Plan, in the grade separation project, on East Meadow Drive, on El Camino
Real, and at a few other locations. It's also true that the Council has never been informed by
the OOT that, despite the undeniable appeal of separated facilities, they raise substantial safety
concerns, and the case for them rests on flimsy foundations.
The fundamental issue is that, for the most part, bicycles cannot be fully separated from
vehicular traffic, because they necessarily interact at turning and crossing points. Separated
facilities complicate this interaction. They typically require through bicycles to pass right-
turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side, and right-turning traffic to turn
at or near right angles from the left of and across the path of bicyclists overtaking on their
right, in what for many drivers is a blind spot. This geometric conflict, often called a right
hook, is a well-established cause of car-bike collisions and contrary to long-standing bicycle
facility design guidance. A motorist would call it being cut off. It would never be employed to
place right-turning vehicular traffic to the left of through traffic. This is not the only drawback
of physically separated facilities, but it is a major one, and it will become even more acute
with the increasing popularity of higher-speed e-bikes.
Car-bike collisions between intersections, on the other hand, which separated facilities might
arguably help to protect against, are already relatively infrequent (as the BPTP Update itself
shows).
I presented a thorough technical and historical analysis of this critical safety issue at the
August PABAC meeting, and it's attached here as Separated Facilities Discussion.pdf. The
lengthy discussion at that meeting included a presentation by Nick Falbo of Mobycon, one of
the BPTP Update consultants, in favor of these facilities. (PABAC agendas and minutes are
available at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Bicycling-
Walking/Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Advisory-Committee-PABAC.) Nick later provided further
information in a memo titled "Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the Palo Alto Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan," which appeared in the October PABAC packet. My
response (which quotes Nick's memo in full for reference) was included in the November
PABAC packet and is attached here as the file Separated Bikeway Research--A Response.pdf.
In brief, I found nothing persuasive in the studies Nick cited to support separated bikeways as
typically designed, and I actually interpreted several of those studies as favorable to my
position, rather than Mobycon's.
While I hope that the Council will at least look over these attachments to confirm that their
arguments are well-grounded, I won't ask you to peruse them in detail or to make technical
judgments that lie outside your domain. What you might reasonably do, however, is to request
staff to respond to them--not just briefly and casually at your study session, but in writing, as a
thorough, considered, substantive, responsive, and impartial review and evaluation of these
concerns and their policy implications. This would need to be done by staff, not consultants
(whose opinions are already fixed), and in a timely way that would allow potential changes to
the updated plan before its adoption. You deserve to be fully informed on this central issue
before making any decisions.
My recommendation would be that projects involving separated facilities be prioritized in the
proposed network only where there is an identified problem that separation would help to
address; that this objective could not otherwise be accomplished as effectively; and that
whatever hazards the facility might introduce can be reasonably mitigated. This means I
cannot endorse any of the high-cost near-term separated bikeway projects in Table 9 (p. 105)
of the draft without further justification.
Respectfully,
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
Separated Bicycle Facilities: Innovative Comfort
and Safety, or Old Wine in New Bottles?
Alan Wachtel
PABAC, August 5, 2025
The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update represents a substantial investment
of effort and contains many welcome observations and suggestions. In these comments, however,
I intend to focus on a single more problematic issue. This plan, as well as the Safe Streets for All
(SS4A) Safety Action Plan, the El Camino Real Bikeway project, the South Palo Alto Bikeways
Project on East Meadow Drive, the VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and
several existing installations in the City depend on the appealing, widely popular, but, I believe,
fundamentally misguided premise that bicycle safety can and should be promoted by physically
separating bicycle traffic onto Class I bike paths or Class IV separated bikeways within or
adjacent to busy roadways, including arterials. The BPTP includes many proposals for such
facilities, regardless of the speed, frequency, or volume of crossing and turning traffic at
intersections and driveways, and the conflicts created there, which receive no mention.
The BPTP draft quotes the Dutch cycling network design principles:
A safe bicycle network is one that creates a safe environment for all road users. When
designing safe cycling infrastructure, it is important to minimize conflicts and minimize
the negative outcomes of unavoidable conflicts between different roads users by striving
to avoid differences in speed and mass as much as possible. At the street level this can
be done by creating separated cycling infrastructure when cars are going at high speeds
or traffic calming streets so that cars and bikes can mix safely.
The draft also states:
A protected bike lane is a dedicated facility for bicycles that is physically separated from
motor vehicle traffic. Protected bike lanes should be implemented when cars and bikes
are moving at different speeds, and it is unsafe for them to mix and share the same
space. The updated bicycle network proposes 28 protected bike lanes. Protected bike
lanes should be implemented on all arterials and high-volume collectors.
The SS4A plan that the Council recently adopted likewise includes the following policy: “Instead
of a primary focus on shifting behavior through education campaigns or enforcement, it
encourages roads, vehicles, and policies that are intentionally designed to prioritize safety.” That
is, as much as possible, it relies on infrastructure to replace and compensate for user behavior.
This plan also states that “The City will also focus on projects that reduce exposure related risks
by separating users traveling at different speeds or different directions with physical separation,
to minimize conflicts and reduce the risk of crashes,” and refers numerous times to protected
— 2 —
bike lanes or separated pathways facilities and the provision of protected bicycle facilities as
safety measures. Separated facilities claim to “reduce conflicts between people biking and
motorists. They also provide more physical protection that further reduces the risk of severe
conflicts between bicycles and vehicles on the road.”
The premise of separation, appealing though it seems on the surface, directly contradicts prior
design guidance (still in effect), traffic law, and collision statistics. In particular, this approach
gives no attention to the speed, frequency, or volume of crossing and turning traffic at
intersections and driveways, and the significant car-bike conflicts created there by such facilities.
It is often presented as new or innovative thinking, but in my opinion it more accurately
represents old thinking from the 1970s whose lessons have been forgotten. If recent designs are
to be credible and their use justified, these issues must be acknowledged and addressed directly. I
hope this discussion will provide an opportunity for a direct response to the questions I raise,
which Kittelson & Associates, a firm that helped to prepare several important design guides, as
well as the ongoing BPTP Update, may be best qualified to provide.
(A word on terminology. I take issue with the term “separated (or protected) bike lane.” The
primary direction of these comments is to question whether such facilities are “protected” at all.
But it’s also misleading to refer to them as bike lanes in California, where bike lanes are
designated Class II and separated bikeways are Class IV. This distinction matters, because
California vehicle law requires bicyclists to ride in Class II bike lanes under certain
circumstances, but not Class IV. It would be preferable to use “separated bikeway” or “cycle
track,” the terms that appear in the Streets and Highways Code and the Highway Design Manual,
or “separated bicycle facility” instead.
These legal considerations don’t apply in most states, so I don’t object to use by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) of the term “separated bike lane.” But it should be avoided in
California.)
Over-reliance on separated facilities undermines the safety, efficiency, and mobility of
experienced, transportation-oriented bicyclists. A comprehensive transportation system should
include a full spectrum of bicycle facilities, including shared travel lanes, wide shoulders, Class
II bike lanes (including buffered ones), elimination of on-street parking and with it the hazard of
dooring, and bicycle boulevards.
What Does Separation Mean?
Because the concept of separated facilities figures heavily in the BPTP Update and so many
other plans and projects, it deserves careful examination that it has not so far received.
To begin with, the idea of separation is far from novel. In fact, all traffic engineering separates
users, in the basic sense that two users must not occupy the same space at the same time. It does
this through a combination of geometric design, traffic control devices, traffic law, education,
user behavior, and human factors.
— 3 —
Separation does not always, or even usually, need to mean a physical barrier. Longitudinal white
lane striping serves to indicate travel paths for both motorized and nonmotorized traffic, and
opposite-direction road users can be separated in space by yellow centerlines. Class II bike lanes,
delineated by paint or cross-hatched buffers, are another example that demarcates preferential
space for bicycle traffic. Less often, physical medians or channelizers are used, but we do not
expect (and would be very surprised to see) physical barriers routinely separating same-direction
lanes of vehicular traffic. And that might be because such separation, far from minimizing
conflicts, has a very real potential to exacerbate them.
But, with certain exceptions, it is topologically impossible to maintain separation everywhere, or
even for any extended distance. Traffic (of all varieties) needs to turn, to cross traffic moving or
turning in other directions, to change lanes, and to merge. In other words, road users may have a
need to occupy the same space, and this, too, is routine, so long as they do it at different times.
Stop signs and traffic signals at intersections, for example, accomplish the desired separation in
time. So does the process of merging left or right (after yielding) to change lanes into a gap, in
order to pass or in preparation for a turn.
The Safe Systems Approach often cites a redundancy or Swiss cheese model, in which holes
(weaknesses) in one slice are mitigated by solid portions of adjacent slices. But slices cannot
necessarily be considered independent. A change in geometric design, for instance, might be
inconsistent with traffic law, habitual user behavior and training, or human factors. This
interdependence must be taken into account, and the Swiss cheese model is best considered as a
complement to traditional traffic engineering, not a replacement for it.
All this may seem like recapitulating the trivial and the obvious. The point is that separating road
users is not by itself new. New approaches simply have their own theory of how it should be
done, which is not integral to the concept of safety and should be examined critically on its own
merits.
Channelization by Destination
One way traffic law provides for separation is by channelizing traffic into separate lanes. (The
whole of Topic 403 of the Highway Design Manual is devoted to principles of channelization.)
Between intersections, slower traffic keeps right and faster traffic passes on the left (and this
applies equally to bicycle traffic, which is often, though not invariably, slower). At left and right
turns, however, traffic is instead channelized by destination (and this also applies equally to
bicycle traffic). Both the approach to a right turn and the turn itself, for instance, must by law be
made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (or in lanes designated
by signs, signals, or pavement markings). And this is true even in the presence of bicycle lanes,
which drivers of right-turning vehicles may (Vehicle Code §21209)—indeed, they must
(§21717)—merge into within 200 feet of an intersection. Following the California MUTCD, bike
lane stripes are typically dropped 50 to 200 feet before an intersection to facilitate this
movement.
— 4 —
There is one principal exception to these rules: Pedestrians receive physical separation in the
form of sidewalks, onto which they’re channelized regardless of destination. Separated bike
paths or separated bikeways adjacent to or within roadways treat bicyclists, in effect, as a species
of pedestrian (they’ve been called “pedalestrians”) who are likewise channelized outside the
vehicular stream (usually on its right side).
The unacknowledged design element common to most “innovative” bicycle facilities is that
through bicycles must pass right-turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side.
This is true, for example, of Class I bike paths adjacent to roadways, Class IV separated
bikeways, two-stage left-turn bike boxes, many (though not all) advanced stop line bike boxes,
so-called protected intersections, and possibly buffered bike lanes (since whether and where
turning motorists may merge into or cross the buffer has never been clearly defined, in either the
California MUTCD or traffic law). It is not true of Class II bike lanes or shared roadways, where
normal destination positioning and merging rules apply.
It would be extraordinary, however, to employ that same geometry for two lanes of vehicular
traffic, which would never be designed to place right turns to the left of through traffic. Try to
imagine striping a vehicular through lane to the right of a right-turn lane (except in rare cases
where a traffic signal separates the movements in time). Now imagine it with a physical barrier
separating the lanes. Does that seem like a reasonable design?
Physical separation of road users has the potential to create new conflicts, which did not exist
before, at every driveway and minor intersection. I’ll say it again—the casual use of this design
for nonmotorized traffic demands to be carefully scrutinized. (It has other safety implications as
well, but it will be enough to focus on this one.)
Sidewalks
Geometrically, Class I sidepaths and Class IV bikeways resemble sidewalk bicycling. They do
have certain advantages over sidewalks: they aren’t shared with pedestrians, and they’re
generally straight and smooth and lack street furniture. But they also allow and encourage much
greater bicycle (or e-bike) speeds, and lead bicyclists to believe they have right-of-way at
conflict points and need not take care, look around, slow down, or yield.
But pedestrians and bicyclists have very different operating characteristics, and do not
necessarily benefit from similar facilities. Most pedestrians walk at 3 mi/h or less, and can stop
or move backward or sideways within a single step. Many child bicyclists can travel at 10 mi/h;
adults are often much faster, and e-bikes, which are rapidly gaining popularity among both adults
and children, are capable (in the case of Class 3 e-bikes) of as much as 28 mi/h—comparable to
cars, and exceeding most local speed limits. Greater bicyclist speed creates a far greater area
within motorists must scan to avoid conflict, as well as less time to react.
Bikes, moreover, require a much greater distance to stop than pedestrians, and their
maneuverability is very limited in comparison.
— 5 —
It’s easy to see that many bicyclists love to ride on sidewalks: bikes on sidewalks are a
commonplace sight, even on quiet streets or on roads with bicycle facilities. These bicyclists
almost surely feel more comfortable on the sidewalk, where they undoubtedly believe they’re
safe from cars. It’s not surprising that they might also prefer a sidepath or Class IV cycle track
that resembles a sidewalk, especially one that is expressly promoted as separated or protected.
But it has been firmly established for many years that sidewalks are not generally suitable for
bicycles. Bicycling on sidewalks, especially adjacent to busy streets, though it might feel safe, is
frequently more dangerous than on the adjacent roadway, because of unexpected conflicts, often
with poor sight lines, with crossing and turning traffic at driveways and intersections, at locations
where neither party expects or can easily see the other. There are many studies to this effect
(including my own). A primary conflict (though not the only one) goes by the familiar name of
right hook: a right-turning car cuts off and collides with a through bicyclist on the right. This is
also a common collision type on the roadway. “Innovative” design types have an inherent
potential to create and intensify the same type of conflict, with the same false sense of security.
Prior Design Guidance
Prior design guidance (still valid, and still in effect) cautions against this geometry. For instance,
the Highway Design Manual states:
Index 1003.1: Please note, sidewalks are not Class I bikeways because they are
primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for
Class I bikeways, and do not minimize vehicle cross flows.
Index 1003.1(5): Intersections are an important consideration in bike path design.
Bicycle path intersection design should address both cross-traffic and turning
movements. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with the most
beneficial intersection characteristics should be selected.
Index 1003.1(7): Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not
recommended. While they can provide separation between vehicles and nonmotorized
traffic, they typically introduce significant conflicts at intersections. . . . They are not a
substitute for designing the road to meet bicyclist’s mobility needs. Use of bicycle paths
adjacent to roads is not mandatory in California, and many bicyclists will perceive these
paths as offering a lower level of mobility compared with traveling on the road,
particularly for utility trips. Careful consideration regarding how to address the above
points needs to be weighed against the perceived benefits of providing a bike path
adjacent to a street or highway. Factors such as urban density, the number of conflict
points, the presence or absence of a sidewalk, speed and volume should be
considered.
Index 1003.3(2): Wide sidewalks that do not meet design standards for bicycle paths or
bicycle routes also may not meet the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists. Wide
— 6 —
sidewalks can encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase the potential for
conflicts with turning traffic at intersections as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) says (Section
9C.04):
Standard:
06 A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to
the left of a left turn only lane.
Support:
07 A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right of a right-turn lane
or from the left of a left-turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and
would violate the expectations of right-or left-turning motorists.
Guidance:
10 Posts or raised pavement markers should not be used to separate bicycle lanes from
adjacent travel lanes.
Support:
11 Using raised devices creates a collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects
immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist. In addition, raised devices can
prevent vehicles turning right from merging with the bicycle lane, which is the preferred
method for making the right turn. Raised devices used to define a bicycle lane can also
cause problems in cleaning and maintaining the bicycle lane.
While the facilities discussed in those sections are not necessarily identical to the ones being
promoted and proposed, in many cases they are analogous, and the guidance provided above
should be considered carefully.
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89, “Class IV Bikeway Guidance,” which is directly
applicable, notes that intersections (both major and minor) and driveways present significant
issues:
Intersection crossing points offer unique challenges to the design and operation of a
separated bikeway. [T]he usability and safety of the separated facility depends heavily
on the manner in which intersections, driveways, and alleys, as well as pedestrian
facilities, interact with and connect to the separated bikeway and bikeway network. The
bikeway must provide adequate visibility at intersections, driveways, and alleys, to avoid
right or left hook collisions in which vehicles turn in front of bicyclists traveling straight.
As such, it is critical that careful thought and planning go into the design of all
intersections, driveways, and alleys located along a bikeway.
The FHWA publication “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways” notes that
“Driveways that intersect with separated bicycle lanes create a potential crash risk due to the
conflict between turning motor vehicles and through-bicyclists.”
— 7 —
DIB 94
Advocates of separated facilities, however, do not generally cite these design principles. They
prefer to rely on Design Information Bulletin 94, “Complete Streets: Contextual Design
Guidance,” which recommends Class IV bikeways on high-speed, high-volume roads—exactly
where the conflict with crossflows may be greatest. This recommendation is summarized in a
graph on p. 23, whose source is unattributed. The foundation for this deviation from previous
(and unrefuted) guidance remains mysterious and impossible to evaluate.
During the external review of the DIB 94 draft, I made the following comments (among others
about the frequency, speed, and volume of crossflows):
The enthusiasm shown in these guidelines for Class IV separated bikeways almost
entirely neglects—as is typical—their critical weakness: the unnecessary geometric
conflicts (commonly known as right hooks) that they create at crossflows such as
intersections and driveways (conflicts that would unequivocally never be designed into
vehicular lanes). These conflicts can be (but are not always) mitigated at major
intersections by providing merging areas or separate signal phases (at the cost of delay
and possible noncompliance), but that cannot be done at every minor intersection and
driveway, where the conflicts remain. The same considerations are true, to a lesser
extent, of Class I bike paths.
Unlike Class II bike lanes, where turning vehicles can merge safely across the bike lane
stripe in advance of the turn (as required by law), separated bikeways force vehicles into
an almost 90-degree turn, while bicyclists overtake in their right rear blind spot at full
bicycle speed, expecting to have right-of-way. Meanwhile, parked cars, shrubbery, or
other devices used as separators often obstruct sight lines.
The token measures suggested in design guides are inadequate to mitigate these
conflicts, and are treated as an afterthought, rather than a built-in consequence of the
facility. Instead, the ability to minimize or mitigate these geometric conflicts should be
treated as an essential element of facility selection from the very beginning.
[A facility selection list] omits the most critical factor: frequency, speed, and volume of
crossflows at intersections and driveways.
Individual responses to external review comments were not provided, but the final DIB does not
mention the term “crossflow” or any variation or synonym that I can find. The only mentions of
“conflict” in connection with Class I or Class IV facilities involve buses and their passengers.
My concerns were not addressed, even to dispute them.
There is good reason to believe that Kittelson was involved in creating this draft of DIB 94, and
would be well placed to justify it and to answer questions about it.
— 8 —
In response to the Phase 2 draft of the BPTP prepared by Kittelson, I commented in 2024: “DIB
94 unaccountably neglects the importance of minimizing and regulating crossflows on separated
bikeways,” and cited DIB 89 and HDM Index 1003.1(7), as quoted above. The consultants’
response was simply “Noted.” There was no attempt to engage with the issues I raised. No other
comment received such a perfunctory response.
Another commenter (it might also have been me) observed: “Broadside collisions are the most
frequent type of bicycle collision that occurred in Palo Alto within the five year study period.
This statistic indicates that to prevent collisions, intersections and other crossing and turning
locations should be the focus, segments between intersections less so.” To this the response was
“Agreed.” Yet separated facilities provide separation between intersections (where it is needed
less), while not only failing (unavoidably) to provide separation at intersections (where it is
needed more), but exacerbating the conflict at those points. How does this contribute to safety?
This is an essential question.
The BPTP draft found that broadside collisions are the most frequent type of bicycle collision
that occurred in Palo Alto within the five year study period. The Safety Action Plan reported that
broadside crashes were among the highest percentages of KSI crashes. (The SS4A statistics are
hard to interpret, however. They don’t seem to differentiate among types of road users. It also
isn’t clear whether this category includes car-bike right-hook collisions, though the definition,
“between two vehicles on conflicting paths where the front of one vehicle contacts the side of
another,” implies that it might.) This plan notes that on Walk & Roll Routes crossing higher
stress streets, 99 percent of crashes occurred at intersections.
These statistics indicate that to prevent collisions, intersections and other crossing and turning
locations should be the focus, rather than segments between intersections. Yet separated facilities
provide separation between intersections (where it is needed less), while not only failing
(unavoidably) to provide separation at intersections (where it is needed more), but actually
exacerbating the conflict at those points. How does this contribute to safety? This is an essential
question.
Are Mitigations Possible?
What mitigations do advocates of these facilities propose for intersection and driveway conflicts?
They have not entirely neglected the question. For instance, NACTO has released a publication
called “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection,” and its “Urban Bikeway Design Guide” contains a
section on intersections. The section on cycle tracks (in California also known as Class IV
bikeways) advises in part:
Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A
review of existing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance
may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections:
— 9 —
If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection
to improve visibility. The desirable no-parking area is 30 feet from each side of the
crossing.
For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway,
street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight
triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from minor street crossings, and 10 feet from
driveway crossing.
These distances are far less than the up to 200 feet provided for Class II bike lanes. They result in
a sharp, nearly 90-degree turn across the bicycle facility—that is, a right hook; a motorist would
consider it being cut off—rather than a merge into it.
The FHWA “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” (which Kittelson & Associates
also helped to prepare) correctly notes that:
It is not possible to maintain permanent physical separation of bicycles and automobiles
through intersections, where cross street and turning movements must cross the path of
bicyclists. Intersections are where most bicycle-vehicle collisions occur, and where riders
feel the most stress. Designers have implemented a variety of strategies, including both
time- and space-separation, for maintaining the benefits of separated bike lanes through
intersections.
One method of doing this is through separate bicycle signal phases. That method can work, but
as I noted in reviewing the DIB 94 draft, it introduces delay for all modes, which may in turn
raise issues of compliance. (Bicyclists are not known for strict adherence to traffic control
devices, and many motorists seem baffled by the concept of no right turn on red.) In any case,
this method does not extend to STOP-signed and uncontrolled intersections and driveways,
which are generally much more numerous.
Another often-proposed mitigation is the so-called protected intersection. I fail to see, though,
what about this design is protected, other than its name. It only shifts, not resolves, the point of
conflict. (If this intersection design and geometry, coupled with physical barriers between
adjacent lanes of traffic, are felt to be so desirable in reducing conflicts, why aren’t we applying
them to vehicular traffic as well?) But even taken at face value, this design also has applicability
only in limited locations and is not a general solution.
This guide also suggests shifting through bicycle traffic laterally to the left of the right-turn lane
before vehicles can move right, which is a more conventional approach that I see as consistent
with standard engineering practices. There are further proposals that would take too much time to
go into here, without changing the overall conclusion.
The FHWA “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher Speed Roadways” (which Kittelson again helped
to prepare) recommends separate signalization, “protected” intersections, and setback crossings.
I’ll simply point out again that these treatments are at best applicable only at certain locations,
not generally.
— 10 —
This guide also says that “Crossings on higher speed roads should be as short and infrequent as
possible, with vertical protection extended for as long as possible.” I find the second part of this
statement astonishing. Extending the separation as long as possible prevents merging and
increases the conflict, not reduces it.
What all these discussions have in common, however, is that they implicitly treat intersections
as, at most, residual areas that cannot be separated or “protected,” where bicyclists and motorists
must unavoidably interact. Improving those interactions is treated as an enhancement. What they
do not acknowledge or address is that new geometric conflicts, created by the bike path or
separated bikeway itself, may very well pose greater hazards than the less frequent midblock
conflicts that might be ameliorated.
90-Degree Turns vs. Merging
Furthermore, no matter how successfully special facilities might somehow manage to resolve
turning conflicts at intersections and driveways, they train bicyclists to pass right-turning traffic
on the right, and motorists to turn right from bicyclists’ left, without merging, as a general rule at
all locations—everywhere, not just at special facilities (the traditional right hook). These are
dangerous practices that should not be encouraged. However, it seems possible that proponents
regard these behaviors as a feature, not a bug, that should indeed be practiced everywhere. They
may consider 90-degree turns to be as safe as, or safer than, merging. (In 2024 there was actually
an unsuccessful bill to that effect in the California Legislature.) So it might be helpful here to set
out certain key differences:
A merging driver can change lanes at a time and place where it’s safe to do so, rather than
at a fixed location. A driver who is prevented from merging into a bikeway is forced to
slow down or stop close to the turning point.
When merging, the relative speed between car and bike, which are both moving, is lower,
making it possible to accept a smaller gap. If the driver slows or stops, it increases the
closing speed of overtaking bicyclists—which e-bikes will only worsen, and which
motorists often underestimate—who are also led by these designs to understand they have
right-of-way and can pass at full speed. This higher relative speed makes it harder to find
and judge an adequate gap for turning.
Turning drivers must scan a much greater distance to the rear for bicyclists than they are
accustomed to with pedestrians. Underestimating bicyclists’ (or e-bicyclists’) speed will
result in inadequate scanning.
Merging into a new lane is a routine driving skill that drivers perform many times a day.
Many motorists, depending on vehicle design, headrests, cargo, rear window size, roof
pillars, and sideview mirror adjustment, may have a blind spot in the area where a
bicyclist is approaching, assuming they’re aware of the presence of bicyclists at all. The
blind spot is also relevant when merging, but a merging driver can continue in motion
and wait a second or two for any traffic to move out of the blind spot. A driver who’s
waiting to turn from a fixed location sees shorter gaps and may be less patient.
Turning sharply places additional cognitive demands on drivers, who must now scan for
rapidly overtaking bicyclists on the right, in addition to any potentially conflicting traffic
— 11 —
from other directions, all at once, instead of in stages. In the process, these drivers may
overlook pedestrians approaching from the opposite direction.
In fact, p. 7 of the SS4A plan identifies 90-degree-angle conflicts between motorists and
bicyclists of all ages as a safety focus area, based on crash data analysis, community input,
stakeholder feedback, and systemic risk analysis. Why, then, propose to create so many more of
them? P. 34 identifies improper turning as among the most common primary injury risk factors.
Why encourage more of it?
The Effect of Separated Facilities
It is not enough to simply declare who has right-of-way, whether through education, signage, or
even traffic law. The party who must yield must actually be able, in a practical sense, to see and
yield to the traffic that’s given right-of-way. Yes, I understand—cyclists are virtuous, cyclists are
vulnerable; that doesn’t change sight lines or speeds. Drivers properly bear much of the
responsibility, but they can’t be assigned all of it. Bicyclists, like pedestrians, have their own
responsibilities, must have appropriate skills, and must stay alert. Separated facilities don’t
necessarily benefit the casual or less experienced bicyclists they’re meant to attract; those
cyclists are just less likely to recognize their deficiencies. The rapidly growing popularity of e-
bikes only emphasizes these concerns.
The effect of separated facilities, it seems to me, is to provide comfort and the perception of
safety, rather than its reality. In addition to their geometric conflicts, physical barriers also create
a nontrivial crash risk (they’ve been known to cause severe injuries), and two-way separated
facilities introduce all the well-known hazards of wrong-way travel, which I can’t see as
somehow mitigated by being intentional. Still, it might be contended that separated facilities,
despite their manifold drawbacks (were they to be acknowledged), should nonetheless be
provided, on an optional basis, for bicyclists who prefer them, with anyone else free to continue
using the roadway.
This argument, however, overlooks important points. The cross section occupied by the separated
bicycle facility and barrier will likely result in the remaining roadway lanes being too narrow for
bicyclists and motorists to share comfortably side by side (as they might have formerly). It will
be intimidating, even for experienced bicyclists, to ride in a narrow lane on a higher-speed
roadway. And motorists who expect bicyclists to keep to their designated facility, out of their
way, might not take kindly to being delayed. Bicyclists who dare to ride in the roadway risk
harassment, at least by honking, and the most antagonistic drivers might tailgate or pass too
closely. Do Safe Streets for All (for “travelers of all ages and abilities”) and the BPTP include a
commitment to preserve the rights of bicyclists who prefer, for reasons I’ve detailed at great
length, to continue riding safely and efficiently on the roadway—for instance, by routine
installation of the BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign (p. 100) on roads with separated
facilities, and education of motorists and law enforcement officers that bicyclists may lawfully
do so, whether or not there is such a sign?
— 12 —
The City of Cupertino provides an instructive example of the unintended consequences of
separated facilities. No doubt with the best of intentions, raised islands have been installed along
many streets popular with bicyclists to create separated bikeways. As a result, bicyclists are
confined within a narrow channel bounded by the crash hazards of the island on the left and the
curb on the right, with barely enough lateral space for shy distance from either (plus the issues of
passing, road debris, and irregular surfaces inside the channel). These islands extend to within a
few feet of intersections and driveways, forcing bicyclists and motorists into right-hook conflicts
at every such point.
Even leaving aside the risk of motorist harassment, there are few gaps between islands where
bicyclists can leave the facility and merge into a left-turn lane. Instead, they have to make do
with two-stage left-turn bike boxes, which are confusing—they may mislead bicyclists into
turning left in a single movement, without yielding to traffic overtaking in the original direction;
introduce delay; and may expose bicyclists to yet another right-hook conflict on the cross-street.
The net effect of this design is a regression toward the bad old days of mandatory sidepaths.
Though sidepath use may no longer be legally required—assuming law enforcement officers
understand that, which is not a given—the roadway, thanks to the presence of a separated facility,
narrow traffic lanes, and impatient motorists, has been made hostile to bicycling. For those who
recognize their hazards, it is no longer possible to bicycle safely or comfortably on those streets.
Palo Alto should resolve not to follow Cupertino’s example.
The Bottom Line
Let me reiterate that, for all this lengthy discussion, my question is ultimately a simple one. What
is the basis for believing, contrary to long-standing engineering practice for both vehicles and
bicycles, that it is safe, much less desirable, for through bicycle traffic to pass right-turning
vehicular traffic on its right side? Where, when, and how have proponents of separated facilities
recognized and addressed this fundamental issue?
The appendix examines the historical origins of recent guidance and its compatibility with traffic
law. This history turns out to have Palo Alto connections.
— 13 —
Appendix: What Are the Origins of This Reversal?
What are the origins of the sudden reversal in bikeway design guidance? The following
discussion is lengthy and of secondary importance to engineering questions, so those with
limited time may treat it as optional. But it does help to explain the current state of affairs.
Chronologically, the turning point was the 2011 National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” which was followed by the FHWA
“Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” (2015) and “Separated Bike Lanes on Higher
Speed Roadways” (2024); Caltrans Design Information Bulletins 89, “Class IV Bikeway
Guidance” (first issued in 2015) and “Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance” (2024);
similar publications in several other states; and, most recently, the fifth edition of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities” (2024).
But this history is only descriptive. The NACTO Guide did not develop from a comparative
assessment of various bicycle facilities; the Request for Proposals had already determined the
treatments to be included.
Psychologically, the appeal of bikeways that are “protected” or “separated” from motor vehicles;
that claim to be suitable for all ages and abilities (implicitly including little or no ability); that
enable infrastructure to take the place of user behavior; and that place any responsibility that
might remain entirely onto the drivers of motor vehicles is difficult to resist. Little wonder that
such bikeways should prove so popular, with planners and designers as well as users. But of
course I don’t propose to psychoanalyze bicyclists or transportation professionals here. What I’m
interested in is the technical foundations of these approaches.
(By the way, wouldn’t the ideal method be to design roadways for motorists of all ages and
abilities? Why don’t we just do that?)
Light was unexpectedly shed on these questions—both the turnabout in design guidance, and the
reluctance of its proponents to confront doubts—by an article in the March 2025 ITE Journal,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As I mentioned above, I consider these
not so much new ideas as old ones recycled from the 1970s and long since superseded. But I
didn’t realize that this account is, in fact, literally true.
In “The AASHTO Bike Guide Sets a New Standard for Safe, Comfortable Bikeways,” Bill
Schultheiss of Toole Design, who was project manager for the guide, and his co-authors stress
comfort as their priority. It’s right there in the title, and I count the words “comfort” or
“comfortable” occurring eleven times in the article. Of course this is an admirable goal, but it
should not come at the expense of safety. It’s no secret that the authors and I would disagree
about the resultant safety of the designs.
Under the subhead “Everything Old Is New Again,” the authors write:
— 14 —
[T]he promise and value of bike lanes is not a new idea.
In 1972, two analyses out of California suggested a new way of thinking about bikes: a
study by De Leuw, Cather & Company that analyzed the performance and safety of the
nation’s first bicycle network in Davis, California, and a report from UCLA that reviewed
national and international research on bikeway planning and design. These studies
found that both bicyclists and motorists preferred streets with bike lanes, and that
separated bike lanes improved safety (although they may require additional
maintenance and parking restrictions).
In 1974, AASHTO published the first national guidance for bicycling in the United States,
which recommended designs that will look familiar:
Continuous bike lanes on streets
Marked bicycle crossings
Two-stage turn queue areas or boxes
Offset geometry of bike lane to manage turning vehicle conflicts
These elements are visible as illustrated in Figure 7 of the 1974 Guide.
The continuous bike lanes in the figure extend unbroken along the curb and through the
intersection, or else are offset onto the sidewalk and crosswalk or an adjacent crossing in
advance of the intersection. The caption describes these as “now known as separated bike lanes
and protected intersections.”
The De Leuw, Cather study treats a right-turning car that makes its approach to the intersection
in the bike lane as a “deliberate encroachment” on the territory of the bicyclist. In other words, a
geometric conflict at right turns is assumed to be necessary and unavoidable. It likewise
considers a bicycle that leaves the lane approaching an intersection in order to execute “an
unauthorized form of left turn” a deliberate encroachment by the bicyclist. It’s no surprise, then,
that its recommendations do not allow for bicyclists (or motorists) following traffic law; no such
options are even presented.
Even so, this report finds protected lanes to be appropriate only in very specialized situations.
The UCLA report seems to be the source of the Class I, II, and III bikeway terminology (later
augmented by IV) now confined almost exclusively to California. Its discussion of intersection
design is aligned with what Schultheiss et al. describe, but that seems to follow necessarily from
an implicit assumption in both reports, never expressed outright, that bicyclists must always hew
closely to the curb for their own safety. As in the De Leuw, Cather study, no alternatives are
examined or compared. The only occurrences of the word “merge” or a variation are in other
contexts.
— 15 —
As for the safety of separated bikeways, the report reviewed several European studies, one of
which found that:
At intersections, the investigators reported that fewer accidents occurred to bicyclists
and moped drivers when there were cycle tracks; and for one-way tracks the decrease
approximated 30%. In these cases physical barriers between the road and the track
prevented cyclists from carelessly moving towards the left before they reached the
intersection so as to make a left hand turn. On the other hand, and consistent with later
Danish findings; chances of a vehicle colliding with a cycle while making a right hand
turn onto the minor road, slightly increased when a track was provided. The investigators
however, concluded that the net result of providing cycle tracks was beneficial.
This is a weak conclusion at best, and the authors observe that none of the studies were subject to
statistical testing, that no firm inferences can be drawn, and that any recommendations cannot be
generalized beyond the studies themselves. In any case, “carelessly moving towards the left
before they reached the intersection so as to make a left hand turn”—also a concern of the De
Leuw, Cather study—would not, I hope, be viewed today in so negative a light. Again, this
study’s designs are incompatible with bicyclists following traffic law.
Why did the De Leuw, Cather and UCLA studies, and the 1974 AASHTO Guide that relied on
them, not become the basis of subsequent practice? Because, to put it melodramatically, in this
Garden of Eden there lurked a serpent. Schultheiss, of course, words it differently:
But in the late 1970s, these ideas faced backlash. Bicyclists feared they would lose their
right to bicycle in travel lanes; concurrently, the transportation industry deemed
separating bikes from cars impractical. A philosophy known as “vehicular cycling”
emerged, based on the premise that few people would bicycle, and that those who did
should operate essentially as motorists and share travel lanes. . . .
The vehicular cycling approach was adopted into national guidance, impeding the
development of American bicycling infrastructure for nearly 50 years. Now, we’re
returning to the evidence-based approach we glimpsed in 1974. Informed by robust
research and urban bikeway experimentation that has occurred over the last 15 years,
the new AASHTO Bike Guide marks the beginning of a new era.
I’m sure that many people seeing this can already read well enough between the lines. But
Schultheiss and two other authors make their argument explicit in a Transportation Research
Board paper from 2018 titled “A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement.”
After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a
network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy – vehicular cycling (VC) –
formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of
losing the right to use public roads. Via positions of power and strong rhetoric, vehicular
cyclists influenced design guidance for decades to come. . . .
— 16 —
I’m curious what positions of power this refers to—political? professional? The only power I’m
aware of that vehicular cyclists have ever possessed is the persuasive one of knowledge,
experience, logic, analysis, and persistence.
In 1972, the City of Palo Alto, CA, began to implement a bicycle network by installing
unprotected bike lanes and signed bicycle routes – including sidewalk bike routes, and
created an ordinance requiring the use of bike lanes.
I remember these early bike lanes. At a time when there were no widely accepted standards and
no uniform regulation, they were marked by an obscure dark-green stripe that was universally
disliked. There were also sidewalk bike paths along Middlefield and Embarcadero. Palo Alto
enacted an ordinance requiring use of both on-street and sidewalk bicycle facilities (as cities in
those days were permitted to do).
Since there were no exceptions to mandatory bike-lane use, through bicyclists came into conflict
with right-turning motorists at intersections. I remember seeing a handout—a utility bill insert,
maybe?—cautioning that in this situation no one had right-of-way, and everyone needed to be
careful. That ambiguous advice was quickly found not to work, and there is no reason to believe
it would work better now. It was also unclear how bicyclists were to turn left.
This attracted the attention of John Forester, a local engineer and amateur bicycle racer.
It attracted Forester’s attention because he lived in South Palo Alto and commuted to work in
Menlo Park by bicycle along Middlefield Road. (I should disclose right here that I knew John
Forester well personally. I visited his home in Palo Alto many times (before he moved to
Sunnyvale, and then Southern California), and worked with him on bicycle issues for years. I
also received certification from him as an Effective Cyclist and an Effective Cycling Instructor.)
Concerned about the mandatory use ordinance and the potential to be required to
bicycle on narrow sidewalks with pedestrians, he became involved with the California
Statewide Bicycle Committee, which was tasked with developing proposals to modify
legislation and create bikeway standards.
Here the authors confuse two different committees: the Statewide Bicycle Committee, which was
primary concerned with legislation (which Forester was indeed a member of) and the later
Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, which dealt with bikeway standards (which he was not a
member of). More about these committees below.
Forester believed bike lanes would increase risks associated with turning motorists,
motorists opening doors from parked vehicles, and bicyclists turning left, and, most
importantly, delegitimize a bicyclists’ right to operate on a street.
Forester’s safety concerns were entirely reasonable ones. And his fear of losing the right to
bicycle on the road was well-founded, given the restrictive ordinances in Palo Alto and many
other locations. The Vehicle Code to this day retains a mandatory bike lane law (though modified
with many exceptions, thanks largely to the good work of the Statewide Bicycle Committee).
— 17 —
And bicyclists’ right to the road faces recurrent danger again today, less now as a matter of law
and more as a matter of in fact:
The very concept of “separation” as the ultimate goal might suggest that shared roadways
are undesirable, and that accommodating bicycling on them should carry at best low
priority.
As mentioned earlier, the right-of-way needed for Class IV bikeways usually results in
the general traffic lanes becoming too narrow to share side by side, and intimidating even
to experienced and confident bicyclists.
Aggressive policing of the roadway by even a few territorial motorists can lead to
harassment of bicyclists, especially when Class IV bikeways are misleadingly referred to
as bike lanes (whose use is mandatory).
Despite extravagant promises to accommodate all ages and abilities, experienced cyclists
receive scant attention in current bicycle planning. They are often classified as “strong and
fearless” (in a set of arbitrary categories that, though widespread, have no empirical validation),
as if only the young and foolhardy would dare to brave the roadway.
To prove protected bike lanes were dangerous, he rode his bicycle at roadway bicycling
speed on a sidewalk designated for bicycle use and attempted to turn left across all
lanes of traffic from the sidewalk at this speed. He published his account of this ride as
“the one valid test of a sidepath system” that proved sidepath style bikeways were
“about 1,000 times more dangerous than riding on the same roads.” While this account
was clearly anecdotal, Forester used this experience—as well as his position as an
engineer—to claim sidewalks, sidepaths, and protected bike lanes were dangerous and
would increase liability for designers and cities in the event of a crash.
Here, for comparison, is what Forester wrote in his first publication on the subject, in Bike World
magazine in 1973:
The sidewalk is dangerous: even a brisk pedestrian rarely walks faster than 2.5 mph,
while average cyclists do 10-12 mph. It’s like putting 18-mph cyclists on a 70-mph
freeway. Furthermore, there are no rules of the sidewalk—anybody may walk in any
direction he chooses, stop, start, and turn anywhere. I know of two pedestrian fatalities
caused by cyclists already—one in San Jose a month ago and one reported by a friend
in Minneapolis. And cars cross the sidewalk everywhere. A car emerging from its hedge-
lined driveway may be quite safe for pedestrians, who travel slowly and stop in one step,
but it is highly unsafe for cyclists. At intersections the same rule holds—the motorists are
supposed to stop for crosswalk traffic, but they never allow for anything faster than a
pedestrian.
This sounds, and is, indignant, but its observations remain perfectly reasonable.
These events inspired him to author a book titled Effective Cycling, which centered on a
philosophy that “bicyclists fare best when they act as, and are treated as, drivers of
— 18 —
motor vehicles.” The book explains his methods for driving his bicycle in a manner
similar to a motorized vehicle, a concept he later popularized through articles in Bicycling
Magazine. . .
First of all, that should properly read vehicles, not motor vehicles or motorized vehicles. The
difference matters. No one imagines that bicycles are as large, as heavy, or as powerful as cars;
bicyclists are also far more vulnerable than motorists, and most of the time they’re slower
(though nowadays even younger riders can operate e-bikes at speeds comparable to cars on local
streets).
Under Vehicle Code §670, a vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway. All such devices, regardless of their other
characteristics, are subject to the rules of the road in Division 11. For historical reasons, that
section goes on to exclude devices moved exclusively by human power. But §21200 effectively
undoes that exclusion by granting bicycle operators all the rights and subjecting them to all the
responsibilities of drivers of vehicles.
In other words, what Forester advocated, far from a radical, elitist proposition, was only what
traffic law has always required. His contribution was to analyze, codify, and disseminate how
bicyclists could and should do this do this more thoroughly than anyone before him.
Without access to the paper copies of 1970s studies Forester critiqued (only recently
available via the internet), transportation professionals, public agency staff, and citizens
who were unaware of research contradicting Forester’s claims had few sources other
than his books for bicycle planning. . . .
But this statement is inconsistent with the next paragraph, which describes a much more
influential document. The authors trace most bicycle planning and design guidance from 1978
until relatively recently to Caltrans’s “Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California.”
Under the direction of California Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, a new design
guide was developed between 1975 and 1978.
In this they are correct: this guidance was highly influential. But they are wrong to view this so
negatively or its development as biased.
The work of the committee was heavily influenced by Forester, who was now president
of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. . . . The two primary references
for the 1978 CalTrans Guide were Munn’s 1974 ASCE paper and Forester’s Cycling
Traffic Engineering handbook.
I’m uncertain where this claim came from. Those sources constituted only two of the 16
references appended to the guide. Among the others were the De Leuw, Cather study, the UCLA
study, and the 1974 AASHTO guidelines. So those publications were hardly overlooked during
the development process.
— 19 —
To explain further, I need to go into the history of this committee.
Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California
The “Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California,” adopted by Caltrans on June 30,
1978, to be effective September 1, were indeed highly influential in the field of bikeway
planning and design. This was a standalone publication whose contents were later incorporated
into the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, where much of that guidance remains to this day. The 1981 AASHTO “Guide for
Development of New Bicycle Facilities” also drew heavily on California’s recommendations,
sometimes nearly verbatim, as did subsequent editions of the AASHTO guide (the name varies
slightly over the years), as the TRB paper goes on to describe in some detail.
Its influence may have been the result of the painstaking and transparent manner in which this
publication was developed by the Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee, as part of a study
authorized by the Legislature. The committee was chaired by Rick Knapp of Caltrans (later a
long-time Caltrans district director) and consisted of a diverse set of members:
Rick Blunden, representing the League of American Wheelmen (later known as the
League of American Bicyclists); Rick later became Chief of the Caltrans Office of
Bicycle Facilities when it was reinstated in the early 1990s
Merick Chaffee of the California Department of Parks and Recreation
David Pelz, representing the League of California Cities and long-time traffic engineer
for the City of Davis
Richard Rademacher of the California Highway Patrol
James Ray of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee; as traffic engineer for
the County of Sacramento, he’s best known for inventing the two-way left-turn lane
Lloyd Roberts, representing the County Supervisors Association of California (later
known as the California State Association of Counties)
John Finley Scott, representing the California Association of Bicycling Organizations
(also Forester’s organization—and, to be fair, mine); he was a sociology professor at U.C.
Davis
I have copies of minutes of most of the committee’s meetings. In addition to those meetings,
which were open to the public, two well-advertised meetings were held, one in San Francisco
and one in Los Angeles, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each, to solicit public comment on a draft
of the report. Comments were also accepted by mail. Among the attendees and commenters at
the Northern California meeting were Joan Thompson (who preceded Gayle Likens with the City
of Palo Alto) and Ellen Fletcher, representing the Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association (now
known as the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition).
In the minutes of several, though not all, committee meetings, John Forester is listed among ten
or so advisors to the committee (which only means interested parties). He gave a presentation at
the September 14, 1977, meeting, as did Jim Ray, traffic engineers from Santa Clara County, and
traffic engineers from the City of Cupertino. It’s clear, however, that Forester’s opinion did not
— 20 —
carry disproportionate influence; in his own report of this meeting, which I also have, he noted
that “I attach a copy of my proposed section on planning which was rejected without discussion
by the committee.”
I’ve looked through the minutes for topics related to bike lane marking and right turns or to
separated bikeways and found these:
In a slide presentation on existing bicycle facilities in the United States, Europe, and
Africa, some “of questionable geometrics and design” and others “of high standards,” one
observation was that “Dikes on the outside edge of bike lanes should be avoided where
not required as they collect debris. Dave Pelz stated that the City of Davis has removed
dikes where they were used to separate autos and bicycles. They were determined to be a
hazard to both motorists and bicyclists (presently contrary to Section 21717, CVC).”
Among “Some Design Details to Consider in Study” was “Striping configuration at
through intersections (conventional intersection).”
Proposed revisions to an early draft document included “Strong recommendation against
bike paths immediately adjacent to roadways.”
“The use of raised bars, dikes on bike lanes—It was concluded that the standards would
include a mandatory prohibition against the use of raised barriers to delineate bike lanes
because they prevent right turning motorists from merging into the lane in accordance
with the Vehicle Code; they prevent bicyclists from exiting the bike lane when necessary
to turn left or avoid hazards in the bike lane; and they represent a hazard to bicyclists and
motorists.”
These notes reveal why it was inevitable that the committee would recommend dropping or
dashing bike lanes in advance of an intersection. It wasn’t the result of rhetoric or pressure; it
was to comply with traffic law. In particular, §21717 of the Vehicle Code, which became law in
1976, reads: “Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane
that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into
the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.”
I’m not aware of any other states that have laws precisely like this, but Vehicle Code §22100 (as
cited just above) provides that “Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn
shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,” with
specified exceptions. This has been the law in California at least since 1939; a similar provision
was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code (a national model code) in 1930, and the laws of all fifty
states and the District of Columbia, with some variation, are in conformity. The only exception I
could find is that Wisconsin Statutes §346.31(2) also provides: “If, because of the size of the
vehicle or the nature of the intersecting roadway, the turn cannot be made from the traffic lane
next to the right-hand edge of the roadway, the turn shall be made with due regard for all other
traffic.”
It’s also important to note that the merging operation must observe §21658(a): “A vehicle shall
be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane
until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”
— 21 —
Schultheiss et al. quote disapprovingly the following statement from the 1978 Caltrans
guidelines, calling it “a remarkably different view of bicycling from the research conducted to
date”: “Most of these roads are sufficient to accommodate shared use by bicyclists and motorists,
and hence, most bicycle travel has occurred and will continue to occur on that system.” This
statement remains in the Highway Design Manual to this day, in slightly modified form (Index
1002.1): “Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway
designations and this may continue to be true in the future as well.” It adds, “In some instances,
entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, where signing
and pavement marking for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as
a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel.”
The HDM also contains (or cross-references) extensive guidance about the planning and design
of bikeways of all classes. It would seem unexceptionable that most streets will not be designated
as bikeways; that bicyclists, whose origins and destinations, like motorists’, can lie almost
anywhere, need to travel on many of those streets for at least part of their trip; that those streets
should therefore be suitable for and accommodate bicycle travel; and that both bicyclists and
motorists need to understand how to share the road safely and courteously. But Schultheiss et al.
seem wary of any street that does not include a bikeway.
(On the other hand, Schultheiss et al. cite favorably Anne Lusk’s misinterpretation of the work
on sidewalk bicycling that Diana Lewiston and I published in 1994. But I’ll leave that discussion
aside for now as too much of a digression.)
SCR 47 Committee
So, to be thorough, we should also inquire into the origins of §21717, even though it merely
emphasizes what is already required by traffic law. The answer is that it can be traced to another
committee with a similar name, the Statewide Bicycle Committee—also known as the SCR 47
Committee, because it was created in 1973 by the Legislature’s Senate Concurrent Resolution 47
to study problems related to bicycling in California and to review the Vehicle Code and
recommend changes that would benefit both bicyclists and motorists. I ought to list this
committee’s membership, too (it has some overlap with the other committee:
Dick Rogers, Caltrans, Chair
Barbara Bania, Office of Traffic Safety
John Forester, California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Neil Good, State Senate
William Owen, League of California Cities
Manuel Puentes, Automobile Club of Southern California
Merick Chaffee, Department of Parks and Recreation
Lloyd Roberts, County Supervisors Association of California
Jim Swatsenbarg, California Highway Patrol
Forester was indeed a member of this committee, but it, too, had a diverse makeup, and he was
the only bicycle advocate represented. There is also a ten-page list of advisors (interested parties
— 22 —
who could provide valuable information). Among those named are Ellen Fletcher; Dave Uggla, a
long-time member of PABAC; and Ted Noguchi (traffic engineer for the City of Palo Alto). This
committee’s work, too, was a thorough, comprehensive, and transparent process. It held public
meetings in Redding, San Francisco, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, and
Sacramento, attended by a total of about 800 people.
Most of the committee’s recommendations were quickly added to the Vehicle Code. One of them
was this: “When necessary to make a right hand turn on a roadway which has a bicycle lane to
the right of the motor vehicle lane, the motorist must merge into the bike lane in accordance with
Section 21658 and make his turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the
roadway in accordance with Section 22100.”
This, with minor changes, became §21717. (See above for the content of the cross-referenced
sections.) I think it is important to cite the committee’s reasoning: “It is the Committee’s opinion
that inconsistent local rules of the road . . . cause confusion and lead to additional conflicts at
intersections. For this reason the Committee recommends that motorists be required to merge
into the bike lane and make a right turn in the usual manner as close as practicable to the right-
hand curb or edge of the roadway.”
Is Vehicular Cycling Elitist?
Forester’s detractors often misrepresent his views, and that is the case here. Earlier I quoted
Schultheiss as saying, “A philosophy known as ‘vehicular cycling’ emerged, based on the
premise that few people would bicycle, and that those who did should operate essentially as
motorists and share travel lanes. . . .”
In a description of his book, however, Forester claimed the contrary: “Rather than a book for
experts, as many people originally described it, Effective Cycling is a book that can show every
beginning cyclist how to ride in the way that is best for him or her.” He even developed a
training course for upper elementary and middle school students (I’ve taught this course myself).
This is far from elitist.
I’ve already dealt with operating as “motorists.” Moreover, vehicular cyclists are taught to share
travel lanes only when they are too narrow to share side by side, and then only when the speed
differential is relatively low.
Forester could be charming in person, but he was a very ineffective advocate for his beliefs. He
was famously argumentative, abrasive, and impatient with and intolerant of those who he thought
didn’t see as clearly as he did. He had the influence that he did because of the power of his ideas,
not his personality, rhetoric, or insistent voice.
From reading distorted accounts of vehicular cycling, you wouldn’t realize that Forester
emphasized, above all else, respect for traffic law (barring a few discriminatory exceptions) and
cooperatively sharing the road with all other users, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians alike.
This framework of order, regularity, and predictability, far from being, as some people seem to
— 23 —
see it, an imposition on bicyclists’ freedom or an attempt to control them, is actually highly
protective.
Also contrary to the way he’s often depicted, Forester was a great believer in science,
experimentation, and evidence. He conducted many observations of road users on his own, and
zealously analyzed whatever material on bicycle operation and safety he found published (and
here I’ll agree with Schultheiss and others that there has been far too little of it). He might at
times have overstated his case, and he had little use for subtlety or tact, but he was always to be
taken seriously.
Other Contemporary Commentary
Rick Knapp, the Caltrans engineer who chaired the Statewide Bicycle Facilities Committee,
presented a paper titled “An Effective Bicycle Program: More Than Paths, Stripes and Signs” to
a transportation conference in Oakland in 1978, at the time the committee’s work was in its final
stages, describing the personal insights his work on the committee had given him into typical
approaches to bicycle planning. These observations remain particularly apt:
A large percentage of work on bicycle facilities to date has been counterproductive—has
caused more problems than it solved. . . .
The agencies that address the “bicycle problem” usually seek the solution that will make
bicyclists disappear. They develop bikeway master plans and programs designed to get
bikes off the road—at least off the roads where cars are apt to be. . . . Some do this
because they believe this is the only safe place for bicyclists to ride. Others do it
because they believe this is where bicyclists want to ride. Far too many do it because
they do not want bicyclists interfering with the flow of auto traffic in major transportation
corridors . . .
Agencies addressing the “bicycle problem” become very frustrated when they find that
many bicyclists avoid their bikeways in making their trips. These bicyclists are looked
upon as dissidents by the local agency and many motorists (who take credit for paying
for the highways and the bicycle facilities). . . .
Local organizations usually view bicycling organizations as radical interest groups—and
they usually are. They are viewed as representing only elitist bicyclists and are not
considered a valid sounding board for proposals intended to the serve the general
public. . . .
Many bicycling organizations have actively opposed bikeways in general because of the
bad experiences they have witnessed. . . .
Yes, it’s true. Everything old is new again.
— 24 —
It is important to recognize that there are less than 2,000 miles of bikeway in California
compared with 130,000 miles of road. Obviously, the utility bicyclist cannot get around
without using the road system.
This ratio has surely improved since 1978, but the disproportion remains. The road system is
crucial.
A year later, Alex Sorton, a senior transportation engineer with Northwestern University’s Traffic
Institute and chair of the ITE committee on bicycle facilities, wrote in “Bicycle Facility
Standards: Designing for Tomorrow with Obsolete Information” in Bicycle Forum magazine:
“The AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Routes was a useful document at the time it was developed in
1972. Since then, however, much of it has become obsolete as better and more complete
information has become available.”
He continued, “Some of the design alternatives discussed in the Guide have been found not
desirable.” One of those he listed was the use of curbs or parked cars as buffers between the bike
lane and the outside travel lane, which “creates more problems than it solves, such as motor
vehicle-bicycle conflicts at intersections caused by parked vehicles’ shielding the bicyclists from
motorists’ view.” Another was the channelization of bicycle traffic through intersections.
Among the features Sorton looked for in a new guide being developed by the FHWA was
“independent bikeways that complement the existing roadway system . . . and that do not require
bicyclists to operate in a manner contrary to the rules of the road.” He recommends as the most
current state of the art the Caltrans “Planning and Design Criteria,” which “has been developed
using current research, operational experience and input from the total bicycling community.”
In Conclusion
As Sorton says, those early bikeway design guides were thorough, professional efforts that were
valuable in their day, and much of their guidance has stood the test of time. But certain designs
implicitly assume that bicyclists will not and must not, for their own safety, follow vehicular
traffic law, and the renewed popularity of these designs is in part a backlash against an erroneous
conception of vehicular cycling.
These early publications are not rediscovered long-lost manuscripts, containing the wisdom of
the ancients, and they have not been suppressed by an elitist but vocal minority. If guidance has
changed, it might be because lessons have been learned, though it might also be that sometimes
those lessons are forgotten and must be learned again.
Separated Bikeway Research: A Response
Alan Wachtel
November 4, 2025, PABAC Meeting
At the August PABAC meeting, I questioned the safety and utility of physically separated bikeways, which
form a significant portion of the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Update, the Safe Streets for All
Safety Action Plan, the El Camino Real Bikeway project, and several other local projects or plans. (These
facilities are also known as cycle tracks, Class IV bikeways, or commonly but incorrectly, as separated or
protected bike lanes. “Protected” is a subjective term that I take issue with (though others might disagree), but
objectively they are not bike lanes, which are designated as Class II bikeways in the California Streets and
Highway Code, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. This distinction matters in California and should be carefully observed, because Class II bike lanes
create legal obligations that Class IV separated bikeways do not.)
My concerns about separated bicycle facilities are detailed at length in Attachment 1 to the August PABAC
agenda. There is no need to repeat them all here, but the fundamental issue is that this design (as well as Class I
bike paths adjacent to roadways; two-stage left-turn bike boxes; many, though not all, advanced stop line bike
boxes; so-called protected intersections; and, depending on interpretation, buffered bike lanes) requires through
bicycles to pass right-turning traffic at intersections and driveways on its right side, and right-turning traffic to
turn at or near right angles from the left and across the path of bicyclists overtaking on the right. This
geometric conflict, often called a right hook, is a well-established cause of car-bike collisions and contrary to
all previous bicycle facility design guidance. A motorist would call it being cut off. It would never be
employed to place right-turning vehicular traffic to the left of through traffic. This is not the only drawback of
physically separated facilities, but it is the major one.
The lengthy discussion at that meeting included a presentation by Nick Falbo of Mobycon, one of the BPTP
Update consultants, in favor of these facilities, which appeared as Attachment 2 to the August agenda. I told
Nick at that time that I’d appreciate evidence supporting the safety of separated bikeways. He replied in the
form of a memo to Ozzy Arce, dated September 10 and titled “Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.” Nick cited a number of studies, which he thoughtfully
provided copies of (with one exception, discussed below). Nick’s memo and the full text of the studies
constituted Attachment 2 to the October PABAC agenda.
I thank Nick for providing this information, which I will respond to here. I’ll distinguish Nick’s memo by
quoting it with a gray background.
— 2 —
Memo
To : Ozzy Arce, City of Palo Alto
From : Nick Falbo, Mobycon Inc.
Date : Sept 10, 2025
Subject : Protected Bike Lane Recommendations in the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Mobycon recommends protected bike lane facilities on many roadways in the City of Palo Alto as part
of the update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transpiration Plan. These recommendations are in
alignment with national guidelines and are made with the intent to improve comfort and safety of
people riding bicycles.
As explained above, I prefer to avoid the misleading term “protected bike lane.” Please consider that comment
to apply to all further occurrences.
As I contended in my earlier memo, comfort—which is a subjective judgment heavily influenced by framing
and experience—seems to have superseded safety as the primary facilities criterion. It’s true that a number of
guidance documents (listed in my August comments) make recommendations along the lines that Nick
suggests. But those guidelines do not seem to have developed from a comparative assessment of various
approaches to bicycle facilities. Instead, as I observed then, they appear to rely on an idealization of early
1970s design guidance, which assumed implicitly that bicycles should travel near the curb and motorists would
necessarily turn across their path at near right angles—an unstated principle that also seems to govern current
guidance favoring separation. This nostalgia was combined with a revisionist history of bicycle facility design,
which I earlier refuted in detail, in order to reject long-standing prior guidance.
I’m looking for the foundation that the guidelines Nick prefers should rest on: reasoning, evidence,
experiments, or data to support these design choices. That’s what Nick’s memo is meant to provide.
Note that many of the studies cited were conducted before the recent dramatic popularity of e-bikes (as, of
course, was other earlier research, including my own). The substantially greater speed of many e-bikes,
compared to most pedal bikes, increases the area in which motorists need to scan for them and reduces the time
available to react. These differences may call for reassessment on all sides.
The following memo documents key studies exploring the safety of protected bike lane facilities, also
known as Separated Bike Lanes or Cycle Tracks. This list is not exhaustive but can provide some
context for facility selection and design.
In-road crashes matter
Many concerns about protected bike lanes have to do with the potential for crashes at intersections.
This is important, and much research and guidance are focused on understanding and mitigating
— 3 —
these risks. It is also important to consider the risks of conflicts where motor vehicles overtake or
pass a bicyclist in the roadway. Research from the UK found that the most common cause of fatal
bicyclist collisions in urban areas is overtaking (McCarthy, Gilbert, 1996).
I agree that overtaking crashes are a significant crash type (one that many bicyclists fear) that deserve careful
attention. However, this study does not support the claim that they are the most common type (which Lusk et
al., cited below, also make, citing the same source). With limited data available, the researchers tentatively
concluded that the most common cause was left turns (corresponding to U.S. right turns), in 34 out of 86
fatalities to which causes could be assigned. Being hit from behind was second, with 22.
The draft BPTP Update dated October 2025 reports that in Palo Alto in the five years from 2018 to 2022, “The
most commonly-cited collision types for bicyclist-involved collisions were broadside collisions (61%)
followed by sideswipe collisions (13%). For fatal and severe injury bicycle collisions specifically, the most
common collision types were broadside collisions (54%), followed by head-on and hit object collisions (15%
each).” The most commonly cited primary collision factor for bike-car collisions in general, and for fatal and
severe injury collisions in particular, was improper turning. Overtaking or hit-from-behind crashes were not
mentioned.
Protected bike lanes largely prevent overtaking crashes.
Protected bike lanes protect users within the protected segments of the facility, eliminating an entire
subset of vehicle-involved crashes that occur within the roadway or bike lane during overtaking
events.
Yes, agreed. But nothing in the U.K. or Palo Alto data suggests that there would be a net benefit to preventing
overtaking crashes with physical separation at the expense of complicating bike-car interactions at intersections
and driveways, where the majority of crashes (turning and broadside) are known to occur.
Looking at both overtaking and intersection crashes, a study of cycle tracks in Montreal found that
the injury rate for cycle tracks was 28% lower than in the street. These were all bidirectional cycle
tracks and the study acknowledged that one-way configurations would likely have been safer (Lusk,
2011).
The study by Lusk et al. has been widely cited, but also widely criticized, including on methodological
grounds. John S. Allen, the author or co-author of many publications about bicycling, including Bicycling
Street Smarts, which has been adopted as the bicycle driver’s manual in several U.S. states, summarizes this
criticism on his blog:
“Flaws of the study include describing stretches of paths in parks and away from streets as cycle tracks;
including stretches which had not been built yet in the reported mileage; selecting a multi-lane comparison
street 10 blocks away with heavy, faster traffic for comparison with a cycle track street which is small and has
light, slow traffic; examining short stretches which end just short of busy intersections; giving the length of one
of the paths as twice as long as it is, halving its reported crash rate, and neglecting injuries to pedestrians.”
Allen’s blog page includes links to a very lengthy, detailed rebuttal of Lusk’s study and to another negative
review of it.
— 4 —
Lusk’s study also misinterprets the work that Diana Lewiston and I published in ITE Journal in 1994. For
reasons of space, I’ll defer discussion of that issue to another time, but let me say briefly that Lusk’s analysis
estimated the number of midblock collisions, rather than relying on observational data; her conclusion was not
statistically significant; and she failed to account for a statistical phenomenon known as Simpson's paradox.
Most drivers don’t look before turning
Researchers in the University of Toronto's Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering studied the eye
movements of drivers at busy Toronto intersections and found that more than half failed to make
necessary scans for pedestrians or cyclists at right turns. (Kaya, et al. 2018).
This finding supports measures to improve conspicuity before the turning maneuver, as well as
increased visibility within and after the turn.
The authors of this study begin by summarizing another study: “An in-depth analysis conducted in Finland
found that cyclist-car crashes occurred most commonly when the driver was turning right. Only 11% of these
drivers noticed the cyclist before impact, whereas 68% of the cyclists noticed the driver and most of them
thought that the driver would give way as required by law. The drivers were identified to be misallocating their
attention because they were looking left for vehicle traffic.”
The disparity here between driver and bicyclist expectations helps to explain why right turns across a lane of
bicycle traffic so often result in conflict, but looking to the left is standard (and often necessary) driver
behavior at a right turn. If the driver had instead moved safely into the bike lane in advance of the intersection,
the merging behavior (looking right and to the rear) would have been decoupled from the turn (looking left).
In the Toronto study, the bike lane was physically separated from the roadway, and drivers were compelled to
turn across it at near right angles. At one intersection out of the two studied, the parking lane that provided the
physical separation seems to have obstructed sight lines. At the other, four out of the six failures were due to
participants entirely failing to check the bike lane for cyclists behind. This may not be surprising, considering
that the interaction between drivers and bicyclists is concentrated at a single conflict point, and drivers may
tend to focus there, rather than behind them for approaching bicycle traffic.
The graphic in Nick’s memo illustrates just this point:
Exhibit 2A from the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide illustrates how a wide
separation from the travel lane provides space to see bicyclists during the turning maneuver.
— 5 —
Notice that even with an offset, bicyclists are visible to motorists looking ahead only within a narrow cone.
Faster bicyclists or those on e-bikes might well approach the conflict point from outside the driver’s range of
vision.
Another graphic from the MassDOT Guide, which Nick did not include, is instructive:
Though it’s labeled as a conventional bike lane, a Class II bike lane would permit drivers to merge into the
lane, and bicyclists to move out of it, to avoid conflict, behavior that differs from what’s shown. This graphic
more closely resembles the geometry of a physically separated bikeway, and illustrates the inherent risk of a
right hook. The bicyclist is completely out of sight of drivers who only scan ahead.
Wide buffers increase safety
A study from the Netherlands found that increased separation between the bikeway and the
roadway can improve safety over immediately adjacent bike lanes. Separating the bike lane by 6.5 to
15.5 ft through an intersection allows drivers to yield to people bicycling during a right turn
movement (Schepers, 2011). The study theorizes that his design decreases the complexity of the
driving task in that it offers drivers turning into the side road extra time to notice cyclists.
Raised crossings increase safety
The same study found that raised bicycle crossings have a large effect on drivers’ behavior and were
effective in reducing the number of bicycle crashes at priority intersections by decreasing drivers’
speed and improving their visual scanning (Schepers, 2011).
This study primarily considered crossing conflicts at intersections, not turning conflicts. Even so, some
designs, such as two-way cycle tracks and colored pavement, were found to increase, rather than decrease,
collisions. Merging before the turn was not included as an option.
— 6 —
Perceived danger from motor vehicles is real, and protected bike lanes help
alleviate that fear
The chief obstacle to bicycling, especially for women, children and seniors is perceived danger of
vehicular traffic. This perceived danger from cars appears to be real, and there is a preference for
cycle tracks over roads in face of that fear. (Winters, Teschke, 2010)
I can’t dispute that many bicyclists fear being hit from behind, even though that’s objectively less likely than
other conflicts. This attitude, however, is only strengthened by the implication that painted bike lane stripes are
inherently unsafe. Still, this is primarily a mobility issue, discouraging bicyclists from using certain facilities.
The greater concern is that these bicyclists often fail to recognize the danger of crossing and turning conflicts
(hence the ineradicable popularity of sidewalk riding), and that is a safety issue. Separated facilities reinforce
this pattern, too, by explicitly promising bicyclists that infrastructure can protect them from traffic. These
facilities promote a comforting reassurance that, while understandably appealing, may not always be justified.
Of course facilities should be attractive and comfortable to their users, but those qualities should not be
founded on unreliable premises.
Studies of early US protected bike lanes demonstrate safe operations, and
widespread appeal
A landmark study in 2014 included direct observation, counts and preferences surveys to understand
the effectiveness of protected bike lanes at encouraging safe and comfortable bicycle mobility (NITC,
2014). Key finding includes:
• Separated bike lanes were observed to be safe: Out of 6100 observations, there were zero
(0) “Major” or “Substantial” conflicts. There were (5) “Minor” conflicts with precautionary
breaking and 306 “Precautionary” observations with “Low risk” and minor change of
direction.
• Ridership within the studied facilities increased 11% over the before conditions
• Public support for these facilities was strong, among all groups of surveyed people.
The appeal of these facilities isn’t surprising, as discussed just above. The NITC study is a good one, by far the
most thorough in this group; I thought so when it was published, and I haven’t changed my mind. But I draw
rather different conclusions from it.
Note particularly that the intersections in this study resolved turning conflicts not through the typical right-
hook geometry, but by different means:
“Three different design approaches were evaluated. First, some designs require the bicycles and turning
vehicles to ‘mix’ in the same space. These designs are called ‘mixing zones.’ The second approach moves the
through bicycle from the protected lane near the curb to the left or right of the turning traffic into a narrow
through bike lane. These are called ‘turning zones.’ There is a defined turn/merge gap for this maneuver and
the lanes are marked with dotted lines recognizing that larger vehicles may encroach on the bike lane due to the
narrow widths of the turning lanes. The third design involves signalization to separate the bicycle and turning
— 7 —
vehicle movements.”
These design elements closely resemble those of conventional painted bike lanes and vehicular traffic
engineering, so I’m reassured that they were found to be safe and effective. But equally important:
“With some exceptions . . ., the large majority of drivers and bicyclists stated that they understood the intent of
the mixing zone designs and were observed to use them as intended. In addition, a majority of bicyclists using
the intersections stated feeling safe.”
In other words, both drivers and bicyclists understood, accepted, and approved the intersection designs
included in this study. That is a high bar to clear, and it suggests that even where there might be valid reasons
for physical separation between intersections, a broader range of design features should be considered in the
vicinity of intersections themselves.
Research into conflict mitigation is ongoing
Research continues, with ongoing attention to conflict mitigation. These tools include signalization at
high turn volumes, reduced radii, increased separation, minimizing exposure, and visual
enhancements (MioTraffic, 2022).
There seems to be a typo in this citation, and the PDF file that Nick provided must have been damaged
somehow and cannot be opened. The corrected reference is MicroTraffic, “Advancing North American Design
Practices to Mitigate Bicycle Right-Hook Conflicts”; a copy can be found here.
I find this report, which deals primarily with separated bikeways and sidepaths, refreshingly forthright in
several respects. Its very title acknowledges that the geometry of unmerged separate facilities can present an
inherent car-bike crash hazard. It also observes that:
“Despite painted bike lanes often requiring that drivers merge with cyclists to make a right turn from the bike
lane (dashed line on approach), many do not. This observed behaviour suggests that the typical painted bike
lane merge is not working as intended, resulting in the same potential right-hook conflicts as with a protected
approach but with driver and cyclist behaviour being less predictable to one another. For improved cyclist
comfort and a more inclusive design, designers are likely better off simply designing for full physical
separation up to the intersection, taking the many considerations raised in this study into account.”
This, like the NITC study, is highly unusual in recognizing that there are methods of routing vehicles and
bicycles through intersections without creating a right-hook geometry. Unfortunately, it immediately goes on
to discard that approach, and to conclude that we might as well cement the right-hook conflict into our
facilities and deal with it as best we can. This is at least a straightforward rationale for preferring separation
(even if not one I would accept), which is a great deal more than proponents are usually able to offer.
Still, I would have preferred to ask, What is the evidence that drivers fail to merge? (The NITC study found
otherwise.) Is there a correlation between the rate of driver compliance and intersection conflicts? Could driver
behavior be improved by signage, markings, or other means? Why abandon these ideas, when so many other
options were chosen to pursue? The NITC study’s findings suggest that merging and related designs deserve
thorough consideration.
It’s also important to recognize that taking physical separation as the default renders it impossible for those
— 8 —
drivers and bicyclists who want to merge or change lanes to do so. Furthermore, even if we assume, for the
sake of argument, that there are effective mitigations for intersection conflicts along physically separated
bikeways, those mitigations can be provided, for the most part, at only a limited number of discrete locations
along the bikeway. At all other intersections and driveways, motorists and bicyclists will be left to their own
devices.
More generally, these facilities train bicyclists to pass right-turning motorists on their right, and motorists to
turn sharply across the path of overtaking bicyclists, at all locations, even where no physical barrier prevents
merging. The potential increase in bike-car collisions that such behavior might produce on shared roadways or
those with conventional bike lanes would not be captured by isolated studies of separated bikeways.
Recent updates to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2024) include
comprehensive design guidance for the design of protected bike lanes.
I’ve already discussed the bias in this guide in my August comments, which there is no need to repeat here.
Conclusion
Recommendations in the update to the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan for
protected bike lanes in higher traffic contexts is appropriate and in line with national guidelines for
facility selection.
The overall safety and comfort performance of an individual bicycle facility is highly influenced by
design details beyond the basic facility type selection. We encourage the City of Palo Alto to pay
special attention to the design engineering phase of all protected bike lanes to implement the latest
practices in design to increase conspicuity and visibility of bicyclists, decrease driver speed at turns
and conflict points, and increase yielding rates at turns.
Physically separated bikeways may have a place in individual situations where their drawbacks (of which
intersection conflicts are the most serious, but not the only ones) can be addressed. I urge the City to consider
recommendations for them in the BPTP Update with great caution; these are expensive installations that may
provide little benefit, or even its opposite, and are not easily reversed. The evidence in their favor, as I mean to
demonstrate here, even if it’s crept into recent design and facility selection guidance, is much less robust than
their proponents are ready to acknowledge.
I agree, however, with Nick’s second paragraph, except that I would replace “protected bike lanes” with the
more general “bikeways.”
From:Pamela Mayerfeld
To:Council, City
Subject:Changing E Meadow Dr between Middlefield and Fabian into a separated bikeway would create dangerous
situations
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 7:45:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please do not change E Meadow Dr between Middlefield & Fabian by creating a separated bikeway. E
Meadow Dr in this area is presently wide enough to enable both bikes & cars to use it safely. A
separation is not necessary and will make both E Meadow Dr & Ross Road more dangerous for bicycles
and pedestrians
Converting E Meadow Dr to a separated bikeway would require the elimination of necessary
parking resulting in reduced safety for the following reasons:
Ramos Park is actively used by people from around the area for soccer practices & games, volleyball
games, picnics, parties, etc. They need a place to park as they often bring equipment and there is no
parking lot there.
Taking parking away from E Meadow Dr would force people to park on Ross Road which is a shared
bike boulevard. Ross Road would be more dangerous to bike on as it doesn't have as much room for
moving cars, parked cars & bikes
Parking on the south side of E Meadow is already often full so people park on the north side of E
Meadow as well as Ross Road -- this would increase.
It's more dangerous for pedestrians to cross from the north side than to walk directly into Ramos
from the south side of E Meadow.
Ramos Park's wonderful new bathrooms are used often by many people including PA city workers --
where would they park to do so?
People make U-turns on E Meadow Dr when parking adjacent to Ramos Park is taken, this would
increase significantly, making E Meadow Dr more dangerous overall.
There are multiple ADUs on E Meadow Dr (and inevitably more coming) so cars don't have garages or
driveways and need to park on the street
Please listen to the local people who live in/near E Meadow Dr & use Ramos Park. Making E Meadow
Dr a separated bikeway would change a safe transit route into a dangerous transit route.
Thank you
Pam Mayerfeld
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Ron Klutts
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 6:38:31 AM
Dear Council members,
As a Mountain View resident and a 25 year user of the airport as a pilot, I urge you to approve
the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at
Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ron Klutts
From:Peggy Yao
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Suggestions on SB_18
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 12:53:04 AM
Attachments:Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.11.27 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.04.03 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.05.42 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-12-01 at 12.32.35 AM.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor, vice Mayor, and City Council members,
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break!
I am a 20-year resident in Palo Alto. I am writing to share my thoughts and suggestions on
SB_18. This proposal plans to convert the painted bike lane into a separated bikeway along
West/East Meadow from El Camino Way all the way to Fabian Way. My suggestion is
specific about the E Meadow Drive portion from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir (the red
line on the map below).
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
First of all, I love biking, and I do care about bikers' safety. My kids bike to schools, and
biking to the Bayland reserve across 101 is our family's classic weekend activity.
However, developing the separated bikeway along East Meadow Drive from Middlefield to E
Meadow Cir is NOT necessary, however, it will cause a lot of problems to the residents there
and Ramos Park visitors.
1. Why unnecessary?
Because this stretch of E Meadow Dr is wide with wide bike lanes, especially the portion
from Grove Ave to Louis Rd -- there is a dedicated bike lane outside of the parking lane.
Please see the map below. So the space for bikes is very generous. Moreover, this stretch of E
Meadow Dr also has much lower traffic than the other side of Middlefield. Whenever my
family bikes to this stretch, I am not nervous at all because it feels really safe.
2. If building a separated bikeway, what problems will be caused to the residents and Ramos
park visitors?
- This stretch of E Meadow is a pure resident area. Many residents have garages and front
doors on the E Meadow Dr. Not sure how those residents can get in/out, or how their
gardeners and service people can park their service vehicles close enough to the house to
conduct the service, if the lane in front of their houses is blocked.
- Ramos Park (located along E Meadow Dr, between Ross Rd and Louis Rd) is a park purely
relying on street parking. It's getting a lot busier than before after the restrooms are built. It's
also a park for soccer classes during weekdays and soccer games during weekends. With the
separated bikeway installed, the park visitors will lose many parking spots near the park. Not
sure flooding the visitor parking into surrounding residential areas will be a welcome change.
3. The project will be costly. Saving some money by reducing the scope for some portions will
make better use of taxpayers' money.
Because it's unnecessary and it will cause many problems, I'd like to propose NOT to build
the separated bikeway along E Meadow Dr from Middlefield to E Meadow Cir, at least
not from Grove Ave to Louis Rd.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Peggy
From:Yaron
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Meeting TOMORROW December 1st comment
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 11:18:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and Palo Alto tax payer, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Yaron Ekshtein
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Shujie Jiao
To:Council, City
Cc:Xiaofan Lin
Subject:Concerns About the Proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 10:35:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council and Transportation Staff,
I am a homeowner living on the corner of El Dorado Avenue and Waverley Street, very
close to the proposed El Dorado Bike/Ped Tunnel (Alternative A). I strongly support safe
biking and walking throughout Palo Alto, and I appreciate the City’s efforts to improve cross-
town connectivity. However, after reviewing the preliminary concepts, I have significant
concerns about the suitability of the El Dorado alignment for a major bike/pedestrian tunnel.
I respectfully ask the City to remove Alternative A (El Dorado) from the preferred options
or, at minimum, to conduct deeper analysis of its impacts on our narrow residential street.
⸻
1. El Dorado is a Narrow, Quiet Residential Street Not
Designed for High-Volume Through Traffic
The City anticipates up to 2,500 daily bike/ped trips using a new crossing. Channeling that
volume down El Dorado would fundamentally change the character of the block. Today, it is a
calm street primarily used by local residents. Turning it into a busy connector corridor raises
quality-of-life concerns for all of us living here.
⸻
2. The New Alma/El Dorado Traffic Signal May Cause
Queuing in Front of Our Homes
The proposal includes a new traffic signal at Alma & El Dorado. Given the narrow width of
El Dorado and the proximity to Waverley, I am deeply concerned that:
• Car queues will back up past Waverley, directly in front of my house.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
• We will experience increased idling, noise, and exhaust from stopped cars.
• The street geometry is simply not designed to store long queues.
I respectfully request that the City release its traffic modeling, queue-length projections, and
assumptions for this signalized intersection so residents can fully understand the operational
impacts.
⸻
3. Safety Concerns When Backing Out of Driveways on a
Narrow Street
As someone who uses my driveway daily, I am worried about the increased risks of:
• Backing into fast-moving groups of cyclists,
• Limited sight distances on a narrow street, and
• The lack of space to safely pause and check for bikes and pedestrians.
This problem would be much less severe on a wider street or one already functioning as a
designated Bike Boulevard.
⸻
4. Privacy, Noise, and Neighborhood Character Impacts
The tunnel will attract constant foot and bike traffic throughout the day, including early
mornings, evenings, and weekends. While I fully support active transportation for our
community, having hundreds or thousands of people pass directly in front of our windows
every day creates genuine concerns about:
• Privacy
• Lighting and nighttime activity
• Noise from groups of riders
• General changes to how our block feels and functions
This is very different from adding a painted bike lane—it transforms the street into a major
cross-town portal.
⸻
5. Construction Disruptions Will Be Significant
The City estimates ~18 months of construction for tunnel options. Living so close to the
project area, my household would be heavily affected by:
• Construction noise and vibration
• Dust and air quality issues
• Truck traffic and staging
• Potential nighttime or weekend work
• Temporary street closures or detours
As someone with health sensitivities, prolonged dust and construction emissions are a major
concern.
⸻
6. Better-Suited Alternatives Exist
I strongly support improved bicycle and pedestrian connections across the railroad. However,
other alignments—including Loma Verde or San Antonio Road—provide more direct
connections, occur on wider streets, and reduce neighborhood impacts.
These alternatives appear to achieve the same transportation and safety goals without placing
disproportionate burdens on a small, narrow, fully residential block.
⸻
Request
I respectfully ask the City to:
1. Remove the El Dorado tunnel (Alternative A) from the preferred list,
OR provide a clear, transparent analysis demonstrating that:
• queues will not spill into Waverley,
• driveway safety will be protected,
• property and privacy impacts are minimized, and
• construction impacts are properly mitigated.
2. Consider placing a major cross-town bicycle/pedestrian facility on a wider, better-
suited corridor that can safely and comfortably handle higher volumes.
Thank you very much for your time and for considering the viewpoint of the residents who
live directly along the proposed alignment. I appreciate the City’s commitment to
sustainable transportation, and I hope we can find a solution that improves connectivity
while preserving the safety, livability, and character of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Shujie Jiao and Xiaofan Lin
El Dorado Ave & Waverley St Resident
Palo Alto, CA
From:Steve Woltosz
To:Council, City
Subject:Safety-Focused Support for Modernizing AWOS Project at Palo Alto Airport
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 10:33:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a long-time Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
We live in Silicon Valley—one of the most technologically advanced regions in the world—
and we rightly take pride in that. Thoughtfully applied technology enhances both safety
and efficiency; just think of the tools we rely on every day. Every major innovation has had
its naysayers, yet our community and the wider world are better and safer because we
continue to advance and adopt new technologies, including in aviation.
These upgrades up for approval are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more
than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement
systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially
improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Woltosz
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:David Hung
To:Council, City
Cc:David Hung
Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity - NO on Alternative A - YES on Alternative B
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:59:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Respected City Council Members,
I oppose the El Dorado proposal because it is not safe.
I am a Palo Alto resident living in Midtown.
I use the El Dorado Avenue and Alma intersection several times a week at various times of
day and night. Currently, with cars parked on both sides of El Dorado, it is a tight squeeze
for 2 way traffic entering and exiting Alma. There is no room for bike lanes.
El Dorado Avenue is 27 feet in width and the narrowest road in all the proposals. By
comparison, Loma Verde is 42 feet. Churchill is 36 feet.
The Existing Conditions report for this project on p. 72 already stated 1 death due to
collision on El Dorado Avenue.
The Phase 1 Community Engagement Report for this project on p.661 already stated that
the City/School Transportation Safety Committee expressed concern about narrow streets.
Loma Verde (proposal B) is a much superior alternative for safety.
To quantify and compare these concerns, I asked an expert, Google AI the following
question: “How much safer is a 40 feet wide 2 way street with bike lanes versus a 27 feet
wide 2 way street with bike lanes”
Answer:
The 40-foot wide street is substantially safer, …
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
The 40-foot wide street is safer because its dimensions allow engineers to install
proven safety countermeasures like buffers and standard lane widths that the 27-foot
street cannot physically fit. The difference in safety is substantial and can be
measured in a reduction of dozens of percentage points in crash rates for the wider
street configuration.
The full Google AI report is below.
I asked ChatGPT the same question, and it replied similarly and also included percentage
estimates of improvement in safety.
An excerpt from ChatGPT’s answer is:
3. Quantitative safety difference (based on studies in
multiple U.S. cities)
From research in Chicago, New York City, Portland, and FHWA syntheses:
Wider roads with buffered or unencroached bike lanes reduce:
Close passes by ~25–40%
Driver encroachment into bike lanes by ~30–50%
Cyclist crash risk by ~20–30%
Cyclist fall risk from edge riding by ~15–20%
The full ChatGPT answer is below.
Therefore, why not invest in a superior proposal (Loma Verde) that would provide safety
gains for our children and the Palo Alto Community as a whole?
Respectfully,
David Hung
Additional Information:
***************
Google AI full answer:
The 40-foot wide street is substantially safer, not just because of the added width, but
because that width allows for a superior quality of bike facility, which leads to
quantifiable crash reductions for all users. The narrow 27-foot street forces
compromises that inherently introduce higher risks.
While it's difficult to give a single percentage that covers every variable, safety is
improved through these key factors:
1. The Power of Buffers and Separation
The 40-foot street can easily accommodate buffered bike lanes (Class IIb) or
potentially physically separated lanes (Class IV), which provide several feet of striped
or vertical separation.
Crash Reduction Factors: Adding a buffer to a conventional bike lane can
reduce bicycle-vehicle crashes significantly, with some studies showing
reductions of up to 53% for bicycle/vehicle crashes when converting to a
physically separated lane.
"Dooring" Elimination: A 3-foot buffer in the 40-foot layout effectively
accommodates the full swing of a car door, virtually eliminating "dooring"
crashes, which account for a significant percentage of bicycle-motor vehicle
collisions. The 27-foot street likely won't have space for a buffer.
Perceived Safety: Buffers offer "additional comfort" and a greater sense of
security for cyclists, which encourages higher ridership—a phenomenon known
as "safety in numbers" that further improves overall safety for cyclists in a
community.
2. Optimal Vehicle Lane Widths
The 40-foot street allows for the use of optimal 10-foot vehicle lanes in an urban
setting.
Speed Management: These narrower lanes naturally encourage lower driving
speeds without compromising traffic flow.
Crash Data: Studies by Johns Hopkins University found that roads with 10-foot
lanes had significantly fewer crashes than those with 12-foot lanes in 30-35
mph speed zones.
The 27-foot street would likely require very narrow 7.5-foot car lanes to fit bike
lanes, which, while forcing slow speeds, offers less operational flexibility and
potentially less perceived safety for drivers.
Summary
The 40-foot wide street is safer because its dimensions allow engineers to install
proven safety countermeasures like buffers and standard lane widths that the 27-foot
street cannot physically fit. The difference in safety is substantial and can be
measured in a reduction of dozens of percentage points in crash rates for the wider
street configuration.
**********
Full ChatGPT answer:
Here’s a clear, evidence-based way to compare the safety difference between:
40-ft wide two-way street with bike lanes
vs.
27-ft wide two-way street with bike lanes
Both have bike lanes, but the available width changes how safe those lanes actually
function.
Below is the best research-backed breakdown.
♂ 1. Safety difference is meaningful — mainly due to
passing distance
Studies from the FHWA, NACTO, IIHS, and multiple city transportation departments show:
Bike lanes are safest when the total roadway is wide enough that cars can pass
cyclists without drifting into oncoming traffic.
When travel lanes are narrower than 10–11 ft, drivers tend to:
Pass more closely
Encroach into the bike lane
Swerve around cyclists
Speed less (a positive), but create more conflict
The increase in safety from 27 ft to 40 ft typically reduces close-passing
events by ~25–40%.
This is not about the bike lane itself — it’s about how cars behave next to it.
2. What 40 ft allows that 27 ft cannot
40 ft street
Usually configured as:
Two 11–12 ft car lanes
Two 5–6 ft bike lanes
Often a small buffer (1–2 ft)
Benefits:
Safe passing without lane shifts
Clear separation
Fewer encroachments into the bike lane
Better driver visibility and reaction time
Lower cyclist stress → fewer erratic movements
27 ft street
Typical configuration:
Two 10 ft travel lanes
Two 4–5 ft bike lanes
No buffer
No room for shy space or error
Problems:
Drivers pass closer because they cannot shift left much
Higher chance of mirror strikes, sideswipes
Cyclists ride closer to the edge → higher dooring risk
Drivers must cross the centerline to pass safely → more conflict with oncoming traffic
3. Quantitative safety difference (based on
studies in multiple U.S. cities)
From research in Chicago, New York City, Portland, and FHWA syntheses:
Wider roads with buffered or unencroached bike lanes reduce:
Close passes by ~25–40%
Driver encroachment into bike lanes by ~30–50%
Cyclist crash risk by ~20–30%
Cyclist fall risk from edge riding by ~15–20%
Summary:
A 40-ft road with bike lanes is roughly 20–35% safer than a 27-ft road with bike lanes,
mostly due to passing behavior and buffer capacity.
4. The biggest improvement comes from
“buffer zones”
If the 40 ft street uses even a 1–2 foot painted buffer, that alone improves safety more
than lane width.
A buffered lane:
Reduces crash risk by another 15–30%
Reduces perceived stress by 40–60%
Dramatically reduces encroachment
Buffers matter more than the total pavement width itself.
From:Kyla Farrell
To:Council, City
Subject:Reguarding the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:31:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am a resident of Midtown Palo Alto with two children in PAUSD. I am writing
you regarding the proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update.
I implore you to prioritize making the Middlefield business districts a "bicycle friendly zone"
like the city's other business districts.
South Palo Alto residents shouldn’t have to bike all the way to Downtown or Cal Ave just to
run an errand or grab a coffee. We have grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, youth
programs, and community hubs right here in Midtown—but they’re not safely reachable by
bike.
Additionally, nearly half of PAUSD’s K–8 students—around 3000 kids—live or attend school
south of Oregon Expressway and east of Alma. These children and their families frequently
travel to Mitchell Park and multiple shopping centers in the Midtown area.
Middlefield Road today is the opposite of what a neighborhood street should be: cars regularly
travel 35–40 mph in a 25 zone, bike lanes vanish without warning, sidewalks are cramped, and
bike parking is almost impossible to find. These conditions make the corridor hostile for
anyone who isn’t in a vehicle.
The core problem is that in South Palo Alto Middlefield has been allowed to function as a fast-
moving cut-through rather than as a neighborhood street. This is not the case on the north side
of Oregon, where Middlefield drops to two lanes with clear bike lanes and traffic slows. Why
do we need four lanes on Middlefield in South Palo Alto but not North Palo Alto?
Middlefield should be reduced to two lanes through South Palo Alto—especially from Loma
Verde to Oregon where the traffic lanes barely accommodate a modern car and there is zero
space for bikes, but many local businesses which would be easily accessible by bike or on
foot. The fact that Middlefield works with two lanes of traffic north of Oregon is only proof
that we could drop to two lanes in South Palo Alto as well. Imagine how lovely the Midtown
commercial strip could be with additional street trees and a protected bike path. We could
have art fairs and farmers markets where we live, not just on Cal Ave or Downtown. And then
the corridor can begin to function like other Palo Alto business districts where safe, reliable
biking is the norm.
Additionally, I ask that you prioritize:
Further improvements around Alma/Churchill to help keep our Paly students safe since
grade separation is still a long way off.
Prioritize the bicycle improvements planned on E. Meadow despite ongoing budget
constraints (budget constraints have already delayed this critical safety improvement
project impacting our Gunn, JLS and Fairmeadow students).
Approval of the proposed El Dorado underpass but with the underpass taking cyclists
and pedestrians under Alma as well as under the railroad tracks (the current proposal
would install a traffic signal and require bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Alma).
Prioritizing bike lanes early in the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
Best,
Kyla Farrell
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:NYTimes: The Shocking Crash That Led One County to Reckon With the Dangers of E-Bikes
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:28:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/30/magazine/e-bikes-accidents-safety-legislation-
california.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Sent from my iPhone
From:dorin@cognosair.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Council"s approval of Consent Item #12
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:27:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Ryan Ma
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity – Oppose Alternative A as Sole Preferred Option
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:18:33 PM
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Kou and Members of the City Council,
I am a South Palo Alto resident and a strong supporter of safer bicycle and pedestrian
connections. We live near El Dorado Avenue, our children walk and bike to El Carmelo along
this street every day, and I drive to work from El Dorado to Alma Street daily. Based on these
firsthand experiences and observations, I am convinced that Alternative A is not a good option
for this community, and I am writing to oppose designating Alternative A as the sole preferred
alternative and eliminating all others at this time.
First, El Dorado Avenue is already a key school route. Many El Carmelo Elementary students
currently walk and bike along El Dorado to school. The City’s own safety materials identify a
fatal pedestrian collision at El Dorado and South Court and place this segment on the
pedestrian High Injury Network. Using El Dorado as the primary access to a new tunnel will
funnel even more riders and cut-through traffic onto a narrow street heavily used by children
during school hours, increasing conflict and risk rather than reducing it.
Second, El Dorado is a narrow local street, and the Alma / El Dorado area already experiences
congestion and documented collisions. On-street parking and turning movements create
regular bottlenecks today. Police collision reports show crashes at Alma / El Dorado,
including unsafe-speed and bike-involved incidents. Adding a high-volume tunnel entrance
here will push more traffic and turning movements into an intersection and corridor that are
already struggling.
Third, moving to a single option now would deviate from the City’s published Phase 2 process
for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project, which calls for advancing two
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
alternatives to 15% conceptual design for evaluation and community input before selecting a
single preferred alternative. Narrowing to one option before comparable 15% designs and
impact analyses are available prematurely constrains both Council’s and the community’s
choices.
I respectfully request that Council:
1. decline to adopt Alternative A as the sole preferred alternative; and
2. direct staff to advance at least one additional alternative to 15% conceptual design so
that the final choice can be based on a fair comparison of safety, traffic, cost, and
neighborhood impacts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ryan
2801 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:Diane McCoy
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove Item #12 from the Consent Calendar
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 8:30:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members of Palo Alto.
I am a resident of Palo Alto living in the St. Francis/Duveneck neighborhood.
I am requesting that Item #12 be dismissed from the Consent Calendar; Monday,
Dec. 1's City Council Agenda.
The staff report does not address several important issues that warrant full Council
discussion.
First, the AWOS system is NOT required by the FAA for safety. The report frames
the project as safety related, but it does not explain why the City should pursue an
OPTIONAL system that is BEYOND the FAA requirements for safety.
Second, we also should not support non-required safety improvements that enhance
an airport whose flight paths expose nearby communities to leaded fuel emissions.
What progress has been in that arena?
Palo Alto Airport is RANKED 19!!! among the top 100 lead polluting airports, with
populations, including my neighborhood, living within .62 miles that are eight times
more Black and twice as likely to be non-white and Hispanic.
Because these issues have not been clearly presented or analyzed, Item #12 should
not remain on the consent calendar.
A FULL discussion is needed to ensure the Council has complete information before
making a decision,
and that this is not a ploy, in the guise of safety, to increase the size and volume of
the airport.
Again, I request that Item #12 be removed from the consent calendar.
Respectfully,
Diane McCoy
763 Greer Road (corner of Embarcadero and Greer Road)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Andrew
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 8:05:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Menlo Park resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sweeney
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:prashant kanhere
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 7:14:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As an airplane owner and a pilot with our airplane based at Palo Alto airport, I urge you to approve
the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at
Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential for safe airport operations. Much of the airport’s current equipment
is more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will
substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide
continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Prashant Kanhere
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sundar Raj
To:Council, City
Subject:regarding Item #12 on the December 1, 2025 Consent Calendar
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 7:09:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
My name is Akkamapet "Sundar"raj. I am a pilot, the owner of an aircraft based at
Palo Alto Airport (KPAO), and the owner of an LLC through which my airplane is
leased to Advantage Aviation. In addition to flying regularly myself, my aircraft
supports local flight training, instruction, and rentals—contributing directly to aviation
commerce in the City of Palo Alto.
I am writing to personally urge you to approve the seven items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) Project, AP-19000, listed as Item
#12 on the December 1, 2025 Consent Calendar.
This issue matters to me not only as a pilot but as someone who has invested in the
local aviation ecosystem. Much of the airport’s weather and communication
equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult
to maintain. I see the effects of this aging infrastructure firsthand, both in my own
flying and through the training operations that rely on my aircraft. The planned
upgrades are modern, FAA-compliant, and will significantly improve reliability and
safety. They also ensure that continuous real-time weather data remains available to
the entire community through the National Weather Service.
A modern AWOS will greatly improve the accuracy and timeliness of the weather data
that pilots depend on every day. Importantly, better weather reporting does not
increase airport traffic or noise; it simply helps pilots make safer, more informed
decisions.
With both personal and business ties to KPAO, I respectfully ask for your support in
approving this important upgrade that benefits pilots, local aviation businesses, and
the economic vitality of the Palo Alto Airport.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Sincerely,
Sundar
From:Jeffrey Katz
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for approval of Consent Item #12 on the Council"s agenda tomorrow night
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 6:13:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a Flight Instructor and pilot for which Palo Alto Airport is my primary work location,
I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards,
and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety.
They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the
National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot
decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Jeff Katz | Owner
N960RD@flightlineaviation.com
(408) 480 5755
Flightline Aviation
366 Jackson Street
San Jose, CA 95112
www.flightlineaviation.com
From:B Nimri
To:Council, City
Subject:Please approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at
Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 6:06:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a[Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Basim Nimri
(408) 472-8000
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Clay Ross
To:Council, City
Subject:Requesting Council"s approval of Consent Item #12 (1 Dec 2025)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:41:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
Thank you for your service to our community.
As a longtime local resident and Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
I am the Northern California "Wing Leader" for Angel Flight West, a network of volunteer pilots who
provide free medical transportation to people in need. Palo Alto airport is one of 2 hubs in Northern
California due to its close proximity to Stanford Hospital and Stanford Children's Hospital, and is crucial
to getting our patients safely to their life-saving medical care. Without a vibrant and safe airport, our
patients would not have easy access to their specialized life-saving medical procedures.
These proposed upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-
the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while
maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness,
and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport traffic day
or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather
conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to
accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clay Ross
Angel Flight West NorCal Wing Leader
(408) 202-5244
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Nick Ulman
To:Council, City
Subject:PAO airport
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:13:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
Please approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project,
AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Sincerely,
Nick Ulman
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 1, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #19: City Manager Employment Agreement
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:11:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 1, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #19: CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
When the City Council appointed Ed Shikada as City Manager, nosearch process had been conducted for the position.
As reported in the Palo Alto Weekly at that time, when the CityCouncil appointed Shikada's predecessor James Keene, there were42 applicants, six semi-finalists, several interview panels,and three finalists.
Council Member Tom Dubois said of Shikada's appointment, "Therecould still be an opportunity for the public to comment andweigh in when we do goals and performance reviews and settingcriteria for evaluating the city manager." (See "Ed Shikadanamed next city manager" by Gennady Sheyner in Palo AltoWeekly of June 29, 2018, at pages 5 and 8.)
Now that the results of the City Council's annual review of theCity Manager's performance have been completed, the Councilstill resists making public the Goals and Key PerformanceIndicators that they use to evaluate the City Manager'sperformance; the annual amendment for each Council AppointedOfficer's compensation is being proposed five months after thefiscal year has started; and amendments to their employmentagreements are placed at the end of a long meeting agendafollowing a long holiday weekend.
Should the public and press just assume that whatever opinionsthey have of the performance of the City Manager and the otherCouncil Appointed Officers are not really about thoseemployees, but that those employees are doing exactly what theCity Council wants them to do, and that the opinions of thepublic and press about those officers performance are reallyopinions about the performance of the City Council?
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:Eugene Perkov
To:Council, City
Cc:Eugene Perkov
Subject:Palo Alto Airport improvement project
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:58:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene Perkov, pilot and Certified Flight Instructor at KPAO
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 1, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #9: Additional High Pressure Steam Cleaning Services for
Downtown University and California Avenue Business Districts
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:29:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
DECEMBER 1, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #9: Additional High Pressure Steam CleaningServices for Downtown University and California Avenue BusinessDistricts
The staff report for this item states that the reason for theCity spending additional funds to clean sidewalks and streetsin the University Avenue and California Avenue BusinessDistricts is the complaints from increased pedestrian streettraffic in those areas, but the complaints are not the reasonthat the sidewalks and streets are dirtier and need additionalcleaning.
The reason for the need for additional cleaning are the factthat businesses that are allowed to operate on the sidewalksand streets are creating additional debris that they have beenrequired since 1953 to dispose of properly, and thosebusinesses should be paying for the additional cleaning paidfor by this contract.
Any funds paid into the parking assessment districts might nowbe allocated to cleaning parking lots, but those funds cannotbe used for cleaning the sidewalks and streets.
Any fees paid by businesses now operating in the streets do noteven compensate the City for the cost of the parking spacesthat need to be replaced in new lots or parking structures, butthose funds cannot be used for cleaning sidewalks and streets.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.48.050 adopted by OrdinanceNo. 1504 in 1953 reads:
9.48.050 Obligation to clean sidewalk.
The occupant or tenant, or in the absence of an occupant or tenant, the owner of any real
estate in Palo Alto in front of which there is a paved sidewalk shall keep the sidewalk free of
dirt, debris and litter. Sweepings from the sidewalk shall not be swept or otherwise made or
allowed to go into the street but shall be disposed of by the person responsible for the cleaning
of the sidewalk.
(Ord. 1504 (part), 1953: prior code § 20.1)
An assessment district should be formed for those businessoperating on the sidewalks in the University Avenue andCalifornia Avenue Business Districts to pay for the additionalcleaning of sidewalks in those business districts, and aseparate assessment district should be formed for those
businesses operating in the streets to pay for the additionalcleaning of streets in those business districts.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:Ken Hahn
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting Palo Alto Airport"s FAA AWOS system Upgrade
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:11:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council members:
I am a long time (25+ years) Palo Alto resident with a family of five. I am
writing to ask you to approve the seven items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
The airport is an important resource for the community. We will be very
pleased we have it should disaster strike requiring the need for emergency
equipment and supplies. This happens throughout the U.S. and
internationally -- disaster strikes, smaller relief airports come to the rescue
to restore safety and necessity as soon as possible and later rebuild
communities.
Our airport’s weather reporting system is 50+ years old, is not overly
reliable, and due to its age is expensive to maintain; the replacement
systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards,
and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level
of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service. Importantly, better weather
data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
It is an upgrade that is only helpful.
Can you be sure that it is executed without further delay at Monday's
Council meeting? As you know well, this project has been *years* in the
making.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned upgrade
and putting to the side delay tactics -- to act in the best interests of our
community. Thank you!
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Best regards,
Ken Hahn
From:zack.cfi@yahoo.com
To:Council, City
Subject:consent calendar item #12
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:07:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto airport tenant I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Zack BOUSNANE
415 548 3956
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:j miller
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated weather and climate data for Palo Alto Airport
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:02:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
As a paying Palo Alto airport tenant, pilot, and five year Palo Alto resident, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness, and
availability of weather information. The National Weather Service depends on continuous real-time AWOS weather
data as inputs to its weather forecast and climatological models. These weather forecasts are provided back to
municipalities such as Palo Alto to prepare for and to minimize consequences of storms and related climate induced
dangers. And, in turn, our national network of these AWOS sensors dramatically improves the NWS weather
forecast accuracy.
I have been a tenant at the Palo Alto airport for 29 years, a pilot at the Palo Alto airport for 51 years, the
aforementioned upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment was extant when I began flying
here, more than 50 years ago, it is old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement
systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to
accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and operationally-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Miller
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Neeraj Pendse
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport Improvements
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 2:34:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident, Pilot, Flight Instructor and an aircraft owner (based at Palo Alto
Airport), I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-
time weather data to the public at large through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and
advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay. I
respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neeraj Pendse
(352 Middlefield Rd)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Fengming Wang
To:Council, City
Subject:A concerned resident on airport and pilot safety
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 2:24:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fengming Wang
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Audrey Lund
To:Council, City
Subject:Monday meeting
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 2:10:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and also a pilot and instructor at the Palo Alto airport, I urge you to
approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-
19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Audrey Lund
415.652.1412
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Juan Pablo Timpanaro
To:Council, City
Subject:AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 2:07:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
---
Juan Pablo Timpanaro
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Contactgsavidge
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated weather systems project
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 2:07:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation
System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s
current equipment is more than 50 years old—
unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to
maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-
the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards,
and will substantially improve reliability while
maintaining the highest level of safety. They will
also provide continuous real-time weather data to
the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System
(AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information.
Importantly, better weather data will not increase
airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
pilot decision-making and advanced planning
around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The
contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it
be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this
long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg Savidge
Cell #415 666 6355
From:Adam Schwartz
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission
Subject:Please support new homes at 2100 Geng Road
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:35:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Greetings to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee:
I'm Adam Schwartz and I live in Palo Alto in University South. I write to
urge you to please support the new homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road.
Our wonderful community's biggest problem is the shortage of new homes
for all kinds of people at all price points. The solution must include building
new homes. I'd like to see 145 new townhomes (including 19 affordable)
at 2100 Geng Road.
I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for
supporting more homes in our community.
Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
523 Channing Ave.
From:Andrew Pollack
To:Council, City
Subject:Requesting Approval of 12/1/25 Consent Calendar Item #12 - Airport Project
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:26:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council members,
As CEO of a Palo Alto-based business, a Palo Alto taxpayer, and a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable,
outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with
current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They
will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness, and
availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it
simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions. As a pilot myself, I
can say with confidence that the existence of an AWOS will not cause me to increase my own operations at PAO.
AWOS systems have been installed at thousands of airports, large and small, nationwide, as they are the best
available technology to provide safe and reliable real-time weather data to pilots.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to
accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Regards
Andrew Pollack
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:Council, City
Subject:Gas Hikes, Pension spiking and useless consultants
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:09:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As we freeze this chilly holiday weekend WITHOUT turning on our heat due to our
already outrageous bills, let me remind you that we ARE watching your votes on
yet ANOTHER utility rate hike -- 22% this year alone -- and your vote on giving
yet another raise to the already highly paid City Manager, retiring City Attorney and
City clerk at a time when we already have unfunded pension liabilities in the
HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of Dollars.
Did you forget you're ALREADY charging us $22,000,000+++ extra in utility fees
funneled into the General Fund so you can waste $27,000,000 p/a on consultants
with little or no local knowledge and less oversight???
Did you forget about local layoffs and stock market crash and all the people losing
their benefits?
Do you think Social Security payments rose 22% this year to cover you these
absurd never-ending rate hikes and out-of-control spending?? Did you forget that
retirees are a growing portion of the PA population?
(At least former city manager Frank Benest had the good grace to refuse his
pension-spiking raise on his way out the door. Will Molly Stump do the same after
she dragged out paying us our meager no-interest settlement in the Miriam Green
lawsuit for a decade WHILE sub-contracting the appeal to a San Diego law firm?
Or will greed again be the m/o for our current crop of "leaders"?)
We'll be watching how you vote.
Regards,
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Jo Ann Mandinach
From:paloaltorg@aol.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Glanckopf, Annette
Subject:El Dorado Bike/Tunnel
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:03:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council:
Prior to, or during, your December 1st meeting agenda to choose a bike/rail crossing
on Alma Street, please look much more deeply and thoroughly, before selecting El
Dorado Avenue
to locate an Alma bike underpass, as has been suggested by council members Burt,
Lauing, and Lythcott-Haims
We went out ourselves to measure the width of El Dorado at 27 feet curb-to-curb,
noting that the
street currently has no marked lanes for bikes, and has parking on both sides of the
street, including cars and trucks.
Many cars, particularly near rental properties without adequate parking, use El
Dorado to park on both sides of the street,
choking passage by allowing only one car to pass at a time. The proposal would
congest flow further, especially by adding
the (presumably necessary) bike lanes to protect the children going to El Carmelo
School.
Further choking would follow by adding safety bike lanes, El Dorado would have to
change to a one-way
street to accommodate both bike lanes and street parking on that 27 foot width.
Parking might also have to be further restricted.
We were also curious about the other options the council has under consideration,
and went out to see Loma Verde Avenue,
which passes directly by El Carmelo School to Alma Street, and measured that
street's width.
In contrast to El Dorado's width of 27 feet, Loma Verde's measured street width- curb
to curb- is 40 feet, and bike
lanes and parking spaces already safely exist there on Loma Verde.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
The difference in curb-to-curb street width, in comparing El Dorado and Loma Verde,
is 13 feet, and Loma Verde
has already in place generous bike lanes and parking for safe travel by children and
adults. Locating the Alma bike tunnel to connect to
Loma Verde (and directly to El Carmelo School) rather than El Dorado would
presumably would be safer, and cheaper.
Council members should pause and look more deeply into the choice of location,
perhaps even getting out
and seeing for things physically for themselves, in order to do due diligence and
make a more nuanced decision
on the location of this important project. This decision needs to be based on sound
facts and reasoning, not rushed through.
Once made, it will permanently lock in permanently a traffic-and-bike-safety pattern
(or unsafe pattern)
for decades to come.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Glendening
Kerry A. Glendening
El Dorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:Shannon Rose
To:Council, City
Cc:PATMA - Justine Burt; Bike - Ken Kershner
Subject:NYTimes Gift Article: The Shocking Crash That Led One County to Reckon With the Dangers of E-Bikes
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 12:53:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
I’ve been riding my bike daily in Palo Alto and nearby communities since 1982. I’m deeply
concerned about the proliferation of e-bikes and the dangers they bring to pedestrians and bike
riders. This article examines in detail the e-bike dangers we are facing. It was prompted by a
terrible accident involving a high school student in Marin County.
I’m hoping you are already addressing this safety issue. If not, I hope this information will
spur action in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your service on the Council.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
Member of PATMA and
Longtime PA Resident
Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a
subscription.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/30/magazine/e-bikes-accidents-safety-legislation-
california.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5E8.eKxb.H4xDpJ7jT7dp&smid=nytcore-ios-share
From:Ivan Wong
To:Council, City
Subject:Re Palo Airport Improvement Contract
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 12:42:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential, and much-needed. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more
than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement
systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially
improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service, which is important
given the upheaval of the NOAA at the federal level.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions, which is extremely important for first responders using the
airport (e.g., with operations coordinated with nearby hospitals).
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay, and so as
to not increase costs of the project.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ivan Wong
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Katie Harford
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Palo Alto Airport AWOS Upgrade (Item #12)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 10:49:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Santa Clara County resident and Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve safety and
reliability. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the
National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information by eliminating dependence on part-time human
observation. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply
supports better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency, and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katie Harford
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City
Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity - NO on Alternative A
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:37:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: Annette Glanckopf
Topic: South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity
I recently wrote expressing letters I have gotten from Midtown with concerns about
selecting Alternative A, El Dorado, for the Bike/Ped Crossing.
Now I write as a nearby resident to El Dorado. This is a bad choice, and I strongly
suggest one of the Loma Verde alternatives. Although selfishly, a traffic light at El
Dorado and Alma would allow many of us, including me, to avoid the treacherous turn
south on Alma from El Dorado; I still do not support Alternative A.
I do not support Alternative A for the following reasons.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Proximity to the Cal Ave Crossing
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. El Dorado is a very narrow street with resident parking.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Speeding and cut through traffic on this narrow
El Dorado is commonplace. Putting the crossing here will increase danger to
bicyclists.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Residents, apartment dwellers, who live on
Alma park on El Dorado. The low income property at the corner also uses El Dorado
for parking multiple cars.
5. <!--[endif]-->But my main concern is that there are a number of cul de sacs that
back onto El Dorado with El Dorado as their only access. They include Emerson,
Ramona, Bryant, South Court. This street design is unique in Palo Alto. Traffic in
rush hour or school hours can be significant. Frustration with access to El Dorado is
bound to cause accidents. It is not just the cul de sacs who use El Dorado. The north
side of the cul de sacs also use it. The other access to Alma is Colorado, and a left
turn south onto to Alma is mission impossible (a death wish).
6. Consider the city environmental concern about additional car trips. Alternative A
will force drivers to take a circuitous route
In conclusion, I strongly support Alternative B or C for the crossing.
Respectively submitted,
Annette Glanckopf
From:Mike Mayo
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport Automated Weather Observation System Project
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:06:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident (1880 Channing Avenue), and recreational private pilot, I urge you to
approve the seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-
19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
The Palo Alto Airport Automated Weather Observation System Project will bring the airport's
weather monitoring capability into this century. It is high time for this improvement that will
make life safer for pilots, passengers, and persons on the ground.
With kind regards,
Michael Mayo
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ann Balin
To:Rebecca Sanders
Cc:Council, City; Glanckopf, Annette; Jeff Levinsky; CeCi Kettendorf; Furman, Sheri; Peter Taskovich; Keller, Arthur
Subject:Re: PAN"s Comments - City Council Meeting 12/1/2025, Item # 1
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:05:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I like this because it conveys directly the issues re: town halls.
Thank you Annette, Jeff and Becky
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Nov 2025, at 19:18, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: PAN Executive Committee (Ann Balin, Sheri Furman, Annette Glankcopf,
Arthur Keller, Ceci Kettendorf, Jeff Levinsky, Becky Sanders, Peter Taskovich)
Topic: Town Halls
Agenda: City Council Meeting – December 1, 2025, Item 1
Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) very much support the town halls, but only if a
key problem is fixed, namely the lack of meaningful follow-up. Without that, the
town halls will continue to frustrate and anger many residents and be viewed
negatively.
To fix this problem, we recommend:
* As items needing follow-up are raised during a town hall meeting, add them to
a slide that's being projected on the wall (or flip chart) so people can see their
points are being recorded.
* Have the City send weekly emails to attendees with the status of each item until
they're all resolved.
In addition to the need for meaningful follow-up, our neighborhood leaders have
weighed in on what went right with recent town hall meetings and what needs
improvement. We have summarized these points:
First what worked:
1) PAN working with staff on agendas, neighborhood representation,
publicity, etc.
2) Incorporating lessons learned from prior neighborhood town hall
meetings
3) City planning with neighborhood representatives for their town halls
4) Post cards sent to each household in designated neighborhoods
5) Neighborhood billboards or lawn signs installed
6) Social time before/after town halls
7) Neighborhood leaders as moderators/hosts
8) Neighborhood taking notes of action items
9) Hybrid approach – allowing people to “Zoom” in as well as attend in
person
What didn’t work:
1) Grouping of these neighborhoods together: Greenmeadow, Greendell,
Walnut Grove, Fairmeadow, Charleston Meadow, Charleston Garden,
Charleston Village, Adobe Meadow, Meadow Park, and Greenhouse.
These neighborhoods were too many and too diverse to be lumped
together
2) City getting back to neighborhoods on action items was uneven
3) Lack of Sand Hill Corridor participation
4) At times we felt there was a bit too much council member
“grandstanding,” taking up valuable time in tight agendas
5) Many presentations lacked neighborhood focus and felt generic
6) Not enough focus time on the specific neighborhood issues. We don’t
think we need a big overarching preamble update on what the City is
doing in general at these meetings
7) And please clarify that Palo Alto Foothills, as listed in the staff report, is
the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood
Thank you very much for your time and attention to our concerns.
<PAN Feedback on Town Halls Dec 2025.docx>
From:James Mack
To:Council, City
Subject:Support: Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 6:56:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers,
As a pilot in Palo Alto since 2005 and a airplane owner and tenant of the airport
since 2016 I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.) The airport and flying community have been part of
what drew and kept me in this innovative area, beginning when I chose graduate
school in engineering at Stanford twenty years ago. I chose my graduate school in
part based on proximity to an airport, and if the Palo Alto Airport was not so close
to Stanford I would not have chosen Stanford. Twenty years later, I am still here; I
work in Palo Alto, I am a tenant at the airport, and I actively fly out of Palo Alto
Airport.
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project. My family will all be safer when we fly with these modern
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you,
James Mack
From:Lena Perkins
To:Council, City
Subject:Support: Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 6:48:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Councilmembers,
As a pilot in Palo Alto since 2006 and a airplane owner and tenant of the airport
since 2016 I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.) The airport and flying community have been part of
what drew and kept me in this innovative area, beginning when I chose graduate
school in engineering at Stanford twenty years ago.
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project. My husband and I and our two young sons will all be safer
when we fly with these modern systems.
With sincerest thanks,
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Lena Perkins, PhD
From:Marco Caflisch
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Item #12, Palo Alto Airport on 12/1/2025 consent calendar
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:07:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a commercial pilot based at Palo Alto Airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marco Caflisch
--
Marco Caflisch
T-6 Flight Instruction
Email: marco@bayareawarbirds.com
Web: www.bayareawarbirds.com
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Rail Committee"s Recommendation for South PA Connectivity Item 18
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 12:32:57 AM
Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council,
Re: Dec. 1: Item 18: Recommendation from Rail Committee for City
Council on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity:
I strongly support the course of action recommended by the Rail
Committee on the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity program. I think
staff and consultants have pulled together a large menu of project
possibilities, and the Rail Committee has done an excellent job
discerning what will be beneficial, and what may be possible. I think
the recommended crossing at El Dorado will be beneficial to those
wanting a better, more direct way to cross the tracks here in Midtown.
Choosing to focus on just 2 possibilities at one location should save us
money, and speed up the process to making such a crossing a reality.
So I encourage you to support he Rail Committee recommendation, and move
the overall project along more quickly.
Thank you for your service to our city.
-- Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Cc:Ann Balin; Glanckopf, Annette; Jeff Levinsky; CeCi Kettendorf; Furman, Sheri; Peter Taskovich; Keller, Arthur
Subject:PAN"s Comments - City Council Meeting 12/1/2025, Item # 1
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 7:22:43 PM
Attachments:PAN Feedback on Town Halls Dec 2025.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: PAN Executive Committee (Ann Balin, Sheri Furman, Annette Glankcopf, Arthur Keller,
Ceci Kettendorf, Jeff Levinsky, Becky Sanders, Peter Taskovich)
Topic: Town Halls
Agenda: City Council Meeting – December 1, 2025, Item 1
Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) very much support the town halls, but only if a key problem is
fixed, namely the lack of meaningful follow-up. Without that, the town halls will continue to
frustrate and anger many residents and be viewed negatively.
To fix this problem, we recommend:
* As items needing follow-up are raised during a town hall meeting, add them to a slide that's
being projected on the wall (or flip chart) so people can see their points are being recorded.
* Have the City send weekly emails to attendees with the status of each item until they're all
resolved.
In addition to the need for meaningful follow-up, our neighborhood leaders have weighed in
on what went right with recent town hall meetings and what needs improvement. We have
summarized these points:
First what worked:
1) PAN working with staff on agendas, neighborhood representation, publicity, etc.
2) Incorporating lessons learned from prior neighborhood town hall meetings
3) City planning with neighborhood representatives for their town halls
4) Post cards sent to each household in designated neighborhoods
5) Neighborhood billboards or lawn signs installed
6) Social time before/after town halls
7) Neighborhood leaders as moderators/hosts
8) Neighborhood taking notes of action items
9) Hybrid approach – allowing people to “Zoom” in as well as attend in person
What didn’t work:
1) Grouping of these neighborhoods together: Greenmeadow, Greendell, Walnut
Grove, Fairmeadow, Charleston Meadow, Charleston Garden, Charleston Village,
Adobe Meadow, Meadow Park, and Greenhouse. These neighborhoods were too many
and too diverse to be lumped together
2) City getting back to neighborhoods on action items was uneven
3) Lack of Sand Hill Corridor participation
4) At times we felt there was a bit too much council member “grandstanding,” taking
up valuable time in tight agendas
5) Many presentations lacked neighborhood focus and felt generic
6) Not enough focus time on the specific neighborhood issues. We don’t think we
need a big overarching preamble update on what the City is doing in general at these
meetings
7) And please clarify that Palo Alto Foothills, as listed in the staff report, is the Palo
Alto Hills neighborhood
Thank you very much for your time and attention to our concerns.
To: City of Palo Alto Council Members
From: PAN Executive Committee (Ann Balin, Sheri Furman, Annette Glankcopf, Arthur Keller, Ceci
Kettendorf, Jeff Levinsky, Becky Sanders, Peter Taskovich)
Topic: Town Halls
Agenda: City Council Meeting – December 1, 2025, Item 1
Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) very much support the town halls, but only if a key problem is
fixed, namely the lack of meaningful follow-up. Without that, the town halls will continue to
frustrate and anger many residents and be viewed negatively.
To fix this problem, we recommend:
* As items needing follow-up are raised during a town hall meeting, add them to a slide that's
being projected on the wall (or flip chart) so people can see their points are being recorded.
* Have the City send weekly emails to attendees with the status of each item until they're all
resolved.
In addition to the need for meaningful follow-up, our neighborhood leaders have weighed in on
what went right with recent town hall meetings and what needs improvement. We have
summarized these points:
First what worked:
1) PAN working with staff on agendas, neighborhood representation, publicity, etc.
2) Incorporating lessons learned from prior neighborhood town hall meetings
3) City planning with neighborhood representatives for their town halls
4) Post cards sent to each household in designated neighborhoods
5) Neighborhood bill boards or lawn signs installed
6) Social time before/after town halls
7) Neighborhood leaders as moderators/hosts
8) Neighborhood taking notes of action items
9) Hybrid approach – allowing people to “Zoom” in as well as attend in person
What didn’t work:
1) Grouping of these neighborhoods together: Greenmeadow, Greendell, Walnut Grove,
Fairmeadow, Charleston Meadow, Charleston Garden, Charleston Village, Adobe Meadow,
Meadow Park, and Greenhouse. These neighborhoods were too many and too diverse to be
lumped together
2) City getting back to neighborhoods on action items was uneven
3) Lack of Sand Hill Corridor participation
4) At times we felt there was a bit too much council member “grandstanding,” taking up
valuable time in tight agendas
5) Many presentations lacked neighborhood focus and felt generic
6) Not enough focus time on the specific neighborhood issues. We don’t think we need a big
overarching preamble update on what the City is doing in general at these meetings
7) And please clarify that Palo Alto Foothills, as listed in the staff report, is the Palo Alto Hills
neighborhood
Thank you very much for your time and attention to our concerns.
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 6:53:50 PM
Attachments:South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here (attached pdf) are comments I submitted to city staff re: South Palo Connectivity Concept
Options.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
South Palo Alto Connectivity Concept Options Comments
11/4/2025
What Questions or Feedback does PABAC have on the eight Conceptual Design
Alternatives and Alternatives Analysis?
Question: Will PABAC meeting and written comments on this go to City Council?
Alternative A: El Dorado Tunnel- Though I like the Park BB landing side of this Xing (and that it
takes no homes), I don’t like that it requires people on foot and on bikes to cross Alma at-grade. It
looks to me like El Dorado may be too narrow to tunnel here. Am I right about that? If we can
tunnel under Alma at this location and not take homes, Alt. A might rise to the top of my list.
One of my top two choices is Alternative B- Loma Verde Tunnel which provides needed
connectivity for growing Ventura and Charleston Meadow and growing neighborhoods in the
southwest quadrant west of ECR to get to midtown and southeast quadrant services and bike
routes. That said, please see my comments on Alternative A which might be my preferred
location if the city can also grade-separate Alma at El Dorado. (Such an option wasn’t shown.)
Alt. B will provide a safe, completely grade-separated Xing of both Alma and the Caltrain tracks for
southeast quadrant PAUSD students who attend Paly HS to get to/from school and other bicyclists
in the southeast quadrant to get to Park BB both directions. This will eliminate the need to cross
Oregon Expressway at-grade to get to Paly from southeast quadrant. It also will provide a new, safe,
bike/ped Xing for work commuters coming in from Bay trails and from in-town to SRP and Stanford.
I hope we will do all we can to minimize impacts on homes.
Alternative C--Loma Verde with Alma Signal- I don’t like the at-grade Alma Xing component of this
concept. Auto traffic impacts on Alma will only increase as the city grows in south PA. Alma
operates like an expressway for motorists. Let’s please acknowledge the safety implications of
that, and grade separate the Alma Xing.
Alternative D & E: Lindero Place—Though I still like this option, and I like how few homes it
impacts, it is a lower priority now that we know SARAP kids will not be attending PAUSD schools.
We need to spend this grade sep money on addressing SARAP needs as early as possible.
Alternative F- Ely Place –Remove from options. Poorly connected to well-used existing bike
routes on the east side of the tracks. Kids in these areas are assigned to Fairmeadow, Palo Verde,
JLS and Gunn. This route would only connect well to Gunn for them, and it doesn’t mitigate high-
density SARAP bike/ped demand as well as Ferne might.
Alternative G: Ferne Avenue might be an option that could help with SARAP needs. It might rise
to my second choice, depending on answers to some questions.— It adds an at-grade crossing
of Alma that is pretty close to the signalized intersections at San Antonio Avenue/Alma and Mayfield
Ave/Alma. The signals would have to be very carefully timed to discourage speeding between
signals and light running (like what used to happen between Middlefield and Nelson Drive). I’d
prefer a grade-separated crossing of Alma in this concept, especially with increased auto traffic
that will be coming to Alma with high-density growth that is underway in MV and Palo Alto in this
area.
This concept connects neatly to Del Medio and Miller to Wilkie and Park BB. Also, it connects to
Fayette/San Antonio Road and into San Antonio Shopping Center and a signalized intersection to
access ECR regional bike lanes.
Question: Would choosing Alternative G preclude making improvements to San Antonio
Caltrain Station connections?
Questions: Alternative G also connects to existing Los Altos school routes from Palo Alto.
Does the city know what school sites SARAP kids will be assigned to? Can we find out? It
seems like future school routes for new Palo Alto residents should be considered as we
consider where bike/ped grade seps should be.
We need to improve connections to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and to help future
residents of the SARAP Area get to/from shopping, work, schools. I don’t yet see a great option
in the set for all of these purposes. Ferne is ok—though it requires some out-of-direction
travel from SARAP (Its advantages are that it connects to quieter, level streets. I haven’t
checked the travel time on a bike yet.)
Future Palo Alto residents of the SARAP area will have to cross city boundaries a lot to get to
everything, including public schools (Some of the new housing may be assigned to MV/LA school
districts, but they will be residents of Palo Alto.) We need to work with MV and/or LA now to make
sure excellent bike/ped options are prepared for people of all ages and abilities before they move in.
Existing pathways in the train station at Mayfield and San Antonio Avenue are too narrow for
bikes/peds to pass each other safely and easily today. Handlebar-grabbing fencing in the Caltrain
station area exacerbates this problem, requiring bicyclists to dismount, even today. The existing
underpass facilities at the train station have sharp turns and stairs and difficult narrow spaces (big
problems when schlepping kids and/or groceries).
Question: Where can we find studies of cumulative traffic impacts of planned growth in MV and PA
in this area? How do we plan functional street systems without such studies? Will the SARAP
process provide cumulative/aggregate impacts analysis of traffic impacts of growth in this area of
MV and Palo Alto? Both cities need this analysis. If it’s true that this work hasn’t been done
(surprising, given that the Housing Element was so significantly changed and what’s happening in
MV and 101 interchanges), staff and Council will be flying blind in transportation planning for huge
increases in density—more than the 955 units and other development on Charleston -Arastradero
that got a Nexus Study that enabled a Transportation Impact Fee that helped fund mitigations.
Alternative H: Proposed protected bike lane concept over the overpass looks good on a map,
and probably will be cheap to implement, but likely will be an awful bike facility—a long climb
surrounded by four lanes of fast auto/truck traffic. This is a facility for strong and fearless riders
who are fit enough to ride uphill for a stretch without swerving, are confident taking a lane at multi -
lane intersections to get on/off the facility. This facility is not for kids, or less experienced, less fit
adults on bikes. This overpass was designed for cars and trucks, not bikes.
I disagree with the Initial Assessment of Conceptual Alternatives ranking of demand for this
option. I recognize that high density growth naturally will lead to greater demand at this location,
but I think the design will discourage most riders who might want to bike. I know the intersections at
both ends of the overpass facility very well. This is a poor design concept for the full range of
people who bike, especially given the increased auto traffic volumes that are coming to San Antonio
Road.
Questions:
1. What is the grade of this ramp?
2. What is the length of the ramp climb for bicyclists?
3. Is City of Mountain View, which controls the west side of this crossing, willing to collaborate
on this concept? What other jurisdictions might have a role in decision-making? (Caltrain?
VTA?)
4. What’s the plan to help less skilled, confident bicyclists safe and comfortable making turns
on and off this facility?
We need this information to evaluate this concept.
Charlie, I appreciate your thorough, thoughtful work and how carefully you answer questions. It’s
evident that you are doing your best to explore and offer a solid set of options to consider. Thank
you.
From:Alexa Cusimano, Samuel Buckle, Danielle Ahlquist
To:CityCouncil@glendaleca.gov; Ara.Najarian@tenethealth.com; rstephens.mayor@hollister.ca.gov;
mayor@hollister.ca.gov; main@inyocounty.us; LarryAgran@cityofirvine.org; farrahkhan@cityofirvine.org;
CLERK@cityofirvine.org; jsweeney@lagunahillsca.gov; mayortoddgloria@sandiego.gov;
cityattorney@sandiego.gov; mayor@longbeach.gov; cotb@maderacounty.com; mayor@cityofmartinez.org;
Mayor@cityofmerced.gov; sue@sueformayor.com; twilliamson@monterey.gov; suggest@monterey.gov;
comdev@mono.ca.gov; publicaffairs@norwalkca.gov; tayala@norwalkca.gov; OfficeoftheMayor@oaklandca.gov;
barbara.lee@mail.house.gov; Info@barbaralee4oakland.com; mayor@cityoforange.org; mayor@ocfl.net; Lauing,
Ed; Council, City
Subject:please consider this attachment life threatening emergency
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 5:31:34 PM
Attachments:Alexa Grace Cusimano.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please see the attached document regarding; a life threatening emergency; the child victim needs a
helicopter; Alexa cusimano and her younger brother Samuel.
biological mother is successful entrepreneur and educational professionals; one of the leading teachers in
America.
information includes to report terriosm in United states and california and corruption in United states and
california.
Document includes but not to limit the nation threat of police in the region area or other.
Letter to State of California United States
.docx
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jonathan Sorger
To:Council, City
Subject:Email in Support of airport improvement project, 12/1 consent calendar item #12
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 5:14:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Like many Bay Area youngsters, my dad took me to the Palo Alto Airport as a kid to watch planes
land and I was fortunate enough to obtain my pilot’s license 20 or so years later. I would drive to
the airport for a flying lesson after teaching a course at Stanford.
I encourage you to support the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000.
Much of the airport’s current equipment was installed before I was born. I have heard from airport
operations staff about reliability-issues and was thrilled to hear that a plan for installing state-of-
the-art systems has been funded by the FAA and was ’shovel ready,’ so to speak.
Weather is important. The more timely and accurate the information, the better. I’ve followed the
airport debates over the years and fail to see how any of the proposed improvements will increase
airport traffic or noise. Providing up-to-date weather information when the Tower is closed will
make the airport safer for everyone.
I ask you to support moving forward with this project.
Thank you,
Jonathan Sorger
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on the Draft BPTP
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:53:50 PM
Attachments:Draft BPTP Comments PDF.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here (attached pdf) are my comments on the DRAFT BPTP you will study on Monday night.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
(writing as an individual citizen)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
Updated Draft BPTP Comments, 11/14/2025 – Penny Ellson
Thank you. I appreciate the time staff and others have spent listening to the public and writing this. I
appreciate the expertise applied, and I look forward to supporting efforts to realize this vision.
Comments and questions follow. –Penny
Comments:
p.53- Linear Barriers map needs correction. Creek barriers do not interrupt all the bike routes that the
barrier map indicates. For example, Matadero Creek has bridge crossings for bikes/peds/autos on Greer,
Louis, and Ross. (Perhaps these were left out intentionally for some reason?) Also, the bike/ped Magical
Bridge over Adobe Creek in Mitchell Park is missing from this map. These are just a few examples I
noticed where the map shows barriers on bike/ped routes where facilities to cross the barrier already
exist. There may be more. I mentioned at least some of these in previous review phases. I did not
carefully check the entire map.
Existing Bicycle Facilities Map excludes important facilities. Please re-check this map. A few omissions I
noticed are:
• Paradise Way connection to Bol Park path (used as a school route).
• Georgia-Coulombe-Donald school route connection to Bol Park path at Gunn HS
• Nelson Drive connection to Charleston Road. This is an existing well-used school route (crossing
guard location at Charleston/Nelson) and connection to Cubberley and probable future bike
connection to SARAP area. Nelson Drive is part of the adopted City of Palo Alto School Commute
Corridors Network. (See 2012 BPTP, pp. 6-22,7-1,F-8 and Comprehensive Plan Program T6.4.1
Consider the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network and adopted “Walk and Roll” maps
when reviewing development applications and making land use and transportation planning
decisions. Incorporate these requirements into City code when feasible.
• Mayview is a well-used school route that is not shown on this map. There is a Crossing Guard
post at Mayview/Middlefield.
Again, I did not thoroughly check the entire map.
p.89—Upzoned housing sites in the SARAP area are mostly well outside the ¼- ½-mile urban
walkability radius of the San Antonio Caltrain Station. Yet, this area is identified as a pedestrian
district and not a future bicycle-friendly district. Bikes will be essential to get people out of cars here
because of distance from the train station and because auto parking requirements for these high-
density buildings are low. There are no safe, comfortable pedestrian crossings and minimal bus transit.
There are almost no bike facilities at all on this auto-dominated, high volume, fast, truck route arterial.
This area has been upzoned for transit-oriented density. It must be turned into pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly district, or essential mode shift will not be possible.
Midtown should also be a bike-friendly district. I bike and walk there a lot to shop. Kids bike there after
school. People bike there to shop. It already is a pedestrian-friendly district. It needs to be more bike-
friendly. Lots more easy-to-find bike parking is needed. (More racks and wayfinding signage so newbies
can find it and drivers notice it!)
Downtown is already a very bike/ped-friendly environment compared to most other parts of town.
Downtown is already much more transit-rich, bike friendly and ped-friendly than upzoned areas of south
PA .Prioritize parts of town that are being impacted by growth and have almost no bike facilities at all. No
grid network of streets, no existing grade separations…
SARAP area, in particular, is a bike facility desert. Fixing the total lack of any useful bike facilities in the
SARAP area before new residents move in must be a high priority. Resources are limited. Please
prioritize bike/ped improvements to massively upzoned areas that are completely unprepared for the
growth that is coming. Move faster. Build bike/ped facilities before new residents move in, so new
housing draws buyers and renters who want alternatives to driving. To do this, great bike/ped facilities
must be in place when they move in to support healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving.
Commute habits get established quickly. Let’s set these new Palo Alto neighborhoods up for success.
p. 96- Policies—I see no mention of continuing city collaboration on specific popular community bike
route exploration events like Bike Palo Alto! Please correct this omission.
p.100—Potential changes to PABAC Structure
Before we decide how to change the committee, let’s please consider why we are doing this. What are
we trying to accomplish with this change? That goal is not clear to me from the list of potential changes
I see here.
A smaller PABAC with term limits makes sense for efficient discussion and decision-making. However,
given the time it takes to acquire depth of knowledge to be useful on this committee, it would be good
to keep people on longer—for instance, a maximum of three 3-year terms. They can reapply after a
three-year hiatus. This means that hard-working, knowledgeable committee members with historical
knowledge won’t be lost because of term limits. (Term limits have well-known disadvantages. Less
experienced committee members can be weak advisors, especially in an area that requires some
technical knowledge, familiarity with policy and local history, and a lot of local bicycling/walking
experience.) How are other similar communities’ BPACs organized?
Another important question is what should be the role of this new PABAC in relation to PTC, CC, and
staff? PTC agenda time appears to be filled increasingly by development projects and busy work, not
bike/ped projects. Ditto for PABAC. Transportation projects don’t rise to the top of PTC agendas as often
as they should. How might PABAC work with staff, PTC and CC more effectively?
I agree that a smaller committee would work more efficiently. However, all members must be people
who usually walk, bike, use mobility devices other than cars for their primary modes of transport. It’s
more important that PABAC members are people who regularly bike and walk for transportation and
recreation. Without that experience and perspective of the street system, they cannot be useful on the
committee. I’d like to see at least one representative who uses these facilities with a supportive mobility
device like a wheelchair or someone who may have other differences that our city’s transportation
system isn’t adequately supporting (sight or hearing impairment, etc).
Something staff might think about: Staff often does not tell PABAC what kind of feedback they are
seeking. For instance, for the last four months, there has not been an Action Item on any PABAC agenda.
If staff wants a vote taken, they could offer an Action Item. There have been lots of Discussion Items,
but limited guidance from staff about what kinds of specific feedback they seek or what questions they’d
like answered. I notice that when this sort of guidance is provided on CC and PTC agendas, and it helps to
focus discussion and voting. I think something similar could be helpful to PABAC (and, ultimately, to staff
to get the information they seek).
p. 105 (107)—San Antonio Road Separated Bikeway. Will this be on the WB or EB side of the road or
both? If it is only on the WB side of the road, this likely will force bicyclists to go out-of-direction to get
to the train station from new homes on the south side of San Antonio (where most of the high density
housing is to be built). Out-of-direction travel is a known deterrent to bicycling. Given what Mountain
View has recently announced they are building at Rengstorff/Leghorn (901-987 N. Rengstorff: 15-stories,
455 units), this intersection is likely to be very impacted by new traffic. Also, if there’s no direct facility
on the southside, bicyclists may be incentivized to ride wrong-way on the sidewalk—a hazard for
pedestrians on the sidewalk and a safety hazard for bicyclists at intersections like Middlefield/San
Antonio Road. How do we prevent that? This is why I have been pressing the ROW issue so hard. I
think a two-way facility on the south side of San Antonio is extremely important for safety and for
successful, essential mode shift in this new high-density area.
p.112
Appendix E- Only downtown, the area of town with the best existing bike parking infrastructure
(excepting, of course, PAUSD school sites) got a Bicycle Parking Survey? We need parking surveys of
areas where there is known existing paucity of easy-to-locate-and-access bike parking and a lot of
development coming. Look southeast and southwest where thousands of units of new housing and
other high-density development are going—and existing facilities are lacking.
Appendix F, p. 4- The first housing proposal sites are on San Antonio Road, where few people currently
live. As a result, relatively low activity level is reported there—even though future residents will surely
need to shop, go to work, use the Caltrain Station. There is a gaping “demand hole” in what surely will be
a busy activity area along all road sin the SARAP area and near the San Antonio Caltrain Station. Could
estimated future demand be incorporated in this map somehow? As it stands, this map is very
misleading about what is coming. When will cumulative traffic impacts analysis of MV and PA
development in/near the SARAP area be complete? I’m disappointed this work wasn’t done before the
rezoning and housing element changes were complete.
Investment in bike/ped infra in SARAP areas before new residents move in will be essential to achieve
mode shift. Mode choice habits form quickly and are hard to change once established. Further, people
who are inclined to bike are more likely to buy homes where they see good bike infra. Likewise, people
who prefer to drive are more likely to buy where they see lots of on-street parking. Do not delay. Let’s
get this done, or fully developed San Antonio will be a serious auto congestion problem.
Appendix F, p. 12- Replica only captures data from people who carry phones. Lower income people who
cannot afford a cell phone may be more inclined to bike or walk to a bus stop or train station. Also,
many people who like quiet time, like me, do not take smart phones everywhere when they walk and
bike. Many parents do not give smart phones to their kids.
There are so many pages of disclosures on what does and doesn’t work in this data, I hope some traffic
counts were done to ground truth the Replica counts. For instance, based on previous multi-modal
traffic counts on Nelson Drive and my daily personal experience there, the Replica report is inaccurate—
very low.
Appendix F, p. 14 says, “K-12 student personas are constructed synthetically, with the only daily activity
being a trip to school.” What about students walking or biking to/from after-school activities or jobs in
Palo Alto? We plan bike/ped routes for after-school commutes to community centers, libraries, and
playing fields and courts for practice, etc. because we know kids with working parents generally have
organized after-school activities.
One daily school trip is an incorrect assumption. (Each school commuter generates two trips daily, not
one. One trip to school and one trip home.) Please look at actual campus bike counts and multiply by
two to check your Replica data against those numbers. Ditto for every PAUSD school.
Appendix F. Fig. 7, p.18- That there no bike trips recorded on this Replica data-informed
origin/destination map for Paly or Gunn HS or Greene MS or Fletcher MS. This is a very big red flag.
The city has recorded bike count data for these campuses. The Replica data map does not at all conform
with what we know about bike trips to these campuses. I pointed this out when PABAC discussed it.
What actual counts were done to ground-truth this data?
Appendix F. Fig. 14, p. 24 - Same comment (I said this at PABAC). Please note there are no walking trips
recorded to any PAUSD elementary, middle, or high school. This data conflicts with school commute
data the city has been documenting for decades.
This looks like adult bike commuter phone data. These trips mostly look like adults dropping off kids at
childcare and going to work. I’d bet most of them work at SRP or Stanford University where there are
incentives for tracking trips. I pointed this out when PABAC reviewed it. Was this checked?
Appendix F, Table 3, p.30 – High-density housing (built or proposed to be built should be on this list.
Appendix F, Figure 18 p. 32 –The San Antonio Caltrain Station and SARAP area likely show only medium
to low demand because proposed high-density housing hasn’t been built there yet. How will staff
account for upzoned and proposed future high-density development in this demand scoring, if at all?
Appendix G. Fig. 3, p. 9 - See my remark at the top of this document re: the Linear Barriers map.
Appendix G. Fig. 9, p. 15 – It looks like a new South Palo Alto Connectivity option at Colorado that I’d not
seen before has been added. Why was this option not in the original set (and, at this writing, is not on
the South PA Connectivity project page)? Is this an error?
Appendix G. Fig. 9, p. 15 – Re: Option H. I have asked what the grade change and uphill climb length of
the San Antonio overpass bike facility would be. I still don’t see this information in project documents,
and it seems like important information for decision-making. Is this option still on the table? This
project would cross into MV jurisdiction has City of Mountain View weighed in on this?
Appendix G. p.-16 – The summary of Transit Barriers analysis for San Antonio Caltrain Station fails to
mention that there are zero existing bicycle facilities in the upzoned housing areas that would safely
connect bicyclists to the existing train station bike/ped facilities. Most of the SARAP parcels that have
been upzoned for housing are outside the ¼-1/2- mile urban walkability radius, so excellent bike facilities
to the station will be essential. Also, the existing pathways into the station are too tight for high volumes
of pedestrians and bicyclists to share safely without dismounting. The Alma pedestrian crossings (at
Mayfield and at San Antonio Avenue) are both impacted by very fast, high volume auto traffic which will
increase with increased area population. Though there are traffic signals at both crossings, sometimes
drivers do not stop. Connections to this train station from future housing need a lot of work to prepare
for transit-oriented density that is coming to this area. (See Bicycle Level of Stress maps in Appendix H.)
SanAntonio Caltrain Sation offers a connection to Shower Drive and California Street and San Antonio
Train Station. It would take cross-jurisdictional cooperation to develop this, but both cities are
developing big projects in this area. They both (along with Caltrain) have an interest in increasing train
boardings here and providing better bike/ped access to the shopping center.
Appendix H. Fig. 3, p. 4 – I agree with a lot of this map, except for San Antonio Road intersections at
Charleston, Middlefield and Alma where there are zero or severely inadequate bike facilities. At San
Antonio/Middlefield, for instance, there are no bike facilities at all on three of the approaches and a
narrow, Class II painted bike lane on SB Middlefield only on the south side of the intersection. The entire
intersection and all of its approaches should all be marked bright red. There are similar problems at the
other above-mentioned intersections. I said this in my earlier response to this document. Google Earth
and on-the-ground experiences of these locations are very different.
Appendix H, Fig. 9, p.21 and Fig. 10, P. 22– I invite staff and City Council and PTC to please take a bike
ride with me at commute time to the San Antonio/Middlefield intersection. Please attempt to execute a
left turn from SB Middlefield (which future residents of this area will have to do to get home). As you do
this, watch out for truck beds that swing wide. Middlefield, at this intersection and on its approaches, is
not LTS 3 or LTS 1. It is LTS 4, especially at commute times—when it matters most.
Appendix K, p. 4-Charleston is listed as a HIN. I’m curious whether anyone checked the dates of the KSIs
against completion dates of various phases of the Charleston-Arastradero Plan. I know that the one
fatality between Carlson and Nelson on Charleston occurred May 5, 2018 before that segment of the
project was built. Existing buffered bike lanes, narrower travel lanes, built median refuge islands and new
signals did not exist at that time. Please check when these KSI’s occurred and the completion dates of
each project segment to understand whether today’s existing conditions need improvement. Here are
road diet completion dates for each phase:
Phase 2: Charleston Road (from Alma Street to Middlefield Road, not including the intersection of
Middlefield):
Start of construction (date the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor): June 8, 2018
Construction completed (date the City accepted the project): November 12, 2020
Phase 3: Charleston Road (from Middlefield Road to San Antonio, Alma Street to ECR) and Arastradero
Road (from ECR to Los Palos Avenue):
Start of construction (date the Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor): August 23, 2021
Construction completed (date the City accepted the project): July 1, 2025
Appendix L, P. 22- Advisory Bike Lanes--We need an accompanying education program to teach people
(especially drivers) how to navigate these, or we’ll have another uproar similar to the traffic circle
outcry. U.S.-trained drivers will not know what to do. They must be taught. How can we reach adult
drivers to teach them?
Appendix L, p. 24- BLVD_18 – Has staff considered the likelihood that drivers from San Antonio Rd. and
San Antonio Avenue will start exploring these BB routes with the help of navigation apps like Waze as
auto cut-throughs to Charleston to bypass arterial congestion. Would some filtering make sense?
Appendix N- Does this list represent a complete list of present and proposed BPTP policies and programs
that will be proposed? Are these policies and programs to be added to existing policies and programs or
are they intended to replace any existing policies and programs? Were any policies or programs
removed? If so, which ones? It is difficult to comment without knowing that.
Appendix N, p.5 – PABAC Structure- This reorg proposal doesn’t speak to a specific goal.
1). Please be more clear about what you are trying to accomplish by making structural change. I’m not
opposed. What problems we want to solve with this reorg? What is the Goal?
2). This suggests PABAC include new people from:
• non-profits (Which ones? Why?),
• advocacy groups (a number of current PABAC members are SVBC members, including a local
team co-Chair, other groups?),
• What about people with disabilities?
• More women who bike.
• People from diverse backgrounds—(I don’t remember PABAC ever turning anyone away who
expressed interest in joining)
• TMA (PATMA makes sense, but isn’t Cedric on PATMA’s board?)
• City committees (which committees—toward what purpose? Are other committees asking for a
seat?
• Other groups (What groups? Why?)
This kind of diversity is less important than how much experience PABAC Members have walking and
bicycling and how broadly afield they bike. The most important thing about this committee is that its
members actively walk and bike regularly in Palo Alto. It is evident that some city staff and most
consultants do not, especially in south Palo Alto.
PABAC Members should be familiar with local routes as bicyclists and pedestrians, and be willing to read
policy documents and spend time reviewing and understanding and commenting thoughtfully as
interested laymen on data, policies, programs and plans.
I shared what I thought about committee size, purpose, and term limits in another section above.
Here is how our web page defines our role:
“Palo Alto receives technical advice from its volunteer Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC). PABAC is a citizen advisory committee which reports to the Chief Transportation
Official. Members have interest in or knowledge of bicycling. The Committee's role is to review all issues
related to bicycling in the areas of engineering, enforcement, education and encouragement.” (Note
there’s no mention of pedestrian issues here. Huh.)
We might start this reorg process by rewriting this statement. We should agree on PABAC’s purpose,
how we fit in the city’s organization, and define the kinds of tasks that need to be accomplished by the
committee, and also staff’s role in that. Once we’ve defined that, framing the rest should be easier.
Appendix N- Missing Policy Change Recommended by PABAC unanimous vote at our May 7, 2024
meeting. PABAC recommended adding the following sentence to Comprehensive Plan T4.1: “Street
closures may be considered when such closure will enhance safety or will increase use of active
transportation modes”. Was this omission a mistake, or did staff decide not to include it? Please let
PABAC know. Thank you.
Appendix N: To Older Adult Mobility Program, I would add encouragement and education programming
to help people find ways to stay active longer through walking and bicycling as our population ages.(See
Mineta Institute Study on this.) I think the Trishaw idea is unlikely to have legs.
Appendix N: Electric bicycle engagement. I was expecting more substantive work on this. We need
parent education on what to buy and not buy for kids --for starters. We need to work with the State on
age and licensing requirements to ride some of these vehicles. We have kids rolling around at high
speeds on two-wheeled vehicles are not appropriate for their developmental ability to handle them.
Many of these vehicles are not street legal. We need a well-considered education program for students
and parents.
Appendix N: Under Bike Parking Requirements—Add, “Do an inventory for all parts of the city where
none has been done.” We cannot fix problems that are invisible because we haven’t looked. Also, use
the bike parking survey to identify where we need to add wayfinding to bike parking wherever it is
needed citywide.
Appendix N: Under Walk & bike-Friendly Environment. I’m not sure LEED-ND requires bike facilities
(Does it? I think it does reward them). Let’s choose our city’s requirements for bike and ped facilities
that represent the best practices.
Appendix N: As the city rolls out new kind of bike facilities, like protected intersections, bike boxes, cycle
tracks, protected bike lanes, advisory bike lanes, we need an education program for DRIVERS as well as
bicyclists on how they should be used. Maybe this is something we work on with PA Weekly? DMV?
SVBC? Stanford? All of the above?
Appendix N: regarding PABAC Structure. See my comments above. It is disappointing this was not
included until the last minute, allowing no time for discussion with PABAC Members. This Description
needs thorough discussion and revision.
Additional Request that I’ve been meaning to raise:
Please consider restoring 1998 Comp Plan Policy T-36 –specifically for areas where high volumes of
auto drop-offs occur at locations where children might be walking or biking, such as school sites,
playing fields, community centers, etc. : “Make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by
residents. “ Vertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice
in area where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks by planting strips. When conversion from
rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be, in general, a street block and not
individual properties. “
I’ve observed, and I know staff has too, some awful driver behavior in these locations. Vertical curbs
would provide some physical safety control of the sidewalk space in these sensitive locations. Thank you,
in advance, for considering this idea.
One final comment:
Park BB—2012 BPTP plan is much better. That’s all I have to say about it. Southern part of the Park BB is
what needs work.
From:David Vespe
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on Rail Committee Recommendations (2025-12-01 meeting, agenda item 18)
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:28:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I'm a Midtown resident, and I don't like the proposal to build a Caltrain underpass at El
Dorado.
My family and I live near El Dorado and currently use the underpass at California Ave, which
is already close by and works well for us. Adding another underpass would not help us
get anywhere, could negatively impact traffic flow or increase traffic in our neighborhood, and
would be a significant waste of money.
So I'd prefer not to see this project move forward.
Thank you.
David Vespe
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Moh Rajabzadeh
To:Council, City
Subject:Enforcement of existing Palo Alto city ordinances
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 2:45:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To all members of Palo Alto City Council,
I wish to express my support for enforcing the existing city ordinance regarding controlling the long term parking of
RVs along the street curbs and illegal rental and appropriation of public spaces (vanlords).
The city council’s lack of action brings into question the legitimacy of entirety of city’s ordinances and the council’s
competency.
Considering that the towing charges and the impound fees can cover the enforcement costs. The report that
enforcement of this one ordinance will cost the city $6M over two years, brings into question the council’s financial
competence. Full accounting of every $1 must be publicly disclosed.
Moh Rajabzadeh
909 East Meadow Dr
From:Tom Church
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve the Airport Infrastructure Improvement Contract
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 8:46:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the City Council:
As a Palo Alto pilot, I would urge you to approve the AWOS project, AP-19000. It will not
cost the city anything and it will reduce noise congestion at night. It will also improve safety
on the field.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Best,
Tom Church
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sydney Sukuta
To:Sydney Sukuta
Subject:Announcing - CW Laser Fundamentals Webinar
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 6:00:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Join us for a CW Laser Fundamentals Webinar slated to last one hour. It
bridges the gap between theoretical and practical lasers to help participants
relate better to industry demands and expectations. In addition, if you are in
a laser-assisted career or application space you will find this webinar
beneficial.
Click the link below for details.
https://laserfund1hr.rsvpify.com
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert French
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto AWOS project
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 3:46:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot who has been based at the Palo Alto Airport for 28 years, I urge you to approve the
Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at
Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions. My personal belief is that it will actually
decrease operations, because pilots will not need to attempt an approach in questionable
weather just to see if they can make it. An AWOS will let them make that decision miles
away, allowing an early diversion and thus reduction in overall noise.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Lenox
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Lara Anthony
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 3:16:27 PM
Attachments:Lara Anthony Council Letter BPTP- 112825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached a letter regarding the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update.
In short, please add to the Plan further safety improvements around Alma/Churchill, and
improved bicycle access to Middlefield businesses for the many South Palo Alto residents and
students who frequent them (but cannot currently do so safely or comfortably on bicycle).
Please also prioritize the South Palo Alto Bikeways project (safety improvements to E.
Meadow) despite ongoing budget constraints, and please approve the El Dorado underpass,
but with the underpass also taking the cyclists and pedestrians under Alma, not just the
railroad tracks.
Thank you for your service and for advancing enhanced bicycle and pedestrian safety projects
which greatly benefit our students, families, and our whole community.
Best regards,
Lara Anthony
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Dear Honorable Council Members,
My name is Lara Anthony, I’m a Palo Alto resident, PAUSD parent of two elementary
school children (as well as host parent of an exchange student attending Paly this year), and I
am the Palo Alto PTA Council Chair for Safe Routes to School, however I am writing today as
an individual.
I commend and thank the City for advancing improved safety and connectivity for
bicyclists and pedestrians as outlined in the draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update (the “Plan”); however, while there are numerous important and worthwhile projects
enumerated in the Plan, there are two glaring holes where critical projects are missing from the
Plan.
First, the Plan should prioritize on a near-term basis any and all additional engineering
and infrastructure opportunities possible to make it safer for students on bicycles to get to and
from Palo Alto High School’s Churchill entrance. The recent improvements around
Alma/Churchill help, but grade separation is still a long way away and further safety
improvements are needed on Churchill Avenue between Emerson and Castilleja to protect our
students in the meantime. Please consider with urgency:
● A stop sign on Churchill at Castilleja for eastbound traffic (understanding train
regulations prohibit a stop for westbound traffic);
● No Right Turn on Red restrictions for westbound Churchill traffic at Alma and
southbound Alma traffic at Churchill (at least at school start/end times) - there is already
a “no right turn” light up arrow there that can be used; and
● Green striping and signage to help Paly students cross to the correct side of the street
on eastbound Churchill between Alma and Emerson when leaving the school.
Second, the Midtown business district on Middlefield from San Antonio through Greene
Middle School should be a bicycle-friendly zone like the City’s other business districts. For
residents in south Palo Alto, it usually doesn’t make sense to bike all the way to the
bicycle-friendly zones downtown or around Cal Ave for our everyday shopping, errands,
activities or a quick coffee or bite to eat; however, the businesses and community centers in
south Palo Alto cannot be safely or comfortably accessed by bicycle. For example, my children
enjoy ice skating classes at Winterlodge Ice Rink, baseball at Middlefield Ballpark, and ice
cream from Rick’s or Baskin Robbins, and I frequent many Middlefield-based businesses
regularly. Despite that we prefer to bike and live only a few minutes away, we typically drive to
our Middlefield destinations because it doesn’t feel safe or comfortable to bike to them. This
corridor also contains five public schools and several private ones, Mitchell Park, Library, and
Community Center, several shopping centers, Allcove, groceries, pharmacies, restaurants,
coffeeshops and numerous other small businesses, dance and martial arts schools, and other
activity providers.
As I’m sure you are aware, vehicle speeds on Middlefield frequently exceed 35-40 mph
despite the posted 25 mph speed limit; where bicycle lanes exist, they disappear without
warning; the sidewalks are narrow and used by pedestrians; and there’s virtually no bike
parking. It is the opposite of bicycle friendly. I urge you to reconsider the Middlefield business
corridor in south Palo Alto for real bicycle enhancements to allow local residents and the many
JLS and Greene Middle School students who frequent Middlefield destinations to do so safely
and comfortably on bicycle.
Additionally, I am grateful to see upgraded bike lanes on East Meadow included in the
Plan. That project (South Palo Alto Bikeways) was previously intended to begin construction
around now but was delayed last year for budget reasons. Understanding we continue to be
budget constrained, I urge the City to prioritize this critical school route (serving students and
families at JLS, Fairmeadow, Gunn, and private schools, as well as Mitchell Park destinations)
and ensure that budget constraints don’t cause any further delay to this very important project.
The San Antonio Road Area Plan is detailed in a separate project. Please prioritize
excellent bicycle/pedestrian facilities development early to support transit-oriented density that
is being planned in this area. Please ensure that these facilities are completed and ready to use
before occupancy permits for new housing are issued.
Finally, I strongly support the PTC and staff’s recommendation that the City proceed with
plans for a tunnel at El Dorado Avenue. However, the tunnel needs to take bicyclists and
pedestrians under Alma as well as the railroad tracks. Alma operates like an expressway in this
part of Palo Alto, where vehicle speeds are typically over 40 mph and the proposed signalized
multi-lane intersection configuration presents sightline problems. If the signal changes while
someone is in the intersection, sight lines of shorter young people on bikes and on foot will be
obstructed by stopped or passing vehicles in the multiple lanes. (This is very different from the
Homer/Alma intersection, which is slowed due to several blocks of downtown cross traffic,
merges and signals and a 25 mph posted limit). For students and families to be safe and
comfortable using the planned underpass, the design needs to grade separate Alma. A
signalized intersection would be insufficient at this location for nearly all users.
Thank you for your service and for making our community a better, safer place for
children, families and all residents.
Best regards,
Lara Anthony
From:Bogdan Cocosel
To:Council, City
Subject:AWOS upgrade Palo Alto Airport
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 2:18:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident for 20 years and also as a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto
Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential and long overdue. Much of the airport’s current equipment is
more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will
substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also
provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The airport is a key element of infrastructure and the only realistic option during emergencies.
Given the strained traffic conditions and the severe lack of mass transit, the airport provides
the only rapid access to Palo Alto. It is currently used daily for Medevac to and from Stanford
hospital and also for organ transplant transfers for hospitals across the peninsula.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bogdan Cocosel
From:hwchin@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:"Van Lord" issue
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 1:19:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I wish to express my support for controlling the long term parking of RV along
the street curbs.
Hon Wah Chin
3281 Greer Rd - Midtown
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Peter Monaco
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 12:56:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a flight instructor teaching pilots at Palo Alto Airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
-Peter Monaco, peter@monacofamily.org, (650)575-3590
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:peace prize
To:Mayor@oudtmun.gov.za; jay-deeh@oudtmun.gov.za; contact@bamenda3council.org; kanko@city.shunan.lg.jp;
customerservices@hastings.gov.uk; urad@chrudim-city.cz; contact@mairie-carquefou.fr; pr@kadomacity.org.zw;
Council, City; prim@siauliuraj.lt; info@gronau.de-mail.de; webmaster@gelnica.sk; post@gerolstein.de;
umig@ladek.pl; savivaldybe@panevezys.lt; ferdinand.kubanik@ub.cz; sekretariat@muvalmez.cz; info@sint-
niklaas.be; contact@bamenda3council.org; info@keeama.gov.gh; heretohelp@gloucester.gov.uk;
mbf@odense.dk; central@newcastle.gov.uk
Subject:UCLG Peace Prize 2026 (cities/municipalities)
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 5:59:49 AM
Attachments:Selection Criteria and Application form English UCLG Peace Prize (1).docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Sir or Madam,
We hope this message finds you well.
Our team at VNG International (The International Cooperation Agency of the Association of
Netherlands Municipalities) serves as the International Secretariat of the UCLG Peace Prize.
We are pleased to inform you about an exceptional opportunity for local governments to apply for the
2026 UCLG Peace Prize. This prestigious award highlights the vital role of local governments in
promoting sustainable and peaceful development and provides international recognition for their
efforts.
Please note that the prize is awarded to local governments as institutions, not to individuals or private
organizations. It celebrates successful municipal initiatives that demonstrate institutional capacity
for peacebuilding.
Local governments that have implemented innovative and high-impact approaches to peacebuilding
and dialogue creation are eligible for nomination. Alongside global visibility and recognition, the
winning local government receives a financial award to strengthen its peace-related initiatives or to
facilitate learning exchanges with other municipalities facing similar challenges.
Our previous laureate, Palmira, Colombia, received the 2022 UCLG Peace Prize for its pioneering
approach to violence prevention through the PAZOS project. This initiative prioritized support for
youth vulnerable to gang violence, moving away from military-based responses. As a result, Palmira
achieved its lowest homicide rate in 17 years.
You can read more about Palmira’s winning initiative here:
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Palmira wins UCLG Peace Prize 2022
PAZOS Initiative Video
Further examples of local government peacebuilding can be found in our latest publication:
Local Government Initiatives for Peace – UCLG Peace Prize Publication
If your city has engaged in initiatives pertaining to these overarching themes, it is eligible to submit an
application for the UCLG Peace Prize.
For more details and access to the application form, please visit:
Eligibility and Criteria
Apply Here
We have also attached an application form for your convenience.
Should you require additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Zara Sarjan
Region: Europe, Asia, and Latin America
VNG International
www.vng-international.nl
v
Account of the proceedings & selection criteria
Each edition of the UCLG Peace Prize begins with an official launch of the call for applications.
This time the Prize has been launched in May 2025 in Montevideo during the World Forum on
Cities and Territories of Peace. Local governments around the world can submit their peace
initiatives, after which an independent selection procedure takes place. Below you can find
more insight into the process that leads to the selection of our finalists and winner.
Call for applications and eligibility
The UCLG Peace Prize 2026 edition has been officially launched in May 2025 in Montevideo,
Uruguay, during the World Forum on Cities and Territories of Peace. The launch marks the start of
the application period during which eligible local governments can s ubmit their initiatives. Eligibility
is determined firstly on the basis of whether the applicant fits the profile of a ‘local government'. In
this, the Peace Prize maintains UCLG’s interpretation of the term “local government”. Broadly
speaking, this means that a local government is a subnational government, defined as such by its
own country’s constitution or legislation. Next, the Peace Prize is open for award to local governments
who either work for peace and conflict resolution in their areas themselves or provide positive
assistance to local governments in conflict and fragile areas. This includes pre -and post -conflict
situations, but also contexts that have been peaceful for decades. Finally, any nominated initiative
should have taken place (at least partly) within the 4 years prior to application.
Importantly, the Prize is awarded to the local government as an institution, not to the individuals that
were in charge of the initiative. Furthermore, there may be cases where local governments worked
together on a peace initiative. In cases such as these , the Prize can be awarded to them jointly. For
example, this may include cooperation between a conflict-stricken local government and an external
partner city.
Selection of finalists
Eligible local governments can submit their application using a standardised application form and
may choose to add annexes in the form of photos and/or videos. Applications are first reviewed by
the Technical Evaluation Committee. This committee arranges for background checks on strong
applicants, collects more information where needed, and evaluates all applications on the following
criteria:
1. The impact and effectiveness of the initiative in favour of peace (how does it promote peace
in the community) – 20 points .
2. The broad replicability or learning potential of the initiative for other local governments in
similar situations – 15 points .
3. The degree of demonstrated innovation or creativity shown in the design of the initiative –
15 points .
4. The sustainability for the future of the initiative – 10 points .
v
5. The degree to which the initiative is embedded in the local government organisation – 10
points .
6. The degree of difficulty, complexity, or danger of the situation faced on the ground by those
involved in the initiative – 15 points .
7. The general clarity and details of the information provided about the initiative – 10 points .
8. The extent to which the initiative is participatory in nature and inclusive of marginalised
groups – 5 points
In total, the above criteria provide a score for nominated initiatives out of a maximum of 100 points .
Subsequently, all applications and their particular scorings are shared with the Peace Prize Jury.
These scores are not binding for the Jury but provide them with guidance. In a series of conference
calls and through additional requests for information t o strong contenders, the Jury selects a shortlist
of five finalists and finally, decides upon the winner.
Application Form
In order to apply for the UCLG Peace Prize for local governments, please complete the following
application form and submit it by 31 December 202 5 by email to Peace.Prize@VNG.nl.
Candidates may, next to this application form, send other materials supporting the initiative
(pictures, graphics, etc.).
The criteria for eligibility and scoring can be found on www.peaceprize.uclg.org .
Name of Local Government
Province/State:
Country:
Name of Contact Person:
Position of Contact Person:
v
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
Second Email Address:
Name of the initiative:
Starting date of the initiative:
Please provide a description of your initiative in a maximum of 500 words . Describe how the
initiative contributes to peace, the role of the local government in it, and the reason why this initiative
is important.
v
From:Ben Hochman
To:Council, City
Subject:Approve Airport upgrades
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 1:28:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I strongly urge you to approve the items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project
at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades will not only ensure continued safety but will reduce overall air traffic noise by increasing
the reliability of landing. Without these upgrades aircraft may be forced to circle over the city to look for
breaks in the clouds or may try to make landings in bad weather without knowing the current conditions at
the airport. The control tower staff is currently just looking out the window and making educated guesses
as to the weather and having an FAA approved weather system is essential.
The Palo Alto Airport continues to be a vital community asses that supports emergency medial access
and local business facilitation and having accurate weather reporting is obviously of critical importance.
Thank you very much,
-Ben Hochman
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:WILLIAM FOSTER
To:Council, City
Subject:The Palo Alto Airport Infrastructure Improvement Contract
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 1:02:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this message to inform you that I am in full support of the infrastructure improvement contract
under consideration by the council. I have been a user of the Palo Alto airport for over 45 years. This FAA
grant funded project will improve current equipment and add new equipment that will add to and improve
the reliability and maintain the high level of safety of operations at the airport. IT WILL NOT INCREASE
THE VOLUME OF AIR TRAFFIC.
The airport provides a number of programs that help our community . My son, as have numerous children,
grew up flying with me at the airport and earned his pilots license at this airport. It provides the capability
to continue to provide a way for medical patients from remote areas to be treated at special medical facilities
in Palo Alto. It provides the ability to deliver aide to the community after disasters such as the Loma Prieta
quake in 1989.
As I said above it will not be a factor that increases air traffic. The airport will continue to require flight
operations that minimize any affects on near by communities.
Please approve this project in your December 1 meeting.
Thank You,
Bill Foster
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Asad Khaliq
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 9:33:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
City Council members —
Thank you for all your work and service to our city!
As a long time resident I am writing to urge you to approve the seven items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport — 12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.
The Palo Alto Airport is an essential part of our community and helps medical, fire, and other operations. Stanford’s
medevac flights rely on the airport for refueling and stopovers for rest. Fire fighting aircraft can and do use Palo
Alto Airport for logistics and coordination. Young aviators, through programs such as Young Eagles, learn the
importance of community, science, technology, and aviation at the airport. There are several successful and essential
businesses that rely on the airport.
However, many of the airport’s current equipment is outdated and unreliable. These updates systems will
substantially improve reliability and safety as well as provide continuous real-time weather data to non-pilots and
other members of our community through the National Weather Service.
This project has been years in the making and all parties involved have acted with good faith. I would urge and hope
that it be executed without further delay and I ask for your support in approving this safety-critical project.
Thank you, and thank you for all that you do.
Best,
Asad Khaliq
From:Debashish Sinha
To:Council, City
Subject:Request approval of AWOS for KPAO
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 9:22:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto Airport renter and pilot, I urge you to approve the seven items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential to safety of those in the air as well as those on the ground.
Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and
increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully
compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while
maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
does not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debashish Sinha
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Michael
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport improvement funding
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 9:15:42 AM
To the Palo Alto City Council Members,
I learned to fly at Palo Alto Airport — which deeply influenced me to become involved in the future of aviation,
including the development of technical standards for electrically powered and more automated aircraft.
Your decision will contribute to retaining this irreplaceable resource and materially impact Palo Alto’s future —
and your legacy. Indeed, the airport improvement funds will contribute to a broader tax base, improved public
safety, Palo Alto businesses more competitive, and advance safer, quieter and widely accessible and
comparatively inexpensive transportation options to the public.
Please, invest in the future of Palo Alto and advance the pending Palo Alto Airport improvements. Such funds
will help sustain this irreplacable resource. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Michael S. Baum
(650) 867-9492
Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo
Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12
From:Christos
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Approve Item #12 – AWOS & Safety Upgrades at KPAO
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 8:22:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am a private pilot who regularly flies from Palo Alto (KPAO), and I commute all the way
from Florida to do so. Therefore, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the AWOS
Project, AP-19000 (Dec 1 consent calendar, Item #12).
KPAO is one of the friendliest, safest general aviation environments in the country, and the
professionalism of its community and maintenance facilities is exactly why pilots train here,
and why I commute all the way across the country just to fly here. This matters: the aviation
industry is facing a serious pilot shortage, and the pilots who fly Palo Alto residents to New
York, Hawaii, or London all start their careers at local airports like KPAO. Safe, modern
infrastructure is essential to that pipeline.
The current equipment at KPAO is decades old, unreliable, and increasingly difficult to
maintain. The proposed replacements are FAA-compliant, modern, and safety-critical. The
new AWOS will provide accurate, continuous weather data to pilots and the public without
increasing traffic day or night; it simply improves decision-making and situational awareness.
This project has already been designed, reviewed, funded, and competitively bid. Further
delay risks losing the FAA grant entirely.
For safety, stewardship, and continuity, I respectfully urge you to approve Item #12 without
further delay.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christos Shepherd
cjashepherd@gmail.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert MacLean
To:Council, City
Subject:For Safety and Neighborhood sensitivity
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 8:07:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
As a long term Palo Alto Airport resident, the need for improved reporting and reducing Control Tower work load
all in the interest of safety, Please support the proposed Airport Infrastructure improvement contract.
Respectively
Robert MacLean
260 Prior Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
PAO airplane resident
From:Michael Lewis
To:Council, City; Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000,
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 5:49:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and customer and a user of the Palo Alto Airport, I urge you to approve the Seven
Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto
Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Lewis
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:pol1@rosenblums.us
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU/JADU Report for Meeting of Dec 1
Date:Thursday, November 27, 2025 4:25:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members:
The report shows that these units remain popular as a part of new construction and remodels. Is the
City able to track how many of them are actually rented on the open market? If so, this should be
part of the report. If not, how can we claim that they are contributing to our rental housing stock
and deserve the zoning benefits they receive?
Sincerely,
Stephen Rosenblum
Old Palo Alto
From:Jordan Hubbard
To:Council, City
Subject:KPAO airport improvement project
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 11:58:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and renter at Palo Alto Airport of many years (for which I pay monthly rent
for multiple tie-down spaces), I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable,
outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. They also add a substantial amount of
workload burden for our FAA controllers who work the control tower at all hours and
otherwise have to record this information manually every hour or less when the
weather changes.
These replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level
of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public
through the National Weather Service. Many residents of the area rely on airport
weather observations to know when storms and other adverse weather conditions will
be entering or leaving the area, whether they actually know that they are using the
airport weather observation system as part of a broader set of weather stations or not.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot
decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions, particularly for
medical mercy and transportation flights which tend to operate at night.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
safety-critical project.
As a pilot, I also fully understand that many “locals” have argued against the airport’s
very existence for many years, as those adjacent to airports - both commercial and
private - have argued against ALL airports in the United States. This “not in my back
yard” perspective is understandable, but these residents also fail to realize that small
airports like these are a vital part of our air traffic network. They provide vital training
for new pilots and also provide vital refueling and emergency service access points
for life flights, Stanford hospital helicopter operations, fire fighting, rely on this airport
and many like it around the United States, a fact that is often lost or missed
completely in these debates. These improvements are all part of keeping that system
healthy and simply must be done.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jordan Hubbard
From:Eli Pasternak
To:Council, City
Subject:PAO Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) approval
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:58:05 PM
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eli Pasternak
1831 Waverly St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
From:Tim Oey
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes El Dorado underpass under Caltrain & Alma with a straight passage!
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:56:08 PM
Attachments:image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Honorable City Council,
I bike a lot all over Palo Alto.
My wife is disabled and I ride with her on a special tandem that accommodates her disability. I
also ride by myself pulling bicycle trailers. Neither our tandem nor my bike with bicycle
trailers can pass through the California Ave tunnel due to the sharp chicane turns in the
middle. It is very difficult or impossible to ride our tandem through bicycle passages with
sharp turns and I also often get stuck trying to navigate these with my bicycle trailers.
My wife and I highly prefer a straight and wide path under the train tracks and under Alma so
we can get from Park Ave to the Ellen Fletcher Bike Boulevard without having to zigzag.
Some other Palo Alto bike facilities that are essentially impossible for us to use are the Homer
Ave under crossing and the narrow Embarcadero Crossing over 101 near Oregon Expressway
due to narrowness and sharp turns.
We greatly appreciate the new Adobe Creek Bridge -- it is wide with gentle curves that we can
easily navigate.
Here is a picture of my wife on our tandem:
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Here is one of a disabled local friend of mine with her father:
Here is one of my bicycle with trailer:
Front loading Bakfiets cargo bikes are also very popular:
All these bikes and bikes with trailers have a wide turning radius of around 10' sometimes
more -- narrower than a car but much wider than a standard bike.
A straight passage is strongly preferred but if there is a turn and it can handle a 10' turning
radius, that would be ok too.
Would it be possible to redo the California tunnel so it is much wider? It is straight at least.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Tim Oey
From:Brandon Essex
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Funding
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:47:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation
System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brandon Essex CFII
510-710-0480
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Tim Heckman
To:Council, City
Subject:Seven Items to Support the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 9:44:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot who primarily uses Palo Alto Airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto
Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—outdated and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-
the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time
weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. It is important to note that better
weather data will not increase airport traffic; it simply supports better pilot decision making
and planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you.
Tim Heckman
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Paul Donahue
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes on airport AWOS project
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:29:03 PM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Palo Alto Airport is one of the city's gems, where I learned to fly
starting in 1998 and which is still my home base decades later. I urge
you to vote in favor of consent item #12 on Monday's consent calendar,
approving the Automated Weather Observation System Project.
These upgrades will improve the reliability of the aging equipment which
the staff report notes has reached the end of its useful life. It also
will feed data to the National Weather Service to improve local weather
forecast models for the benefit of the general public. The upgrades
will have no impact on the quantity of air traffic but will allow pilots
to make more informed decisions.
This project has been contemplated for years and I ask that you follow
through and approve it on Monday night.
Thank you,
-Paul Donahue
From:Neville Morcom
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:12:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Bay Area resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neville Morcom
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Bruce Whitson
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:00:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident, pilot and flight instructor, I urge you to
approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current
equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and
increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and
will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time
weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will
significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness, and availability of
weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot
decision-making and advanced planning around weather
conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has
acted in good faith, renewing their bid to accommodate city
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned,
efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Bruce Whitson
CSIP, CFI/CFI-I
650-269-7193
https://advantage-aviation.com/instructor/bruce-whitson/
From:Oliver Draese
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 7:58:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
The upgrades are essential and address safety needs. Having current weather information
(AWOS) also outside of tower operating hours is important as are current-standard approach
lighting systems. Most airports in California already follow these standards, while we deal with
systems that are in part 50 years old. There are no good reasons to delay the process any
longer.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Oliver Draese
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Alexander Bowman
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes to AP-19000
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 7:58:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
As a Palo Alto Area pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
These upgrades not only significantly improve safety, which is crucial in busy
airspace such as the Bay Area, but also provides the essential resources for pilots
to make the best decisions when it comes to making the go/no-go decision.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Palo Alto is a crucial resource to pilots in the Bay Area and it is critical we support
them now more than ever as our state and country are in a critical moment in time,
a moment of progress, and a moment of opportunity.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alex Bowman
From:Gerald Sylvester
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto airport infrastructure improvement contract
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:45:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council -
Please vote in support of the Palo Alto Airport infrastructure improvement contract. This
contract has been in the works for many years and it is long past due. The improvements are
imperative for efficient, effective and safe operations at Palo Alto Airport. Please vote to
support this contract.
Thank you.
Gerald Sylvester
Palo Alto Pilot
Mountain View Resident since 2003
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Justin Holmgren
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Palo Alto Airport Upgrades
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:42:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot who learned to fly at Palo Alto airport, and as an airplane owner (N7318F) whose
airplane is based at Palo Alto airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000 (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Justin Holmgren
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:V T
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport - AWOS Project, AP-19000
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:04:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation
System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Victor Tzonev
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Kelly Blythe
To:Council, City
Subject:PAO AWOS upgrade - support!
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:44:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto homeowner and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo
Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards,
and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety.
They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the
National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot
decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
I’ve flown out of PAO since the mid-80’s - this airport is a great community asset and
needs to be kept as safe as possible - this project will help.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kelly Blythe
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
650-507-7080
From:Carol
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto airport equipment upgrade
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:37:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident for nearly 50 years and former pilot I urge you to pass the improvement measures for PAO
as they have been presented on your agenda for December 1, item #12. The airport is a valuable resource for the
city and wishes to upgrade their aging equipment to the standard set by the FAA. An automated weather system
(AWOS) and replacement lights for the runway will improve safety for pilots. At present pilots must rely on
weather reports from nearby airports which often have significant local differences thus necessitating a fly-over
before deciding whether it is safe to land. The AWOS would enable pilots to have more accurate information for
flight planning prior to reaching the airport which would sometimes decrease the number of flights over this area.
The twenty-four hour weather reports are also available and useful to other residents who frequent the nearby
Baylands. The improved lighting will improve reliability and reduce frequency of repairs to the system.
Much hard work has been undertaken over the past several years to obtain funding and a contractor to undertake the
replacement work. It is designed to improve safety and not to increase the number of flights into and out of the
airport.
Please approve of the items AP-1900 which are #12 upon the consent calendar of December 1, 2025.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Munch
From:Yahoo!
To:Council, City
Subject:PAO AWOS
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:32:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Council Members,
I urge your support for the PAO Automated weather Observation System, AP 19000,
item 12 on the Dec 1 council consent agenda.
I am a 55 year Palo Alto resident and home owner in the Midtown area. I am also a
40 plus year recreational pilot operating out of PAO with 2100+ safe landings, mostly
at airports in the western US . Awareness of the current weather conditions at the
destination airport at the moment of arrival is of critical value to a pilot, more so at
night and/or at an unfamiliar airport. This AWOS installation removes weather related
uncertainties from the approach and landing process, when the Control Tower is not
operational, thereby enhancing safety.
Thank you,
Gerald Barker
PAAA Treasurer
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Bob Lenox
To:Council, City
Cc:Bob Lenox
Subject:PAO Capital Improvement Project Contracts
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:30:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Lenox
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Reid Kleckner
To:Council, City
Cc:Palo Alto SVBC local
Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Plan Feedback
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:24:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable councilmembers,
I'm very excited by the prospect of a bike/ped undercrossing at El Dorado! I answered the
survey, and this was one of my preferred alternatives.
I wanted to inquire about the possibility of extending the tunnel under Alma, placing the
pedestrian staircases in the grass median along Alma, and extending the 7% ramp along El
Dorado, either in the parking strip or in the center, and eliminating left turns at that
intersection. I attached an inexpertly created visual for reference. Drawing it out suggests that
driveway modifications make this difficult, but perhaps there's some opportunity for creativity.
All bike/ped traffic is coming from or going to the Northeast side of Alma, so extending the
tunnel would make it much more useful. The two long 180' hairpin ramp switchbacks plus
the need to cross at street level make this route much less attractive when compared to the Cal
Ave crossing which avoids the need to cross Alama at street level.
Additionally, given the rate of collisions around Alma / Oregon / Colorado (citation needed,
but the substation gate has been repaired multiple times now), it seems clear to me that one
day those intersections will need traffic lights. If there's a light at Colorado, that would provide
safe, low-stress access to turn left onto Alma for drivers in north Midtown. If the bike/ped
tunnel crosses Alma, there's not much remaining need for a traffic light at El Dorado.
Thanks for your consideration,
Reid
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Liz Cowie
To:Council, City
Subject:El Dorado Ave proposed bike tunnel under Alma - thank you
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:46:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi City Council members,
I am happy to hear that you are considering the proposal for a bike/pedestrian tunnel under
Alma Street at El Dorado Avenue. I live at 189 El Dorado, about a block and a half from
Alma, and think this is an excellent idea. We’d use it a lot.
The tunnel is also welcome as a way to divert bike traffic away from the Cal Ave tunnel,
which is not ideally set up for cyclists. Fewer bikes would mean greater safety for Cal Ave
tunnel pedestrians.
NOTE: I’d love to see the tunnel go under Alma Street - for the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists. Having a traffic light at Alma and El Dorado might sound OK but we all know that
cars go really fast on Alma, and it would not be surprising if they failed to stop for the light.
Extending the tunnel under Alma Street is the sensible and safer move.
Thanks for listening, and for considering this proposal.
Liz Cowie
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Tran, Joanna
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Executive Leadership Team; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Consent Questions: Item 12
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:31:22 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of Ed Shikada, please see staff responses to questions received from Mayor Lauing on the
Monday, December 1 City Council Meeting: Staff Responses to Consent Item 12
The questions on the second page were sent to the Council by community members with an interest
in the Airport. Given the depth and breadth of the questions and to expedite their handling, staff is
treating them as Councilmember consent questions and distributing the answers to the Council and
publicly.
Thank you,
Joanna
Joanna Tran
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Robert Bedichek
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of our airport -- please vote yes for infrastructure improvements
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:06:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council Members,
My wife and I have been midtown Palo Alto residents for 30 years. I hope that you will support
consent calendar item #12 coming for a vote on Monday. My wife and I moved to our home in
midtown to raise our children and to be close to the Palo Alto Airport, where we both learned to
fly.
I am now a flight instructor and entrepreneur (*) and I depend on the airport for my work. I rent a
small hangar there which contributes about $12,000 per year to the city's finances.
I urge you to approve the seven items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System
Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
The folks who would like to shutter the airport, some of whom live in my neighborhood, moved
here knowing full well that there was an airport nearby. I have often been bothered by Highway
101 noise, especially on cold nights, sometimes by noise from cargo flights approaching SFO in
the wee hours, but never from noise from the Palo Alto Airport. I'm not suggesting we close
highway 101, nor SFO, though, of course. We need transportation infrastructure -- including the
Palo Alto Airport.
Many thousands of people, most of whom are Palo Alto residents like myself, directly depend on
our airport. Indirectly thousands more benefit. Every patient delivered to the Stanford ER
benefits. Please vote "yes" to agree to allow the federal government to fund our much-needed
infrastructure improvements.
Thank you for serving on the board.
Rob Bedichek
+1-650-245-0059
(*) At the intersection of flight instruction, AI, and inexpensive satellite communication.
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
From:Alan Marcum
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-1900
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:51:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I’m a Palo Alto resident (since 1980) and a pilot. I ask you, and strongly urge you, to approve
the seven items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-1900, at
Palo Alto Airport. (This is consent calendar item 12 on the December 1, 2025 agenda.)
The upgrades that comprise this project are essential. Much of the current equipment
providing these services at the airport is over 50 years old. It’s unreliable and outdated, and
has become difficult to maintain (a situation that will only get worse). The proposed
replacement systems are state-of-the-art and fully comply with the FAA’s current standards.
Additionally, they will improve reliability and maintain the highest safety levels, while also
providing continuous real-time weather data to the general public through the National
Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will improve the accuracy, timeliness,
and availability of weather information. It will allow pilots to make better decisions both while
flying and while planning their flights. It will not increase airport traffic, either during the day
or night.
The contractor on this project has acted in good faith. They’ve renewed their bid to
accommodate City processes. We should honor this contractor’s flexibility and execute this
contract now.
Again, please approve this important project.
Sincerely,
Alan Marcum
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Scott Porter
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for AWOS at Palo Alto Airport
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:50:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a local resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent
calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years
old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are
state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous
real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data
will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing
their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-
critical project.
Thank you,
Scott Porter
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Anand Rajagopalan
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport AWOS Approval
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:46:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than
50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The
replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA
standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest
level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the
public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the
accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better
weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better
pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and
safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Warm Regards
Anand Rajagopalan
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Pearson
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport improvements - please approve
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:34:58 PM
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and frequent user of Palo Alto Airport, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting
the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you,
David Pearson
From:Jim Bray
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Improvement
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:26:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and airport users for over twenty years, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Bray
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Henry
To:Council, City
Subject:Happy Thanksgiving - Sharing a Special Morin Khuur Music With You
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:24:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Happy Thanksgiving to all Morin khuur lovers and fans! I’m so grateful for your support
and for sharing our Mongolian musical heritage and spirit.
May this holiday bring you warmth, peace, and harmony. I’m proud to announce my
morin khuur album — full of traditional songs meant to carry the soul of Mongolia
around the world. Please check out the album link at the end of the video and share
with friends who love the horse-head fiddle tradition.
Thank you for listening. May the strings of morin khuur echo in your hearts.
Thank you for listening and supporting my Morin Khuur music! You can purchase the
full album at:
https://hong-shan.kit.com/products/mongolian-morin-khuur
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
video preview
Unsubscribe | Update your profile | 113 Cherry St #92768, Seattle, WA 98104-2205
From:James Gruneisen
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Improvements
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:22:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and active pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Jim Gruneisen
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Misha Smilovici
To:Council, City
Subject:Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:21:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated
Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar
item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-
the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while
maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to
the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Misha Smilovici
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Reynold Lewke
To:Council, City
Subject:City of Palo Alto Council 12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:21:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a local pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item
#12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Reynold Lewke
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:npliam@earthlink.net
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Palo Alto Airport Improvements
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:11:06 PM
Dear Council,
I’m a Stanford trained orthopedic surgeon and airline transport rated pilot. I use my Palo Alto
Airport based airplane to fly to clinics in Redding, Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield, mostly serving
people who need help and advocacy. The airport is important for me to continue this work. In
addition, I advise and serve on the board of several California based medical device companies, and I
use my PAO based airplane to travel to those companies efficiently.
The airport is important to many of us, and the proposed upgrades are important and contribute to
safety. Please support them.
Nick Pliam, MD, PhD, ATP
917 434 5767
From:Jim O"Sullivan
To:Council, City
Subject:12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:42:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto homeowner/resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven
Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at
Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential to aviation safety. Much of the airport’s current
equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult
to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with
current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the
highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather data to
the public through the National Weather Service.
Upgrading the weather station won’t result in more flights overall or more night flights. It will just
improve the level of safety for air operations and reduce the city’s maintenance burden.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith,
renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed
without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency- and
safety-critical project.
Best regards,
Jim O’Sullivan
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Vikas Kapur
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:41:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a long-time pilot at Palo Alto Airport , I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the
Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025
consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vikas Kapur
--
c: 408 373 3499
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:bcilker@pineconelumber.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport renovation and improvement of safety equipmwent
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:39:20 PM
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto Airport tenant and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven
Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project,
AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is
more than 50 years old—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult
to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully
compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve
reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will
also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the
National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly
improve the accuracy, timeliness, and availability of weather
information. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport
traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making
and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in
good faith, renewing their bid to accommodate city processes. It is time
that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned,
efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brian Cilker, pilot and tenant of hanger #35
From:Yael Pasternak Valek
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:25:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a Palo Alto resident and mother and daughter of pilots, I urge you to approve the Seven Items
supporting the Automated Weather Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport
(12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project. Please keep my dad and son safe!
Thank you,
Yael Valek
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jason Kersey
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #12: Airport Safety Upgrades
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:17:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Council Members,
As a pilot based at Palo Alto Airport, I ask for your support in approving the Automated
Weather Observation System (Item #12 on the 12/1/25 Consent Calendar).
This project is essential for three key reasons:
Safety & Reliability: The current equipment is 50+ years old and failing. The new
system meets modern FAA safety standards.
No Impact on Noise/Traffic: Better weather data supports pilot decision-making; it
does not increase the number of flights day or night.
Public Benefit: It provides real-time weather data to the public via the National
Weather Service.
This project has been vetted for years and is ready to execute. Please approve these critical
safety upgrades.
Sincerely,
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Presotto
To:Council, City
Subject:palo alto airport upgrades
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:11:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please let them actually happen. I live in Palo Alto (webster st) and have had a plane at Palo
Alto airport since 2007. If nothing else, I would like to have the automated weather
observation system working for when the tower is closed, especially since that will probably
hapen more often given the federal governments staffing problems. It won't make me noisier
or fly more often, just fly safer into and out of PAO. My plane won't get bigger or noisier just
because we have reliable weather observations. I appreciate the Posse's stance to create a
quieter airspace but not approving this will not cause that. Perhaps denying all airport
improvements will help then eventually get closed which I expect is their long game.
However, I and many others live here precisely because we have an airport here.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:James Cherry
To:Council, City
Subject:Automated Weather Observation System Project
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:09:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
As a former Palo Alto resident and pilot, I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather
Observation System Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old—unreliable,
outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-of-the-art, fully compliant with
current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability while maintaining the highest level of safety. They
will also provide continuous real-time weather data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy, timeliness, and
availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not increase airport traffic day or night; it
simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their bid to
accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical project.
Thank you.
James Cherry
Woodside, CA
From:Holger Ippach
To:Council, City
Subject:12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:08:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council members,
As a pilot and a resident of a property directly underlying the traffic pattern of the Palo Alto Airport,
I urge you to approve the Seven Items supporting the Automated Weather Observation System
Project, AP-19000, at Palo Alto Airport (12/1/2025 consent calendar item #12.)
These upgrades are essential. Much of the airport’s current equipment is more than 50 years old
—unreliable, outdated, and increasingly difficult to maintain. The replacement systems are state-
of-the-art, fully compliant with current FAA standards, and will substantially improve reliability
while maintaining the highest level of safety. They will also provide continuous real-time weather
data to the public through the National Weather Service.
The Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) will significantly improve the accuracy,
timeliness, and availability of weather information. Importantly, better weather data will not
increase airport traffic day or night; it simply supports better pilot decision-making and advanced
planning around weather conditions.
This project has been years in the making. The contractor has acted in good faith, renewing their
bid to accommodate city processes. It is time that it be executed without further delay.
I respectfully ask for your support in approving this long-planned, efficiency and safety-critical
project.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Holger Ippach
--
--------------------------------
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sue Allen
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike/Train grade separation plans
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 12:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I just saw the recommendation for the undercrossing at El Dorado.
Once again those of us in South Palo Alto get short-changed. There is
already an underpass at California Ave! Why put one just a few blocks
south? How about something down south near Charleston or Meadow for
all the students riding bikes to/from Gunn High School each day? They
are not going to ride all the way north to El Dorado to get under the
tracks. Students going to Green Middle School already have a
straight-shot at California Ave, and those going to Paly also have a
fairly close underpass to go that direction.
By far the largest contingent of bicyclists in Palo Alto is students.
Let's look at making it convenient for them, please!
Thank you,
Sue Allen
Grove Ave, Palo Alto
From:Bill McLane
To:staceytomson@qmsshields.com
Cc:Marguerite Poyatos; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation; RevColl; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo R; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Maor Greenberg; Gaines, Chantal; Cathi Lerch; Dave Stellman; City Mgr; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley; McDonough, Melissa; Reifschneider, James; John Lerch; Binder, Andrew; City Attorney; Lauing, Ed; Lydia Kou; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Becchetti, Benjamin; Cally Mei; Diana Ma
Subject:Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 11:45:56 AM
Attachments:image002.pngimage001.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Afternoon,
This is what I found on my morning walk on Commercial Street.
This is an example of the rampant criminal activity that goes on around here. In this video, we see an unhitched trailer with no plate, no registration, and numerous other violations. They are clearly stealing electricity from 974 Commercial Street. Based on a quick GOOGLE search, I found out that such actions are illegal. Here is what I found, just in case you are not aware of the law.
In California, stealing electricity is a crime under Penal Code (PC) 498 and is punished as a misdemeanor for theft under $950 in damages, or as a felony for theft of $950 or more. Tampering with, damaging, or illegally connecting to electrical lines can also lead to charges under PC 591 or PC 593, which can be a misdemeanor or felony with penalties including jail time, significant fines, and prison time.
Key laws and penalties
PC 498 (Theft of Utility Service):
Misdemeanor: Stealing utility services where the loss is less than $950.
Felony: Stealing utility services where the loss is $950 or more, or if the person has a prior conviction for utility theft.
Actions: This includes diverting services, tampering with meters, making unauthorized connections, or using services with the knowledge that they were obtained illegally.
PC 591 (Damaging Phone or Electrical Lines):
Misdemeanor or Felony: Maliciously damaging or obstructing electrical or telephone lines.
Actions: This can include cutting, injuring, or otherwise interfering with an electrical line.
Penalties: Can result in up to 3 years in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000, or 16 months, 2, or 3 years in prison.
PC 593 (Interfering with Electric Lines):
Felony: Specifically prohibits maliciously interfering with electrical lines, equipment, or facilities, such as tampering with power lines or damaging substations.
Penalties: Felony, with a prison sentence of 16 months, 2, or 3 years, plus fines and restitution.
PC 594 (Vandalism):
Misdemeanor or Felony: If the theft involves damaging electrical property.
Penalties: Based on the value of the damage.
What constitutes a crime
Tampering with or diverting electricity from utility lines or meters.
Unauthorized connections to power lines.
Connecting to someone else's electrical supply without permission.
Damaging or destroying any electrical equipment or property.
Important considerations
Criminal intent: For charges under PC 591, prosecutors must prove you acted with criminal intent, meaning you acted on purpose.
Civil penalties: In addition to criminal charges, the utility company can also pursue civil action to recover damages, which can include treble damages (three times the amount of the actual loss), court costs, and attorney's fees, notes Quinn Covarrubias.
Safety: Tampering with electrical equipment is extremely dangerous and can cause electrical shock, fire, or death, and can result in the immediate disconnection of service
Full video available if requested.
Do Better Palo Alto!
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:47 AM <staceytomson@qmsshields.com> wrote:
These RVS definitely have been here longer then 72 hours. Look at this street view picture that was taking Oct 2024. Same RV, same place, same 6 other cars this guy owns. They are now getting to the point where they are trespassing onto business properties, moving our cones, taking our cones, even hitting our cones with their cars that we have to put in front of our businesses just so we can get deliveries.
Stacey Tomson
phone:(650) 858-2491 fax:(650) 858-2494
4047 Transport StPalo Alto, CA 94303
www.qualitymetalspinning.us
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:39 AM
To: Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <Xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <RamonMorenoSchool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <lwong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg
<maor@greenberg.construction>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com; david@paloaltoconcrete.com; nancy@drewmaran.com; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch
<john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com; Benjamin
Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please ENFORCE the 72 hour tow notice. Attached is a picture of an RV that has not moved at all in at least 6 months, which is evident by the garden they have planted in the strip of dirt along the fence/sidewalk. They also have a mirror glued to the outside of the RV, which if the RV were to ever move would be dangerous. Not only is it likely to fall off of the RV, but I would expect the glare would be a danger to other drivers - but that is only if they are ever to actually move the RV.
Also, please do something about the propane tanks sitting on the street. Attached is a picture of an RV that has a propane tank that has been sitting on the street since the summer, if not longer. I believe I first emailed about this in July and nothing has been done. I understand officers knocked on his door to talk to him in the past and he didn't answer so it was assumed he was not home. The problem is, his six other cars are always here so he is inside the RV. He is just not answering.
It is frustrating being told that these vehicles are following the rules for the 72 hour tow notice when it is very blatant that most are not. It is even more concerning that we are addressing safety issues and nothing is being resolved. Pedestrians cannot cross the street safely because you have to step into the street to see if any cars are coming because all visibility is restricted. The intersection right outside our business is also dangerous because of the same problem.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 1:56 PM Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto
Attention: City Manager / City Council
Subject: Urgent Request for Action on Homeless Encampments and Abandoned Vehicle Parking in the Transport/Industrial/Commercial Area
Dear City Officials,
I am writing to express serious concern and confirm all of the other property and business owners statements regarding the growing number of homeless encampments, RVs, and abandoned vehicles occupying our streets in the Transport, Industrial and Commercial street areas of Palo Alto. The situation has deteriorated noticeably, leading to safety hazards, unsanitary conditions, and restricted access for local
businesses and employees.
Many of these vehicles appear to be long-term or abandoned, and the associated debris and waste create environmental and public health concerns. Residents and business owners in the area are increasingly frustrated by the City’s lack of visible enforcement or remediation efforts.
We are demanding that the City of Palo Alto to take immediate and coordinated action, including:
Enforcing time limits and parking regulations for oversized and inoperable vehicles.
Increasing patrols and clean-up efforts in the affected zones.
Providing clear updates to the community on what steps are being taken to address this escalating problem.
The community deserves clean, safe, and accessible streets, and we ask the City to treat this issue as a priority.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to a timely and transparent response outlining what actions will be taken.
Sincerely,
Dave Stellman
On Oct 30, 2025, at 12:43 PM, Steve Wong <swong@wongelectric.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs, endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous trafficconditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly causedtraffic accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’smarked parking lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces, sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past theseeyesore, smelly, and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair, unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators, and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
2. Increase patrol frequency and ensure violators are cited and removed.
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
<image.png><image.png>
<Outlook-3lhybjrb><Outlook-logo 2PNG.png>
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.01604067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png><image.png>
<image.png>
From: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov <RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org
<chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims
<Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>; Diana Ma <dma@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to demand immediate action regarding the growing and persistent RV infestation along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800–900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. This situation has gotten completely out of control and is now creating serious safety, sanitation, accessibility, and parking hazards for the many businesses and employees who operate in this area every day.
Many of these RVs and motorhomes have been parked for months at a time without moving, in direct violation of the City’s own ordinance stating that “any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It is evident that this rule is not being enforced, and the situation continues to deteriorate week after week. While community officers occasionally come by, their visits are infrequent and have not led to any lasting improvement.
The impacts of this ongoing neglect are severe and escalating. Human waste and trash are being dumped on the street and sidewalks, and we can smell it. Aggressive dogs are frequently chained outside RVs, endangering anyone walking by. Verbal harassment and intimidation from some RV occupants are common. Overpowering odors from the vehicles make the area unpleasant and unsanitary. Blocked sightlines caused by oversized RVs have created dangerous trafficconditions.
As someone who works in this area, I experience these issues daily. I often take walks during my lunch breaks for fresh air and exercise, but these walks have become increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe. On several occasions, I have had frightening encounters with dogs chained outside RVs or with occupants who confront me for simply walking on the public sidewalk. The stench from some of these vehicles is overwhelming, and the blocked sightlines have nearly causedtraffic accidents — I personally had a close call while trying to check for oncoming cars around a parked RV (see IMG_2880).
<image.png>
On a recent walk through the area, I personally photographed 41 RVs and inoperable vehicles parked along these streets. This number does not include additional vehicles where RV occupants were present, making it unsafe to take photographs or even linger nearby without risk of confrontation or aggression. The sheer scale of this issue speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of enforcement. I also documented an RV that is parked well outside the curb’smarked parking lines, extending significantly into the street and creating a major blind spot for both drivers and pedestrians. This is not only a violation of parking regulations but a serious public safety hazard that endangers anyone trying to navigate through the area, particularly near intersections and driveways.
Each RV typically occupies at least two standard parking spaces, sometimes more, due to their size and the way they are parked. If I counted 41 of these vehicles, do the math — that’s roughly 80 or more parking spaces permanently taken up by RVs, leaving little to no room for employees, business owners, customers, and delivery drivers who rely on this area daily. Many of us are forced to park blocks away from our workplaces, and worse, we are forced to walk past theseeyesore, smelly, and often intimidating RVs just to get to work each day. This is unfair, unsafe, and unacceptable. The City’s failure to maintain proper parking turnover is directly impacting the productivity and accessibility of the entire business corridor.
Additionally, the presence of propane and butane tanks, gas generators, and piles of combustible debris poses a significant fire hazard that threatens surrounding properties and public safety. Several of these RVs come with several vehicles that are clearly inoperable and are being used as storage units filled with trash, further compounding the risks.
The City’s continued inaction has created an environment where blatant violations are ignored, and the safety and economic well-being of legitimate businesses are being sacrificed. This situation has reached a critical and unsustainable point.
On behalf of the many businesses located in the Commercial–Industrial–Transport Street corridor, I am demanding that the City:
1. Enforce the 72-hour parking rule without exception.
2. Increase patrol frequency and ensure violators are cited and removed.
3. Address sanitation and public safety hazards created by these encampments.
4. Provide a clear plan and timeline for resolving this ongoing crisis.
We expect to see prompt and decisive action — not temporary inspections or passive observation. The City’s failure to act is directly affecting our ability to conduct business safely and responsibly.
Please respond with a clear outline of the City’s next steps and expected timeline for enforcement and cleanup.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.01604067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<image.png>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<image.png>
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:37 AM
To: Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; peterxuvel@gmail.com <peterxuvel@gmail.com>; rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; RevColl@paloalto.gov <RevColl@paloalto.gov>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>;
chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch <cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough
<Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone
<Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cally Mei <cmei@wongelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Thank you, Manu!
I am following up to include Roger & Peter in this email chain. They also are interested in rectifying this RV/parking situation.
Attached is some information they had provided to us regarding a City Council meeting, which is scheduled for tonight, as well as parking regulations for neighboring cities.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 9:24 AM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote:
Steve and fellow neighbors:
I posted some videos from my drive home yesterday on X for everyone to see what Palo Alto really looks like.
https://x.com/manukumar/status/1979554824749465636
It is abundantly clear that the City leadership is allowing the City to turn into trash/blight.
The parking regulations have glaring loopholes — just drive around the block and park in a different spot… maybe we can call it Musical RVs.
The laws/regulations need to be changed to ensure that such abuse of public property is not allowed altogether.
Regards,
-Manu
Click the card above, or scan the QR code with the camera on your phone.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 8:39 AM Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com> wrote:
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to express concern about the growing number of RVs and motorhomes parked along the 900 block of Industrial Avenue, 4000 block of Transport Street, and 800-900 block of Commercial Street in Palo Alto. The situation has gotten completely out of hand and is creating serious safety, accessibility, and parking issues for the businesses and employees who work in this area every day.
Many of these large vehicles have been parked for months at a time without moving, in clear violation of the City’s own parking rule stating that “Any vehicle parked on a public street must be moved every 72 hours.” It appears this rule is not being enforced, and the problem continues to worsen week after week.
There are also major safety concerns. Many of these RVs have propane tanks and running generators outside, which pose fire and explosion risks. They block visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and the growing number of them has turned these streets into unsafe and overcrowded areas.
This issue has now reached a point where it’s directly impacting local workers and businesses. Parking has become extremely limited because RVs and motorhomes occupy most of the available spaces. In just the past week, we’ve seen even more of them arrive, taking over additional spots and making the situation worse.
We are asking the City of Palo Alto to take immediate action to enforce existing parking laws and address this problem before it escalates further. The current situation is unsafe, unfair, and unsustainable for those who work and operate businesses in this area.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope the city will take swift and visible steps to resolve it.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Wong - President
Phone: 650.813.9999 | Cell: 650.280.01604067 Transport Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Celebrating Our 47th Anniversary 1978–2025
<Outlook-Green Hear>
A Proud Member of the U.S. Green Building Council
<Outlook-THE>
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Please. Every one of these pictures is a Safety violation where’s Waldo
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:22:26 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Patrick Kelly
From: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 6:37:09 AM
To: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
Hasn’t moved in a month. Visibility non existent for pedestrians. Safety issues are on your shoulders when something happens.
Patrick Kelly
From: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:39:37 AM
To: Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>
Cc: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>; Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; Staceytomson@qmsshields.com <Staceytomson@qmsshields.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial/Transport/Commercial Safety
CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust.
I would also like to note that the propane tank I mentioned a couple weeks ago is still sitting in the street. Is this not a safety hazard? From what I have read, they shouldn't be allowed to be kept in the street for multiple reasons.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com> wrote:
The safety on this street keeps getting worse. No visibility, no concern for environmental issues. Please help.
Patrick Kelly
From: Osbaldo R <osbaldo@or-builders.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:57:53 PM
To: Xenia Czisch <xenia@qmsshields.com>; Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com>
Cc: Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>; Ramon Moreno <ramonmorenoschool@gmail.com>; Lester Wong <LWong@wongelectric.com>; Maor Greenberg <maor@greenberg.construction>; Dave Stellman <davestellman@gmail.com>; Patrick Kelly <Patrick.Kelly@dmdsystems.com>; chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org <chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com>; Benjamin Becchetti <Benjamin.Becchetti@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cathi Lerch
<cathi@lerchconstruction.com>; Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pete Moffatt <pete@petemoffat.com>; Jacob@onemovemovers.com <Jacob@onemovemovers.com>; david@paloaltoconcrete.com <david@paloaltoconcrete.com>; Steve Wong <SWong@wongelectric.com>; nancy@drewmaran.com <nancy@drewmaran.com>; Dan McKinley <danmck@scientific-equipment.com>; Melissa McDonough <Melissa.McDonough@cityofpaloalto.org>; James
Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>; John Lerch <john@lerchconstruction.com>; Andrew Binder <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jade Jin <JJin@wongelectric.com>; City Attorney <city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; Vicki Veenker <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Patrick Burt
<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <
From:Jeff Hoel
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 11-05-25 UAC meeting -- selected portions
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 7:48:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Commissioners,
Here's a TRANSCRIPT of selected portions of the 11-05-25 UAC meeting, with my COMMENTS (paragraphs in
red beginning with "###"). Slide titles (paragraphs in orange beginning with "###.") are also provided.
High-level comments:
* I thought it was great that UAC AMENDED a MOTION. This is really important. Most of UAC's items are
DISCUSSION items, where MOTIONS are forbidden (so UAC can't vote its advice to Council). Even when UAC
has an ACTION item, what typically happens is that someone MOVES the staff recommendation, and all UAC's
vote does is approve the staff recommendation (or, rarely, not). ("When I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it
is.") If UAC wants to vote its advice to Council, and that advice differs from the staff recommendation, one way
to do that is to MOVE the staff recommendation and then AMEND it.
* Some of the commissioners seemed to feel that the City's utilities could save real money reducing the number
of Reserve Funds the various utilities have. I think that's a fool's errand. OK, staff should be able to explain the
Reserve Fund system to you in a way that you can understand. Agendize it.
* UAC should figure out how to vote its advice to Council that Council direct staff to agendize a Future Topics for
Upcoming Meetings at every UAC meeting.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
11-05-25: UAC meeting -- video
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-1152025/
11-05-25: UAC agenda
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17466
11-05-25 UAC MEETING %%
Attended by:
Commission: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Tucher (not Scharff)
Liason: Lauing
Staff: Artola, Bartell, Bilir, Ippagunta, Kurotori, Nose, Perkins, Romero
Staff (participating in items not transcribed here) Dailey, Yaylian
TRANSCRIPT
0:17:12:
Vice Chair Mauter: Good evening, everybody. I am standing in for Chair Scharff. And am also going to make
an announcement I MAY have to leave early tonight. In order to ensure that the meeting continues, I am going
to suggest that we designate Commissioner Phillips, who happens to just sit to my left, to run the rest of the
meeting, if and when I must leave.
Before we get started, would you kindly call the roll?
0:17:43:
Director Kurotori: Actually, Chair Mauter, we think we have to take a vote. And a motion for that, for that to
occur.
0:17:49:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Could we -- ah --
0:17:54:
Director Kurotori: After the roll.
0:17:54:
Vice Chair Mauter: After the roll, take a vote on that. I missed the roll piece. I'm sorry.
0:18:02:
**: That's OK.
0:18:03:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
0:18:05:
Commissioner Metz: Present.
0:18:06:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
0:18:06:
Commissioner Tucher: Present.
0:18:08:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
0:18:08:
Commissioner Croft: Present.
0:18:09:
0:18:10:
Vice Chair Mauter: Present.
0:18:12:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
0:18:12:
Commissioner Phillips: Present.
0:18:14:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
0:18:14:
Commissioner Gupta: Present.
Rachael Romero: For the record, 6 present.
### Chair Scharff absent. Liaison Lauing present.
0:18:19:
Vice Chair Mauter: Can you now call the roll designating Commissioner Phillips to stand in my place should I
need to leave early?
### Omitting the MOTION Director Kurotori said was necessary, as well as the second, and the discussion for
this topic.
Rachael Romero: Yes. Commissioner Metz.
0:18:34:
Commissioner Metz: Um, yes.
0:18:35:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
0:18:36:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Yes.
0:18:37:
Rachael Ramero: Commissioner Croft.
0:18:38:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
0:18:39:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
0:18:40:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
0:18:42:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
0:18:44:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
0:18:45:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:18:46:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
### MOTION passes 6-0, Scharff absent.
0:18:51:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Are there any agenda changes, additions, or deletions this evening?
0:18:57:
Director Kurotori: There are no changes. I just wanted to mention that the 12-month calendar will be discussed
at the Future Topics For Upcoming Meetings. So, this is the alternate month, when you have those
discussions. So, I just wanted to make sure I was highlighting that to the Commission. Thank you.
0:19:10:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you.
0:19:11:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Is that **?
0:19:13:
Director Kurotori: Yes. The 12-month rolling calendar.
0:19:15:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Would you say that again, please? The rolling calendar is discussed only
every 2 months?
### If UAC would like to advise Council that the 12-month rolling calendar should be considered at EVERY
meeting, I invite UAC to do so. Should UAC give its advice to Council as part of a properly agendized ACTION
item? I think so.
0:19:19:
Director Kurotori: Every other month. So, this is the month you would discuss the calendar. So, I just wanted
to make sure I was -- it was highlighting on here. For Future Topics For Upcoming Meetings. So, that is the
discussion of the 12-month rolling calendar.
0:19:37:
Commissioner Tucher: Why is the 12-month rolling calendar not discussed EVERY month? This meeting, for
example, two large agenda items came off the agenda, not a month but days -- I don't know, days or weeks
before the meeting. So, why is it so hard to nail down a calendar? That we can -- And we can all even discuss
it once a month?
0:20:00:
Director Kurotori: So, I think that would be a good discussion. And when we get to that item on the agenda.
### It would be even better to agendize the item as an ACTION item, NOT a DISCUSSION item, so that UAC
could vote on their advice to Council.
### As it turned out, this topic was not considered at this month's Future Topics agenda item.
0:20:08:
Commissioner Tucher: And while we're procedural, can I just ask, when commissioners aren't attending the
meeting, especially the Chair, I would suggest that we all be notified. It comes as a surprise that the Chair's not
here.
0:20:25:
Vice Chair Mauter: I'm not sure that we have ever sent out attendance in advance of the meeting publicly.
Sometimes, last-minute issues -- personal issues arise that lead to unforeseen circumstances. And I would be
concerned about exposing or highlighting those publicly. However, we do --
0:20:50:
Commissioner Tucher: I didn't say I needed a reason. I just said it ought to be disclosed that a commissioner --
certainly Chair -- won't be attending.
0:21:00:
Director Kurotori: So, we do not actually do that for City Council either. But, respectfully, understood your
comment.
0:21:11:
Vice Chair Mauter: Is there any public comment at tonight's meeting? [pause] OK. So, I -- To clarify, any
members of the public that are interested in speaking on items that are NOT on the agenda this evening?
[pause]
0:21:38:
Rachael Romero: Let me see. We do have a hand raised. By Ncac. We'll let them talk. Oh. They put their
hand down. No additional hands raised. And no in-person comments.
0:22:01:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Can we proceed to the next topic, which is Approval of the Minutes? We
actually have TWO months worth of minutes to approve this evening. So, I would like to start with the minutes
from the September 3rd meeting. Do I have any comments from the commissioners on those meetings?
0:22:20:
Commissioner Phillips: I would like to make one change to the minutes.
0:22:24:
Vice Chair Mauter: Please.
0:22:26:
Commissioner Phillips: Currently -- on -- let's see -- It says something in the minutes --
### See the 09-03-25 video at 1:59:49.
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-932025/
I'm sorry. I should be a little more -- [pause] -- it says, on packet page 16, Commissioner Phillips met with
Mayor Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker to discuss the lack of feedback to the UAC on its decisions, motions,
and discussions. I'd rather have that clarified, to say, On August 26th, Commissioner Phillips represented the
UAC at a meeting of Board and Commission chairs and vice chairs, and Mayor Lauing and Vice Mayor
Veenker. Among the issues discussed was the lack of feedback to the UAC. And then, you can continue as-is.
It was not a special. Just want to make it clear. It was a meeting of all the boards and commissions, not a
special meeting.
### What does it mean not to be a "special" meeting? Was it one of a series of meetings that happen
regularly? Was it a public meeting? Was it noticed? Was there an agenda? Are there minutes? Is there a
video?
### In the old days, Council used to hold a Joint Meeting "annually" (or so) -- in public -- with each of the
commissions individually I think that was a better venue for talking about how to improve communications.
0:23:26:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you for that clarification. Do we have that adequately documented? Or would it be
helpful for Commissioner Phillips to provide that for the record?
0:23:37:
Commissioner Phillips: I'm happy to provide. I have it written.
0:23:40:
Director Kurotori: Yeah. We could take those comments and incorporate it into the meeting minutes.
0:23:43:
Commissioner Phillips: Thank you.
0:23:45:
Vice Chair Mauter: Are there any other comments on the September 3rd meeting?
0:23:51:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes. I have sent an email just this afternoon, so it's not much time, and it's to Kaylee,
and she's not here.
### Maybe staff can specify the email address that all commissioners should use to send in their minutes
corrections, so that the right person gets them in time to display them on a public screen while UAC is approving
the minutes. Maybe this could be documented in a Procedures & Protocols document for UAC. (See also
0:25:53.)
So, -- And I don't know if procedurally this even works, since, if I can't show all of you -- I have no printouts -- If
I can't show you proposed changes, maybe it's all moot. But my list of items from September, many of them are
minor. There are typos, like Redwood vs. Redwood City, or I dig a pipe, I don't dig it up. That kind of thing.
You know. And so, maybe not even worth bothering with. Then, there are points I'd make that may be
inappropriate for minutes, but there are a number of references -- or, you know, "minuted" remarks, if that's a
word.
### "Minuted" is a word.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/minuted#google_vignette
But I'm not sure what Commissioner Tucher means here.
We will agendize a certain topic. Like, for example, the topic of discussing the advisory function of UAC to
Council. It's stated that this will be agendized, perhaps for December, and it has not been agendized. Or,
follow-up as to questions where a commissioner asks such and such, there was no answer. For example, is
gas use as a feedstock by some of our commercial customers? That question is left dangling. And so, I
suppose it's not appropriate to insert answers to questions post-facto in the minutes. But it does leave an
awkward record of -- we're going to do something, and then we don't do it. So, I will simply summarize by
saying my email has a few typo -- minor suggestions that I don't think anyone would object to. I can't show
them to you. And everything else should probably be disregarded in that email.
### In the old days, before June 2004, UAC minutes used to be verbatim, so things that were said could not, in
principle, be omitted from the minutes. But things that were not said but could or should have been said were
not added.
0:25:43:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you, Commissioner Tucher. Perhaps this is something that we can pick back up in
our final agenda item.
### That is, in Commissioner Comments? Why not in Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings?
0:25:53:
Commissioner Croft: Can I ask a question? Which is, if we do have comments on the minutes, and, for
example, Commissioner Tucher wrote them to Kaylee, who -- What is the process? For getting those into the
minutes, if we are emailing ahead of time? Who do you want those to go to?
0:26:09:
Director Kurotori: So, if the commissioner had a series of questions and also comments, to the extent that he
had modifications or changes to the minutes, it would be appropriate for each of the commissioners to bring that
forward in the open meeting, and we could incorporate those into the public record and make the associated
changes. So , that would be the best way to have those changes made, for the record, for the minutes.
### This misses the point that in the public meeting it would be convenient to be able to display the proposed
changes easily.
And then, you know, we are always open and appreciate questions from the commissioners if we need some
clarification as we try to move forward with the meeting in an efficient --
0:26:50:
Commissioner Croft: So, the solution would have been, just like Commissioner Phillips: bringing the physical
copy, read it, give it --
0:27:01:
Assistant City Manager Nose: Either that, Commissioner Croft, or I think if you were to provide it to the staff
early enough and ask us to bring copies for you.
### This sounds like staff might be willing to provide to the commissioners "at-places" documents about
proposed changes to the minutes. Still, displaying proposed changes on-screen might be better as well as
easier.
But, obviously, we would need some turnaround time
### How much time would staff need?
for something like that, so that we would be able to coordinate that, and be able to help artfully go through -- um
-- the information.
0:27:19:
Commissioner Tucher: I'd like to mention, for the public record and for the posterity of the minutes, that my HP
printer at home is not functioning. That was just a dumb joke.
0:27:31:
Vice Chair Mauter: Do I have a motion to approve the September 3rd minutes?
0:27:35:
Commissioner Croft: MOTION to approve with Commissioner Phillips' amendment.
0:27:40:
Commissioner Gupta: Seconded.
0:27:42:
Vice Chair Mauter: Could you please call the roll?
### Assuming no commissioners wanted to speak further to the item.
0:27:44:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
0:27:46:
Commissioner Metz: Yes.
0:27:46:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
0:27:47:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes.
0:27:48:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
0:27:48:
Commissioner Croft: [inaudible]
### Presumably, yes.
0:27:49:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
0:27:50:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
0:27:52:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
0:27:52:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
0:27:53:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:27:54:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
0:27:56:
Rachael Romero: MOTION carries 6-0
### Scharff absent.
0:27:58:
Vice Chair Mauter: We will now turn to the approval of the October 1st minutes. Does anybody have any
comments or concerns about the minutes from October 1st? [pause] Hearing none, do I have a MOTION to
approve the October 1st minutes?
0:28:23:
Commissioner Phillips: So MOVED.
0:28:25:
Vice Chair Mauter: Do I have a second?
0:28:28:
Commissioner Metz: Second.
0:28:30:
Vice Cahir Mauter: Could you kindly call the roll?
### Assuming no commissioners wanted to speak further to the item.
0:28:31:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
0:28:33:
Commissioner Metz: I'm going to abstain on this one, since I wasn't in the meeting.
### A commissioner may vote to approve the minutes of a meeting he did not attend, provided he makes an
effort to verify what happened, for example, by watching the video. The "City Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook" (May 2025) isn't entirely clear about this,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/4/city-clerk/board-and-commission-handbook.pdf
but the "City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook" (09-09-24) is clear about what Council members
should do.. See page 26, item 4.3.(h).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/6/city-clerk/city-charterprocedures/2024-adopted-council-
protocols-and-procedures-manual-10.2024.pdf
### It's a little odd for a commissioner to second a MOTION and then abstain on voting for it.
0:28:38:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
0:28:39:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes.
0:28:41:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
0:28:42:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
0:28:43:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
0:28:45:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
0:28:46:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
0:28:47:
Commissioner Gupta: Abstain.
0:28:50:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:28:51:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
0:28:58:
Rachael Romero: MOTION carries -- 5 with 2 abstained -- OK. Sorry --
### MOTION carries with 4-0, Metz and Gupta abstaining, and Scharff absent.
0:29:09:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. We'll now turn to the Utilities Director Report
0:29:17:
Director Kurotori: I appreciate that. So, I just wanted to go though the City Council recent approvals, as part of
the first item of business.
### The Utilities Director's Report appears on the agenda after Item 2 but before Item 3.
So, we had a resolution extending the City's participation to Northern California Power Agency for the support
services program for another 10 years, to 2037. We also have the contract for the gas main replacement
project '25 that went to Council. And we also amended our Utility Connection Fees. So, just an overview for the
Utility Connection Fees. These are the rates that are charged for development for the actual services that we
are providing for the actual physical connection to the system. So, we periodically update those rates, and
these are from around 2019, so we were able to update those, and make sure we have adequate cost
recovery. We -- it also simplifies our billing process. So, if it's a standard type service or installation that we are
being as efficient as possible. So, just wanted to mention that to the UAC.
0:30:16:
Commissioner Tucher: Excuse me. Is it OK to ask item by item, or do you want us to wait to the end?
0:30:20:
Assistant City Manager Nose: No, please wait for the end. Thank you. Yeah.
0:30:22:
Commissioner Tucher: All right.
0:30:24:
Director Kurotori: So, the City Manager mentioned at the City Council meeting on Monday [11-03-25] that the
Utilities was going to prepare a financial assistant for federal government employees and low-income residents
that are being impacted by the federal administration, in terms of the lack of funding for SNAP programs, and
some of the federal employees that are not being paid at this time. So, staff is bringing forth an item for consent
for the Council to consider. What that would look like is that the customers on our rate assistance program
would be automatically enrolled, so that they would not have automatic turnoffs, we would not be charging late
fees. And, on a similar vein, federal employees that are impacted by the shutdown would contact the Utiiities
services, provide information that they're a federal employee, then those are impacted, then they would also be
enrolled in this program. So, we are bringing that back to Council on Monday [11-10-25] I wanted to make sure
that UAC was aware of that as well.
0:31:29:
Also on Monday [11-03-25], the Council heard the Wildfire Mitigation Audit from the City Auditor. It was
primarily based on our preparations. Utilities was part of that audit. And very few findings, as we are actually
undergrounding our overhead lines in the high-threat zone areas. So, that was highlighted in the audit report.
0:31:56:
I did also want to mention, we completed and submitted, based on our 2025 Wildfire Mitigation Plan, that has
been reviewed by the California Wildlife Safety Advisory Board. They review all the submittals. Actually, Palo
Alto was applauded for its process in undergrounding the line. And actually inserting new sensors, to -- AI
sensors, frankly, to -- that -- we're a partnership with Stanford and some of the other surrounding communities.
So, that was a positive. And the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board would like to get some feedback on how that
program is working. So, that was -- I wanted to pass that on to this group.
0:32:42:
So, every 5 years, the Utility submits the Electric Integrated Resource Plan to the California Energy
Commission, on talking about our goals. So, staff will be working on that program. And this also includes
meeting our state requirements for this 60 percent renewable portfolio standard. That will be increasing in 202*
-- end of 2027. And needs to go to 52 percent, and by 2030, 60 percent. So, I wanted to make sure that this
commission knew of that.
0:32:16:
Also, CPAU is participating with the California Municipal Utilities Association for a Customer Satisfaction
Survey. To residential electrical and water service customers. It's a statewide survey. For entities, and for
publicly-owned utilities throughout California. So, we are are part of the oversampling survey.
### Oversampling? Wikipedia says "Both oversampling and undersampling involve introducing a bias to select
more samples from one class than another...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling_and_undersampling_in_data_analysis
Why is that appropriate? Or did Director Kurotori mean something else?
So, we will be bring to the commission for their information.
0:33:43:
And then, for heat pump systems, in October, the Utility is offering two new programs related to heat pump
systems. This includes new rebates to cover the permit costs for heat pump water heaters and HVA[C]
systems. And when you refer a neighbor to this program. A campaign to spread the word about how customers
can move over to a heat pump water heater. And they can earn another $50 for every successful referral,
where we have your neighbors switch over to that as well. And then, the neighbor also receives additional --
$100 after completion of this installation. So, we're really hoping we can spread that word.
0:34:26:
And my last is the actually introduction of our new Utilities Assistant Director of Water, Gas, and Wastewater,
Rehka Ippagunta. I'm going to have her step up and just briefly introduce herself to the group. So, she is
overseeing our Water, Gas, Wastewater Engineering Operations.
0:34:47:
Rehka Ippagunta: Good evening, mayor and commissioners. My name is Rehka Ippagunta. I am honored to
step into the role of Assistant Director for Water, Gas, and Wastewater. My professional background spans
over two decades in consulting, investor-owned utilities, and public service. I had spent some time in
consulting, gaining my technical design experience in water and wastewater. Spent several years for a
California water service company, where I was involved in engineering and operational management. And then
culminating in a commitment to public service at Alameda County Water District. So, what drew me to Palo Alto
is the unique utilities structure here, that provides a tremendous opportunity for long-term efficiency and service
reliability. So, I'm very thrilled to be here. And I look forward to working with you all. Thank you.
0:35:52:
Commissioner Phillips: Welcome.
0:35:52:
Director Kurotori: And that completes my report.
0:36:00:
Vice Chair Mauter: Any questions from the commissioners?
0:36:02:
Commissioner Metz: I'd just like to make one comment related to the heat pump topic that you mentioned. I
have a friend who -- gas water heater busted, and got a new heat pump water heater. And he was just
effusive. He sought me out because he knew I was on the commission, and was just effusive about what a
great job, that it got done, overnight, I guess, on a Sunday. He went for 110-volt water heater, so he didn't have
to do any wiring and such. But anyway, he thought it was a great job. And I just wanted to mention that.
0:36:36:
Director Kurotori: Appreciate the feedback.
0:36:40:
Vice Chair Mauter: Commissioner Tucher.
0:36:42:
Commissioner Tucher: Um, you mentioned -- give an update on connection fees. I think I heard the word
"amended." I'm not -- I think it was electric. It kind of went past me though. Last month -- or last meeting -- we
talked at some length about I think similar or maybe the same connection fees. I brought up the fact that this
came before Finance, and the increases were, to my mind, staggering. I realize they're all cost-plus, and cost-
related. But, nonetheless, what it the connection between what you just mentioned and what we discussed last
month?
0:37:21:
Director Kurotori: So, the connection is, as part of the commission, we were directed and we are providing
updates, in terms of what items have gone to City Council, in terms of their approval. So, that was the intent of
my report out, in terms of what has gone to City Council, in terms of updating those fees, and providing a
general overview of kind of some of the high-level activities and items that have gone to City Council.
0:37:46:
Commissioner Tucher: Are those the same fees that we talked about last month?
0:37:49:
Director Kurotori: Yes.
0:37:49:
Commissioner Tucher: Oh.
0:37:49:
Director Kurotori: These are the connection fees that have gone. So, again, we provide back what has gone to
Council. That was the feedback we received, and trying to fulfill that obligation.
0:37:59:
Commissioner Tucher: OK. Would it help if you'd simply made that connection, since we talked about it last
month? [pause] Another question is on satisfaction surveys. Is it -- And I believe we do -- I believe these are
much more than Palo Alto. You mentioned some sort of consortium or larger region. And we do these every
year or two. I get that also. But is is possible to see in advance what the survey will be, or how it will be
addressing Palo Alto customers?
0:38:33:
Director Kurotori: So, it is a standardized oversampling for Palo Alto. The -- So, they do a statewide survey.
And then, Utilities can request an oversampling, of those standardized questions. We'll bring that back to the
commission, so you can see those questions, and kind of the responses, and how we rate against -- frankly --
our peer utilities across the state. So, other -- There are standards -- some standardized questions in there as
well. So, more than happy to bring that back for the -- to the commission.
0:39:04:
Commissioner Tucher: It sounds like they're standard. We don't administer it. So, there's not much that we
can do to shape or affect it. And therefore there's no reason to look at it in advance? Is that what you're
saying?
0:39:17:
Director Kurotori: Yes. That's exactly what I'm trying to convey, is, these are standardized questions, and
having them universally applied to the agency, so we can have those comparisons is very useful.
0:39:26:
Commissioner Tucher: Do we do any sampling, beyond that, of our own? That we control? Satisfaction sampl-
-- surveying, I should say?
0:39:33:
Director Kurotori: Yes. So, there are surveys that the City performs, across for all the different departments.
And there's areas of focus that occur on different areas of the City, whether that's the sustainability and climate
action or other activities. So, we continue to do that as well.
0:39:53:
Commissioner Tucher: Thank you.
0:39:54:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Are there any other questions? Ah. I'm sorry. Commissioner Gupta.
0:40:01:
Commissioner Gupta: Thank you for the report out. I had a question if you had any updates for our residential
fiber deployment tonight.
0:40:10:
Director Kurotori: No. We do not have that. And what I'd like to do is, we'll put that as part of the 12-month.
We do have an update that we're providing on that as well. So, I can -- I can -- we can discuss that further in
detail. I would appreciate any questions that this commission would have, to make sure that we address them.
But I'd like to kind of keep that as part of that part of the agenda, if that works.
0:40:33:
Commissioner Gupta: OK. Thank you.
0:40:35:
Vice Chair Mauter: Before we move onto agenda Item number 3, I'm wondering if we can get some technical
assistance here. For a commissioner's restarted iPad.
0:40:41:
Commissioner Phillips: [unamplified] Thank you. [pause] Thank you.
0:41:10:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Without further ado, we'll move on to new business.
0:41:13:
### Item 3 -- Draft 2026 Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines Update -- ACTION
----------
1:11:27:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Well, in the effort to get Dr. Perkins to Folsom on time tomorrow morning, do we have
a -- do we have a MOTION to -- Would you like to bring up the MOTION that you propose?
1:11:42:
Lena Perkins: Yes. Could we ** Yeah. It is here. Um. Yeah.
1:11:48
###. Slide 4 -- Recommendation
Staff recommends -- Do you want to read it, or would you like me to?
1:11:52:
Vice Chair Mauter: Go ahead.
1:11:52:
Lena Perins: "Staff recommends that the UAC recommend the Policy & Services Committee recommend that
the City Council to approve the Draft 2026 Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines Update, and accept this staff
report providing an update on state and federal activities in 2025."
1:12:07:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Do we have a MOTION to --
1:12:10:
Commissioner Phillips: So MOVED.
1:12:11:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you, Commissioner.
1:12:15:
Commissioner Metz: Second.
1:12:15:
Vice Chair Mauter: A discussion?
1:12:17:
Vice Chair Mauter: Second? OK. Great.
1:12:18:
Commissioner Metz: Second.
1:12:19:
Vice Chair Mauter: Do we have any questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Gupta.
1:12:24:
Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. Yeah. I have a small amendment I'm going to propose to our Policy
Guidelines ** 2026 Update. In going through, you know, our recent gas decommissioning studies and our
conversations around the gas COSA made me realize how much of a limitation Prop 26 and its related
Proposition 218 are to the City's efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize, and advance
rate designs that would be beneficial for those goals -- And, you know, we have an 80/30 goal that's coming
up. And in our guidelines, number 8, we say, Advocate for fair cost allocation and support the principle of
beneficiary pays. Which, to me, suggests a continued support of Proposition 26 and 218. I'd like to add a small
addition to that. Just a small carve-out.
1:13:26:
So, it would be, "Advocate for fair cost allocation and support the principle of beneficiary pays" COMMA -- is the
addition -- "while maintaining flexibility to support rate designs and policies that advance beneficial electrification
and decarbonization in the public interest." And the goal for this amendment is to give our staff the flexibility that
if an opportunity arises in the legislative landscape, that we can take hold of that and advocate for providing
flexibility in rate design in the future.
1:13:57:
Vice Chair Mauter: Could I get some assistance in how to manage this proposed amendment?
1:14:03:
Liaison Lauing: [unamplilfied] It needs a second.
1:14:05:
Assistant City Manager Nose: We -- OK -- This is a friendly amendment. So, as the Mayor just identified, you
would want someone to second that amendment. And then you can discuss it.
### As I understand it, when a Council member proposes a "friendly" amendment, it's up to the maker and
seconder of the motion to accept it (no second required) or not. If not, the maker of the "friendly" amendment
can choose to restate it as a (non-"friendly") amendment, and that amendment requires a second (but not the
approval of the maker and seconder of the motion). Commissioner Gupta did not identify his amendment as
"friendly."
Vice Chair Mauter: Do we have a second for Commissioner Gupta's amendment?
1:14:19:
Commissioner Metz: I'll second.
1:14:21:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. So, we have a second. We are now opening the floor for discussion of the revised
amendment.
### Actually, of just the amendment (which has not itself been revised).
Do commissioners have questions, comments, --
1:14:33:
Commissioner Croft: I would like to hear the staff respond to the amendment. And I don't know if you need to
read it again, to be absolutely clear. Or, I'd love to hear the staff's feedback on that.
1:14:44:
Lena Perkins: Yeah. I'd love to have the text in front of me. Um. My only -- I think it's at the UAC's discretion.
But I want to be -- I guess we might -- we might -- I would kind of love a legal opinion, just because Prop 26 is
part of the Constitution. And so, writing that language -- threading that needle with the language of the
amendment I think would just -- I'm not sure if there's the way to carry the intent of this without amending the
guidelines right here. Maybe a legal interpretation, if there is support from the UAC for it.
### At one time, during the tenure of Utilities Director Valerie Fong, a member of the City Attorney's staff would
attend (in Chambers) UAC meetings regularly, just in case legal issues came up. But in a case like this, I don't
think that person would have been comfortable blessing the amendment in real time.
Would you mind reading it one more time?
1:15:28:
Commissioner Gupta: Sure. Absolutely. Um. So, the amendment would add a comma after the sentence as
is, and read, "while maintaining flexibility to support rate designs and policies that advance beneficial
electrification and decarbonization in the public interest." And the purpose is, if there are conversations in the
future, which I think there may well be, on changing or modifying Prop 26, I'd like the City to be in a position to
be able to support that.
1:16:06:
Lena Perkins: What's the item number?
1:16:08:
Commissioner Gupta: Oh, this is item number 8.
1:16:09:
Lena Perkins: 8? OK. I guess my recommendation would be to make sure we run this though the City legal
staff before settling on final language, if there is support.
1:16:22:
Commissioner Gupta: Absolutely.
1:16:22
Amy Bartell: [on Zoom] Well, I don't know if anybody knows I'm -- Can anybody hear me? Hello?
1:16:26:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes, we can hear you.
1:16:27:
Amy Bartell: OK. Great. Hi. This is Amy, your legal staff. I'm the Assistant City Attorney, and I'm beaming in
tonight for -- mostly to look at the gas COSA item, but we can talk about this, too. So, I have to say, off the -- at
the start, I always kind of understood Number 8 on this list of policy guidelines to be talking about beneficiary
pays. When Palo Alto was advocating for, you know, it's own interests in kind of wider state issues or
transmission issues. Like people who are using transmission lines to pay their fair share, and that type of thing.
Granted, 8's pretty high-level. But if you want to add the blurb in there that Commissioner Gupta put in, that's
fine. I mean, these are policy considerations. And Prop 26 is going to apply either way. So that's always going
to be a consideration that's kind of out there, whether it's written down on one of these bullet point or not.
1:17:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you.
1:17:31:
Commissioner Tucher: I would be curious just what your operational response is. As like Commissioner Croft
asked, like, is this a good idea? And -- maybe a related question, since it's in Number 8, and, I take it from the
attorney's comment a moment ago, what does it mean, "beneficiary pays," in this context?
1:17:51:
Lena Perkins Yeah. So, it means cost allocation by cost causation. So, in the transmission system, for
example, those lines are really sized by demand, but the charges are given volumetrically in the transmission
system. And so, you know, that is -- volume doesn't cause the size and the cost. And so, we're on record as
advocating for a demand-based transmission charge. As an example. So, that is generally how this is applied.
So, given our illustrious attorney's opinion on that, you know, I think that electrification and decarbonization has
been a longstanding emphasis now -- you know, of the UAC and Council. So, I don't -- I think that highlighting
it -- I don't see -- I don't see -- I don't see that changing in the next 5 years. Right? So I think that's kind of my
litmus test. And it doesn't -- It's not overly prescriptive to bind our hands. But -- That's kind of the end.
1:19:04:
Commissioner Croft: Sorry. I've already -- I wish I had the text. I see -- number 10 -- support government
action that cost-effectively reduces greenhouse emissions. So, we're addressing greenhouse gas emissions
here. We are promoting locally designed electrification programs. We have a number 13 -- supporting, you
know, trades and technical disciplines to the benefit of electrification and Grid Mod. So, we already have
several topics related to -- So, what are the -- how is that different?
1:19:43:
Commissioner Gupta: So, I reviewed those. None of those get at the problem that Prop 26 poses for our Utility,
in that our rate design is constrained. We cannot consider electrification goals, under Prop 26, above the
reasonable cost allocation standard. I think as our state attempts electrification and decarbonization, there's
going to be many conversations over the coming years about this limitation. That we will need more flexibility in
rate design, in order to achieve our decarbonization and greenhouse gas reduction goals. So, this gives staff
the guidance that we're not just advocating for "fair cost allocation," etc. But if there's an opportunity in the state
-- the legislative landscape -- to reconsider parts of Prop 26 and 218, we've effectively greenlighted that for
them, so they can pursue that. And none of the other items touch on that.
1:21:01:
Vice Chair Mauter: Are we sure that because of recs and other monetary instruments for accounting for
greenhouse gas emissions that that isn't already included in the concept of fair cost allocation?
1:21:21:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes. So, I can give you like a clear example. A member of the public wrote in about --
and this is a future gas COSA discussion -- about how G-2 meter costs have fallen under the new rate design.
And that goes against the City's electrification goals. You know, we -- And part of that is, we're constrained by
the reasonable cost allocation standard. And could not -- And did not consider the City's electrification goals in
rate design. And that is prescriptive by Proposition 26. And so, if there are opportunities in the future to modify
that and give us that flexibility, I think that would a good thing for our City's climate goals.
1:22:07:
Commissioner Phillips: Point of procedure. Do I need to accept the amendment? Or, do -- I'm just curious
what the procedure is here. Do I need to accept the amendment?
### IF the amendment had been a "friendly" amendment, the maker AND SECONDER of the original motion
would have been required to decide whether to accept it or not. But it wasn't a "friendly" amendment.
Or can I reject the amendment, and then it has to be voted on without the amendment and then voted on with
the amendment?
### No.
1:22:24:
Liaison Lauing: You vote on the amendment first.
1:22:26:
Commissioner Phillips: I see.
1:22:27:
Liaison Lauing: And then, based on what happens there, that's either incorporated or not. And then you vote
on the amended MOTION, or the original MOTION, if the amendment fails.
1:22:35:
Commissioner Phillips: Great. Thanks.
1:22:36:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you for clarifying. Are there any final questions or comments related to the
amendment to the MOTION? [pause] OK. If not, can you please call --
1:22:53:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
1:22:54:
Commissioner Metz: Yes.
1:22:55:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
1:22:56:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes.
1:22:57:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
1:22:59:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
1:23:01:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
1:23:03:
Commissioner Phillips: No.
1:23:05:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
1:23:06:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
1:23:08:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
1:23:11:
Vice Chair Mauter: No. [chuckles] So -- Hmm --
1:23:22:
Director Kurotori: The MOTION passes, 4-2. Sorry.
### No.
1:23:23:
Rachael Romero: The MOTION carries, 4-2. Sorry.
### No.
### The AMENDMENT passes 4-2, Phillips, Mauter, no, Scharff absent.
1:23:33:
Vice Chair Mauter: So, now, we will vote on the revised recommendation -- the revised MOTION.
### The AMENDED MOTION.
Is there any possi -- Well, that's OK. Um. Are there any further comments on the revised MOTION? [pause]
Hearing none, could you please call the roll on that?
1:23:56:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
1:23:56:
Commissioner Metz: Yes.
1:23:57:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
1:23:58:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes.
1:24:00:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
1:24:00:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
1:24:01:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
1:24:02:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
1:24:04:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
1:24:04:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
1:24:06:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
1:24:06:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
1:24:08:
Rachael Romero: MOTION carries 6-0.
### Scharff absent.
1:24:11:
### Item 4 -- 2026 Natural Gas Cost of Service Analysis -- ACTION
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. We will now move on to Agenda Item 4. Staff Recommends that the Utilities Advisory
Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2026 Natural Gas Cost of
Service Analysis Report, Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-
Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and Repealing G-10
(Compressed Natural Gas Service).
1:24:42:
----------
2:31:21:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. I am going to call this agenda item, and ask that we MOVE to approve the -- adopt a
resolution approving the 2026 natural gas Cost of Service Analysis report, amending schedules G-1, G-2, G-3,
and repealing G-10. May I get a MOTION for that?
### It's a little odd for the Chair to specify exactly what the maker of a MOTION should MOVE. It's a little less
odd for the Chair to make the MOTION.
### Conceivably, since members of the subcommittee had invested most of the time in understanding the
issue, the commissioners could have deferred to a subcommittee member to make the MOTION.
2:31:49:
Commissioner Phillips: So MOVED.
2:31:50:
Vice Chair Mauter: Can I get a second?
2:31:51:
Commissioner Croft: Second.
2:31:53:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Can we please call the roll? Or,.is there any discussion? Any further discussion
necessary?
2:32:00:
Commissioner Metz: I just want to make one comment, --
2:32:01:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes, please.
2:32:01:
Commissioner Metz: -- which -- This is a very important and intricate problem. And I think the use of the
subcommittee in addressing this problem, rather than having you just show up one night -- was really good.
And I really appreciate their work. The work with staff. The work with the consultant, too. But I think we should
use the methodology more.
2:32:22:
Vice Chair Mauter: I wholeheartedly agree with that. And I think this is a wonderful time to give a second kind
of round of congratulations and thanks to the subcommittee for the tremendously hard work. I think it is also --
since I am onto my soapbox -- Cost of Service Analyses are deeply important, not just for the gas utility but also
for our other utilities. And I think that what staff has seen through this process is that there's an appetite to dig
into that cost of service methodology at the subcommittee level, so that we have confidence that the
methodologies, which are inherently tied up with decisions -- policy decisions about how we decide to allocate
costs -- are appropriately represented in our final cost of service analyses. So, I would just encourage us to
continue and BUILD on the approach that we've used for this gas COSA in our future rate designs. OK. Now
we can all the roll.
2:33:38:
Commissioner Tucher: On that point, I would like to ask, is the main virtue -- or one of the virtues of the
subcommittee approach that it is not public?
2:33:48:
Vice Chair Mauter: I don't think that it is a matter of public or not public. I think that it is in fact -- because
everything that's voted on is explicitly public. I think the virtue is that there is an opportunity to have a back-and-
forth with staff and the consultant in a much more -- in a less time-constrained manner, that allows for deep
understanding by people who have the time and energy to take that dive, without it taking 30 hours of -- yes --
everybody else's time. Thanks, Lisa.
### Is Vice Chair Mauter saying that the subcommittee's work MUST be not public, to facilitate scheduling the
back-and-forth with staff and the consultant, etc.? Perhaps UAC could further consider that premise at some
point.
### Incidentally, I think that the objective of the subcommittee should be to bring the insight acquired by the
subcommittee back to the full UAC for the full UAC's deliberation and action.
### I was annoyed when the FTTP subcommittee (with staff's help) wrote a report about what to recommend to
Council about FTTP, just prior to UAC's joint meeting with Council about that,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-
advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/09-14-2022/09-14-2022-id-
14742-item-6.pdf
and then, on 09-14-22, the full UAC decided not to recommend anything to Council, but just make them aware
of the subcommittee's report.
### Here's a TRANSCRIPT of the 09-14-22 item (pages 38-50).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/6/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-
advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/10-12-2022/public-letters-to-
uac.pdf
2:34:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Could you please call the roll -- or vote -- the vote -- on this MOTION?
2:34:34:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Metz.
2:34:35:
Commissioner Metz: Yes.
2:34;36:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Tucher.
2:34:37:
Commissioner Tucher: With all respect to the work by Utsav and Bob, no.
2:34:41:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Croft.
2:34:43:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
2:34:43:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Phillips.
2:34:45:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
2:34:46:
Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta.
2:34:47:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
2:34:49:
Rachael Romero: Vice Chair Mauter.
2:34:50:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
2:34:51:
Rachael Romero: MOTION carries 5-1
### Tucher no, Scharff absent.
2:34:58:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Um. Our --
2:35:01:
Commissioner Gupta: Vice Chair, I was wondering if we might take a very short bio break.
2:35:06:
Vice Chair Mauter: Absolutely. I'm sorry. It is after 8:00 pm. I think I am obligated to do that. Let's break until
8:30 pm, and then we'll ret --
2:35:16:
### VIDEO SILENCE
2:46:29::
### Item 5 -- FY 2027 preliminary utilities financial forecast and rate projections - DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Mauter: Welcome back, everybody. I'm going to kick off the next item on our agenda, the discussion
and update on fiscal year 2027 preliminary utilities financial forecast and rate projections, by saying that I made
a novice error in this space, not more strictly following the original schedule in the agenda. I was given an
agenda that did not have the times. And therefore, I failed to keep us on task. The next agenda is scheduled
for an hour and a half. And yet, we are not going to spend that amount of time on this agenda item.
### Possible alternatives: a) spend the time and go home late, b) continue to another meeting.
Instead, we're going to recognize that these are PRELIMINARY rate changes. They are the first pass at rate
changes for FY '27. We have two -- if I'm not mistaken -- additional -- or, is it just one or two? -- additional
passes at these rates over the next -- One additional? -- one additional pass at these rates over the next year.
And it will come back to us So, I just want to keep that at the forefront of this discussion. And I'm going to do
my best to encourage staff to present this quickly. And for us to delve in, out of where we have substantive
questions about changes vis a vis this year's maybe methodological approaches.
2:48:23:
Director Kurotori: Thank you, Chair Mauter. So, I'm going to just introduce basically the same team again. I'm
going to add Adriana Artola. She is our Senior Resource Planner on our water utility side. So, she'll be joining
the team. I just wanted to point out again, we're going to keep this at a very high level. Our projections are very
close -- nearly identical to last year. We had some positive news on the electric side, in terms of: Our
reservoirs are full. We're expecting a normal year. So, I'm just going to kick it over to staff, and we'll be as
efficient as possible.
2:48:54:
Lisa Bilir: Yes. Thank you so much. We'll try to be responsive to that request, and try to go through the
information very quickly. In fact, as Alan mentioned, it is very similar -- our forecasts -- compared with what we
brought to the UAC -- brought to the Council back in June. And so, for -- just to point that out, on this slide,
###. Slide 2 -- Preliminary Residential Median Bill Projections
this shows our median bill projections. And the rate trajectories are the same, actually, for all of the utilities, with
a couple of exceptions. We've added the year 2031
### FY 2031,
And that is preliminary, because we're going to be working with the budget team, to develop what our budgets
are foe 2031. And this is very preliminary. And also for the gas utility. That's an exception where we do have a
9 percent increase in 2027 instead of a 6 percent, which is what we brought to the Council in June. So, these
rates support a variety of community goals, including investments in grid reliability and modernization. They will
allow us to meet the Council's sustainability and climate action goals, and also support maintaining and
replacing infrastructure in the water distribution system and the wastewater collection system, AND pay towards
rebuilding the wastewater treatment plant.
2:50:10:
So, the preliminary forecast, as you can see in this slide, if you look in the red box, is the 9 percent overall
impact on the median residential bill, which is about a $37.80 increase on the monthly average
### median.
residential bill of $442 in 2026. So, that's the overview of what we're proposing. And what I'd like to do, in order
to -- Basically, we've presented a very dense set of information in all these slides. We want to provide that
information, both for the public and for the UAC members to digest all of that information. And we know you've
had a chance to look over that information already. So what we're going to do is go through just the overview
slide for each of the utilities, and highlight some of the changes since last year, and what's included in this
preliminary proposal. I also wanted to mention, the main thing that's changed since June is that we know the
year-end fiscal year 2025 reserve balances. So, you've seen those in the slides that show the changes in the
reserve balances. And we're happy to try to answer any questions on that. There's a series of charts that are
the same for each of the utilities,
### That is, the same format, but different numbers.
that show the percentage change, drivers, and the reserve balances for the CIP Reserve and the Operations
Reserve. So, next slide please.
2:51:38:
###. Slide 8 -- Preliminary Electric Rate Projection
### Skipping over slides 4-7.
So, for the electric utility, the proposal is for a 6 percent rate increase in fiscal year '27. There are some drivers
for this increase, including -- There's -- Net supply cost is 3 percent higher than it was in last year's financial
forecast. And we're still continuing to issue debt -- planning to issue debt -- for Grid Modernization in the second
half of fiscal year '26. And we also have other capital spending and distribution system maintenance spending
that's rising. And we need to continue to replenish our reserves. So, those drivers are really quite similar to
what we had when we came to the Council in June. And the rate increase is the same. Next slide, please.
###. Slide 16 -- Preliminary Gas Rate Projections
For the gas utility, what's going on is that the amount of costs that we need to recover stayed the same.
However, the revenue projection declined. So, based on the decline in the sales. We also did a statistically
adjusted end-use model with a consultant, and made a revision to our forecast. A downward revision to the
forecast. So, that analysis resulted in a forecast that reduces by about 1.2 percent per year over the next 5
years. And that is what's driving the change in the rate forecast from the 6 percent to 9 percent. Additionally,
we -- this utility has a $16.5 million grant that's going to be used for main replacement. But we do have in 2027
a revenue-funded main replacement project coming up. Next slide, please.
2:53:29:
Vice Chair Mauter: Lisa, just to clarify here, because this excludes supply-related rate changes, the percentage
basis, as a function of the bill -- like, what's the balance of the distribution rate versus the amount that's passed
through on climate and on gas commodity charge?
2:53:43:
Lisa Bilir: GREAT question. So, what we do here is, we kind of assume that the commodity -- that the supply
portion of the bill stays the same. And so, we're looking at a 14.5 percent increase on the distribution rate,
which is equivalent to the 9 percent overall bill increase. So, we're always trying to bring it back to how will the
customer's total bill be impacted. And that is what we're presenting. But I think part of your question also is,
what's going on with the supply budget forecast that we are passing through. And that has come down. So, the
outlook for that forecast is lower than it was in June, and we've incorporated that into our proposals.
2:54:23:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Thank you.
2:54:24:
###. Slide 23 -- Preliminary Water Rate Projections
Lisa Bilir: OK. So, for water, as mentioned before, these rate projections are consistent with the fiscal 2026
financial plan, with the 10 percent rate increase in 2027, and then those 10 percent rate increases through
2030, with the 2031 update of 9 percent. You know, I would say, the update -- or, you know, the change from
last year is that the operations -- those are balance at fiscal 2025 year end was higher than expected, due to
capital spending being more than budgeted. And so, we are projecting to maintain both the CIP and the
operating reserves within the guideline range. Which is an improvement from last year's forecast. I'll also say
that, you know, that the driver of these rate increases are capital projects, namely, one-time capital projects.
But the 5-year CIP budget for fiscal year 2027 is not finalized yet, and does include some conservative
assumptions. And I would say that it represents kind of the upper limit of potential capital spending. And so,
you know, as we gain more information, particularly on, like I said, the one-time capital projects, such as the **
seismic improvement to two of our tanks, you know, we could revise projections from there.
2:55:44:
Commissioner Phillips: What do these assume about the future of water consumption in the City? Is it holding
steady, going down, or going up over this period?
2:55:53:
Lisa Bilir: Our financial projection includes somewhat conservative -- I would say conservative. But it includes
the assumption of the long-term decline in water demand. And so, that's what we're carrying forward over the
trajectory.
2:56:12:
Commissioner Phillips: So, some of these -- the fact that these are pretty large on the distribution rate --
presumably it's investment, but it's also a shrinking denominator?
2:56:24:
Lisa Bilir: Exactly. Yes. Yeah.
2:56:26:
Commissioner Phillips: Thank you.
2:56:30:
Lisa Bilir: Thank you so much. Next slide, please.
2:56:34:
###. Slide 30 -- Preliminary Wastewater Collection Rate Projections
And for the wastewater utility, the increase is the same as what we had mentioned to the Council in June. And
one wonderful thing that I have to report is that Palo Alto has received some grant revenue. And the treatment
plant has been instrumental in getting that grant revenue from Valley Water. And although there have been
increases in the wastewater treatment costs, those have been largely offset by these grant funds. And so, this
is really beneficial for the residences and businesses of Palo Alto. And we're going to continue to receive that
grant funding to offset these specific project costs for the treatment plant. So, I'm really glad to be able to share
that news with you.
2:57:20:
And we still do need to, however, replenish the reserves. Both the CIP Reserve and Operations Reserve.
Those remain low. And we need to restore the within the guideline ranges. Additional, as you know, this utility
took a loan from the Fiber Utility of $3 million. The cash remains low at the end of fiscal year 2025 -- a little bit
below our forecasts. And we do need to repay that loan, with -- before the end of fiscal year 2026. So, the
information here is that we may not be able to repay all of that loan before the end of the year. I mean, our
needing -- we need to look at ways to extend the loan, or take a different loan, that will allow us to keep a
positive cash balance.
### Noted.
2:58:06:
So, that is the very quick version of all of the utilities. And I do want to mention also that our rates are very
competitive with our neighbors, across the utilities. And you can see a slide of that in each of the utilities. So, I
just want to highlight that. Particularly, our electric rates are HALF as much as PG&E. And so, with that, we
would be happy to try to answer any questions that you have, or areas that you'd like to delve into. Thank you.
2:58:37:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you, Lisa. I would now like to ask for public comment.
2:58:45:
Rachael Ramero: If any member from the public would like to speak on Item number 5, please raise your hand
or press *9 now. [pause] No hands raised.
2:59:00:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. We'll now open it for questions from commissioners. Utsav.
2:59:11:
Commissioner Gupta: I'll keep to just two. And I might send more over email.
### How will Council and the public find out about the emailed questions and responses?
First, I was wondering if it would be possible, in reports like this -- I know the City and our Mayor and other
Council members have been really looking closely at the costs of consultants. And I know in the Utilities
context, it's a little different, in that we have a lot of very technical consultants we hire. But it might be nice to
have a table in here that shows the who-what-why when -- and costs of consultants that the Utility is hiring, so
we can see that as a commission. So, that's just my -- one comment.
2:59:50:
My second comment is, I looked at Table 1 in the staff report. And if you -- And I understand these are
compounding figures. I mean, the percentages and the values here are, I mean, additive from the year prior.
And if you were to calculate -- and I just did quick napkin math on this -- we're seeing a 46 percent cumulative
impact on electric -- 46 percent cumulative impact. 50 percent cumulative impact on gas. A 75 percent
cumulative impact on water. 84 percent cumulative impact on wastewater. And 12.6 percent -- 12.6 percent on
refuse and stormwater. And if you look at the total bill impact, you're looking at a projection of an overall
increase of 53.6 percent, adding about $237 per month to the median residential bill, which would be a bill of
about $680 a month. We had a public commenter bring forth affordability concerns. And I do worry, as we
march forward with these rate increases -- some of which are unavoidable, or really constrained by, you know,
their fixed costs. But I think we should be very aware that we might be proceeding towards an affordability crisis
in Palo Alto, just given the extent and cumulative impact of all these rate increases, FAR above the pace of
inflation.
3:01:22:
Vice Chair Mauter: I would just like to ground that statement in reference to the stormwater, which I believe is
inflation-indexed. And therefore, it is important to subtract THAT number from all of the other rate increases,
because inflation does not apply just to stormwater. [pause]
### If that were done, then the cumulative impact on the other utilities mentioned would be even higher than
53.6 percent.
3:01:47:
Other questions?
3:01:50:
Commissioner Croft: I -- I'm going to echo those comments. I also did the math, coming up with those
numbers. And my first impression was, you know, inflation is, you know, on top of everybody's minds. As the
government tries to get a handle on inflation. And we've had these high numbers, year-to-year, on the rate
increases -- like the overall bill rate increases. But as you see it continuing into the foreseeable future, WAY
beyond inflation, I think we need to take a relook, at what are we doing to try to control this, and try to get
creative in bringing these numbers down. I do think it's an affordability crisis coming our way if we don't take a
new look, with creative ideas, to try to cut costs, to deliver the services we deliver. So, there are some risks to
the upside. Risks like -- gas price we just pass through. The refuse is going through a cost of service. That
might increase. Um. And then, we've been hearing so much about the electricity market, and expecting prices
to go up there. Price on the open market. We are looking to fill out our portfolio of our power purchase
agreements and not able to compete with the people who are beating us to the punch. And I wouldn't be
surprised to see those prices go up. So -- I'm also concerned about the things we AREN'T seeing in the
forecasts that could pressure us going forward. So, I encourage us -- I would like to know, I guess, whether we
have any ideas. Do we have an initiative in the Utility -- CPAU -- to really dig into the driving factors? I did see
the slides on kind of what IS driving those costs. One question is around reserves. I know we have a lot of
different reserve accounts. Is there any way to collapse the reserve accounts and combine the risks? I don't
know enough about -- you know, do we really need every single reserve account we have?
3:04:10:
Also, I'm going to say something probably unpopular, but we have this big Fiber Reserve,
### Technically, the Fiber Utility and its reserves weren't included in the scope of this agenda item.
### However, I did think that acknowledging the $3 million loan from the Fiber Fund to the Wastewater Utility
(at 2:57:20) was appropriate, since it was part of the Wastewater Utility's financing.
and we have a Fiber Pilot we're going forward with. I know the City Council wants to do that.
### Council voted to do a FTTP Phase 1. Doing a pilot first was staff's idea.
But there's money sitting there, that -- I would love to see that money -- you know, having seen the Financial
Plan for the Fiber Utility, and not being convinced that it's -- Until I see the data. I mean, I need to see the
data. But the Business Plan --you know, there were a lot of challenges with that financial model.
### I don't accept that characterization. But if UAC wants to talk about it, agendize it.
There's a pile of reserve funds that I don't know if they just need to go back to the community, or if they could be
reused elsewhere. We -- I'm kind of embarrassed by how low some of our reserve funds are. So, obviously,
we need to replenish those. And I'm just bringing up some ideas that passed through my mind. I have no idea,
legally, whether we -- they could be done. But I do urge -- URGE -- the City to look at ways that we can change
that trajectory of the prices. And if someone could answer me on, you know, on what kind of internal initiatives
we have to try to address that. Thanks.
3:05:18
Director Kurotori: Chair, do you want us to take notes, or do you want us to answer each of the commissioners
as they come up with the questions? We can do either.
3:05:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: No, I think -- More directly would be helpful.
3:05:33:
Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, just hitting kind of the highlights, is -- Actually, we ARE doing an internal review of
our reserve policies, in terms of: Are they adequate? Are they in areas that we can, you know, combine or
compress? You know, based on the number of reserves that we have. Throughout all our utilities. So, that is
an ongoing function as well. In terms of initiatives to save costs, we are very mindful that, you know, a dollar to
the Utilities is a dollar out of our customer's pocket.
### is staff aware of the estimate that a citywide municipal FTTP network could save Palo Alto residents
something like $10 million per year? Or that Chattanooga EPB's countywide municipal FTTP network has
generated $5.3 billion in community benefits since its launch in 2010?
https://epb.com/newsroom/press-releases/2025-community-benefit-study/
So, that is in the forefront of our mind. And we're very cognizant and aware of that. You know, we want to
provide efficient, reliable, and safe services that are affordable and environmentally sound. So, that goes to the
heart of our mission and our core scenar- -- and our values as a Utility and as a City. So, we are going through
that right now. We are always open to initiatives, in terms of internally working within our department, but also
working with the rest of the City departments. Right? So, there's things that we do now that maybe the public is
not aware of. By -- You know, we provide services to our Public Works Department, 'cause we have, you
know, equipment and the means and methods for streetlights. So, that's -- it's more efficient for us to do that.
And for our signalized intersections. And, on the flip side, our Public Works Department -- they have really
strong functions in tree trimming. So, they do our line-clearing. So, we look across functions, within not only the
Utility but within City departments.
3:07:05:
In the report -- the presentation -- we highlighted some of the near-term activities. You can turn the page back.
We actually tried to prune that, because we were talking about some of the things we've done already. So, we
can certainly bring those back, so they understand that we've had a process over the years. And the present --
ones in the presentation now were just more recent. Right? So, it's a constant discussion within our
department and throughout the City of how we can be more efficient, and mindful of those costs. So, just
wanted to kind of throw that out there s well.
3:07:39:
So, other ideas You know, we certainly would solicit input and ideas from this commission, either now or in the
future. And we can kind of address those and bring those forward. As members of the public and members of
the commission, and making sure that we're doing out best to meet those needs.
3:07:58:
I did want to mention one thing, though. The kind of -- The cost of living is -- and adjustments are different from
what we're seeing, as we talked about some of the constraints that we have. We're seeing construction costs
indexed throughout the state going up. We're seeing supply costs going up. There are some impacts to the
tariffs. We're doing what we can to pre-purchase materials. We have staff not only working within the Utility,
but in our Finance Department, and trying to get those best values. And we are coordinating with other utilities
to see if, you know, we can, you know, pool our resources together to get better deals for Palo Alto.
3:08:36:
Commissioner Croft: I guess, in -- You know, I would be interested in what other cities are projecting. if we can
look at anybody else's public packets, where they're projecting out five years or six years, to see if they have
any different approaches. I also wonder if it's an opportunity for a subcommittee, possibly, to get new ideas
floating around. But I feel that these numbers are -- uh -- unacceptably high in the long term. I'm not -- You
know, we can handle short-term blips. And, I understand, because of COVID, we underspent. We didn't raise
rates. But that excuse goes away at some point. Right? We can't just keep that excuse as to why they're
elevated, you know, perpetually into the future. So, I would like to see an effort to -- I would like to see those
numbers be lower in the out years.
3:09:36:
Vice Chair Mauter: I think that statement about reviewing reserve funds is a kind of perpetual thread that has
come up several times. And I want to make sure that when that review happens, we have a chance to see and
comment on our policies that are associated with our reserve fund maintenance, and reserve fund range
appropriateness.
3:10:08:
Assistant City Manager Nose: To be clear on the reserve study, as Alan was referencing, we actually have
asked our outside Auditor to look at this for us. So, we have Baker Tilly, the City's independent Auditor, looking
at the Utilities' rates. This was an item that was highlighted by the UAC last year, as well as, frankly, the
Finance Committee and Council as well. So, that study is underway, by Baker Tilly. And -- Not just looking at
Utilities. Looking at some of our other Enterprise Reserves as well. And we do expect that study to be done in
time for the rate-setting for FY 2027.
3:10:43:
Commissioner Phillips: I would like it to be agendized. I mean, this has come up before, and, I mean, it's
always one reserve or another that's low and needs to be filled. There's also -- that money goes when we were
low here, so we took money from this reserve and put it in that reserve. You know, how are we setting the
levels of these reserves? Why are there so many? It seems highly irrational to me, you know, given that we
could pool risks and potentially have lower reserves and not lose anything.
### As I understand it, Propositions 218 and 26 essentially forbid using funds generated by a "protected"
municipal utility for any purpose outside the scope of that utility. Not even to tide over another municipal utility.
### Caveats: a) I'm not a lawyer, and b) what Propositions 218 and 26 mean could evolve over time due to
court decisions.
### In 2004, the City decided that it would be legally risky to back revenue bonds for FTTP with electric utility
revenues. So the City couldn't come up with a viable financing plan for FTTP at that time.
And, you know, I could well be wrong about this. But it would be the first time.
### Hmm.
And I would really like to hear it from -- you know, I would really like to be part of that process for you to be
informing the committee,
### commission
Because, again, I can never keep track of -- And it's always this reserve. And every time the rates come
across, they always have to be a little higher because some reserve or other needs to be filled.
3:11:36:
Director Kurotori: Yeah. Why don't -- We'll take that back to staff, and maybe we'll have Baker Tilly actually
come to the UAC and start talking through that. And --
3:11:43:
Commissioner Phillips: Perfect.
3:11:44:
Director Kurotori: -- just, you know, part of that is that the benchmarking and looking at other utilities -- that is
also part of that evaluation.
3:11:49:
Commissioner Phillips: Great. A second one, that -- I'm sorry.
3:11:52:
Vice Chair Mauter: Could I build on that particular point? I think as part of that discussion, it's really important
to differentiate between reserves that are meant for emergency activities and reserves that are meant for long-
term projects that you know you are saving for. And I think that a really clear issue that we have here is that a)
we don't differentiate between them and b) there has been no policy discussion about whether you should be
SAVING for future capital assets versus debt financing future capital assets. One pushes the cost of those
future capital assets on today's ratepayers. And the other reflects the future -- the cap- -- the cost of asset
operation and ownership when that asset is being used. And I think that we -- I mean, there are obviously risks
around debt financing large capital infrastructure projects. You know, you can get runaway debt very quickly,
and end up with much larger rates long term. But that is a policy decision that the utility is making,
### Actually, Council is making the decision.
that has not been fully daylighted, I think, and discussed and debated openly. And I think that it is useful to think
about a balance between those two approaches.
3:13:20:
Commissioner Phillips: Perfect. So, I think agendizing a discussion -- a very comprehensive discussion -- of
reserves -- reserve policy -- is something I personally would like to see.
3:13:30:
The second one, that kind of rattles around in my head a little bit, is -- has to do with gas and water, in
particular, where we're expecting -- Demand has been declining. We expect it to decline more. And I think I
know, since I've talked about this a lot in the gas context a lot. But, you know, when do we -- Is there a way we
can reduce our investment somehow, proportional -- or our expenditure -- to reflect this? Because otherwise,
we get caught, you know, in these much higher, double-digit rate increases that we see, because, well, we have
to invest the same amount, but the amount of people -- and the amount of water usage is going down. And the
amount of gas usage is going down. Um. I don't know the answer. And I'm much better posing this as a
question. But, you know, it's like, is there something here we could better match our expenses to this? Or are
we just doomed to, you know, what they call in econ the death spiral -- in these, where the price just keeps
going up, so people use less, and it keeps going up and up and up and up. I prefer to think we don't want to get
in that situation. But I think we have to be proactive if we're not going there.
3:14:44:
Director Kurotori: So -- So, point's very well taken. We are performing and updating our urban water
management plan for 2026. So, we'll be looking at what those rate projections look like in the future. And
there's a financial model. And there's also -- it's a potential growth as a City. You know, has more housing
units. We're anticipating, you know, more economic development. So, we do need to plan that out for the long
term. But I hear you 100 percent, in terms of what that looks like. And, you know, that's one -- We appreciate
that feedback. That's very helpful for us. In bringing that back to the UAC.
3:15:21:
Liaison Lauing: I just want to make one comment. I really appreciate the fact that Commissioner Croft's
leadership on this is raising the issue before the Finance Commission
### Committee
asks the Utilities folks and you to do the same things. This red alert that you started with, Commissioner Utsav,
is exactly -- exactly right. With the escalating -- in all areas -- escalation. We get -- Of course, particularly at
budget times. But we get probably more email about that -- and what it's costing me. And not just BMR folks --
you know, below market rate -- but it's even sort of, you know, what you would call the work force housing.
Because it's going up, up, up, up. And sort of a comprehensive look early, as to the things that you're
mentioning here, I just, you know, salute you for all bringing it up in advance. It's worth the study time. So,
thanks.
3:16:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: Commissioner Metz.
3:16:28:
Commissioner Metz: Hi. One thing I would like to suggest, as a way to approach this, particularly with the new
leadership in the Utility, is what I would call a lean analysis of our propo- -- of our expenses. In other words,
what -- starting with what are the activities that customers value? And then, what activities do we -- does the
Utility need to conduct to deliver that value? And, you know, maybe what activities don't we need to conduct,
among the things we decide we need to do, how do we do them most efficiently and effectively? I think, you
know, we're kind of at the point -- with drawing on the comments from all of the other commissioners -- in being
very concerned about, you know, large cumulative rate increase -- that a really fundamental look-see like that
would be worth while at this point.
3:17:30:
Director Kurotori: Understood. I think that's a good way to present it. And there's some values that the
community expects, in terms of making sure the water meets all the regulatory standards that they expect for
potable water. So, some of those values, they might know none of the details of, but maybe looking at some of
those programs or other services that aren't core but are still beneficial could be part of that. And that's, I think,
what you're telling me and what I'm hearing.
3:18:01:
Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I think it needs to be detailed and kind of fundamental analysis of, you know, what -
- you know, what we need to do. What really adds value, and what doesn't. And, you know, how to do it better.
3:18:15:
Director Kurotori: And as part of that, we can and will, you know, provide some of the mandates that we are
receiving on the state level, and what that means. You know, the non-functional turf, the state requirements.
What that means for our City. What that means for the community. And what that is doing to drive some of the
demands down. So, that is, you know, something that we can bring back and take into account as we look at
sharpening our pencils and what that means.
3:18:49:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yeah. Please.
3:18:49:
Commissioner Croft: I had forgotten I had two comments. Just following on Commissioner Metz's idea of kind
of following what the customers value, I had looked at the page of recently implemented cost containment, and
a couple things popped to mind. So, one of them was, OK, there's credit card fees. Right? We're not going to
be paying those any longer, once that gets implemented. But you also mentioned that some customers do not
want an AMI meter. They opt out. And we saved a certain amount by not having to monitor them. Well, if
they're refusing to have the AMI meter, we should charge them the fee for the person to go do the meter read,
and whatever overhead there is to manage the fact that people refuse to go along with the new technology. So,
if it's costing ---
3:19:43:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** conspiracy theory --
3:19:44:
Commissioner Croft: Yeah. If it's costing us more to serve them -- um -- you know, along the lines of charging
people what things cost. I mean, we should charge them for that.
3:19:55:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Yes.
3:19:55:
Commissioner Croft: There's also the paperless billing, that's saved us money. For people that don't want
paperless billing -- I know my mom wants copies of her checks, and she gets charged $3 every month to have
copies of her checks come in her statement. So, I do think if there -- I know our billing system is not the most
agile thing in the world. Which I do think is probably worth investing in so that we can do things like this. So
that we can, you know, implement programs like this, where we could say, OK, you want paper bill, you get
charge a little extra. You want a manual read, you get charged a little extra. And maybe there are things that
customers value that we're providing that we can pass through the cost, where, you know, we can recoup
something. These are not gigantic things, so it's not going to solve our problem. But I think things like just
thinking through potential things like that might be helpful.
3:21:01:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Um.
3:21:05:
Commissioner Tucher: My --
3:21:05:
Vice Chair Mauter: You had a question?
3:21:05:
Commissioner Tucher: My only recommendation -- I realize this is just discussion, and not -- there's no motion,
no vote -- But I'd urge, the next time you present this that -- I've made this point in other contexts -- absolute
numbers -- prices -- like these charts are always -- the whole report if full of deltas, percentage changes. Yeah,
the dollar incremental difference. But give us the rate, please. We've heard the number before. We've all kind
of done our eyeball math. I came up with $650. $650 is the projected rate, by my squinting. That will be the
average
### median.
residential rate in 5 years. That's -- It's at $400 and something now. So, those are the 9-10 percent rate
increases -- as far as the eye can see -- that -- Well, we're not asked to approve them tonight, thankfully. But
we -- at a minimum, let's state the number. I'll let go what you've heard already. A more rigorous look at cost
containment beyond -- I've looked at old presentations, and meeting videos and so forth. The answer always
seems to be, oh, we'll just defer a couple of capex items in the near term, out of the 5-year window. So, that'll
help. Um. Or we'll, you know, further neglect our reserves. Those are always the standard answers. As
opposed to taking a hard-core look at operating costs. And -- And as well as capex -- whether certain things
actually need to be done. Not punted, but cancelled. And, you know, the answer may -- to all these questions -
- be, we simply can't cut anything. But to discuss, even, let alone pass -- or, vote on -- 9 percent annual price
increases without really sweaty, difficult analysis of operating costs, personnel costs, head count, etc. is
unresponsible. Can't do it. Irresponsible. Um. So, --
3:23:08:
Vice Chair Mauter: So, we do have a Finance Committee for that purpose. Correct? Do we?
### I think Vice Chair Mauter is NOT referring to Council's Finance Committee (which is a standing committee
that follows the Brown Act rules for standing committees).
3:23:16:
Vice Chair Mauter: Established for the FY '27 rates. Do we have have a subcommittee for the UAC on FY '27
rates?
3:23:23:
Commissioner Phillips: I don't think we do. I think we had one that was previous.
3:23:29:
Vice Chair Mauter: Last year. OK. So, can I -- What's the process for recommending the creation of a
subcommittee? Can someone help me here?
3:23:49:
Assistant City Manager Nose: I don't know that it needs to be a recommendation. The UAC has a standing
practice that a subcommittee is established. So, I think staff and the Chair can work to establish your [FY] 2027
[sub] committee.
3:23:51:
Vice Chair Nose: Great.
3:23:51:
Director Kurotori: So, creating a subcommittee, there's some guidelines, that we can discuss, and what that
looks like, to keep it finite, keep it centralized, keep it dedicated to a certain -- within certain parameters, so it
maintains that integrity.
3:24:05:
Commissioner Phillips: But you're also looking beyond like -- The previous Budget Subcommittee did NOT look
at these issues, of like, OK, how do we dig in and really try to save operating costs. So, if that's part of the
remit. I don't know if it's a separate subcommittee, or, you know, just a special remit to this subcommittee, to --
look, we want you dig in and find ways to maybe mitigate the cost.
3:24:25:
Director Kurotori: If I could maybe interject as maybe -- You know, we've heard a lot of things from the
commissioners. I think it's going to be an overlap if you talk about, oh, let's look at reserve policies, and the
capital, and the -- it all kind of -- the levers you pull -- you move and pull. So, I -- you might want to combine and
compress, and try to find a -- you know, a -- send some pathways here -- or the subcommittee, if that is the
choice of the UAC. And just -- And keep it at very finite term, and narrow scope, so it does not keep bleeding.
And then, we can bring things back to the greater team. And not have it so wide-ranging. So, that's something
that we can work with the Chair and Vice Chair on, hearing what we've heard from the collective.
3:25:07:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Then we will take that offline, and return next month with recommendations for a
subcommittee with a specific charge.
3:25:21:
Commissioner Tucher: One more fine point. On gas, on the chart where we talk about FY '26, I got confused.
And I did read the footnote. We're doing two increases on gas in FY '26. if I'm not mistaken. And, to my earlier
point about looking at deltas, it's not clear to me whether this relatively low increase -- I think it's 5 percent -- is
that based on what? Are we double -- Are we missing -- Are we just eliding one of the gas price increases?
So, please make that crystal clear when we look at this next.
3:26:00:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? OK. With that,
we will move on to the close-out of this meeting.
3:26:17:
### Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings
Vice Chair Mauter: We have -- let's see -- Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings. Are there any Future Topics
for Upcoming Meetings? And this is, of course, is the opportunity to discuss our 12-month rolling calendar. I
know that Commissioner Tucher had some comments and questions that we can revisit. But we can also --
Commissioner Metz, would you like to start?
3:26:46:
Commissioner Metz: Sure. Um. I had three future topics I'd like to suggest. The first one is federal impact. I
think we discussed this a couple of meetings ago. But in the discussion earlier in THIS meeting, we talked
about -- one thing, our RPS requirement is ratcheting up to 60 percent by 2030. At the same time, the federal
government is doing everything possible to kneecap renewable energy. So, it seems like that's a challenge.
And I think it's really important to look at how -- the impact of what the federal government does, and how we're
going to achieve our renewable targets AND address some of the cost issues we just discussed, all at the same
time. I think that's a really important thing, that we haven't really touched on. It was discussed a little bit in the
legislative regulatory item earlier, but I think there's a big problem, that we need to get it on the table.
3:27:53:
So, how do you want work this? Do you want to discuss each one? Or just suggest a list?
3:27:58:
Vice Chair Mauter: I think suggest the list.
3:27:59:
Commissioner Metz: OK. The second item, reliability and resilience, strategic plan. I think that's on the agenda
--
3:28:06:
Commissioner Tucher: Next month.
3:28:06:
Commissioner Metz: -- for next month --
3:28:07:
Commissioner Tucher: It was on this month. It got punted.
3:28:09:
Commissioner Metz: Right. And I'd just like to ask that this discussion address both, you know, so-called
"normal" operation as well as emergency preparedness. Our reliability and resilience under abnormal
circumstances.
3:28:25:
The third one -- which I think I proposed before -- is gas utility strategic plan. There's a couple of items in here
about gas rates and so on, but I don't see anything on the strategy --
3:28:38:
Commissioner Tucher: How about decommissioning. Does that count?
3:28:39:
Commissioner Metz: Well, that's part of it. But, I mean, we have this business that we say is shrinking, and yet
is throwing off a ton of cash for the City.
### I don't think that's right. Revenues generated by the gas utility should stay within the gas utility, per
Propositions 218 and 26.
Um. And I think having a strategic plan for how we deal with all that is really important. And so, I'd like to
propose that as a topic. To get the whole thing out. The strategic plan. Including the finance, including, you
know, the greenhouse gas dimension, and just how we're going to manage this in a, you know, way that works
out for everybody.
3:29:14:
Vice Chair Mauter: Who -- On that last one, who -- how would you envision -- or -- you know, S/CAP certainly
has a role there. Ed and Council certainly have a strong role there, in terms of the financial implications of that -
-
3:29:33:
Commissioner Metz: Sure.
3:29:33:
Vice Chair Mauter: -- throwing off of dollars. What kind of discussion and representation are you looking for?
3:29:39:
Commissioner Metz: I think it's like any other strategic plan. You know. What are our goals? What are we
trying to achieve? In this case, over a period of, I would say, 20 years.
3:29:49:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK.
3:29:49:
Commissioner Metz: Or some figure like that.
3:29:50:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK.
3:29:50:
Commissioner Metz: Right? We're making investments on that kind of timeframe. So, what are our objectives
over the timeframe, taking into account the conflicts that you just raised -- that we like having all this cash, and
yet we're trying to talk everybody out of using the utility and providing that cash. So, you know, first of all, what
are we trying to achieve? And then, what are some options -- you know, what do we think the external
environment will be like? What are some alternative actions that we can take, within that external environment,
to achieve the objectives that we set? And then, which are the best actions?
3:30:26:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Thank you for elaborating.
3:30:29:
Commissioner Metz: ** standards. Long-term strategic plan.
3:30:34:
Vice Chair Mauter: Any other items that we want to see agendized in the coming 12 months?
3:30:41:
Commissioner Phillips: Just to make sure we don't -- that It would be good to put the reserve on -- I'd like to
see it on here --
3:30:45:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
3:30:47:
Commissioner Phillips: -- next on the reserve strategy. And I don't know if that's part of a wider discussion. But
I at least want to see the -- understand the reserve strategy.
3:30:55:
Vice Chair Mauter: And that debt-financing strategy.
3:30:57:
Commissioner Metz: Can you elaborate what you're looking to hear? 'Cause I heard a few different topics.
One was, you know, how do we manage the reserves. And then, we talked about shrinking the number of
reserves to a smaller --
3:31:10:
Commissioner Phillips: So, the answer is yes, on all of those. And as well as the use of debt financing versus
the use of cash reserves for anticipated future projects. What is the right number of reserves? I mean, we have
a proliferation of them now. By combining them, could we reduce the need for the reserves? So, all of it,
basically.
3:31:33:
Commissioner Metz: OK. And also, the sloshing of funds from one reserve to another.
3:31:38:
Commissioner Phillips: If that's -- we've done it -- we do it -- I mean --
3:31:41:
Commissioner Metz: That's one that I find unnerving. So, --
3:31:44:
Commissioner Phillips: So, yes.
3:31:45:
Commissioner Metz: -- I hope --
3:31:46:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes. Indeed. All of that.
3:31:47:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK.
3:31:52:
Commissioner Croft: I would love to have -- I don't see it on the future calendar. I'm sure it will come up at
some point. But time-of-use rates, since we go live with that pilot. I'd love to calendar an update. I don't know
when the right time it is. But since the calendar goes out 12 months, if we could pick a date, and make sure that
we get those updates, so that we're --
3:32:13:
Commissioner Tucher: We can ask all 100 customers ** present --
3:32:17:
Commissioner Croft: ** gets to present --
3:32:19:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Um.
3:32:21:
Commissioner Tucher: If we're still looking for agenda items, we've talked -- This came up at the start of
today's meeting, and it's come up several meetings. Um. It's not exciting, because it's procedural -- process
stuff. It's talking about the advisory role of UAC, how we communicate to Council.
### To me, this is -- or should be -- super exciting.
This month, according to our rolling forecast here, Council will be talking about gas COSA. So, today's
discussion will be in front of them. And again, in December, if that plan holds. And the question is, how does
the work of the subcommittee and the discussion and the vote today get presented to Council? Because I
believe the way it typically works is, it will be the staff that presents UAC's advisory. And I and several of us --
or some of us -- have spoken before about how that ought to change. So, will we agendize this advisory
function and how we might want to improve it?
3:33:22:
Vice Chair Mauter: I'd be happy to have an offline conversation with you about what an agendized topic would
look like in that space.
### An offline conversion would leave out the other commissioners, Council, and the public.
How we would structure the discussion.
### Should it even be a DISCUSSION item? Or should it be an ACTION item?
What specific questions. Who you would want to present. How much leeway there is in the charter of the UAC
to modify that. But I think that that probably requires some -- quite a bit of further definition before I would know
how to think about structuring that discussion. Especially given that I'm not sure that that's a STAFF-led
discussion. I think that would be a COMMITTEE-led discussion.
### What committee? Did Vice Chair Mauter intend to say it would be a UAC-led discussion?
If we were to choose to have one.
3:34:01:
Commissioner Tucher: I'm happy to have an offline conversation. But we, at UAC meetings, have talked about
this several times. Most recently I can think of is September. And we keep putting it off. And so, in my view --
my view, the advisory function of the UAC just doesn't work the way it should. And we talk about talking about
it.
3:34:26:
Director Kurotori: So, if I may interject to staff -- I mean, there has been conversations in the UAC that you
always have an opportunity to, as a group, decide that someone can present.
### Any UAC member, acting as a member of the public, CAN present to Council. See comment at 3:44:57.
I think the Mayor has also mentioned that as well. So, that is always your option as a body to do that, and make
that representation. So, again, that is really up to this commission. And then, who's going to represent, and
make sure you have your talking points, etc. So, --
3:34:55:
Commissioner Tucher: Exactly. And we talked about ** -- you know, ways we could discuss that, or handle that
in the meeting.
3:35:00:
Director Kurotori: So, that -- I'm just saying that is currently available to this commission if they choose to do
so.
### Would UAC need an ACTION item to do this?
3:35:08:
Commissioner Metz: So, for the specifics of the gas COSA, why don't we just have the subcommittee, which
has invested all this work, talk to City Council with the upcoming?
3:35:18:
Vice Chair Mauter: I think we could ASK the subcommittee whether their 30 hours is the cap, or whether they
would be willing to spend another 3. [laughs]
3:35:32:
Commissioner Metz: Well, I think that the people I've talked to in City Council -- there's a limited subset --
welcome the opportunity to hear directly. Here's what staff says. Here's what UAC says. And, I mean, --
3:35:45:
Commissioner Gupta: I'm happy to --
3:35:46:
Commissioner Phillips: Me, too. I mean, maybe we should discuss offline.
### At the UAC meeting would be better.
I think there should be a representative from the subcommittee -- I'm not saying somebody from the --
3:35:53:
Vice Chair Mauter: No, I think a subcommittee would be fabulous.
3:35:56:
Commissioner Phillips: -- group, but, you know, either you or I or both of us. Assuming we're on the same page
and don't get into a fight in front of the Council -- um -- would be good. Because it's such a complex issue.
3:36:09:
Commissioner Gupta: Absolutely.
3:36:09:
Commissioner Phillips: You know, we even saw here a lot of the questions that are likely to come up. I guess,
with, Chris, you know, what you've brought up, I would like to see some struct- -- Maybe I'm the same way. I
mean, it's like, OK, is there -- maybe before even saying yes, I'd like to see it as kind of -- are there structured
ideas about -- you know, that are potentially actionable, that we could discuss. You know. But in the -- saying
it's broken. Which, you know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
3:36:38:
Commissioner Tucher: There ARE structured ideas. They're written down. I've written them down.
### Has the public seen them, written down? Is a Colleagues' Memo an option here?
They've been talked about. if we don't want to do it, then we don't -- fine, I will drop the topic. But we keep
saying that we want to talk about it. Not only is gas COSA on this list here for City Council in November. So are
the preliminary FY '27 rates we just talked about. So the whole discussion we just had -- if you would like to
leave it to staff, as we have done for years, to go and present the discussion and summarize it --- and give the
UAC's point of view, that's what's going to happen. And I guess the question is as simple as do we want to
keep doing it that way? Because I have voiced, in a structured, written-down way how we might do it differently.
3:37:27:
Assistant City Manager Nose: Totally unsolicited and perhaps unvarnished. Just at a high level. Maybe I can
help give the UAC some ideas of how to get yourself out of this bind. So, a couple things. At one point, I think
the commission has to make a decision on, do you want to write your own Policy and Procedure about how you
want to do this advocacy, and what that advisory looks like?
### Great idea. The Planning & Transportation Commission has its own (20 pages).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-
transportation-commission/ptcprocedural-rules.pdf
I'll be honest. That's a lot, to get you all to write down something like this. What I'm hearing from Commissioner
Tucher and, frankly, many of the commissioners, is, there are instances where you may want to have a
representative. And if that is the case, then there's nothing that stops the UAC from simply routinizing in your
behavior of your discussions of these items on do we want a representative, yes or no? And having that
discussion is part of your -- that item. I don't know that you need a Policy and Procedure for that. It's simply
something you can talk as a body when the item comes up. So, I don't know that -- If there's something beyond
that, that the commission is looking for, I think, to Chair Mauter's point, greater detail on what specifically you
want to agendize or talk about, in terms of what quote-unquote "advisory" means and looks like, would be really
helpful. But if you're simply talking about, you know, the gas COSA is of interest and is someone going to rep
us, just have that conversation as part of the agenda item.
3:39:00:
Commissioner Tucher: Um. I'll just summarize one aspect of the very short three-point thing that I've written
down. I think Utsav has also stood behind this. You know, like, to take the example of preliminary rates, when
we finished that discussion, even though there was no vote, before moving on to the next item, we -- the Chair --
would say, is something that is even on the radar -- on the agenda for Council this month or next? In this case,
it is. And we would say, was there anything so important? And in this last 45 minutes of hot air and discussion,
that we ought to go and put -- or represent, or just sit there in a meeting if Council wants to call on us. Or do we
do it the way we've always done it? I would recommend that we never close an agenda item without saying, ah,
does this need -- do we need some advisory function, in writing or in person? And then, if the answer is yes to
that -- if we all think, yeah, we ought to send somebody, that we can discuss who should it be? I think it should
be -- the gas COSA subcommittee guy, or whatever.
### I'd suggest that if at the end of every item, UAC should decide whether to choose a UAC representative to
present UAC's views to Council, then every item should be an ACTION item.
3:40:06:
Commissioner Gupta: I'd just add a few points, real quick. I know we had -- we -- Chris and I had -- I should
say, Commissioner Tucher and myself had conversations with our Chair. And we did come to some
conclusions on -- some, just changes the Chair would make, in terms of -- like things like how do we address
follow-up items. You know, sometimes during the course of a conversation or discussion on an agenda item, a
commissioner will seek a follow-up. And there was no clear process for that follow-up. And many follow-ups
kind of just were in either, and --
3:40:40:
Commissioner Tucher: Well, they stayed in the minutes. Don't worry. They're still in the minutes, Utsav.
### Don't count on Council members scrutinizing the entirety of the minutes.
3:40:43:
Commissioner Gupta: Or stay in the minutes, and are left lingering. And so, how can we better that process?
And -- um -- So, I think there are a couple points we can discuss there.
3:40:53:
There's also the idea of doing perhaps more joint sessions with the City Council, on really large issues that are
coming before us. And that might be, for example, twin study sessions. So, that's something we can talk about,
too. And it's an agenda item. So, I think there's a lot of great ideas here. I think maybe we can consider them.
And maybe get something more concrete down, as to what this agenda item could look like and encompass.
3:41:24:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Did you want to say something?
3:41:27:
Assistant City Manager Nose: I was just going to say, this -- and I'll actually ask the Mayor for his opinion.
### Years ago, in a presentation to newly-appointed commissioners and newly-elected Council members, City
Attorney Stump spelled out the role of the Liaison. The Liaison should attend commission meetings and pay
attention to what's being said. And the Liaison should be available to answer questions of fact. But the Liaison
shouldn't offer personal opinions, even if asked.
But what I'm hearing is, you simply want a study session for you all to talk about this.
### In the past, Joint Meetings between Council and a commission have been agendized as Council study
sessions.
### If Ms. Nose thought that the request was just for a UAC-only "study session," I think that was a
misunderstanding. (What would a UAC-only study session be, anyway? Just a discussion item?)
'Cause you can't talk about this behind -- individually -- and then bring something forward, because you're a
Brown Act-ed body.
### Less than a majority of commissioners CAN discuss things "offline," but a majority cannot, even as a "serial
meeting."
So, you know, to have this discussion, which -- I'll be honest -- we're bordering passing --
3:41:52:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
3:41:52:
Assistant City Manager Nose: -- the realm of appropriateness for this agenda item tonight. Staff could bring
forward a simple study session without a heck of a lot of prep. And you can have this discussion. But, I --
outside of that, I'm not quite sure how to support --
3:42:08:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Um. Why don't we TAKE that recommendation, if staff would be so willing. And I don't
know exactly what is entailed in a study session. Or how that is defined. Is that outside of a normal meeting,
and therefore --
3:42:26:
Assistant City Manager Nose: No. It is an agenda item, on your agenda, noticed like this to the public. Right?
Where there is a topic. And you all can chat.
3:42:35:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. So, we can figure out how to do that. And how to individually prepare for that. I
mean, I think staff could collect input from everybody, and then summarize a set of recommendations or
suggestions that people make. No? [shakes head]
### No.
OK. Then we can simply have an open study session.
### A.k.a., a discussion item, right?
3:43:03:
Assistant City Manager Nose: I can add -- Staff can absolutely collect feedback.
### The Brown Act says that the public must be able to see this "feedback" at the same time as the
commissioners.
3:48:06:
Vice Chair Mauter: Collect feedback.
3:43:06:
Assistant City Manager Nose: And another thing, -- And transmit that.
3:43:08:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. Yes. .
3:43:08:
Assistant City Manager Nose: That's what I was trying to say.
----------
3:43:10:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] All roads go through Rome.
3:43:12:
Vice Chair Mauter: Exactly. So, we can do that, and have a broader discussion about procedural changes in
the UAC, which I think is a healthy thing to do for any body. No problem. OK.
3:43:27:
Liaison Lauing: I have a comment.
3:43:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: Please.
3:43:29:
Liaison Lauing: Yeah. I was just going to make two points. This is not meant to be discouraging in any way
with what you've talked about. But just to underscore the obvious. You ARE an advisory body.
3:43:41:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
3:43:41:
Liaison Lauing: And all these items that come here are debated and voted on.
### By UAC?? To underscore the obvious, most items that come before the UAC are DISCUSSION items, so
they are NOT voted on. And that's a BIG problem.
And sometimes we get 7-0, and sometimes we get 3-3. And those mean different things to us. Just by
definition. Even if no Council member reads the packet item. You know. [chuckles] They do. But I'm just
using an exaggeration. Then, you know, that tells us something. And that's your function, is to advise us. So, if
you move it in a more -- direction of having more -- um -- testimony direct to the City Council, I would be
selective about that. You know, it's not going to be on every item that comes to Council. And, you know, have it
focused. And it will be supplementary to the Utilities staff that would present the packet. And it could agree or
disagree, as well. So --
3:44:36:
Commissioner Phillips: So, do you see the gas COSA -- since you sat through a discussion today -- as
something where it would be useful to have a member of the subcommittee available to the --
3:44:45:
Liaison Lauing: Oh, yeah.
3:44:46:
Commissioner Phillips: -- the Council? So, that -- Great. Thank you.
3:44:50:
Liaison Lauing: I'm kind of surprised that's not going to Finance first. It's probably because we don't have time.
3:44:53:
Assistant City Manager Nose: It is.
### I assume this means it IS going to Finance first.
Staff just hasn't corrected.
3:44:56:
Liaison Lauing: Oh.
3:44:57:
Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. Just as -- I'm the -- one of the key proponents for this concept, I fully
acknowledge that just 'cause we send somebody to advise or report to Council, we may not get called on.
### As a member of the public, a UAC commissioner can sign up to speak on an issue at Council, for as long
as Council gives members of the public to speak (usually 3 minutes or less). If a commissioner wants to voice a
personal opinion, it should be identified as such. If the UAC has voted on an item, the commissioner should
probably identify what that vote was, and what it meant. Rarely, a Council member may ask a member of the
public to answer a question.
And I totally understand that it's -- You know, the UAC rep might go to the meeting and just be there "on call," to
answer questions if asked.
3:45:23:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK.
3:45:24:
Liaison Lauing: That is the pattern of the PTC commissioner that is assigned monthly. And even at that,
sometimes they choose not to come, because they don't think it's -- they're going to add much value.
3:45:35:
### Commissioner Comments and Reports From Meetings and Events
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. I'd like to move on to the last item, which is Commissioner Comments and Reports
From Meetings and Events. [pause] Hearing none,
3:45:47:
Commissioner Gupta: [unamplified] Wait --
3:45:48:
Vice Chair Mauter: Oh. I'm sorry.
3:45:49:
Commissioner Gupta: I just had one last comment on the 12-month rolling calendar, if I may.
3:45:56:
Vice Chair Mauter: We -- Sure.
3:45:56:
Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. This is just on the March item for water quality update. It would be great if
we could also include forever chemicals and anything to do with wastewater. With that one. If that's possible.
3:46:08:
Assistant City Manager Nose: Water and wastewater are distinct utilities. I'm sorry. What are you --
3:46:14:
Commissioner Gupta: With respect to the microplastics and forever chemicals issue. It's useful to look at it
both from like a water supply and a wastewater perspective.
3:46:27:
Assistant City Manager Nose: I think typically the Water Quality Report is covered in the water item.
3:46:33:
Commissioner Gupta: This is the March item on this water quality. The specific water quality issue:
microplastics.
3:46:42:
Assistant City Manager Nose: OK.
3:46:42:
Director Kurotori: So, --
3:46:42:
Vice Chair Mauter: Water comes from Hetch Hetchy.
### About 85 percent of SFPUC's water comes from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, "and the remaining 15% of its
water supply from local surface waters in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds."
https://www.sfpuc.gov/sites/default/files/about-us/policies-
reports/AltWaterSupply_DraftPlan_6.23.23_Print%20Version.pdf
### In theory, Palo Alto's water could sometimes come from local wells and/or storage facilities, rather than
from SFPUC.
So, I'm not sure how the discharge of microplastics is affecting our water supply.
3:46:50:
Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I'm trying to better understand what your comment was.
3:46:55:
Commissioner Gupta: Oh, sure. So, the March -- Sorry. The March 4th item in 2026 is a "Water Quality
Update -- Regional sampling of microplastics."
3:47:09:
Director Kurotori: Correct.
3:47:09:
Commissioner Gupta: Um. It would be great to kind of get a perspective if there is sampling of microplastics in
our wastewater, as well.
3:47:11:
Director Kurotori: But that is a separate -- totally separate --
3:47:14:
Commissioner Gupta: Oh, is this not a --
3:47:16:
Director Kurotori: No. It's water quality in terms of potable water quality, not water quality as in all the types of
different -- um -- Is it recycled water? Is it potable water? Is it wastewater? is it storm water?
3:47:29:
Commissioner Gupta: Sure.
3:47:29:
Director Kurotori: This is intended for potable water.
3:47:31:
Commissioner Gupta: OK. So, this is going to be just a --
3:47:34:
Director Kurotori: Correct.
3:47:36:
Commissioner Gupta: OK. I do have curiosity at some point about our wastewater too. If that could be
agendized at some point. So, --
3:47:41:
Director Kurotori: That would be -- Again, we -- The intent of this is to try and maintain it with your goals and
objectives. So -- you see me going through here -- I go back to the work plan. Right? So, it's something that if
there's an interest and it's not associated with this, that might be something to add to your additional work plan.
So, we want to make sure that we're meeting your goals and objectives, associated with the work plan, as
established by the commission.
3:48:08:
Commissioner Gupta: Remind me. Did we excise wastewater from that work plan? From the water -- From
the -- Because we had a discussion -- I remember we had a discussion on the microplastics --
3:48:18:
Vice Chair Mauter: I am sorry. I'm going to have to ask you to take this offline, if that's OK. It's just not of
general relevance to the fact that it's already agendized. The subtopic can be taken offline. OK?
### The logic escapes me. The 12-month rolling calendar predicts that a water quality item WILL BE
agendized in the agenda for UAC's 03-04-26 meeting. Staff intends that it not include anything about
wastewater. Commissioner Gupta wanted to put an item on the 12-month rolling calendar that includes
microplastics in the City's wastewater.
3:48:31:
Commissioner Gupta: Sure.
3:48:32:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Thanks. Are there any items related to Commissioner Comments and Reports From
Meetings and Events?
3:48:39:
Commissioner Gupta: I had one other update. I had a field trip with -- to Hetch Hetchy with SFPUC. It was
wonderful learning more about our water -- amazing water system, coming across the state by gravity. I mean,
if you have an opportunity in the future to take that field trip with BAWSCA and SFPUC, I highly recommend it.
3:48:58:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Many of the commissioners have. It's a lot of fun. OK. With that, we will adjourn,
and thank you all for your time and attention today.
3:49:09:
END
From:Suchitra Chandran
To:Council, City
Subject:Invitation for Palo Alto to Join World Meditation Day 2025 — Dec 21 at Mitchell Park Library
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 3:23:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council of Palo Alto,
I hope this message finds you well.
On behalf of The Art of Living Foundation, I am pleased to invite you and the City of Palo
Alto to participate in World Meditation Day 2025, a global initiative dedicated to peace,
mental well-being, and community connection.
On Sunday, December 21, 2025, millions of people around the world will come together for a
synchronized Global Meditation for Peace. This global gathering—guided by Art of Living
founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar—is expected to be one of the largest meditation events in
history, uniting communities in over 180 countries.
We are hosting Palo Alto’s gathering at:
Mitchell Park Library
3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
Sunday, December 21, 2025
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
This free, public event will include a guided meditation suitable for all ages and all experience
levels. With mental well-being becoming an important civic priority, this is an opportunity for
the City to support residents through a meaningful, community-oriented, and evidence-based
wellness initiative.
As the City Council, your support and presence would be deeply inspiring. By joining as a
City Partner, Palo Alto would:
Demonstrate leadership in promoting mental and emotional well-being
Bring residents together in a peaceful, inclusive community experience
Be recognized on the global event platform among participating cities worldwide
Engage schools, youth groups, civic organizations, and local community partners
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
We would be grateful for the opportunity to coordinate with your office to ensure this
gathering best reflects Palo Alto’s values of unity, well-being, and community engagement.
Thank you for considering this invitation. I would welcome the chance to speak with your
team and explore collaboration in bringing this global moment of peace to our city.
With gratitude and hope,
Suchitra Chandran
City Champion — World Meditation Day 2025
The Art of Living Foundation
suchitra.chandran@artofliving.org
352-281-9704
From:Abello, Emmanuel
Subject:LAFCO Meeting on 12/03/2025 - Supplemental Information No. 1
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 2:40:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The following supplemental information has been added to the December 3, 2025 LAFCO Meeting
Agenda:
Supplemental Information No. 1 – Agenda Item #7: Annual Financial Audit Report –
June 30, 2025
Staff report with attachments A, B and C.
The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed
online at:
https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-12-03-211500
Regards,
Emmanuel Abello
Analyst, LAFCO of Santa Clara County
777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 993-4705 | Mobile: (669) 321-9704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:ann rothblatt
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission
Subject:[INSERT SUBJECT HERE]
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:14:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Ann Rothblatt and I live in south Palo Alto.
Please support the homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. I want to create more ownership options in our community,
including affordable homeownership. We are still enjoying the home we purchased in 1977 for $103,000,
and wish other deserving people could have the same opportunity. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project
forward as quickly as possible.
Thank you for supporting more homes in our community,
Ann and Don Rothblatt
From:Philip Grant
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:El Camino Field
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:27:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Thank you for your service to Palo Alto! I am writing you as a physician, amateur athlete, and
youth soccer coach/parent in favor of maintaining El Camino as a high quality artificial turf field.
I work at Stanford as a Primary Care and HIV physician. I also have been a youth sports coach
for over 30 years including high school, Palo Alto AYSO and Palo Alto Soccer Club. I played
intercollegiate sports and continue to value the fitness, camaraderie, and mental health
benefits of team sports. I am also an avid user of Palo Alto parks with frequent runs in the
Baylands, swims at Rinconada, music in Mitchell, and BBQs at Greer.
I believe the report produced by Lloyd Sports and Engineering does an excellent job of
addressing the pros and cons of different approaches. Unfortunately, due to the population
density of the Valley and competing uses for park space in Palo Alto, there is not the acreage to
replace the El Camino turf with the acreage of grass fields that meet the needs of Palo Alto.
The current configuration of fields is meeting the needs of local residents and is maximizing
benefits for all.
This past weekend my younger daughter was in Davis for a youth soccer tournament. Outside
of Davis, there is a 68-acre grass field complex (23 fields and parking) that serves only a
portion of the soccer players in Davis (does not support AYSO, adult rec, or other sports such
as lacrosse). Davis is a town the same size as Palo Alto (both approximately 67,000 residents).
The quality of the Davis Legacy fields are quite good but are entirely reserved for soccer and are
not part of public parks as in Palo Alto. Within the town of Davis, there is an assortment of
grass fields within public parks similar to those in Palo Alto. So roughly speaking, the 22 grass
fields in Davis provide less than the 4 turf fields in Palo Alto. More importantly, such a
mammoth complex in Palo Alto would not be feasible given the cost and competing uses for
park space.
In sum, I wanted to weigh in on this issue facing the Council on how to maximize Palo Alto open
spaces. I believe that the best use for the 1.5 acres at El Camino is for it to remain a high quality
artificial turf field serving thousands of local athletes. I believe that this use best aligns with the
values we have as a community, recognizing the limitations we have living in a dense urban
environment.
Sincerely,
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City
Subject:El Dorado crossing.
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:01:10 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
The Midtown Residents Association is starting to get concerned comments and pleas
re the installation of a pedestrian/bike crossing at El Dorado. All of the emails I have
received claim
1) it is the wrong location since it is less than .5 mile from the Cal Ave Undercrossing
2) the street is very narrow with many cars parking on both sides, Esp the low income
housing project at corner. Construction of a mega house is planned for that first block
near Alma. One comment
"When we think of the traffic congestion we already have on El Dorado, I can’t
imagine how an increase in bikes and pedestrians is going to work. Already there’s
congestion just with parking because the street is so narrow. Will bike lanes be
installed?"..
3) tenants from Alma Street are parking on Emerson and El Dorado.
4) this route will encourage more traffic and speeding.
I think this location is the worst location, even though I would welcome a traffic light.
It also will encourage bikes along Alma, so dangerous. Speeding is already horrible
on Bryant now esp in rush hour,
Please reconsider the location.
Annette Glanckopf
2747 Bryant
650-321-8933
From:Tavera, Samuel
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment Letter
Date:Monday, November 24, 2025 6:17:42 PM
Attachments:Jacob Behning Public Comment.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
Good evening Councilmembers,
Please find attached a Public Comment Letter we received in the mail today. Thank you.
Samuel Tavera
Administrative Associate III
Samuel.Tavera@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov