Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-02 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: 2/2/2026 Document dates: 1/26/2026 - 2/2/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Marguerite Poyatos To:Annette Ross Cc:lydiakou@gmail.com; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; Chris Lahlouh; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Rebecca Sanders; Douglas B. Moran Subject:Re: Bob’s OSV Count (1/29/26) Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 9:12:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. That seems to be a false equivalent to me and kind of grasping at straws, honestly. It also does not touch on a lot of issues that are at hand that go past property taxes being paid. Those restaurants, while taking up space, typically keep sidewalks clean, don't dump human waste in streets and are typically not harassing surrounding businesses. I would say they also typically bring more foot traffic to surrounding businesses. In our neighborhood, foot traffic has been directly affected by these RV's. There is no street parking for customers. Being that we are in an area that people don't regularly or conveniently walk to, the lack of street parking is a huge problem. To this point, the people who are living in the RV'S aren't just taking up parking spots with their RV's, but the numerous cars associated with them. One gentleman has 5 cars in addition to his RV. He takes up half of one side of a street. Many of his cars are filled with garbage and are not driven. Often when customers come into our business, they state that the neighborhood doesn't feel safe and ask if their car/personal belongings are safe. We had a daycare in our neighborhood close because parents didn't feel safe leaving their kids there. There is a ballet studio that has reported similar complaints from the parents of their students. We have dealt with loose, aggressive dogs running into our business and accosting customers. People are constantly dumping the human waste from their RV's in the gutters, along with just general trash and waste filling the gutters. Electricity is regularly being stolen from surrounding businesses by some people living in RV's. There are no crosswalks, and with the RV's blocking visibility, there are a lot of close calls with pedestrians being hit by cars. I could go on, but all of these problems and more have been reported for YEARS. Many of these RV''s are dilapidated. Windows are broken and taped over. One RV is missing a door and just has a bedsheet hanging in its place. There is an RV with children sleeping inside that has no generator and for the most part seems to go without power (in the winter). It seems criminal that anyone could rent these RV's out to people. This is wrong for everyone involved. On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 11:59 PM Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> wrote: One can make a similar argument regarding giving away city streets to restaurants. Covid presented exceptional circumstances but sidewalk and street dining appears to be here to stay. Since the restaurants that benefit are not paying for the extra square footage, we are Sent from my iPhone On Feb 1, 2026, at 8:58 PM, Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Bottom line, it is about fairness to businesses and to the residents who have worked hard for years and years, paid and continue to pay taxes for infrastructure and services, and invested in their assets. Are OSV dwellers and vanlords paying any kind of taxes for the use of public lands and services? BTW, paying a vehicle registration fee does not generate revenue to the city. Is the city of Palo Alto unfriendly to retailers, businesses and residents which/who generate revenue and property taxes by not regulating these OSVs? Are the city leaders creating bandaids and kicking the can around town and reducing property values as they name different neighborhoods to allow OSVs? Final question is who are subsidizing all the OSV dwellers and vanlords? Meanwhile a city of approximately 67,000 in population has a budget of over $1.4billion. And we don’t have a fire station that can provide fire fighting and ambulance services at the same time, it’s one or the other. Fire station 8 at Foothills Nature Preserve can’t operate year round. …much to ponder about … and what it boils down to is whom have we elected and are they representing us after the campaign, now that they got what they wanted. To be fair, It’s not easy being an elected official, yet one has to have foundational principles and have situational awareness. God bless us with practicality and realities. No to taxes until government spending is not for frivolous pet projects, virtue signaling and ideologies. Hey, cheers and Happy New Year ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 4:12 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to thank you very much for hosting the OSV Open House at the Mitchell Park Community Center on 1/27/26. It was most informative and I had the opportunity to talk with many folks. The primary purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with my latest point in time OSV count (1/29/26) and ask you for your assistance in removing OSVs in two key areas. The good news on the OSV count is that the total is down slightly to 178, but part of this can be attributable to the utility construction along East Bayshore Rd. near Corporation Way. The not so good news is that OSV are starting to move into our parks. I see that the number in Mitchell Park has increased to four and that there is now one in the parking lot of Greer Park. Can we please take action on these OSVs before they start to be the norm in our parks. The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention is the cluster of OSVs and ancillary vehicles on Ash St. near the intersection of Portage Ave. I recently spoke with two businesses and one residence on this block and all are in agreement that this situation is a nuisance and a source of visual blight. I was told that one individual owns all these vehicles in addition to vehicles on the other segment of Ash St. in front of the Sherman- Williams Paint store, in addition to several vehicles on Sherman Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building. I was also told that this individual can be belligerent at times and that residents in the area do not feel safe. No one in Palo Alto should not feel safe on their street due to someone who chooses to squat feet from their residence. We can do better, and we need to do better! Here are a few photos for reference… Regards, Bob Marinaro This is what the corner of Ash & Portage should look like. It’s been a while! Ash Street looking towards the old Fry’s building on Portage The individual’s other vehicle on the segment of Ash Street adjacent to San Antonio Sheridan Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC. 4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-7000 ext.110 www.paloaltoglass.com From:Nancy Isaac To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Hartley, Craig; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Request to allow only electric leaf blowers on commercial properties in Palo Alto Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 8:13:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear esteemed Council members, It was a surprise to me to learn thatPalo Alto still allows gas leaf blowers on commercial properties. As you areprobably aware, our neighboring city councils of Los Altos and Menlo Park have take thenecessary and successful measures to protect their workers, citizens (including those in apartments orcondos near commercial zones), and the environment by banning gas leaf blowers oncommercial properties. It is time for the City Council to prioritize and finish the important andeffective work that Palo Alto began 20 years ago with residential leaf blowers by extending the "onlyelectric leaf blowers" to commercial properties in our city as soon as possible. This will protectpublic health and safety by regulating activities that we hope will create social change and raiseawareness. You have the power to make this change! Thank you! This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report N.E.Isaac MPH From:Annette Ross To:lydiakou@gmail.com Cc:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; Chris Lahlouh; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Rebecca Sanders; Douglas B. Moran Subject:Re: Bob’s OSV Count (1/29/26) Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 12:00:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i One can make a similar argument regarding giving away city streets to restaurants. Covid presented exceptional circumstances but sidewalk and street dining appears to be here to stay. Since the restaurants that benefit are not paying for the extra square footage, we are subsidizing that use. Governments excel at wasting money. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 1, 2026, at 8:58 PM, Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 <lydiakou@gmail.com> wrote: Bottom line, it is about fairness to businesses and to the residents who have worked hard for years and years, paid and continue to pay taxes for infrastructure and services, and invested in their assets. Are OSV dwellers and vanlords paying any kind of taxes for the use of public lands and services? BTW, paying a vehicle registration fee does not generate revenue to the city. Is the city of Palo Alto unfriendly to retailers, businesses and residents which/who generate revenue and property taxes by not regulating these OSVs? Are the city leaders creating bandaids and kicking the can around town and reducing property values as they name different neighborhoods to allow OSVs? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Final question is who are subsidizing all the OSV dwellers and vanlords? Meanwhile a city of approximately 67,000 in population has a budget of over $1.4billion. And we don’t have a fire station that can provide fire fighting and ambulance services at the same time, it’s one or the other. Fire station 8 at Foothills Nature Preserve can’t operate year round. …much to ponder about … and what it boils down to is whom have we elected and are they representing us after the campaign, now that they got what they wanted. To be fair, It’s not easy being an elected official, yet one has to have foundational principles and have situational awareness. God bless us with practicality and realities. No to taxes until government spending is not for frivolous pet projects, virtue signaling and ideologies. Hey, cheers and Happy New Year ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 4:12 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to thank you very much for hosting the OSV Open House at the Mitchell Park Community Center on 1/27/26. It was most informative and I had the opportunity to talk with many folks. The primary purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with my latest point in time OSV count (1/29/26) and ask you for your assistance in removing OSVs in two key areas. The good news on the OSV count is that the total is down slightly to 178, but part of this can be attributable to the utility construction along East Bayshore Rd. near Corporation Way. The not so good news is that OSV are starting to move into our parks. I see that the number in Mitchell Park has increased to four and that there is now one in the parking lot of Greer Park. Can we please take action on these OSVs before they start to be the norm in our parks. The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention is the cluster of OSVs and ancillary vehicles on Ash St. near the intersection of Portage Ave. I recently spoke with two businesses and one residence on this block and all are in agreement that this situation is a nuisance and a source of visual blight. I was told that one individual owns all these vehicles in addition to vehicles on the other segment of Ash St. in front of the Sherman- Williams Paint store, in addition to several vehicles on Sherman Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building. I was also told that this individual can be belligerent at times and that residents in the area do not feel safe. No one in Palo Alto should not feel safe on their street due to someone who chooses to squat feet from their residence. We can do better, and we need to do better! Here are a few photos for reference… Regards, Bob Marinaro This is what the corner of Ash & Portage should look like. It’s been a while! Ash Street looking towards the old Fry’s building on Portage The individual’s other vehicle on the segment of Ash Street adjacent to San Antonio Sheridan Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street From:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; Chris Lahlouh; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Rita Vrhel; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Rebecca Sanders; Douglas B. Moran Subject:Re: Bob’s OSV Count (1/29/26) Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 8:59:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Bottom line, it is about fairness to businesses and to the residents who have worked hard for years and years, paid and continue to pay taxes for infrastructure and services, and invested in their assets. Are OSV dwellers and vanlords paying any kind of taxes for the use of public lands and services? BTW, paying a vehicle registration fee does not generate revenue to the city. Is the city of Palo Alto unfriendly to retailers, businesses and residents which/who generate revenue and property taxes by not regulating these OSVs? Are the city leaders creating bandaids and kicking the can around town and reducing property values as they name different neighborhoods to allow OSVs? Final question is who are subsidizing all the OSV dwellers and vanlords? Meanwhile a city of approximately 67,000 in population has a budget of over $1.4billion. And we don’t have a fire station that can provide fire fighting and ambulance services at the same time, it’s one or the other. Fire station 8 at Foothills Nature Preserve can’t operate year round. …much to ponder about … and what it boils down to is whom have we elected and are they representing us after the campaign, now that they got what they wanted. To be fair, It’s not easy being an elected official, yet one has to have foundational principles and have situational awareness. God bless us with practicality and realities. No to taxes until government spending is not for This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report frivolous pet projects, virtue signaling and ideologies. Hey, cheers and Happy New Year ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 4:12 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to thank you very much for hosting the OSV Open House at the Mitchell Park Community Center on 1/27/26. It was most informative and I had the opportunity to talk with many folks. The primary purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with my latest point in time OSV count (1/29/26) and ask you for your assistance in removing OSVs in two key areas. The good news on the OSV count is that the total is down slightly to 178, but part of this can be attributable to the utility construction along East Bayshore Rd. near Corporation Way. The not so good news is that OSV are starting to move into our parks. I see that the number in Mitchell Park has increased to four and that there is now one in the parking lot of Greer Park. Can we please take action on these OSVs before they start to be the norm in our parks. The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention is the cluster of OSVs and ancillary vehicles on Ash St. near the intersection of Portage Ave. I recently spoke with two businesses and one residence on this block and all are in agreement that this situation is a nuisance and a source of visual blight. I was told that one individual owns all these vehicles in addition to vehicles on the other segment of Ash St. in front of the Sherman-Williams Paint store, in addition to several vehicles on Sherman Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building. I was also told that this individual can be belligerent at times and that residents in the area do not feel safe. No one in Palo Alto should not feel safe on their street due to someone who chooses to squat feet from their residence. We can do better, and we need to do better! Here are a few photos for reference… Regards, Bob Marinaro This is what the corner of Ash & Portage should look like. It’s been a while! Ash Street looking towards the old Fry’s building on Portage The individual’s other vehicle on the segment of Ash Street adjacent to San Antonio Sheridan Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:02-40-26 -- UAC -- Background and Discussion on Data Centers in Palo Alto Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 6:42:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, Item 2 on the agenda for your 02-04-26 UAC meeting is "Background and Discussion of Data Centers in Palo Alto." 02-04-26: Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19010 High-level comments: * The item is agendized as a discussion item, so UAC can't vote its advice to Council. * The report doesn't say anything about the water requirements for data centers. Surely that's important. * The report doesn't say anything about noise requirements. * The report doesn't say enough about how data centers could affect the City's electric rates. -- making them either more or less expensive. -- For example, what about ISO transmission rates? * The report doesn't say anything about how data centers could benefit the community. (Other than potentially making electric power less expensive.) -- For example, could it offer reduced latency to residents and businesses for certain apps? * The report doesn't assess the risk that the AI bubble might pop. See: November 2025: "Bubble or Nothing: Data Center Project Finance" (72 pages) https://publicenterprise.org/wp-content/uploads/Bubble-or-Nothing.pdf Thanks, Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ### There are footnotes 1. 3. 4. 7, and 9, but not 2, 5, 6, or 8. Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Alan Kurotori, Director Utilities Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: February 4, 2026 Report #: 2512-5600 TITLE Background and Discussion on Data Centers in Palo Alto RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discuss general guiding principles ### One guiding principle: don't lose money if the AI bubble pops. for the integration of new data centers and give input on community preferences on the possibility of relatively large new data centers being built in City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU) service territory. ### Is CPAU's service territory different from Palo Alto's city limits? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Artificial Intelligence (AI) computing requirements are driving a generational increase in electricity demand nationwide. News articles highlight new “hyperscalers” of 100 MW to 500 MW or greater throughout the nation on an almost daily basis. ### If so, the number of news articles vastly exceeds the number of hyperscalers (of 100 MW to 500 MW or greater) being built in the United States. While the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is aware of increased interest in local data center development as a municipal electric utility with an average electric load of about 110 MW[1] , existing infrastructure imposes natural size limitations at least in the short to medium term. ### Grid Mod will update the electric infrastructure, after which there might be new "natural size limitations." Limited commercial and industrial sites as well as community preferences may naturally steer CPAU to focus on a smaller scale of data centers (< 25 MW) over the long term as well. The purpose of this report is to: 1. Provide an overview of the in-City data center impacts on electricity rates and infrastructure in Palo Alto to-date; 2. Provide context on the size of data centers that is best-suited for the City of Palo Alto’s existing electric distribution system; --------------- [1] While the average CPAU load is about 100 MW, the CPAU recent peak power was 178 MW in 2023. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/utilities/utilities-at-a-glance-fy-2023_final.pdf Item No. 2. Page 1 of 5 -------------------- 3. Provide best practices for managing financial risk from data centers and offering customer protections; 4. Solicit feedback from the UAC on community preferences and considerations when it comes to attracting and integrating data centers. ### UAC's job is giving advice to Council, not giving feedback to staff. ### The staff report seems to assume that the City should be striving to attract data centers. Why? CPAU has integrated a few 5-10 MW data centers recently. Carefully structured contracts have thus far helped to stabilize or lower systemwide rates by spreading fixed costs over a greater volume and helping to fund needed infrastructure replacements. Additional 5-25 MW data centers could lower electric rates if locations are coordinated and risks are contractually managed. For data centers with loads above 25 or so MW, the land required for a dedicated customer substation and distribution system impacts will be much larger. ### Where would staff propose to find the land for building a dedicated substation? Would the City own the land? Why dedicate the substation to just one customer? CPAU is seeking feedback on guiding principles when attracting smaller data centers and when considering larger projects to align with the community’s preferences. DISCUSSION Overview Of Data Center Load, Rate, and Environmental Impacts To-Date Located in the heart of Silicon Valley and with a municipal dark fiber loop,[3] Palo Alto has had data centers for decades. Over the last three to five years, neighboring electric utilities have seen requests for larger data centers, including clusters up to 2 GW in San Jose,[4] which is roughly 200 times the size of the largest data centers in Palo Alto. Companies and developers continue to make relatively large data center inquiries throughout the Bay Area and the state as they investigate the Bay Area and shop around between utilities and cities, and states. CPAU has successfully integrated a few 5-10 MW data centers in the last few years, but anticipates requests for larger data center interconnections. 1. Load impacts to-date Palo Alto’s electric load peaked in 1998 around 1,170 GWh, declined roughly 30% to a low of 822 GWh in 2021 and has been growing steadily to roughly 945 GWh in 2025. Staff forecasts that load will rise steadily through 2045 largely due to data center load growth, but also as building and transportation electrification accelerate. Data centers represent roughly 15% of CPAU‘s electric load today. ### So, given that the City's average electric load is about 100 MW (Footnote [1]), data centers are taking roughly 15 MW today. Data center customers may provide system benefits particularly when loads are relatively steady, do not trigger large capital capacity expansion, and persist for several years or decades. Currently CPAU’s largest data centers are running at a high load --------------- [3] City of Palo Alto Utilities Commercial Fiber Information. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/business/25042-commercial-fiber.pdf [4] “Data centers for AI could nearly triple San Jose's energy use. Who foots the bill?” NBC Bay Area. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/data-centers-for-ai-san-jose/3994182/ Item No. 2. Page 2 of 5 -------------------- factor[7] , driven in part by the commercial demand rates which incentivize steadier loads throughout the year. 2. Electricity rate impacts to-date Due to careful coordination on distribution system upgrades, existing CPAU rules and regulations, ### Reference? contract structures, and effective commercial demand charges, CPAU’s data center customers currently have relatively steady usage, lowering (or lowering the rate of increase) rates for all customers. To ensure that data center projects continue to benefit all customers, some principles for long-term risk mitigation from new large data centers include up-front funding from developers, rate structures that return that investment over time to ensure durability of electricity demand, and clear communication of where there is existing available system capacity. These are discussed more in the following section. 3. Environmental impacts to-date CPAU has maintained a commitment to a 100% carbon-neutral electricity supply since 2013, meaning Palo Alto is probably one of the greenest places to site a data center in the United States. Palo Alto’s carbon-neutral electricity has been tracked at hourly resolution since 2020, and CPAU is committed to only carbon-free electricity long-term contracts in its electricity portfolio going forward. The same data center load may greatly differ in its climate implications depending on its location. From an environmental perspective, siting data centers in Palo Alto can be preferable to siting them in less-decarbonized utilities. ### Palo Alto can't afford to save the world from ungreen data centers elsewhere. This source says, "Nearly 100 GW of new data centers will be added between 2026 and 2030, doubling global capacity." https://www.jll.com/en-us/insights/market-outlook/data-center-outlook Available Capacity on the Distribution System for Data Centers Based on the current distribution system, ### Again, Grid Mod will change the current distribution system. the most practical size for additional data center load is in the range of approximately 5–25 MW. The most straightforward inquiries fall within 2–5 MW or 5–10 MW in particular locations. Loads beyond 10 MW are feasible in specific circumstances with contributions of customer funding and structural rate protections. One location with some available capacity for data centers or other new loads is in the commercial areas of Stanford Research Park. CPAU is working with several companies interested in smaller integrating data centers in the 5-10 MW range within existing office space to communicate existing potential sites. For data centers beyond about 25 MW, the land --------------- [7] Load factor in electrical engineering is a ratio measuring the utilization of a system, defined as the average load divided by peak load. Essentially, it quantifies how fully a resource (like an electrical system's capacity) is being used relative to its maximum potential. Definition: The ratio of the average load over a period to the peak load during that same period. Example: A high load factor means consistent energy use, reducing costs. Formula: Load Factor = Average Load / Peak Load (for a given time). https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/demand-factordiversity-factor-utilization-factor-load-factor Item No. 2. Page 3 of 5 -------------------- required for new substations, and distribution system impacts will be much larger. CPAU is seeking input from the UAC on guiding principles when considering these projects and how they align with the community’s vision for the future and ensuring projects are beneficial to existing ratepayers. Best Practices for Ensuring Data Centers Benefit All Customers CPAU is committed to working to integrate data centers within the electric system in a way that benefits all customers and aligns with community values. CPAU is unlikely to host data centers greater than around 25 to 30 MW due to land constraints, property acreage required for a dedicated customer substation, and existing electric distribution system infrastructure. Data centers typically operate with high load factors and relatively flat demand profiles. From a cost-of-service perspective, this type of load can improve utilization of existing infrastructure and contribute to fixed-cost recovery when it uses available capacity or if necessary capital investments are funded directly by the developer. The question of whether data centers “raise” or “lower” rates therefore depends on scale, timing, and contract structure. Small and mid-scale facilities that fit within existing capacity or require modest upgrades can lower average system costs by spreading fixed expenses over greater sales volume. Such trends have been observed at the state level, where load growth has helped to depress retail electricity prices by more efficiently spreading fixed costs over a greater load.[9] There are risks that larger or speculative loads that accelerate major upgrades without secured cost recovery can increase exposure and lead to higher rates if the loads do not come online. CPAU has been successful thus far in implementing these best practices, including: 1. Passing through the costs of substation and distribution systems to the customers triggering the upgrades. 2. Using commercial electricity demand charges that pass through distribution system costs and impacts appropriately, thereby incentivizing customers to flatten their electricity demand as much as possible throughout the year, promoting high utilization of the system. 3. Carefully structuring the contract to include up-front customer funding, a schedule for monthly demand minimums, and contract structures that passes back infrastructure investment costs over time to ensure durability of load. Large data center loads also present opportunities for load curtailment contracts in times of grid stress which could provide financial and environmental benefits. Staff would need to create guidelines which align with sustainability goals and local air quality standards. --------------- [9] Wiser, R., O’Shaughnessy, E., Barbose, G., Cappers, P., & Gorman, W. (2025). Factors influencing recent trends in retail electricity prices in the United States. The Electricity Journal, 38(4), 107516. ### https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619025000612 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 5 -------------------- Feedback Solicited From the UAC: Staff is seeking input from the UAC and the community on general guiding principles for attracting and integrating data centers in order to respect community preferences regarding land required for new electric infrastructure, sustainability, and electricity rates. 1. For integrating data centers on the larger side of what is currently feasible within CPAU’s existing electric system, what concerns does the UAC feel should be addressed proactively with the community? 2. How much does the UAC feel the City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing recruiting rightsized data center customers? 3. Large data centers in the 50 MW or greater range have the opportunity to lower or stabilize electricity rates for customers in Palo Alto, but depending on site location could require extension of distribution overhead and underground infrastructure and other investments. a. What should staff consider when having those discussions about relatively large (50 MW) data centers? b. Would a relatively large data center or data centers align with community values if they did lower or stabilize rates for all customers and provide an increase in electric revenue? FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT At this time, there is no financial impact associated with these recommendations. Staff is working to streamline processes and contracts for data centers which appear to be good fits for our distribution system and community. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff anticipate continued engagement with the Utilities Advisory Commission, coordination with additional City departments as needed, economic development study impacts, and outreach to affected stakeholders and interested members of the community. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The UAC’s discussion of this item will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code sec. 21065). AUTHOR/TITLE: Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities Staff: Kathryn Fortenberry, Management Fellow Staff: Lena Perkins, PhD, Utilities Acting Deputy Director, Resource Management Item No. 2. Page 5 of 5 -------------------- From:promiserani To:Council, City Subject:Climate action goals Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 6:18:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I'm writing to ask that you direct CPAU to let residents know about the health and environmental risks of using gas appliances. My family suffers from various conditions ranging from asthma to eczema and we have noted a huge difference after switching to electric appliances, and will continue to do so. Reducing usage would be a huge benefit for our indoor and outdoor air quality, reduce the demand on emergency services, and also help the city meet climate goals. In particular, I hope you will add rebates for switching to electric/induction cooking. Please add these options to utility bills and gas safety brochures, in the Uplift local information, and ask block leaders to share this information as well as through schools. thank you! rani Prerana Jayakumar Midtown From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:47:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I did not send a recent letter. Connie Kettendorf On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 4:17 PM Council, City <city.council@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. ------------------Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @cityofpaloalto.organd there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on theCity’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations suchas the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto JuniorMuseum & Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department orCity Council Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other securedetails via email. Contact City Departments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Phone-Directory Contact City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; Chris Lahlouh; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao Subject:Re: Bob’s OSV Count (1/29/26) Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:17:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I counted 48 vans on East Meadow Circle today. There is a pet grooming truck there now! ceci On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 4:12 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to thank you very much for hosting the OSV Open House at the Mitchell Park Community Center on 1/27/26. It was most informative and I had the opportunity to talk with many folks. The primary purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with my latest point in time OSV count (1/29/26) and ask you for your assistance in removing OSVs in two key areas. The good news on the OSV count is that the total is down slightly to 178, but part of this can be attributable to the utility construction along East Bayshore Rd. near Corporation Way. The not so good news is that OSV are starting to move into our parks. I see that the number in Mitchell Park has increased to four and that there is now one in the parking lot of Greer Park. Can we please take action on these OSVs before they start to be the norm in our parks. The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention is the cluster of OSVs and ancillary vehicles on Ash St. near the intersection of Portage Ave. I recently spoke with two businesses and one residence on this block and all are in agreement that this situation is a nuisance and a source of visual blight. I was told that one individual owns all these vehicles in addition to vehicles on the other segment of Ash St. in front of the Sherman-Williams Paint store, in addition to several vehicles on Sherman Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building. I was also told that this individual can be belligerent at times and that residents in the area do not feel safe. No one in Palo Alto should not feel safe on their street due to someone who chooses to squat feet from their residence. We can do better, and we need to do better! Here are a few photos for reference… Regards, Bob Marinaro This is what the corner of Ash & Portage should look like. It’s been a while! Ash Street looking towards the old Fry’s building on Portage The individual’s other vehicle on the segment of Ash Street adjacent to San Antonio Sheridan Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Lydia Kou; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Robert Neff; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; dave@paloaltoglass.com; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; DavidPerez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; Chris Lahlouh; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; S Hayes; Victor Sloan; woodgood@pacbell.net; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Cheryl Routon; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Boyd@smithdevelopment; Lund@smithdevelopment; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao Subject:Bob’s OSV Count (1/29/26) Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:13:49 PM Attachments:RV Inventory_29Jan26.xlsxAsh St_Should look like.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to thank you very much for hosting the OSV Open House at the Mitchell Park Community Center on 1/27/26. It was most informative and I had the opportunity to talk with many folks. The primary purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with my latest point in time OSV count (1/29/26) and ask you for your assistance in removing OSVs in two key areas. The good news on the OSV count is that the total is down slightly to 178, but part of this can be attributable to the utility construction along East Bayshore Rd. near Corporation Way. The not so good news is that OSV are starting to move into our parks. I see that the number in Mitchell Park has increased to four and that there is now one in the parking lot of Greer Park. Can we please take action on these OSVs before they start to be the norm in our parks. The other issue that I would like to bring to your attention is the cluster of OSVs and ancillary vehicles on Ash St. near the intersection of Portage Ave. I recently spoke with two businesses and one residence on this block and all are in agreement that this situation is a nuisance and a source of visual blight. I was told that one individual owns all these vehicles in addition to vehicles on the other segment of Ash St. in front of the Sherman-Williams Paint store, in addition to several vehicles on Sherman Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building. I was also told that this individual can be belligerent at times and that residents in the area do not feel safe. No one in Palo Alto should not feel safe on their street due to someone who chooses to squat feet from their residence. We can do better, and we need to do better! Here are a few photos for reference… Regards, Bob Marinaro This is what the corner of Ash & Portage should look like. It’s been a while! Ash Street looking towards the old Fry’s building on Portage The individual’s other vehicle on the segment of Ash Street adjacent to San Antonio Sheridan Ave. adjacent to the Tencent building Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street Ash Street From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:SFO Expansion Lawsuit Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 2:40:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. THANK YOU!!! Deb Goldeen, Birch St., 94306 From:Sky Posse Post To:bos@sfgov.org; bos.legislation@sfgov.org Cc:Council, City; jocelyn.wong@sfgov.org Subject:BOS Feb 3 Hearing Appeal of CEQA Certification of SFO"s Development Plan FEIR Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 2:07:28 PM Attachments:CEQA Appeal Hearing Board of Supervisors .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA, 94102 Dear Ms Calvillo, We received your office's January 20th notice about the February 3 Hearing on File No. 251277 Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP). We request that our attached comments please be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto Sky Posse Palo Alto February 1, 2026 Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board City Hall, San Francisco, CA, 94102 Via Email bos@sfgov.org Board of Supervisors: File No. 251277 Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP) As one of the five organizations that provided comments on inaccuracies and incomplete information about SFO Arrivals in SFO’s Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during the public comment period, we viewed the City of Palo Alto’s December 19 appeal of the Final EIR (FEIR) as an opportunity for stakeholders to address the real impacts of airport development on population health and productivity. With SFO management declining the City of Palo Alto’s initiative to meet to reach a collaborative solution, the board now has the opportunity to provide leadership by ensuring that CEQA is fulfilled and to avert its use to potentially withhold important and serious environmental effects from the public. It was evident at the Planning Commission’s November 20 Certification hearing that significant disagreements about the FEIR and SFO Arrivals were raised before and during the hearing. Thus, it is alarming that the San Francisco Airport Commission on December 16 expeditiously used the Planning Commission’s certification to approve SFO’s development plan. FEIR inaccuracies and incomplete information risk compromising the integrity of San Francisco’s financing representations. Controversies with the FEIR need to be resolved first. The City of Palo Alto’s January 23 letter supplementing its appeal, states that “Palo Alto is particularly interested in ensuring that SFO adequately analyzes noise impacts from flights arriving at SFO” which aligns with our recommendation during the Draft EIR comment period, that SFO produce an analysis of SFO’s Arrival Flight paths. This is neither a difficult nor costly ask. SFO possesses arrivals data going back to the 1990s; it has access to powerful analysis tools to produce relevant flight path statistics, as well as noise baselines (historical and prospective analysis): essential information for assessing the impacts of SFO's development plans on all stakeholders but particularly those affected by overflight noise now and in the future. The Planning Department’s January 26 arguments for exempting SFO from adequately analyzing noise mirrors SFO’s stance in 2014, when SFO arrivals began flying lower and louder. SFO repeatedly assured City officials, Congressional representatives, and the public that “nothing has changed.” Only after citizens launched a petition, local scientists independently collected noise measurements, and our group obtained in February 2015 - via FAA Freedom of Information Act request - a multi-year historical database tracing altitudes and number of flights for all Bay Area airport traffic for a 35-nautical-mile radius of SFO, did the extent of the changes become clear. It would have been far more constructive and transparent for SFO to have Sky Posse Palo Alto proactively conducted and shared the analysis that community members were ultimately forced to pursue. To correct the FEIR, we offered the following suggestion in our comments in the Draft DEIR: “We recommend that an additional report is needed on SFO's Arrival flight path noise impacts to inform on regional impacts; at a minimum to consider the top five areas with the highest number of complaints. Particularly an analysis of all night time overflights is necessary; sleep being critical for physical and mental health and productivity. SFO has extensive data to accomplish regional noise assessments, and with various metrics. In addition, provide details such as target altitudes and current navigation rules for SFO arrival flight paths. The report should also describe how SFO makes decisions on flight path requests; how pre- and post-implementation reviews of flight path changes are managed, and who is responsible for keeping communities informed.” Should the board decide to uphold the Planning Commission’s certification by accepting the arguments from the Planning Department, and if the City of Palo Alto pursues judicial review, we expect that the forecasts the FEIR relies on will need to be scrutinized as well as their application for simplistic exemptions. Regarding the dispute of what constitutes “induced demand” we know some fundamental truths. First, SFO actively competes to attract and retain passengers in a competitive Bay Area market rather than passively awaiting demand. This is evident from SFO’s trademark infringement lawsuit against Oakland which seeks to protect and expand SFO’s brand by preventing OAK from incorporating “San Francisco“ Second, SFO invests extensively in efforts to overcome operational constraints, particularly bad weather that frequently reduces landings and overall capacity. Through collaboration with the FAA on airspace procedure design, the airport targets higher throughput even in poor visibility conditions. Third, and critically, SFO’s obstacle-reducing initiatives make the RADP's investments even more essential, as the enhancements to gates, terminals, and access go hand in hand with fewer weather-related slowdowns and stronger Bay Area market share - enabling SFO to reach its forecasted capacity more efficiently and sooner. The FEIR must address how the RADP contributes to this dynamic (fueled by SFO's demonstrated priorities and behaviors), which can increase environmental impacts, rather than treating growth as completely external and independent of the project. We urge the Board to please return the project to the Planning Department to add analysis of SFO Arrival flight paths to ensure full CEQA compliance and to protect public health. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto From:Carla Torres To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Cc:Sean Allen Subject:SHATTERED TRUST: NAACP Condemns Political Decisions That Erased Minority Police Leadership throughout Santa Clara County Date:Saturday, January 31, 2026 11:47:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Palo Alto City Council, Please see the letter below from the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP President Sean Allen. We strongly urge you to be thoughtful and consider the demographics and needs of the community in hiring future law enforcement leaders. We also encourage you to reach out and include community voice on the interview panels. Thank you in advance This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From our branch President, Sean Allen BECOME A MEMBER Become a member, make a difference. NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley 333 W San Carlos St San Jose, CA 95110 408.444.6725 • info@sjsvnaacp.org You've received this because you've subscribed to our newsletter. Unsubscribe Mailin From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 2/4/26 Meeting Date:Friday, January 30, 2026 4:18:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The agenda packet for the February 4, 2026 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2026-02-04-211500. Best regards, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 01-07-26 UAC meeting Date:Friday, January 30, 2026 3:28:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners and Council members, Here's a TRANSCRIPT of most of the 01-07-26 UAC meeting, with my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red, beginning with ###). I have also provided presentation slide titles (paragraphs in orange, beginning with ###.). Some key points: MINUTES * You commissioners all know that on 12-03-25, UAC voted -- improperly -- on who would serve on the Budget Subcommittee. It makes no sense to amend the 12-03- 25 minutes to say anything else. Now, which commissioners are on the Budget Subcommittee? FIBER -- Item 2 * The fiber item agendized a discussion of both FTTP and dark fiber, even though the 12-03-26 12-month rolling calendar said it would be only about a fiber-to-the- premises pilot update. Mixing dark fiber into the discussion distracted from the focus on FTTP. UAC should consider a dark fiber item at some point soon, by itself, to discuss whether a brand-new dark fiber network makes any sense. * Please look at Tom DuBois' 01-05-26 message to Council and UAC about FTTP. As a Council Member and Mayor, he's advocated municipal FTTP for many years. * I continue to advocate citywide municipal FTTP for Palo Alto. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ============================================================================== 01-07-26 agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18995 01-07-26: video https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-172026/ Attended by: UAC: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Scharff, Tucher Liaison: Lauing Staff: Abendschein, Burton, Dailey, Kurotori, Nose Crowley, Harris, Kurotori, Romero Public: Katzir, Warner Borock, Hitchings, Poggio ============================================================================== TRANSCRIPT 0:19:25: Chair Scharff: Good evening, everyone. Do you want to call the roll? 0:19:30: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher. 0:19:32: Commissioner Tucher: Here. 0:19:33: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 0:19:34: Commissioner Metz: Here. 0:19:34: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 0:19:35: Commissioner Croft: Here. 0:19:36: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:19:38: Commissioner Phillips: Here. 0:19:38: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:19:40: Commissioner Gupta: Here. 0:19:41: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 0:19:42: Vice Chair Mauter: Here. 0:19:42: Rachel Ramero: Chair Scharff. 0:19:43: Chair Scharff: Here. 0:19:43: Rachel Romero: For the record, seven present. 0:19:46: Chair Scharff: All right. Are there any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? 0:19:53: Director Kurotori: No changes. 0:19:54: Chair Scharff: All right. That brings us to public comment for items not on the agenda. 0:20:00: Kaylee Burton: If any member of the public would like to speak on an item NOT on the agenda, please raise your hand or press *9 now. No hands raised. 0:20:10: Chair Scharff: All right. Then moving on to Approval of the Minutes. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes? 0:20:18: Commissioner Phillips: I have one comment on the minutes. 0:20:20: Chair Scharff: All right. 0:20:20: Commissioner Phillips: It says that the Budget Subcommittee is going to be myself and Commissioner Tucher. I didn't believe that that's necessarily the case. Is that the case? ### That's what UAC voted on at it's 12-03-26 meeting, at 2:34:40 on the video https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-1232025/ See my TRANSCRIPT (page 36 here): https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=243905&repo=r-704298fc 0:20:30: Chair Scharff: No, that's not the case. I wasn't at that meeting, but -- that's not the case. ### Chair Scharff had a responsibility to view the video if he thought there was an issue. 0:20:35: Commissioner Phillips: It should be removed from the minutes then. 0:20:36: Chair Scharff: Yes. That should -- It should basically -- I don't know what happened at the meeting. But it's Commissioners Gupta, Croft, and Phillips. ### No. See 0:20:48. 0:20:47: Director Kurotori: Actually -- 0:20:48: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) ** 0:20:48: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, there was an unfortunate error when we submitted the first -- when the email went out. ### What email? So, I apologize for that. So, we believe it was actually Commissioner Croft, Commissioner Phillips, and Commissioner Tucher. 0:21:07: Chair Scharff: I'll stand corrected. It's Commissioner Tucher, Commissioner Croft -- [laughs] Sorry. I mean, I'm just so -- [laughs] 0:21:12: Director Kurotori: So, we apologize for that. That was -- we were -- 0:21:16: Commissioner Phillips: Apparently I'm going to be on it. 0:21:17: Chair Scharff: You're on it. 0:21:17: Commissioner Phillips: OK. 0:21:18: Director Kurotori: So -- 0:21:20: Chair Scharff: If I could appoint four, I would. 0:21:23: Commissioner Tucher: This should be routine but I'll ask anyway. Just how did the -- Who made the decision? I assume that it was made by the Chair and Vice Chair. 0:21:33: Chair Scharff: Yes, that's correct. 0:21:35: Commissioner Tucher: So, why the confusion? 0:21:37: Chair Scharff: I have no idea. 0:21:38: Commissioner Tucher: No. You made the decision So -- 0:21:39: Chair Scharff: I assume that it's just a staff issue. They sent out the wrong names. 0:21:43: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, we -- So, staff incorrectly sent an email out to the commission, that we retracted. ### How did staff retract the first email? And sent out the three members that I just mentioned. 0:21:55: Commissioner Tucher: OK. But it was the Chair who made the decision. 0:21:56: Chair Scharff: Correct. ### Was it Acting Chair Mauter? Or Chair Scharff? 0:21:58: Commissioner Tucher: And -- Well, my confusion speaks for itself. 0:22:04: Chair Scharff: So, I am as confused as you are. I'll just say that. 0:22:10: Commissioner Tucher: OK. It DOESN'T speak for itself. You made the decision, and yet, just now, you [laughs] announced something different. And I expressed surprise. 0:22:18: Chair Scharff: Well, I -- 0:22:20: Commissioner Tucher: Oh. I see. 0:22:21: Chair Scharff: I got an email that said that. I was, like, OK. 0:22:22: Commissioner Tucher: OK. All right. 0:22:24: Chair Scharff: (unamplified) Let's move on. (amplified) All right. So, with that change to the minutes, ### What exactly will the changed minutes say? can we have a motion to approve the minutes? 0:22:37: Commissioner Phillips: So MOVED. 0:22:39: Commissioner Tucher: And seconded. 0:22:40: Chair Scharff: All right. ### No discussion? Do you want to call the roll? 0:22:44: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher. 0:22:45: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 0:22:45: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 0:22:46: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 0:22:47: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 0:22:47: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 0:22:48: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:22:50: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:22:53: Commissioner Gupta: Um. Abstain. 0:22:55: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 0:22:55: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:22:57: Rachel Romero: Chair Scharff. 0:22:58: Chair Scharff: Yes. 0:22:59: Rachel Romero: Motion carries 6-1 with one abstain. 0:23:04: Chair Scharff: All right. 0:23:05: Commissioner Tucher: On the topic of minutes, may I ask a question? And the question is, why -- there is a gentleman I don't know, but we got his email -- named Hail or Hole -- ### Hoel (pronounced Hoyle). And he seems to use an auto-transcript service. ### Nope. I type the TRANSCRIPTs by hand from the videos. And I presume that that captures our discussions word for word. What -- Do we use something like that to do the minutes? And if we do, would it be possible to get the minutes sooner? So, like, a week after the meeting instead of nearly a month? ### The Brown Act requires that the public be able to get information at the same time as the UAC. ### A couple of decades ago, staff refused to make UAC DRAFT minutes available to the public at all, on the theory that someone might confuse them with the approved minutes. But since staff did make the DRAFT minutes available to UAC, that violated the Brown Act. 0:23:44: Rachel Romero: Hi. Yes. I can answer that one. So, we use a transcriptionist. And they provide our sense minutes, which is not a verbatim minutes. And then, when we get those, we'll publish them in the packet. Um. So then, that way, everyone -- the public can see it. And we'll -- the commissioners will make any comments as needed to adjust the minutes for the record. And that's how we are able to do that. 0:24:09: Commissioner Tucher: But wouldn't it be a savings in time and effort to use an auto-transcript service -- presumably what this community member is doing? I mean, the minutes, the way they are today, strike me often as odd. Like, "Tucher wondered whether...." And, "So-and-so, you know, felt like ...." As opposed to just -- I'm going to start reading the auto-transcript, as opposed to the minutes, because they're a more high-fidelity reminder. It's like watching the YouTube without having to take the time. Um. And I simply ask -- But I guess I'm suggesting that consider that alternative approach. 0:24:53: Commissioner Croft: Can I -- Can I -- 0:24:57: Chair Scharff: Go ahead. 0:24:57: Commissioner Croft: -- agree with that? I think the technology has advanced to a stage that it may not require anybody. Probably needs somebody to review it, just to make sure it's not totally off. ### Auto-transcriptions I've seen make silly mistakes, so I think that if you start with an auto-transcription, it should be edited by a real person, preferably a person who understands the topic the transcription is about. ### Minutes become the official record of what happened -- more official even than the videos. So "not totally off" is too low a bar. But if it can save us money, it doesn't seem like there's a down side. But I would like to know the reason we use summary minutes instead of verbatim. 'Cause I understand we used to use verbatim. We switched to summary for SOME reason. And is it even something that we can consider? ### Good question. ### By the way, PTC has verbatim minutes. Unfortunately, they do not provide time markers, so it's hard to go from the minutes to the video and from the video to the minutes. For example, the 10-08-25 minutes had 18 "inaudible" indicators, each with what looked like a time marker, but the time marker didn't correspond with the time on the video. I didn't verify whether each "inaudible" was really inaudible. 0:25:23: Chair Scharff: So, I think I remember a little bit about this. We used to use verbatim. But it was expensive. 'Cause they had a court reporter or someone actually do it. ### I don't think so. I remember ONE Council meeting (not UAC meeting) where someone like a court reporter transcribed the minutes in real time using specialized equipment, probably so that she could read back any portion of the record in real time on request. But I think the vast majority of the City's transcriptions of minutes were done from audio recordings. Or someone in the Clerk's office use to listen. And it was -- I think it was someone in the Clerk's office listened. And it was really time-consuming, expensive, and they had -- So, then, they went to reading it and doing summary, to save money. So I believe -- I know the Clerk's office has talked about this many times, in different ways. But maybe there's more information -- 0:25:55: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I -- What I think what I'll do -- staff will do -- is go back to the Clerk's office, just on that interest from this commission and get some feedback on alternatives or options associated with that. But I would need to -- If that is kind of the will of this body, as a group, to go back, to get that information. I just -- I don't want to get ahead of myself. 0:26:20: Vice Chair Mauter: Can I just also just ask like how Council wants to use the minutes? I presume that it's helpful to have a shorter summary of like what was talked about. Because, frankly, like, we can digress sometimes. And if you're hoping to use this to inform YOUR votes, and we want to be that advisory service, I can see minutes that are more summary in form being a concise way of you getting information. ### When Council Member Schmid was advocating for verbatim Council minutes, he said that it would allow him to see all the detail of the video, but much faster than listening to the video. This view prevailed, and Council did adopt verbatim minutes for a time, but then Council changed its mind and went back to sense minutes. 0:26:50: Liaison Lauing: It would be, certainly, on the action items. Yeah. ### Huh? Is Liasion Lauing saying that verbatim minutes would be all right, as long as there were action minutes as well? Note that action minutes wouldn't say anything at all about UAC's discussion items. ### Council has both summary minutes and action minutes. 0:26:55: Vice Chair Mauter: I mean, I don't care. But I do want to make sure that they're useful minutes. And presumably that's our PRIMARY audience. 0:27:04: Chair Scharff: Yeah. I -- Look, I don't disagree with you on that at all. I don't think we're making a decision of what -- ** minutes -- I was also -- thought -- would think that -- Other commissions -- you know, there's some sort of across-the-boarding commissions. They'd all use -- do the same way. And it would be sort of a policy that Council sets. ### Obviously, Council doesn't treat all commissions the same with respect to minutes. PTC's minutes are verbatim. 0:27:23: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, that was kind of my inference, is really, going back to the Clerk's office and looking how we as a City, and commissions, and ad-hocs, and other Council committees are doing these types of minutes. Just to see if there's an interest to doing that. I know there may be some interest here -- even if that's a viable option. 0:27:41: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Tucher asked the question. I actually took it maybe incorrectly. Not that we would DO it, and change it, but that he wanted to know the reasons and understanding of why we're doing things the way we're doing them. So I thought that if you went and asked the Clerk, you could just report back -- ### Historically, I think staff stopped doing verbatim UAC minutes (June 2004) when staff decided that it didn't want the public to have access to what exactly UAC was saying about FTTP. 0:27:57: Director Kurotori: Sure. 0:27:57: Chair Scharff: -- do your report and say, yeah, I talked to the Clerk. Council wants it this way, and, you know, we've been doing it this way across the commissions. It's consistent. Or, yeah, we're looking at that currently. 'Cause, I mean, obviously, the Clerk's office has thought about this. It's not -- It's not new. ### PTC has BOTH verbatim minutes AND summary minutes. For example, see this 2023 agendas and meetings list. https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Planning-and-Transportation-Commission-PTC/Previous-PTC-Agendas-Minutes ### The City website's "modern" way of accessing agendas and minutes INCORRECTLY says that PTC's verbatim minutes are "action minutes." https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Planning-and-Transportation-Commission ### Here are the PTC verbatim minutes for 01-29-25. https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=41801&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&cr=1 ### And 02-26-25. https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=41830&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto ### And 07-09-25: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83845&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto ### The May 2025 version of the "City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook" says (page 26), https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/city-clerk/board-and-commission-handbook.pdf "Verbatim minutes are discouraged." It doesn't say why. It doesn't say who wrote the handbook. It doesn't say when Council approved it. 0:28:13: Director Kurotori: So, I'm going to take that back, and bring that, just for information, back to this group. And I can send it out. And bring it back to the next meeting. For information. Thank you. ### In other words, the item will not come back to UAC as an action item. 0:28:23: Chair Scharff: Back to you, Alan. It's the Utilities Director Report. 0:28:26: Director Kurotori: Well, first, Happy New Year to this group. I just wanted to give you an update on some of the Council actions. Again, staff provides updates on what went to Council more recently. So, we did bring back to Council approval of the ** of the veracity of the power disclosure report and power content label. Our reaffirmation of the carbon neutral plan, and the renewable credit exchange program. Also, a resolution and execution of professional services with NCPA. So, they're our largest JPA, that we do a lot of contracting with, for their electric transmission, generation, and consulting services. As you may recall, the gas COSA update also went to Council, with the effective date of February 1st, 2026. So, appreciate all the work by the UAC on that. And then, we're also preparing information as we move forward with the 2027 rates, in terms of communications, and preparing for that, as we move forward with the potential rate increases. 0:29:32: Just a time-of-use update on the implementation. As planned, we're offering a phased rollout of the TOU rates to customers, beginning this month. It's a very small subset of customers. We really want to make sure we're rolling this out and it works for, frankly, a handful of customers first, with the goal of bringing this out wider for this summer. Following our testing in the 1st and 2nd quarter of this year. 0:30:00: Just another mention that what folks will see is our utility bill-printing service has changed. So, you'll see a new envelope. We actually sent a letter to the customers, because when, you know, you see your utility bill change, you could just wonder if this is the actual bill or not. So, yes, we have changed vendors to doing that. It's actually a bill -- a savings of the utility of about $150,000 a year. Which is about 25 percent of that cost. So, we're pleased to move that forward, and save some of the customers some money. 0:30:32: And then on the gas utility safety outreach, as part of our public safety program on natural gas, we did our annual mailer out to all the customers on gas safety. So, you should have received that. It's a very regulated report and information that we've provided customers. And we do that on an annual basis. 0:30:53: And I AM very pleased to mention some recent staffing and promotions. So, I wanted to announce that Terry Crowley, who's been acting as the Chief Operating Officer, has been appointed by the City Manager for the full role of Chief Operating Officer. So, he will be taking all those duties on. And so, I'm very pleased with that. And also, Lisa Bilir. She has made several presentations to this group. She's been promoted to the Assistant Director of our Utilities Resources Management. She'll be taking over Karla Dailey's [job]. As you may recall, Karla, after 34 short years of service to Palo Alto, retired in December. So, we are -- I'm very excited about having this really robust and competent team. So, we're looking forward -- I'm looking forward to 2026, more than you can possibly imagine. 0:31:48: So, that completes my report. 0:31:51: You have one more slide. Um. As part of the report out, ###. Slide 1 -- Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) I do just try to give a real tight overview of -- and this report of the items, just so that -- that have come back. So the time-of-use update -- provided that. There's upcoming Finance and Council agenda items in our 12-month rolling calendar, which we can discuss tonight. I will also mention that the Policies and Procedures were discussed at the last meeting. The potable water and the microplastics is coming up in March 2026. And the UAC workplan is going to Council on February 2nd, 2026. So, I wanted to thank Chair Scharff for attending that upcoming. There are several other commissions are also going to look forward to Council for discussion purposes, as an action item. Thank you. 0:32:50: Commissioner Tucher: Could you please repeat the -- I didn't catch the time time-of-use update. What was that? 0:32:56: Director Kurotori: So, the time-of-use update I just provided. We're doing the phased rollout to a small subset of customers. We're going to do the testing in the 1st and 2nd quarter, and a summer rollout. So, larger customers. 0:33:09: Commissioner Tucher: If I recall, it's on the order of 100 or so. 0:33:12: Director Kurotori: It's -- and, probably, in the 2nd quarter we'll have 100 or so. But we're probably doing, you know, probably, a dozen or so customers every month. And then ramping that up. 0:33:23: Commissioner Tucher: And it's just self-selecting? It's just those from across the market area who raised their hand and want to? Or do we target it by neighborhood? 0:33:33: Director Kurotori: The -- We've done, for this initial phase, it's kind of, I would say, an outreach to potential customers, you know, to see if that -- We don't have the full amount of like -- of volunteers, perhaps. That you're mentioning. So, we just have a small subset of customers that we've gone out to. Commissioner Croft: I have a follow-up question on that. 0:33:57: Director Kurotori: Yeah. 0:33:57: Commissioner Croft: So, we did see marketing for the program. 0:34:00: Director Kurotori: Correct. 0:34:00: Commissioner Croft: Um. I'm curious why we're not going a little bit bigger. Are we using the marketing that we reviewed? Are we hand-doing the bills? Like, why aren't we going a little bit bigger than a dozen? Per month? 0:34:16: Director Kurotori: So, the smaller amounts for the customers is really to make sure that our processes are correct. So, the larger rollout, I think, in the summer, that's the intent that staff came up with, in trying to manage, to make sure that we had these systems set up. As you may recall, we're also going to be providing customers kind of updates. And potential savings. Right? So, that's -- where they'll be calling up to the utility and asking for those potential savings, and moving to that time-of-use rate. We will absolutely be going through the marketing campaign that we brought forward to the UAC, that you all had to take a look at. And we can bring that, frankly, back in the upcoming months, in terms of that rollout, and when you'll see those flyers and bill inserts going to our customers. 0:35:06: Commissioner Croft: So, do we have it in our billing system? Are we doing this all by hand? You said, we're going to be doing calls with people, to figure out what their savings are? Is that like -- 0:35:15: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So -- 0:35:17: Commissioner Croft: -- still on pilot, where you're going to like have a monthly call with every customer? 0:35:20: Director Kurotori: No. I'm sorry. Let me clarify that. So, right now, if a customer wanted to see the potential savings associated with going to a time-of-use, they would call our utilities' call center. And they would run a specific report for that customer, in terms of what their potential savings would be. So, we're really trying to provide that -- a higher level of service, you know, as we do this rollout initially. As we move forward with time-of-use, and we maybe see more customers going through that, our process is to automate that. Like, so, other utilities does have some automation features. -- That, right now, we have a manual process, that we'll work with customers. The information on time-of-use, we will put those into flyers. We will put those into our social media. There's ability to put that into the bill inserts. As part of our process. And electronic bills. You'll be able to see those bill inserts electronically as well. So, there's some benefits and some outreach we'll be doing to the community as we roll out time-of-use. 0:36:24: Commissioner Croft: So, that is really interesting. I think it's probably a little more high-touch than I envisioned. But one suggestion might be, for every single customer -- If you're only doing a dozen -- Right? -- For every customer, you COULD do a comparison of time-of-use versus regular rates, and give them the lower of the two. ### I assume what Commissioner Croft means is that the customer would be given information about what both the TOU price and the non-TOU price would have been for a specific month's energy consumption. But it would be up to the customer to choose TOU or non-TOU pricing going forward. And just say, you know, we're going to use this for data. And maybe it would incentivize people to use it. It's just a thought. I mean, I would hope that we collect data on every single person, so that we can see what the savings are. But, of course, we won't have -- You know, their behavior might have already changed. So we wouldn't know what their behavior would be without it. So -- 0:37:08: Director Kurotori: We do expect behavioral changes. You know, all the new smart meters have been installed. We have to wait on some of that data coming in as well. You know, as we mentioned [when] we were going for this time-of-use, the savings aren't massive. Because we have low rates here in Palo Alto. Right? So, that has to also be acknowledged. ### Also, Palo Alto's climate is such that people don't need so much air conditioning in the summer as other Californians do. So, -- But what it will do is, for those customers that are on those higher tiers -- that electrify, having electric vehicles -- you know, they'll be able to use that time-of-use rate. And folks that can shift their loads during different times of the day. So, that's really the benefit. And the messaging that we want to provide to our customers. 0:37:54: Commissioner Croft: I'm interested in being a pilot customer. [smiles] 0:37:55: Director Kurotori: OK. 0:37:57: Commissioner Croft: If you're looking for volunteers. 0:37:59: Director Kurori: Duly noted. 0:38:03: Commissioner Tucher: I don't know how the rest of the commission feels on this, but I just -- if we're going to talk about it, I'll state my opinion, which is that I've been frustrated that the time-of-use project seems to be moving so slowly and cautiously. I don't understand. And I simply say that, since we're going to have -- since we've discussed it. That's my point of view. You'll have to answer it. 0:38:26: Chair Scharff: But you shouldn't. I mean, we're not -- it's getting too far down for a Brown Act thing, I think. You know. It's not on the agenda. 0:38:33: Commissioner Tucher: Since we discussed it, I just wanted to say that. 0:38:39: Chair Scharff: Anything further? 0:38:39: Director Kurotori: Nothing further. 0:38:40: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:38:41: Item 2 -- Fiscal Year 2026 Midyear Fiber Expansion Update Chair Scharff: All right. NEW BUSINESS. Ready to move on to Item number 2, which is the Fiscal Year 2026 Midyear Fiber Expansion Update. 0:38:52: Director Kuratori: I guess I'm going to have some staff come up here for the presentation. I'll do some introductions here. Alex Harris, our Fiber Program Manager, will be giving the bulk of the report. David Yuan is our Strategic Business Manager. He's kind of overseeing the fiber from our end. And then we have Darren Numoto -- is also our -- he's our IT Director and wearing the separate hat of being our Assistant Director of Fiber. As he's wearing multiple hats, working on the fiber hut, and making sure the system is moving forward. So, I'm excited about this presentation. And I'm going to throw it to Alex to walk you through it. So, I would ask, through, is, maybe we -- Alex can go through several slides, and maybe hold those questions. And we can do some stopping points, just so we can get through it. It's a pretty in-depth presentation. So, if you could maybe hold those questions to the end, that would be appreciated. 0:39:57: Telecommunications Program Manager [TPM] Harris: Thank you. Good evening, members of the Utilities Advisory Commission. My name is Alexandra Harris. I am the Telecommunications Program Manager. And I will be providing the Fiber Expansion Update tonight. Next, please. Next slide, please. 0:40:14: ###. Slide 2 -- Agenda Thanks. We'll kick of the agenda with a brief overview of how we got here and what we've been working on to provide contexts for the updates. Next. 0:40:25: ###. Slide 3 -- How We Got Here The City's fiber network has been around for over 20 years. ### For almost 29 years. ### "On June 25, 1996, the Utilities Advisory Commission endorsed staff's recommendation to develop a dark fiber optic infrastructure around Palo Alto for the purpose of leasing individual fiber strands to telecommunications service providers. That ring will allow for the transmission of voice, video, and/or data, facilitate higher quality and lower cost telecommunications, and could eventually result in access to residents.." https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/financial-reporting/annual-comprehensive-financial-reports-acfr/2000-1991-acfrs/1995-1996- comprehensive-annual-financial-report.pdf ### Council approved constructing the dark fiber network on August 5, 1996. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/ordinances-by-number/ord-4363.pdf In 2017, an audit found capacity constraints, requiring a network rebuild for some areas. This sparked interest in exploring an expansion of our network with what may be referred to as last-mile builds. After the pandemic stressed the need for reliable, high-speed internet, on December 19th, 2022, Council directed staff to rebuild the backbone and build fiber to the premises, or FTTP, to provide fiber internet services. ### This presentation seems to deny that the City was even thinking about FTTP before 12-19-22., which, of course, is false. A smaller pilot area was initiated, to test feasibility, before deploying a new business service. ### To be clear, Council's intent was that FTTP provide internet services to both residents and businesses. Next slide, please. ###. Slide 4 -- Dark Fiber vs Fiber Internet -- SERVICES 0:41:10: Fiber internet services are quite different from our dark fiber services, ### True. ### Not true. The dark fiber network was originally built to facilitate ISPs, in hopes that FTTP might somehow emerge. See the quote at 0:40:25. Supporting electric substations came later. and now supports citywide departments. Unused capacity is available for commercial licensing. Dark fiber customers receive unlit strands -- or, fiber without any data transmission. And then they work with an internet service provider, or ISP, to light the fiber and get data. Fiber internet was initially explored as part of our expansion efforts. The City would be come an ISP, to provide customers with internet service. Fiber internet requires a substantial amount of effort to set up the internal business support systems and build the physical infrastructure required. Next slide, please. 0:41:54: ###. Slide 5 -- Dark Fiber vs Fiber Internet -- INFRASTRUCTURE Here are some conceptual diagrams illustrating the infrastructure needed to support our dark fiber and fiber internet services. Our fiber rebuild project will modernize the existing system and support both dark fiber and fiber internet services. Our FTTP project will expand the network, and support fiber internet services only. The red FTTP infrastructure is what we need to build to reach each service address, or premises. Next slide, please. ###. Slide 6 -- Dark Fiber Service This is a simplified diagram of how our infrastructure provides dark fiber service. The model shows a single segment with six fiber strands in between. However, our actual backbone cable has 144 fiber strands and hundreds of segments. ### In January 2013, the dark fiber network had 84 nodes and 107 segments. See comment at 1:07:15. In the dark fiber network, each node connects with only a few other nodes. Furthermore, we will be installing a 432-fiber-strand cable AND a 144-fiber-strand cable as part of our network rebuild and expansion projects, to ensure future capacity. Next slide, please. 0:42:59: ###. Slide 7 -- Fiber Internet Service The infrastructure for fiber internet leverages the existing fiber network, shown in green here, and extends the last mile, or FTTP, in blue. ### This slide is VERY misleading. Nearly all the fiber cables required for citywide FTTP must pass premises, so that premises can be connected to the first level of aggregation electronics. Palo Alto's FTTP infrastructure has been designed to put the aggregation electronics in only two places: a central office at Equinix and a hut at the Colorado Substation. ### By design, the fiber cables in the City's dark fiber network (both existing and proposed) do NOT pass premises. So, the only use for dark fiber seems to be to connect the hut electronics to the central office. I strongly suspect that the Colorado Substation is already connected to Equinix using dark fiber. That's how we'll reach all the premises. If we don't have backbone near the FTTP area, we would need to build new backbone. This is why FTTP will significantly expand our network. Next slide, please. ###. Slide 8 -- Dark Fiber Status Funding for this effort comes from our Fiber Fund Reserves, which was built up from our dark fiber business. Dark fiber net sales revenues, which includes approximately $1 million ### Annually. from City departments, has declined from fiscal year 2020 to 2025. ### I suppose that the annual dark fiber revenue from City departments hasn't declined. (After all, the City departments don't move out and move in cyclically. Right?) But the annual dark fiber revenue from other sources has declined. While most of this is attributed to the cyclical nature of dark fiber business, where the businesses move in and move out, we have several initiatives to maintain our dark fiber business. We've been working on modernizing not just infrastructure but also our internal operations, systems, and processes, while also conducting studies to analyze our services and the market, possibly leading to an update to the dark fiber rate structure. There are marketing and sales strategies which would open up for exploration as our systems become more efficient and we can start leveraging data insights. Next slide, please. 0:44:24: ###. Slide 9 -- Fiber Internet Status As we continue maintaining our dark fiber business, we are also actively pursuing the expansion of fiber internet. We initiated the pilot to demonstrate feasibility before building the greater Phase 1 -- while building the greater Phase 1 area. ### Elsewhere, it's explained that the pilot will be built first and then the greater Phase 1 will be built, unless or until the pilot demonstrates infeasibility. Take rate, or the number of subscribers, will be an important data point for the pilot. But it's not the primary objective for conducting the pilot. Some key takeaways we've learned so far from pilot are: out of the 1200 homes passed, approximately 845 are serviceable, whereas the remaining are brownfield multi-dwelling units, or MDUs. These are buildings that have already been built. MDUs require a case by case approach, as some units in the older buildings cannot be physically reached. 0:45:19: We also realized that we should decouple Grid Modernization from FTTP. ### Wow! This is a revelation. Why did staff ever believe that coupling Grid Mod and FTTP might actually save money? Let's not make this mistake again. Despite similarities, electric and fiber differ significantly in construction costs. Our customer needs are not always aligned. And timelines are more sensitive to interdependencies. Future developments should be evaluated on a site by site basis, similar to shared-trench opportunities ### Does the City how have a policy that makes sense about how trenching costs will be shared? ### In 2018, Council forced the fiber utility's fiber conduit to share trenching costs with gas and water for four blocks on University Avenue. See pages 2-3 here. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2018/doc-letters-4-23-2018-set-1-of- 2.pdf Despite the fact that no plan said that fiber conduit would ever be needed there. It cost the Fiber Fund $1,070,202. (Originally, it would have been double that.) and how we'll approach brownfield MDUs. 0:45:48: You know, as -- Sorry, same slide still -- As we learn from the challenges we encountered, our strategic partnerships with contractors have helped with our installations in operating our new internal systems more efficiently. Next slide, please. 0:46:01: ###. Slide 10 -- Fiber Internet Status The pricing strategy for the pilot will be simple, with initial plans offered at 500 megabits per second [Mbps] and 1 gigabit per second [Gbps]. Next steps will be to finalize promotional rates, install the fiber hut, and install fiber cable in the pilot area by the end of this month, if weather permits. Our target go-live date to take on subscribers in the pilot is March 2026. 0:46:21: ###. Slide 11 -- Fiber Internet Status (cont.) We've been applying what we learned to build Phase 1 while implementing the pilot. As our collective in-house knowledge and experience accumulates, we've become more adept at identifying and maximizing cost opportunities. While providing service to our pilot subscribers, we'll gain experience to develop a scalable marketing plan which we can execute. We'll keep UAC and Council informed with regular updates as we reach critical milestones, some of which are coming fast. Thank you. And this concludes the update. 0:47:09: Chair Scharff: (unamplified) OK. (amplified) Let's -- Do we have any public comment? 0:47:12: Rachel Romero: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item number 2, please raise your hand or press *9 now. We do have three in-person comments. Andy P. 0:47:30: Andy Poggio: Hello. Thank you for having me. I'm Andy Poggio, a long-time resident of Palo Alto. I've been a proponent of Palo Alto fiber to the home for -- I looked and it's been more than 25 years. It's been a long time. There was a group of us trying to do that. And if we'd done it 25 years ago, it really would have been wonderful. It really [would have] showed Palo Alto technological leadership. Didn't happen. Water under the bridge. 0:47:58: Not surprisingly, in 25 years, things have changed. In particular, there are now some pretty good alternatives to Palo Alto fiber to the premises. I use AT&T's fiber. It's a good service. It's reliable. It's not especially expensive. I'm not very fond of their information privacy policies, but I have other ways to protect my information. Doesn't cover the whole City, but AT&T plus Comcast certainly covers a majority of the City. And something like Starlink can cover the rest. ### This 07-18-25 analysis concludes: https://thexlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Starlink_Analysis_Working_Paper_v0.2.pdf "Assuming no topographical considerations or pre-existing user base, in areas where there are more than 6.66 households per square mile within a Starlink beam’s coverage area, Starlink may fail to deliver the minimum service level (100/20Mbps) to qualify as a broadband service...." Much less 1 Gbps service. ### Also, Starlink requires the the ground station be able to see a large part of the sky. So there are pretty good and pretty high-performance alternatives for residential and business internet services. So, that's one thing that's changed in that 25 years. 0:48:37: The other thing that's changed is, we're feeling the effects of the anthropomorphic climate change, also known as global warming. We feel them acutely in California, in the awful fires that have happened in the last few years. And it's not going to get better. It's going to get worse. So, I think knowledgeable people should do what they can to mitigate those damages. And so, one of the things we're doing is, we're encouraging our citizens ### And other homeowners. to electrify their homes. And to do that -- and do electric cars. And to do that, we're going to have to build up our electrical infrastructure. And I think this is critical that we do this. And I think that our dark fiber revenue could be better applied to building up our electrical infrastructure than rolling out FTTP at this, to me, very late date. I recognize this is a City Council -- ultimately -- decision. But I wanted to let you know my thinking. I also recognize that there may be legal challenges applying fiber revenue to building our electrical infrastructure up. But I think there may be some solutions to that problem, although I'm not a lawyer. Um. So, I encourage us to think hard about doing that. I think that's the better way to spend the money. And the key thing in my mind is, there's some good alternatives to Palo Alto FTTP, in terms of internet access. There aren't any alternatives to our electrical infrastructure. We have to have that. And we have to build it up. Thank you. 0:50:26: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:50:29: Rachel Romero: Next, we have Hamilton H. 0:50:36: ### Hamilton Hitchings' comments are essentially duplicated in his email message to UAC of 01-05-26. Hamilton Hitchings: In December 2022, Council approved a phased residential fiber plan, with the expectation that 20-30 percent of homes would be served within 2-3 years. ### The 12-19-22 staff report (pages 268-284 here) said (page 276), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/11/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20221219/20221219pccsm- amendedtime.pdf "Under the phased approach, and assuming a $20 million capital investment in the first phase of FTTP, the City can provide access to 20% - 30% of homes and businesses within 2-3 years." But "providing access" means passing premises, not serving them. ### The staff report also said that citywide FTTP and the new dark fiber network could be deployed within 5 years (page 268). ### The expectation was that FTTP deployment to the Phase 1 area would PASS as many as 11,500 premises without resorting to bond financing. (See page 35 at 4:44:16 here.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas- and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/public-letters-to-uac-february-2023.pdf ### I don't think there was a prediction of how many premises would be served. We are now more than 3 years in, and still no one has gone live. ### Good point. ### A 05-24-21 staff report said both FTTP and the new dark fiber network were "categorically exempt" from CEQA. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/communications-office/palo-alto-fiber/ftth-5.24.21.pdf But then staff apparently changed its mind and commissioned a CEQA report that took until June 2024 to complete. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/communications-office/palo-alto-fiber/mnd-final-docs/final-initial-study-mitigated-negative-declaration.pdf Never mind that Google had written a CEQA document in 2015 (that staff should have known about because of the relationship between the City and Google Fiber at that time). https://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/google/san_jose_draft_negative_declaration_google_fiber_13oct2015.pdf Meanwhile, AT&T has expanded, recently adding the following neighborhoods: College Terrace, Triple El, parts of Crescent Park, and Mitchell Park. And the pricing pressure is real. AT&T advertises fiber plans starting at $45 a month for 100 megabit, $65 a month for 500 megabit, and $80 a month for a gig. Plus the current promotion of an additional $20 per month discount if you have AT&T Wireless. Anyone dissatisfied with Comcast can already switch today where AT&T Fiber is available, which limits the City's ability to win customers without underpricing, an approach that would directly threaten the City's ability to repay its initial investment. ### The City doesn't have to repay anyone for money taken from the Fiber Fund for FTTP. But point taken: IF the City decided to finance FTTP beyond Phase 1 with debt financing, that debt would have to be repaid. 0:51:40: The risks of municipal telecom failure are visible right here in the Bay Area. In March 2025, San Bruno finalized its sale of CityNet provider to Comcast for $8 million, despite carrying a $21.5 million accumulated debt. ### Here's Hitchings' source: 04-16-25: "CityNet Unplugged: Why San Bruno (CA) Gave Up on Its Public Broadband" https://broadbandexpanded.com/posts/dssanbrunoca ### The BroadbandExpanded.com website exists to bad-mouth what they call "GONs" (Government-Owned Networks). Here's a manifesto. https://broadbandexpanded.com/files/toolkit/ACLP%20-%20Guiding%20Principles%20for%20Setting%20Broadband%20Policy%20-%20May%202024.pdf San Bruno leaders also declined to spend the roughly $20 million required to upgrade to full fiber, concluding they could not justify the cost, compared to the larger incumbents. ### Other municipal networks that started as hybrid fiber coax (HFC) networks have succeeded in upgrading to FTTP networks, for example, Cedar Falls, IA (2010- 2012), https://communitynetworks.org/content/cedar-falls-iowa-upgrading-cable-network-ftth and Spanish Fork, UT (2015-2020). https://communitynets.org/content/spanish-fork-network-brings-generation-savings-and-community-utah-community-broadband-bits ### I haven't followed the details of CityNet's operation over the years, so I don't know whether they ever considered dropping TV service as a way of restoring the rest of the network to health. Palo Alto, which is 1.7x bigger than San Bruno, ### Palo Alto's population is 67,658. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/paloaltocitycalifornia/PST045224 San Bruno's population is 42,035. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanbrunocitycalifornia/POP010210 So, Palo Alto is 61 percent larger than San Bruno (not 170 percent larger). is now considering spending over $130 million to enter the same competitive battle, despite being even further behind the fiber private rollout. ### "Option 2", the phased approach approved by Council on 12-19-22, authorizes spending roughly $20 million on FTTP (and roughly $25 million on a new dark fiber network, of which $13 million would come from the City's electric department, which would then get its own 144-strand dark fiber network.) 0:52:24: The 2022 University of Pennsylvania study highlights why these projects often struggle. ### "Municipal fiber in the United States: A financial assessment," Christopher S. Yoo et al. (42 pages) https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2445/ https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3448&context=faculty_scholarship ### Yoo is famous for bad-mouthing municipal broadband networks. His 2017 hit piece, "Municipal fiber in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of Financial Performance," is debunked here: https://communitynets.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/fiber-fallacy-upenn-yoo.pdf They frequently fail to attract the subscriber levels projected, while incumbents respond with aggressive pricing and promotions. Every dollar lost on residential fiber is taken directly away from the General -- will ultimately be taken directly away from the General Fund, including fire fighters, ambulance services, library hours, affordable housing, and, of course, climate change. ### No. Every dollar spent on FTTP from the Fiber Fund will NOT be taken from the General Fund. ### Hitchings gestures acknowledgment, apparently to Andy Poggio. ### To repeat, Phase 1 is NOT putting the General Fund at risk. Furthermore, staff reports that since COVID, their commercial dark fibers have lost $1 million in revenue. The response? Spend many millions of dollars in additional ### I agree that the City should reconsider whether to upgrade the existing dark fiber network, and UAC should play a role. We stand to lose tens of millions of dollars from a failed foray into fiber. Thank you. 0:53:16: Rachel Romero: Our final speaker is Herb B. 0:53:26: ### Borock's comments are further echoed in his email message to Council and UAC of 01-07-26, 4:17 pm. Herb Borock: Good evening. I recall when MAYOR Scharff, in his State of the City address talked about how quickly we were going to be doing fiber to the home. ### See Chair Scharff's comments at 1:42:07, and my comments about that. And it's been a long time. And I believe one of the key problems -- and also, with the failures that have been mentioned by the two previous speakers -- is the idea of becoming an internet service provider. In addition to those indications that with competition there would be failure, the other is that it implicates the City in Proposition 218, in requiring a vote of the customers to change prices, because customer premises equipment, connection of the last mile, and providing ISP services are all incidental to property ownership. 0:54:20: I have suggested to you -- Well, staff says they're not ASKING you for a recommendation, I believe you need to MAKE a recommendation to the Council. And that is that you should throw away the idea of being an internet service provider, and instead expand the dark fiber for the purposes of it being used by the fiber the premises backbone. Which, a separate FTTP fund could get ** a special price, because it would be able to have people connect to it whenever they want to, as they can with other utilities. Unlike the incumbents. And that there should be a network operator hired. And the network operator COULD be an ISP, but it could also have other ISPs. And, you know, the special price that the City could get for the Fiber Fund would be the, you know, the depreciation rate on capital investment, which I believe is a 20-year straight line. And for equipment is expensed at under $5,000 or otherwise equipment -- $5,000 or more -- is a depreciation rate of -- I believe it's a 5-year straight line. And the City, you know, needs -- Council needs to give that kind of direction to staff. Because otherwise it's going to go down the wrong path, which is being an internet service provider. And I think -- you know, as I said, is a mistake for two reasons, both financially and also, you know, legally, in terms of the customers' participation any time you want to make a change. 0:56:09: One thing that you need, in addition to the other things that staff will be bringing to you and to the Council in its next report is, oh, what the competition has done. Because AT&T -- in the pilot area. It's not just how staff has done with customers but also how well the competitors have done. And so, unless you stop the idea of the City being an ISP, I think it's going to be a failure. But I believe we have an opportunity for great success if the City extends that dark fiber backbone to serve the fiber to the premises project, and giving it a special price compared to anyone else who uses the dark fiber, because it would be serving them -- serving anybody who wanted to connect, whenever they wanted to connect, rather than in a special promotion time, or rather only when it's going through their neighborhood. And I hope you go down that path [rather] than the one that's going now. Because, as the previous speakers have said, that's not going to work. Thank you. ### I don't believe Borock's legal analysis. I don't agree with his proposal for how to do FTTP. 0:57:17: Chair Scharff: Thank you. I think that brings us back to us for discussion. Anybody? Go ahead. 0:57:25: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. Um. Thank you, staff, for the wonderful presentation. I enjoyed the additional technical details that were provided. I though it was -- And, also, kind of the background. And it was succinctly done. So thank you for that presentation. 0:57:40: I thought I'd respond to some of the public comment, and hopefully clear up some -- what I think are misconceptions about fiber. The first being that part of what we're doing in Grid Mod, to enhance our electric grid, is the fiber backbone. A substantial portion of the Fiber Funds are being used to enhance the fiber backbone. Our OES department is using that to do things like reduce fire risk. So, things like climate change and fiber are not separate ideas, but they're actually one and one. And enhancing the fiber backbone is going to happen irregardless if we offer FTTP. I view offering FTTP service to residents as a great way to help return some of the funds that have been generated over -- and I think it's 20 years -- to get to this point. ### This 12-19-97 article says that the City's dark fiber network already had two customers and was in the process of finalizing six others. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/morgue/news/1997_Dec_19.LOOP.html So, it's had customers for at least 28 years. Offer residents an option. A more affordable option than AT&T. And one, by having this option available, we'll reduce rates generally in the community. So, there are going to be substantial savings for residents. And it's a great way to use -- This fund that took 20 years to accumulate -- to provide that service to residents. I don't think we should be raiding the fund to do electrification. Again, it's a very -- The annualized profit off the dark fiber is very small. It took 20 years to get here. So, we're very -- we're talking about a very small dent in electrification. If you read the recent S/CAP report, that is a workplan that's going before the Sustainability Committee on Friday. It's going to cost the City $1.4 billion to meet its 80 x 30 plan. I don't know if that includes the $300 or so million we're forecasting in Grid Mod or not. But, you know, the few million dollars we're talking about to provide residential fiber service is not going to make a dent in that goal. If anything, I think, if you look at the math of the profitability of a residential fiber service, even at assumed low take rates, it's very profitable over the lifespan of its plan. Because it's a long-term thing. Over 40 years, it's going to be very profitable. The profits from it can support things like climate and electrification. 0:59:56: The other thing I want to respond to is, I looked deeply into the San Bruno example, because I've heard it raised several times. And thank you for raising it. I think we should be looking at all these examples and learning from them. San Bruno is primarily the story of a failed cable TV service provider. Most of the $21 million of debt was accumulated due to skyrocketing TV programming costs. I mean, I can quote the City Council member. Quote-unquote, from an article, "This outcome was inevitable, given that the enterprise lost over $21 million over the past decade, due to the skyrocketing costs of PROGRAMMING." And that was from San Bruno Council Member Tom Hamilton, which he wrote in a city newsletter. ### This article also quotes Hamilton. 04-11-25: "Comcast Poised To Acquire San Bruno, California’s Municipal Fiber Network" https://communitynetworks.org/content/comcast-poised-acquire-san-bruno-californias-municipal-fiber-network But the cited link to the newsletter doesn't work. So, the problem with San Bruno's network was that they were a legacy cable TV provider. They had skyrocketing TV programming costs. They actually piloted fiber. They found that it was very popular with the residents, with a 50 percent take rates, where they passed. But because of the legacy TV service, and the accumulated debt due to legacy TV, they were not willing to make the further investment to become a fiber internet service. So, its a very different example. And it's a reason why we're not offering TV service as part of our fiber internet plans. 1:01:16: There are many, many successful examples of municipal fiber across the country. I believe it's almost 450 municipal networks across the United States now. ### According to CommunityNets, 806 communities are served by municipal networks. https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map (Not all are fiber networks.) Some municipal networks serve multiple communities. And growing each and every year. And, again, I think this is a very positive way of returning funds to residents so that they can save money. And we're not dipping into any General Fund, or anything like that. We're just using using the accumulated fund over decades, from the meager profits of our dark fiber network. And we're going to be spending a lot of that money anyways on improving the dark fiber backbone. Because the City services for emergency support and also our dark fiber. And hopefully -- And now also for providing residential fiber service. I just wanted to respond to some of the commentary, for -- after very extensive research on my part, trying to understand it. But I think it's very good to have all these perspectives brought forward, so we can learn from them. 1:02:14: Chair Scharff: Anyone else? Rachel. 1:02:17: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. I'm looking at the packet. And I actually -- just paying attention to your comment that the take rate is not the KPI ### key performance indicator we're looking for. There is, on page 1 of 5 of the written document we received. ### That is, the staff report. At the bottom of the page, it talks about -- 2022 Council directed staff to proceed with -- the motion was -- you know, there was a), b), c), and d). And c) was, "defining leading indicators and metrics to determine success." And this item has come before us. And I don't think we've ever heard, what have we DEFINED as those KPIs. We're hearing what they're not. But I would like to hear what they ARE. And why. As I personally feel like the take rate is a super critical KPI. So, if you could walk us through that, that would be great. 1:03:24: TPM Harris: I could answer about the take rate. It's -- It's NOT that it's not an important KPI. It's one of the data points for the pilot. But it wasn't the objective of the pilot. However, take rate, which is, you know, the amount of subscribers that we will get, is important to determining the success for our FTTP project. Overall. 1:03:52: Commissioner Croft: Can you walk though what are the KPIs that ARE being used to determine success? 1:04:00: TPM Harris: Some of the ones that staff have thought about are: Customer satisfaction. The -- our speed to -- like, the delivery times to get the subscriber once they hit subscribe. In addition to take rates. However, we haven't formalized this. And we will be doing so as part of our learning summary from the pilot, once we get some subscribers. 1:04:28: Commissioner Croft: So, I guess that's helpful to understand. I have -- I do have some concerns just based on coming from the commercial world that I think is probably similar to what our competitors' world is. Which is, it's very hard to execute well against KPIs if you have not defined the KPIs. So, I think we need to define what they are. And what we are hoping to learn. We've talked a lot about "learning." But I think we need to have some goals. Because the next step IS a lot of money. And I don't think anyone wants to make a bet without having given the pilot our best run at achieving those KPIs, so that we know, you know, can we succeed in a bigger pilot -- the bigger, you know, next phase, where the amount of money is way more. We need to know, are we capable of doing that, before taking these big bets. So -- um -- I feel uncomfortable that we don't have very specific KPIs that we are executing against, and that we should be -- we should be marketing this like we're planning to hit those KPIs. So, I'd love to hear if we do have more solid ones. 1:05:56: Dave Yuan: Sure. If I can add. Dave Yuan, Utilities Strategic Business Manager. I think we had different key metrics for both the pilot and Phase 1. I think, for the pilot, the goal really is technical feasibility. Making sure that we're able to deliver the speed -- the fiber that we're proposing. The 500 megabits and that 1 gig. ### If technical feasibility is the issue, it's interesting that the pilot isn't also testing out higher speeds. Also, operational efficiency. Make sure we're able to fulfill the requests when customers sign up, within a reasonable time. And also making sure, customer satisfaction, like Alex says. Make sure they're happy with the service we're providing. So, another thing we're trying to test out on the pilot is promotional pricing. I think -- and Alex mentioned it -- I think is was -- we're looking at $50-$65 for those two packages -- somewhere in that range. And so, those are kind of the pilot goals. And when we build the Phase 1, the take rate will be vital. But we're also looking at scalability. Finding strategic partners to help us scale up. And then also, just the number of passes per premise. ### What does this mean? Why isn't the City planning to pass each premises in the built-out areas ONCE? And bringing the construction costs down for each of those areas. So, I'm also looking for new opportunities to grow into. So, I think one thing we're seeing are like new developments. So, that's one area we're going to be pursuing. We have been reaching out to those commercial properties, and they've been very interested in signing up for Palo Alto Fiber. So, we're just trying to figure out how to get them there. 1:07:15: Commissioner Croft: Can I keep going? Sorry. The dark -- the dark fiber network. I'm curious how far and wide it goes. ### Is Commissioner Croft asking about the existing dark fiber network, or the proposed new dark fiber network? https://web.archive.org/web/20161022065708/https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 (In my opinion, there's no reason the City shouldn't publish a current version.) In January 2013, the dark fiber network had 84 nodes (connection points) and 107 segments (or 101 segments, if you don't count 6 segments that are doubled). So that, you know, if you're building it anyway -- um -- you know, and you do have a new, you know, construction project where you can wire it from zero, and it's right on the dark fiber path, that seems logical. But -- can you talk a little bit about the dark fiber network? And, you know, kind of, what the -- what it looks like? ### Commissioner Croft misunderstands how dark fiber works. You can connect to the dark fiber network only at nodes, not anywhere along a dark fiber path. ### If you want to connect an isolated FTTP neighborhood to the nearest hut, dark fiber is one option. But a potentially better option is to do it with FTTP fiber, which has the advantage of passing all the premises along the way. 1:07:44: Dave Yuan: Yeah. So, the dark fiber is kind of a ring around the City. ### It doesn't look like a ring. See comment at 1:07:15. So, it's more in the commercial areas. It's not in the residential. ### A residential premises might be as much as several blocks from the nearest dark fiber node. A business premises might be as much as a few blocks from the nearest dark fiber node. Which is why we have to build new backbone for fiber to the premises. ### This makes absolutely no sense. ### The City's plan for citywide FTTP locates aggregation electronics at only two nodes. One is at Equinix, so it's already at the central office. The other is at the Colorado Substation, which is very close to existing dark fiber node BF. The Colorado Substation may already connected to Equinix. So, in the commercial areas, we do have dark fiber available. But it's not always available. Some of it is used up, or congested in certain areas. So, if it's available, we could offer fiber to the premise to those certain places. If now, we would have to build new backbone, or add new, additional capacity. So, I think we are trying to leverage both the existing legacy backbone and add new backbone where there's interest. But, as Alex said, we are investing in a full new backbone. But it won't be built all at once. It will be a phased build-out as well. 1:08:28: Chair Scharff: Anyone else? Any ** -- 1:08:30: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. I have a question. And then, I'll make a comment. Which I'm sure everyone is waiting for. The question is, the -- on the decline in the dark fiber revenues, it's claimed that that's due to, I think, relocation, and it's -- quote -- "cyclical.," Which I don't think it's really cyclical. But is -- Do we know that? That it's business relocation? That it's likely to come back? Or is there a decline in dark fiber usage? Perhaps they're turning to commercial alternatives? 1:08:59: Dave Yuan: Yeah. So, it is cyclical. What we've seen in the past. It's gone from $3 million to $4.5 million, back to $3.5 [million]. And then it's gone back up to $4 [million]. So, I think it's when businesses move out, and then new businesses move back in. So, that's what the cyclical part is. So, we have some vacancies right now in the research area. But we also have some new developments also in the same area. So, we are approaching them right now, and letting them know that dark fiber is available. Or will be available if they're interested. So, I think it's just based on the commercial industry, I guess. The commercial business economy. 1:09:29: Vice Chair Mauter: Can I just clarify? Like, you have this correlated with vacancy rates? ### I don't know where the City would get data on "vacancy rates" in general. But here, what you really want to know is, for each customer that stopped taking dark fiber service, did THAT customer move out at about the same time? And for each customer that started taking dark fiber service at a place that already had a dark fiber connection, did THAT customer move in at about the same time? 1:09:35: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:09:35: Vice Chair Mauter: And there's a strong correlation? 1:09:38: Dave Yuan: Yes. 1:09:39: Commissioner Phillips: So, you've looked into it, and are confident that's the reason. There's not a ** ### separate? decline in dark fiber usage? 1:09:46: Dave Yuan: No. I think -- Yeah. The ones that are declining are buildings that have moved out. And we are approaching those new tenants already. So, we are building those plans. 1:09:57: Commissioner Phillips: So, I -- Vice Chair Mauter: And, in terms of -- like, presumably, not everybody on the dark fiber line is a subscriber. ### This shows a misunderstanding of how dark fiber works. Each dark fiber customer is "renting" a fiber that connects only two points. Nobody else is "on" the dark fiber "line." Right? Lots of people that are commercial businesses are using other services. 1:10:12: Dave Yuan: Right. 1:10:14: Vice Chair Mauter: Do you see growth of new customers, as well, that are not replaced tenants, but -- 1:10:20: Dave Yuan: Yeah. 1:10:20: Vice Chair Mauter: -- requests beyond capacity? 1:10:22: Dave Yuan: We do have some strategic partners, such as the City itself. So, we do add new fiber connections when there's new facilities being built out. We do have some other critical -- Like, the Palo Alto School District is another key partners of ours that we have a long ** with. So, we are working with them as they build out their campuses as well. So, there are future build-outs. So, we're constantly in discussions with them on their plans. 1:10:46: Vice Chair Mauter: I'm just asking, like, if you've got a business that's close to an existing dark fiber line, are you winning those -- and they decide that they WANT fiber service, are you winning those customers? Or is a private service provider winning those customers? ### Each new dark fiber customer (that hasn't inherited its dark fiber connection from a previous tenant) must pay, up front, ALL the cost of constructing that dark fiber connection, from a dark fiber node to the customer's premises. Each connection requires its own special engineering design. It could cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. I know someone who was quoted a price of $45,000 for a connection that would have been less than two blocks long. 1:11:01: Dave Yuan: So, for those smaller businesses, they usually want the private ones, 'cause dark fiber's a very niche business. They need to provide their own IT, their own equipment to light the fiber. It's for people who want like a large bandwidth, and to conduct from one campus to ** building within a campus. It's more for security. And more -- it gives them more -- I guess -- flexibility to do what they want with the fiber. So, it's very niche. So, there's not a large market, I would say, for this type of business. But we -- being in Palo Alto, I think there is interest there. So, we are fortunate, in that case. 1:11:38: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Sorry. 1:11:38: Commissioner Phillips: No problems, Meagan. Thank you. So, I guess -- My impression, kind of sitting here, just coming into this new, is a) there's a ton of history, and -- which I can never remember, but I get reminded of very often -- there's a ton of momentum behind this. Kind of. And -- But I -- Sitting here, it seems like a really bad idea, from my point of view. So, I'm a skeptic. Because I'm thinking -- we're coming from a position where we haven't even -- don't even have our first customer even. And AT&T already has 76 percent -- you know, is a number I've seen -- penetration in the City. ### Hitchings' email message cites this source, BestNeighborhhood.org, https://bestneighborhood.org/fiber-tv-and-internet-palo-alto-ca/ which says it is 78.44%, based on FCC data from 12-31-24. But Commissioner Gupta (1:21:18) is saying the FCC data he's looking at (based on this FCC website) https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2025&location_id=2c54365c-e1ee-4bf6-9f64- 37c8274f9b3a&addr1=731+COLORADO+AVE&addr2=PALO+ALTO%2C+CA+94303&zoom=15.00&vlon=-122.127500&vlat=37.433906&br=r&speed=1000_100&tech=3 is more like 45 percent. ### Is it possible that the FCC data BestNeighborhood.org is using is based on what percentage of census blocks in Palo Alto have at least one passed premises? ### Penetration and take rate are two different things. Penetration is what percentage of premises in an area have been passed. Take rate is what percentage of premises passed are customers. ### I assume that the cited statistic means that AT&T has passed 76 percent of the premises in Palo Alto (and doesn't say anything about the take rate among those passed premises). I think. As Hamilton said -- Hamilton Hitchings said -- or somebody said -- there's lots of other alternatives for people as well. Back when we had a meeting of the Budget Subcommittee, I think at that time we were looking 35 years to break even with 30 percent penetration. ### At the 12-19-22 Council meeting, the consultant, John Honker, of Magellan Advisors, said (at 3:21:58 on the video) (page 24 here): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas- and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/public-letters-to-uac-february-2023.pdf "So, based on the citywide internet survey that we launched back in the summer, Magellan is projecting a take rate of between 37 to 42 percent" (for citywide FTTP). ### So, why is Commissioner Phillips remembering data based on a 30 percent take rate? ### A down side of having subcommittees that are exempt from the Brown Act's requirements for public meetings, agendas, minutes, etc. is that the public can't fact check them. Um. I mean, I just don't see it. I mean, from the business point of view -- Um. If someone came to me and said, hey, my new business idea is to, you know, start up fiber in a place that's already extremely well covered, and we don't have any particular advantage doing this, except we do have a pot of money, I'd say, nah, I don't think I'm going to invest in that one. Um. And I've been wrong before. I guess, to convince me, what I need to see is a business plan. I mean, the KPIs are fine. But I need to say, OK, to make this work, so it's actually not going to be a source of eternal funding from the City, and coming back and saying, gee, we just need another $5 million, another $10 million, I need to see, what do we really think is -- could potentially happen? And we did have some business plans. They were not very encouraging. And I cannot believe they've gotten more encouraging, with the higher penetration, you know, over the last year or so, of AT&T. And, you know, despite the fact that I know this is hard-earned money from, you know, the dark fiber. But I believe there's better places we could spend this within the City. I mean, essentially, if we're subsidizing -- what is -- it's kind of -- I wouldn't call it a luxury, but a high-end item. It's -- It just doesn't sit well to me, rather than our -- you know, relative to the other services we do provide as a Utility, which are, you know, gas, electricity, and water. Some of the things you cannot do without. So, you know, what I'm saying is, I'm a skeptic, but the thing that convinced me is really, OK, based on what we learned, here's what we could do financially. This is how it's going to make sense for the City. This is how it's not going to be this eternal issue. 1:14:31: And the other thing I'd like to see -- since you're requiring money -- is, what's the off-ramp, in case we're wrong? So, you know, I've heard a lot of optimistic projections, and -- But, OK, let's say we're wrong, and penetration rate ### take rate? is only 21 percent. And we can never reach break-even at that. What happens? I guess we sell our assets to somebody. But what are they going to be worth? So, I mean, I've heard there's city -- I've gotten emails. There are cities that have been so happy. Loveland, Colorado. There's cities that have been unhappy. San Bruno. But that's due to ** -- You know, that's all great. But where's the business plan that tells us what needs to happen? And, you know, do we learn enough from the pilot to know whether we can meet an optimistic business plan, that it will EVER make money? Or do we need to do something else, in which case we need to have an off- ramp. Because I'm very worried about making some sort of perpetual commitment to people that just ends up being another drain on the City, year after year. And I've not heard anything that's made me feel good, that it won't be that. So, [shrugs] that's my statement. 1:15:43: Chair Scharff: Anyone else? 1:15:44: Commissioner Metz: (unamplified) Sure. I'd like to talk. (amplified) OK. Well, first of all, I'd just like to thank you for a clear and brief presentation. I think that's -- And also, just for doing a timely update on this. My thought -- you know, it seems like there are two issues. One is lost revenue in dark fiber, which you've talked about. And the other is ramping up in residential service. I mean, my thought in residential is simply to just do one service. Just the 1 gig, and skip the 500 meg. Because, I mean, skews -- heavy ** skews always cost money. So, maybe you lose a bit of revenue in somebody who REALLY wants 500 megs. But I doubt much. ### In his email message of 01-05-26 to Council, UAC, et al., Tom Dubois recommended offering "one or two flagship tiers (e.g., 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps or higher) at low prices." (See UAC's 1-07-26 public letters, pages 68-71) And heavy -- there's a cost associated with having multiple skews. What strikes me, if we're going forward with this -- And, you know, having been a customer of both the commercial companies that we would be competing with, I'm less convinced of their impregnability. I think, you know, they're not necessarily great service providers. So, I think there's, you know, a space there. But I think the -- One thing I noted in the PowerPoint ### Slide 8 is a statement that marketing and sales strategies, fiscal year 2028. So what really strikes me is that we have real costs now, and we need real sales now -- real revenue. So, I think we need a much -- if we're going to go forward with this -- we need a much stronger marketing and sales effort. Like, for example -- I mean, it sounded like you had kind of a handle on what's going on with dark fiber, with the loss of revenue. But I think it's a classic market research kind of problem. And we need professional marketing people. And also people -- just sales people -- to beat the drum -- which could be on a commission basis -- to sell dark fiber. And sell FTTP, on the residential side. So, I think that's really important. And, to me, the biggest gap. And I would say, you know, in terms of having a business plan, I totally agree with that point. But I think it HAS actually been discussed a couple years ago when we got into this. ### Commissioner Metz served on a subcommittee (Johnston, Metz, Smith) that studied FTTP. They wrote a colleagues memo (8 pages) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/attachments/09-19-2022-id-14792-colleagues- memo.pdf in preparation for a joint meeting between Council and UAC on 09-19-22. The memo said the subcommittee's research included "a complete review of the business and financial models." Unfortunately, when UAC considered the colleagues memo on 09-14-22, it chose not to vote on its advice to Council, but simply to forward the colleagues memo to Council. So, I think there actually is more there than -- which just didn't happen to have been presented tonight. But I think that actually has been thought through more than is apparent from the discussion tonight. But I think marketing and sales -- really critical, and really need much bigger effort. 1:18:28: Dave Yuan: Thank you for that. We agree. Thanks. 1:18:31: Chair Scharff: Yeah. Commissioner Tucher, did you speak to this already? 1:18:34: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) I haven't spoken. 1:18:35: Chair Scharff: Are -- do you want to, or not? 'Cause I can speak before you. I just usually wait until everyone has spoken, and I didn't want to miss you. 1:18:41: Commissioner Tucher: Well, I find this update -- I mean, there was a comment that this was a clear and brief and timely report. I don't, frankly, even understand what we're -- What are the key points of the update? We last talked about this in May. So, now, you know, three-quarters of a year later, most of the executive -- most of the package is backward-looking, as to the history, going back to '22. We're about to start the pilot. ### Constructing the pilot infrastructure has already started, but serving customers has not started yet. I couldn't tell you what the 3 or 4 most important updates -- or pieces of news -- on this project even are. So, as to why it's timely, I didn't have time to preview the PowerPoint -- the presentation -- that we saw. It was a technical overview, but didn't really sync with what's in the package. So, there's that. 1:19:42: Utsav, I have a lot of respect for you enthusiasm for the -- for the fiber in general. And thank you for clearing up the story from San Bruno. But how do you respond, Utsav, to -- um -- the point about pricing? I, 2 months ago, became a new AT&T Fiber customer. I get a gig. It costs $70, or something like that. And that's without any ### For Google " 'AT&T fiber' 'palo alto' '1 gbps' price", the AI Overview said the undiscounted price was around $80/month. It works fine. And I just -- I tend to be with the sentiment that how on earth is our Utility going to compete against strong incumbents? I think they ARE much more impregnable than an early comment. And -- There were public comments that in the time that we've been talking and talking, AT&T just continues to add new customers, making our task more daunting. So, either from staff but certainly from Utsav, how do you answer the question on pricing, and we're so far behind, and these are big private enterprises we're trying to take on. And we have some pretty big challenges in our core business. And yet, in raising all these points, I don't know whether this train has left the station. I mean, Council has made decisions, and there's no point -- I mean -- debating it, or -- We're not asked for an opinion or a vote on, you know, whether we're still behind the project. I find the whole agenda item quite confusing. 1:21:16: Chair Scharff: I don't know if you want to respond, just briefly. 1:21:18: Commissioner Gupta: I can respond briefly. Sure. Um. So, on the penetration of AT&T, I think we're still trying to figure out exactly what that number is. The FCC data that I pulled only showed about a 45 percent number of homes passed. Residences passed. According to FCC data. ### I think Commissioner Gupta is getting his data from FCC's broadband map. Here, I've said I want to view all FTTP providers offering at least 1 Gbps down and 100 Mbps up. A green dot indicates the premises is passed for this kind of service. A red dot indicates it isn't. There's no information about which premises are actually taking service. https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2025&location_id=e357bec9-9d79-4971-a552- (I can't ask to see 1 Gbps both down and up, unfortunately. Also, I can't ask to see only AT&T Fiber.) ### The map say that its data is as of 06-30-25, but the map was last updated 01-06-26. ### The data in the map comes from the incumbents. Could they be exaggerating? Yeah, maybe. Maybe there's multiple ways of reading that FCC data though. So, we're trying to figure that out in a conversation with a public commentator. So, maybe we'll get to the bottom of that. But I don't think it's as high as -- You know, previously values I've heard said are like over 80 percent. You know. It's at 70 percent. I don't -- I personally don't think it's anywhere close to that. The best data we have is the FCC data, which is under half, as far as we can understand right now. 1:22:11: On pricing, I think our -- you know, staff is not disclosing pricing in a public forum kind of way, because we want to be competitive against AT&T. But I think the pricing is going to be very competitive against AT&T's pricing. And I think if you talk to people, they don't like AT&T. And they don't like Comcast. They are actually looking for another option. From what I've heard from staff is from the construction, residents are very positive about this option coming into their neighborhood. So, I think this is going to be a very positive thing. 1:22:43: And on the business case, I think the business plan has been discussed at prior times. And I've done some napkin math on the business case, too. If you look at it from a utility scale of multiple decades of the lifetime of this thing, it is pretty profitable over decades of the lifespan of this thing. So, it's a little bit different than like, you know, a private company kind of, you know, assessment. 1:23:03: And we also can't forget that there equity concerns. AT&T is not going to build in every place in Palo Alto. There's no way they're going to do that. You can look at their annual reports, on terms of their expected capex spend. I mean, it's a limited amount of spend. Right? And there's a limited amount of passings they want to do in the country. Right? They set a goal of how many passings they want to do each year. I think it was 30 million, was their prior goal. They have reached that. Now, it's going to be a conversation on whether they want to do more passings. So, I don't expect -- I personally don't expect to see, you know, additional huge growth by AT&T across the country. And who's to say where in the country those investments will be being made. 1:23:44: And then, finally, on pricing, BECAUSE we're an option in the neighborhood, their pricing is going to come down, too. So, that's also an additional way residents will save money from us. 1:23:53: Chair Scharff: OK. Go ahead. 1:23:57: Vice Chair Mauter: I think this has been a helpful discussion. I know very little about fiber that hasn't been shared with me by staff and public commenters. So, I wanted to be really careful. But I think the point Commissioner Tucher raised about like what is it that you want our feedback on is really important. ### Again, this misunderstands the role of the UAC. UAC's job is to advise Council, not staff. If UAC wants to hear from Council about what kind of advice they want, then advise Council to tell you, possibly in a joint meeting. That is not clear from your presentation. And I think in our advisory capacity, that's why we're here. And that's why you're here. Right? So, we are advising Council on something. And I'm just not, from your presentation -- like, where do you guys heed help? Right? That's my first point. 1:24:38: My second point is, is there really technical risk here? Like, is there uncertainty on whether we are capable of delivering fiber? Or, if that is settled -- which I sincerely hope it is settled -- that we can deliver fiber successfully -- then that's not an adequate KPI for a pilot. OK? We will need a better set of KPIs for our pilot, that don't -- you know, that are broader. And you did mention others. I appreciate that. But I think it's a muddled mix. And they're not specific. So, we want to know whether it's specific or not. I mean, I would say, too, that I think that we have a very poor selection of initial service area, because we selected on the basis of Grid Mod, and so, we might want to think about KPIs for THIS one, as distinct from, potentially, a second pilot area, in which you'd be evaluating other factors. ### I don't like the sound of this. A second pilot area would potentially just slow everything down even more. Remember that on 12-19-22, Council directed staff to build a Phase 1. It didn't say anything about building a pilot first, let alone two pilots. That second pilot area, I propose to you, should serve broader goals of the community, namely, serving areas that are very unlikely to be served. Because you'll collect a very different data set than you will from the current area that is being piloted. And I think that would, you know, also allow you to think about how, like, pricing variants is going to help influence adoption. Right now, frankly, you're piloting in a place where people are likely to be completely cost- -- or price-insensitive. ### See comment at 1:37:18. And there may be other areas where there are stronger price sensitivities. Anyway, I'll just -- I don't know very much about fiber at all, from a technical perspective. But I just want to reiterate some of the comments that my other commissioners made on those other points. 1:26:38: Dave Yuan: So, I appreciate the comments. I'll speak to the first one. I'll let Darren do the technical piece. In regards to the ask of tonight's UAC, it's kind of a strategy in what we're doing. And some of the KPIs I talked about earlier. I think for the strategy going forward, I mentioned that we are decoupling from Grid Mod. Is that a good idea? And I think our other strategy right now is kind of like looking for new greenfield MDUs, as -- what we're calling them. New developments. And then maybe target more the entrenched areas, versus just being a systematic build-out. Like we were doing Grid Mod. Instead of just trying to follow Grid Mod. Which is changing its approach as well. We're going to adjust our approach. So, I think that's kind of what we're asking -- 1:27:17: Vice Chair Mauter: But I don't think we received data on that. Right? Like, I didn't see anything suggesting that there would be X amount -- saying things [like], if we change our strategy. Or, like, our business plan is changing, or the pace of rollout is changing, as a result of that change in strategy. I mean, I will just say, we're also going to hear an update on Grid Mod ### Item 3. that suggests that it's going to be much more dynamic. And thus less predictable. 1:27:42: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:27:42: Vice Chair Mauter: And therefore, I think DEFINITIONALLY you'll have to decouple from Grid Mod, whether you want to. Right? But I think that what you haven't shared with us is any data that we could use to make that decision. 1:27:54: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:27:54: Vice Chair Mauter: Or advise you on the decision that you're seeking guidance on. ### UAC's job is to advise Council, not staff. 1:27:57: Dave Yuan: OK. I think Alex did mention some of the reasons we're decoupling. I think some of it is construction costs. I think using the same crews -- electric versus using for communications is a lot higher. ### I suppose this is saying that people who are qualified to work on (high-voltage) electric must be paid at a higher rate than people who are only qualified to work on telecom (copper or fiber). So, that's one reason. And then, also, the time lines aren't the same. When it's being dependent. So, this is why I -- 1:28:16: Vice Chair Mauter: Sure. But -- Like -- So, what are the cost savings -- I mean, yeah. No one's advocating for a higher-cost rollout. Right? 1:28:22: Dave Yuan: Construction cost ** is for the labor. We an look for the City's -- It's probably 25 [percent] to 30 percent savings. 1:28:28: Vice Chair Mauter: So -- But that -- Like, frankly, you don't need to come to the UAC -- 1:28:32: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:28:32: Vice Chair Mauter: -- to like ask permission to save money. ### Don't forget that staff's previous reason for combining FTTP and Grid Mod was to save money. If UAC had been clever enough to see that that was a bad idea, it could have advised Council to direct staff not to combine FTTP and Grid Mod. And that would have saved money. 1:28:35: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:28:35: Vice Chair Mauter: Right? Like, ASSUME that we will support saving money. 1:28:39: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:28:39: ### Whether or not staff wants UAC's advice, UAC's job is to advise Council, not staff. Our advice is never going to be, take the more expensive route. Right? Um. What does that impact? Does it mean that it's going to happen more slowly? Like, what's the down side of that? Pairing with Grid Mod? I haven't heard a tradeoff. And we're useful for talking about tradeoffs. 1:29:03: Dave Yuan: Right. I think the tradeoff is, it will be different than what we originally had planned as the Phase 1 area. It was going to be a certain neighborhood, or multiple neighborhoods. And now, we're -- 1:29:12: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. And it's a different area now. 1:29:13: Dave Yuan: Right. 1:29:14: Vice Chair Mauter: AH! OK. I missed -- Sorry. I totally missed what -- that the area had changed. 1:29:18: Dave Yuan: Oh, yeah. 1:29:18: Vice Chair Mauter: So, thank you for clarifying this piece. [laughs] 1:29:21: Commissioner Tucher: What area -- if you didn't miss it, it wasn't there -- 1:29:22: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Um. Can I just say one other thing, that has been on my mind? Which is that if we have a 35-year payback period, -- ### This assumes a take rate of 30 percent, but the consultant estimated the take rate to be between 37 and 42 percent. 1:29:31: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:29:31: Vice Chair Mauter: I don't know what technology is going to look like in 35 years. But there's been a lot of change in the last 35 years, in terms of, like, land lines to cell phones. And I have to really question whether anything with a 35-year payback period is a smart investment. I don't -- You can tell me that it is, and I will defer to your technical expertise -- 1:29:56: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:29:56: Vice Chair Mauter: -- but I want to make sure that the City is not banking on a technology that is -- could be displaced. 1:30:07: Dave Yuan: So, the fiber wire is like a long-term asset. it's similar to our electric wires. It's -- probably lasts 50 years or so. ### Fiber optic cables haven't been around long enough for their lifetimes to have been measured experimentally. But Doug Dawson, of CCG Consulting, says, "I talked once to a few engineers from Corning and they told me that as long as it’s treated well that their best guess is at least 75 years." https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2015/11/23/how-long-does-fiber-last/ So, if we're going -- 1:30:12: Vice Chair Mauter: That's not my point. 1:30:14: Dave Yuan: [laughs] 1:30:14: Vice Chair Mauter: My point is technology -- ah -- transitions. 1:30:17: Dave Yuan: Right. I'll let Darren speak to that piece. 1:30:21: AADFU Numoto: Good evening. Darren Numoto, Director of IT. ### And, more to the point, part-time Acting Assistant Director of the Fiber Utility (AADFU). And just talking about technical feasibility. So, as mentioned, the City is a customer of dark fiber. So, within IT, that's how we connect all our facilities. That's how we provide internet access. That's how we're providing services to our community by broadcasting these over our network. And that's all over fiber. So, in terms of technical feasibility, we're confident that we can deliver the service. It's really the operational efficiencies that we can gain from doing it to the premise. ### Premises. 1:30:54: Commissioner Phillips: I think -- I mean, I'd hate to -- I think the point is probably a different one. I mean, putting in copper wire for landlines -- you know, that lasts a really long time -- 50 years. But a technology came along that meant that those no longer, for the most part, pay back. I think the concern, which I share -- and I apologize for -- 1:31:16: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) No, you're right. 1:31:16: Commissioner Phillips: -- is that, OK, great, 35 years from now, will anybody be using fiber to the home? ### Absolutely. Or will there be some other technology? ### No. 1:31:24: Chair Scharff: They might be using satellite. Right? ### No. Wrong. Anyone with a FTTP connection today would not switch to satellite (assuming FTTP's price continued to be reasonable). Satellite is slower, has higher latency, is more expensive, and is less reliable. You could completely replace it with satellite, and then you might find your payback could be worth nothing. 1:31:33: AADFU Numoto: Potentially. But also just remember, cell towers -- the underlying infrastructure IS fiber. To get back -- You know. So, it is over-air to the tower, and then from the tower to wherever it's transmitting data, it is a fiber infrastructure. ### True, but for the foreseeable future at least, if wouldn't be the City's FTTP infrastructure. (Cell phone companies wouldn't switch from using their cell phone fiber infrastructure to using some other technology.) ### Quoting Deb Socia, "Wireless is just one wire less." And the rest is fiber. https://fiberbroadband.org/2025/12/10/fiber-for-breakfast-week-50-dr-christopher-ali-on-the-next-era-of-rural-broadband/ So, fiber is an asset that I don't see going away any time soon. The technology to leverage fiber, and leverage it to even greater capacities, is continuing to increase. I've been in this business, you know, back in the day to dial-up. And going from copper to dial-up to fiber. And then, the amount of data you can push over fiber is just increasing, year over year. ### Not only that, it's been increasing exponentially (so far), because technology makes it feasible, and customers want it. https://www.ppc-online.com/blog/nielsens-law-and-what-it-means-for-fiber-networks 1:32:10: Commissioner Gupta: And just to make that clear, the point he's making is, the fiber plant doesn't change. You can change the equipment on each end to increase the bandwidth, which is what's been happening. So, the fiber plant is not going to go anywhere, anytime soon, for many decades. 1:32:24: Vice Chair Mauter: But fiber to the premise, ### premises. which is like the expensive last mile, may very well change. ### I don't think so. ### The City is (I think) planning to use G.652D singlemode optical fiber. The VAST majority of FTTP networks use it. The FTTP electronics industry has designed multiple generations of transceivers that are compatible with it, and will continue to do so. ### Incidentally, I believe that last mile fiber is no more expensive than any other kind of last mile wired connection. (It just seems expensive because the last-mile connection capex of copper and HFC are largely already sunk.) 1:32:30: Commissioner Gupta: I don't think so. Yeah. I don't -- Like, there's a -- there's a -- The fiber -- the actual fiber connection between the home and the backbone -- that wire will last for decades. 1:32:44: Chair Scharff: I think we're going down a rabbit hole. ### I'd be happy to go down the rabbit hole with any commissioners who are interested. 1:32:43: Vice Chair Mauter: No, but -- OK. 1:32:43: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah. 1:32:44: Chair Scharff: To be honest, we're going down a rabbit hole. I mean, I think your point was simply -- and you guys [haven't clarified] -- is it really a 35-year payback? Is that our plan? Is that our optimistic scenario? ### NO! 1:32:55: Dave Yuan: I think that that depends on the take rate. I think if we got a 40 percent take rate, it's more like 15 years. ### Right. 1:32:59: Chair Scharff: OK. So, -- 1:33:01: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Oh, that's better. 1:33:02: Chair Scharff: So, that's -- So, I guess I'm -- 1:33:05: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Looking at the rate versus like payback -- OK, -- 1:33:09: Director Kurotori: Your microphone. Sorry. 1:33:13: Vice Chair Mauter: I think that's where we want to like see a business plan. I understand that there's a strategic distance advantage of trying to build a business plan in public. Right? Like, unfortunately, you're handicapped, relative to AT&T, because you have to SHARE all this information publicly. I don't actually think we want to see that, because we don't to handicap you. Right? But we do want assurance that before we go down this route, you have really adequately assessed this, and can assure us that there's not a 35-year payback period for a capital investment of this scale. 1:33:54: Commissioner Phillips: Could I just clarify a question. Just one question, very quick. Does every rate change that is going to be done need to be approved by City Council? 1:34:04: Dave Yuan: No. The way we structured our rate structure was an "up to" rate. So, have flexibility to offer promotions. I think in the rate schedule it is up to X dollars. But as long as we do something below that amount, we're fine. We don't need to go back to Council. 1:34:16: Commissioner Phillips: But annually, to change THAT rate structure, you would need to go back to Council. Is that correct? 1:34:21: Dave Yuan: That's true. ### I don't think so. Schedule F-1, effective 07-01-25, which contains the City's broadband internet rates, has no explicit termination date. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/f-1-effective-2025-07-01.pdf ### For example, the City's Schedule EDF-3 rates didn't change between 09-18-06 and 07-01-23. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/commercial-utility-rates/edf-3-effective-2023-07.pdf But I don't think there's any plans to go change that rates. Unless we add new services maybe. 1:34:25: Commissioner Phillips: For the next 35 years. 1:34;26: Dave Yuan: Oh, not 35 years. But next several years, at least. 1:34:29: Commissioner Phillips. OK. Thank you. 1:34:31: Commissioner Tucher: May I please -- just quick follow-ups? Um. So, I heard what you just said about pricing, and the Council, and so forth. But, Bob, you referred earlier to having seen, in Finance, or Budget, a business plan, a revenue plan for this business. Is that correct? 'Cause I haven't seen it. I don't remember that from May. Is there something we've seen, or a committee has seen, that includes pricing assumptions, take rate assumptions, revenue month by month over X years, cost, capex -- Have we seen a financial model for this? Dave Yuan: I think we've done a couple. We did a business plan with Magellan back in 2021-2022. And then, I think. we did another one -- I want to say in '25 -- when we came up with the rates. So, I'm happy to re-share those with the UAC. 1:35:22: Chair Scharff: Just send it all to us. ### Ideally, the staff report could have provided this history, so that the public could have been reminded as well. 1:35:25: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. This was discussed about 3 years ago. And, I mean, I came in the same door that Commissioner Tucher came in. With -- very skeptical about the feasibility of it. But came out, I think, with reasonable take rates, that we could, you know, not have a spectacular financial success, but would be able to get by. ### A motivation for doing FTTP even if it only "gets by" is that is saves residents and businesses lots of money. ### Our other utilities only just "get by" because Propositions 218 and 26 say they are not permitted to amass funds to be used elsewhere. 1:35:47: Commissioner Tucher: OK. So, there's a revenue model, and a capex model. Recent. Not 2021, but something, I guess, that Bob and the Budget Subcommittee have seen. That's good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we -- UAC did not see this in May. Um. 1:36:03: Commissioner Metz: Right. 1:36:03: Commissioner Tucher: And so, you mentioned -- Given this dilemma of trying to plan strategy on YouTube, as we do -- and all the limits of that -- Given you don't have to go back for price approvals. But what about -- um -- I mean -- financial results? Like, you can cut the price. It's an up-to-X price, is what I hear you say. Well, OK, fine, so you lower the price, and lose a lot of money. And we can't talk about it until, I guess, the year's over and the financials are in. And the audit. ### Why is this necessarily the case? And now we're like -- I mean, my point is that what's the accountability that the business would have to -- I guess, not to UAC, but to Council -- Um. You can cut pricing, and discount, and so forth, and desperately trying to win customers over from AT&T, 'cause you don't have to tell them low pricing strategies, but you only have to tell them high pricing strategies. And seems like a formula for getting into the red. I guess there's not even a -- There's only a rhetorical question there. No need to answer. 1:37:18: Um. You mentioned a new target area when Commissioner ### a.k.a. Vice Chair Mauter was speaking. What is the new pilot neighborhood? Because I understood it to be Bayshore, Colorado, Greer -- that corner -- which, by the way, I don't understand why that's a so-called price-insensitive part of Palo Alto. If there is such a thing. ### I agree. The pilot area is in the Midtown neighborhood, close to Highway 101. It has lots of MDUs. https://paneighborhoods.org/neighborhood-map/ ### Google " 'palo alto' neighborhoods wealthy" -- The AI Overview named these "Key Wealthy Neighborhoods of Palo Alto" -- Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park, Professorville, Palo Alto Hills, Leland Manor, Ventura / Charleston Meadow, and College Terrace. (It didn't mention Midtown.) But what is the new target neighborhood, if it's not that? 1:37:46: Dave Yuan: I don't know if we can -- I want to say -- I don't know if we have every location identified. But a couple places that's outside the pilot area -- like the new affordable housing building on 231 Grant -- the teacher housing -- That's something we've built our fiber to the premise ### premises to already. And then, there's another affordable -- also a new housing plan that we've been building to. But we don't want to really share our customers. So -- 1:38:07: Commissioner Tucher: OK. If you don't want to specify, that's -- 1:38:09: Dave Yuan: Yeah. 1:38:09: Director Kurotori: Let -- Let -- If I could, I think some of the conversation is, you know, what is the role of the UAC? What is that goal? And I think it goes back to, frankly, your workplan. ### Which workplan? Here's a 2024-2025 Workplan for UAC, which was published on 12-12-22. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/3/city-clerk/boards-and-commissions/workplans/uac-workplan-fy-2025.pdf Phase 1 is not mentioned. Metrics are not mentioned. ### By the way, how should the term "workplan" appear in the document? "Workplan" or "work plan"? Google cares. ### According to this TRANSCRIPT of UAC's 10-01-25 meeting (0:38:00, page 9) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and- minutes-2025/11-november/public-letters-to-uac-11.5.25.pdf on 09-29-25, Council voted to pull Item 6, which pertained to four workplans (ARB, HRB, PTC, and UAC) from its Consent calendar. UAC's workplan was called its 2025-2026 Workplan (11 pages). ### There are 2 occurrences of the word "metrics" in this document, both on page 10. I'm not convinced that enough thought went into the writing of page 10 that it should be cited as scripture. It was very specific on looking at "... Pilot [and] Phase 1 progress and outcomes, business model and metrics affecting the City's decision whether to move forward with the full City rollout." So, that's really what we're trying to get from the UAC. ### Again, it is Council, not staff, who should be trying to get advice from the UAC. 1:38:35: Chair Scharff: I think that was really helpful, Alan. 1:38:36: Director Kurotori: And -- 1:38:36: Chair Scharff: And that's -- OK. Go on. 1:38:37: Director Kurotori: And this is, if you look on our 12-month calendar, this is one update for you. And we're going to come back with information from the outcomes from the pilot. Some of the financials. The take rates. The customer satisfaction. Some of those metrics. To many of the commissioners' point[s], and what does that look like? When is -- Where is the information that you can really dig into? We are setting the table here. There's a lot of interest. I can feel it in this room. And about having more information. And we're trying to set up that foundation. What we ARE trying to say, as staff, is that there has been some comment and concern about the speed of where we're going. You know, we're fighting some updates on the hut. ### What does this mean to fight updates? Is it that staff is struggling to build the hut on the schedule it promised? But also, as we look across the City -- We're not looking at just tied to Grid Mod. If there are multifamily residential growth and development, how can we be nimble? Looking along our fiber background -- ### backbone? That's what we're trying to communicate here, is that we're tracking that. We're reaching out to those customers. 'Cause that's where we're really going to get a lot of those benefits, in serving those multifamily residential units. 1:39:42: Commissioner Tucher: So, those are the most important updates of tonight, which is a decoupling, to some degree, with UAC, ### I don't get this point at all. a redefinition of your geo-targeting. It's not going to be one neighborhood. It might be a bit more dynamic, Commissioner ### a.k.a. Vice Chair Mauter said. So, opportunistic, where you'd go after a particular building or house, that might be scattered all over the Palo Alto map, it sounds like. It does sound like the two -- Those are the only two updates I've been able to take from this. My one piece of feedback -- I think it just echoes what others have said. I would urge you to make a key -- you know, a KPI -- a success indicator for this whole project the take rate. ### Be aware that if the City has multiple FTTP products, the net revenue per customer of the various products might be different. So, do we care about the take rate per se or the net revenue per customer? I can't think of anything more important than the marketing results of this rollout. Because, like you've heard before, we kind of presume that technically it's going to work. What I don't presume is that the marketing of this thing is going work at all. 1:40:35: Chair Scharff: OK. So -- I think, at least from my point of view, there's a disconnect here between what I heard and what I was thinking. When we originally supported moving forward on this -- doing a phased approach -- ### What UAC action is Chair Scharff referring to? When staff decided to do a pilot first, before Phase 1? I understood that we were only going to do this up until the pilot. You were going to come [with] results on the pilot. And if the pilot's a failure, we're going to end this. At least, we're going to tell City Council that our advice is to end this. As opposed to suggesting to City Council that we end this BEFORE the pilot, which was a distinct possibility from the comments I heard. So, how am I going to know if we should end this after the pilot? I haven't heard that. I haven't heard it articulated like, if we don't reach this, and this, we should end this. And I'm really concerned that staff is not in that mindset. And I hope they are. They -- You know, that if this doesn't work, and we don't make it in the pilot, that we don't say, well, we can try this. We can target multifamily over here. I thought we had a distinct pilot area. And you are going to see what the take rate is, you're going to see what the pricing is, and how competitive [it] is, and then, you come back to us and you say, it worked or it didn't work. And when you said that the KPI was not the take rate, I'm thinking to myself, if it's not that, what is the pilot? Like, why don't we just cancel the whole thing now? 1:42:07: I mean, I really don't think this is going to work. Hey, look. I'll tell you, yes, as someone mentioned, in my State of the City speech in 2013, I said we were going to fiber to the premises. ### See paloaltoonine's article here: 02-27-13: "Scharff lays out bold plans in ‘State of the City’ " https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/02/27/scharff-lays-out-bold-plans-in-state-of-the-city-speech/ ### Also, here's the speech itself: "2013 State of the City" https://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1362010305.pdf ### I tried unsuccessfully to find the speech on the City's website. Google Fiber did announce (02-19-14) that it was considering building citywide FTTP to 34 cities, including Palo Alto. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/02/19/google-brings-flicker-of-hope-to-palo-altos-fiber-dream/ But on 10-25-16, Google "paused" those aspirations. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-fiber-pause-rollout-october-2016/ I -- That's a younger version of me, right there [pointing to Commissioner Gupta], talking about how wonderful fiber can be. Over the years, -- 1:42:25: **: (unamplified) ** beard. 1:42:25: Chair Scharff: I know. I wish I could have grown that. But I couldn't. Still couldn't. But, anyway. No, seriously, I think I'm worried that staff is going to try and MAKE it work, as opposed to looking at a cold, hard, you know, grading of this. Is this really going to -- Is this really going to work or not? Because -- And I got to tell you, a number of you have asked me, what is the role of the UAC? ### If this is referring to private conversations with UAC members? If so, was that number more than 2? Well, if this one of those big disasters in Palo Alto, where we go forward on this, and we spend a bunch of money on Phase 2 ### Nobody is talking about moving on to Phase 2 (whatever that is) until after evaluating Phase 1. and it's -- we lose $20-$30 million, that's on the UAC. If you -- It's on Council if the Council decides to go forward and UAC looks at it and says, Council, we recommend that you stop right now, and that you do not go forward. And at some point, we at the UAC need to have a vote on that. ### If UAC continues to let staff get away with agendizing items as discussion items, rather than action items, I think that's at least partly on UAC. Are we going to do this or are we not going to do this? Are we still supportive? I thought that moment was AFTER the pilot. And if I'm wrong, tell me. 'Cause that's how I've been thinking about it the whole time. 1:43:29: Dave Yuan: So, the original Council motion was to build a Phase 1. And it didn't say -- and talking about a pilot or coming back after a pilot. I say we're just going by that letter of what Council had originally recommended -- or directed us to do. ### What letter? ### Here (pages 23-43) is a TRANSCRIPT of the FTTP item at Council's 12-19-22 meeting. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas- and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/public-letters-to-uac-february-2023.pdf Council's MOTION is on page 42, at 5:16:22. I think we are pivoting a little bit in a way that we are going to come back to UAC and Finance and Council, probably 3-4 months after the pilot, ### When will the pilot have ended, according to this scenario? with more data. But in the meantime, we're going to also look for opportunities to build -- where there is right now. We're not going to stop right after this pilot. If we see opportunities, we're going to continue of kind of expanding the pilot, or kind of -- It won't be that full Phase 1 blow-out. We're not going to build out the whole neighborhood that we originally had designated. But we are going to still look for opportunities where the lie, I guess. ### Apparently staff now wants to insert a sort of super-pilot between the pilot and Phase 1. If the pilot passes about 1,000 homes, and Phase 1 passes about 9,000 homes, how many homes does the super-pilot pass? 1:44:12: Chair Scharff: I guess I would like you to come back to the UAC. Quickly. 1:44:18: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:44:19: Chair Scharff: With the information about what the plan is on the pilot, what we're going to know, and give us the opportunity to then go to Council before they move forward, and it says, after the pilot, if we don't get what we want, you should then change it, and not go forward with Phase 1. And, you know -- And, part of that, I'd like to know, how much are we going to spend on the pilot, and how much we'd spend on Phase 1. If it's a small amount of money on Phase 1, then maybe I'd feel differently. But without looking at the numbers and stuff -- And then, I think Council needs to grapple with that issue. 1:44:54: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:44:54: Chair Scharff: I mean, I don't think it's like the train has left the station and we should do this. 1:44:58: Dave Yuan: We ARE very cost-conscious with this pilot right now. So, we are working very lean. We'll have to -- I think we -- 1:45:03: Chair Scharff: No, but I mean, we're going to do the pilot. The train has left the station. We're doing the pilot. You're coming back to us. But you just said you're going to move forward to Phase 1, and you're going to look for opportunistic ways to continue to spend money, even if the pilot has failed. 1:45:18: Dave Yuan: I think we're going to try to get more data -- I'm sorry. I think we're trying to get more data points over these opportunistic opportunities, to see -- so we can we're trying to ex- -- 1:45:35: Chair Scharff: I doubt -- And that's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for you to come back to the UAC and lay this out. Here's out plan. We're going to finish the pilot by X. ### Again, what does it mean to "finish the pilot"? But we're probably going to need more data points, so we're going to do this. It's only going to cost us an extra couple hundred grand. Or, it's going to cost an extra $5 million. Or whatever it's going to cost. 1:45:52: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:45:53: Chair Scharff: And we would like to have the -- We would like to see what you think about us doing this. 1:45:59: Dave Yuan: OK. 1:45:59: Chair Scharff: So, then we can say to Council, no, I think you should stop, or, yeah, you should definitely go forward and do this part of it. I mean, I don't feel like we have any oversight of what's going on here. And I feel like it's just moving along. And, you know, personally, I think it's going to be really hard for you to make this work. So, I'd like to see how it works. And we don't spend money just for the sake of -- the Council said in -- was it 2022? 1:46:26: Director Kurotori: December of 2022. 1:46:27: Chair Scharff: Right. And, you know, the fact that Council said that in '22 -- It's 4 years later. ### Technically, it's 3 years plus 19 days later. You know. And Council needs the opportunity, after we review it -- Unless you want to just take it up to Council right away. [chuckle] I'm fine with that, too. ### UAC commissioners shouldn't be fine with staff's leaving UAC out of the loop. But I do think we need to actually have some oversight on this. 1:46:45: Director Kurotori: So, let me take a step back and just amplify a little bit what Dave was saying. When this went forward to Council, it was including the Phase 1 area. Right? So -- which included the pilot. ### NO! On 12-19-22, when Council voted to direct staff to build Phase 1, there was no identifiable pilot within Phase 1. The pilot really was staff-driven. ### That is, staff disobeyed Council by inventing a 1,000-passed-home pilot to do first, rather than just implementing a 9,000-passed-home Phase 1. In terms of looking at Grid Mod, and seeing if we can find some synergies and potential cost savings associated with doing both at the same time. ### That is, staff disobeyed Council again by choosing the pilot area based on Grid Mod, rather than on a) least cost per passed premises, b) least competition from the incumbents, and c) most interest from the community. We really didn't find that. As we've discussed briefly here tonight. So, you know, part of these metrics -- and I'll go back to the workplan -- 'cause I really love this workplan -- is, the high priority is to provide UAC and Council with status updates, as relates to metrics for success during pilot AND Phase 1. The first one is take rate. Customer sat[isfaction]. Cost per passing. And cashflow projections. So, we need to bring that back to you. Right? So, that is our intent. Our intent is not to call out the pilot per se, in that small geographic area. We're going to be pushing for that initially, because that's where making the first type of work. But the Council direction was the totality of Phase 1. That doesn't mean we're going to go blindly into that, because we need to get some metrics back. 1:47:57: Chair Scharff: So, you're saying the pilot is NOT where we make the decision to end this. The decision to end this should be made AFTER Phase 1. ### That is, the decision of whether or not to end this should be made after Phase 1. 1:48:04: Director Kurotori: The pilot is going to provide us information. We're going to bring that back to you in the next several months. With more information, so that we can bring that forward to not only UAC AND the Council, to give them updates on the progress. Right? It -- The pilot could tell us vastly different things. We might get tremendous take rates. Which will provide comfort for the Council and the community moving forward. Again, we want to give you this update, and then bring back information on what we're finding. 1:48:33: Chair Scharff: OK. 1:48:34: Commissioner Tucher: Could I -- Commissioner Croft: I'm having MASSIVE déjà vu over this EXACT topic. And I'm not sure how many of the commissioners were here the last time we discussed this -- ### UAC discussed -- and VOTED on -- fiber rates and packages on 05-07-25. The 05-07-25 12-month rolling calendar said UAC wouldn't discuss fiber again until 01- 07-26. So, I'm assuming this the meeting Commissioner Croft is referring to. ### Here's the 01-07-25 agenda. All the current commissioners attended (Gupta via Zoom). https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17424 I sent in a TRANSCRIPT of this item, https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and- minutes-2025/06-june/public-letters-06-04-25.pdf but only the first 2 pages were published by UAC (!) and none of the FTTP item was published. However, the TRANSCRIPT was published by Council here (pages 87- 113). https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173979&repo=r-704298fc whether -- The real issue is, there's like $20 million on the line. I think there's more. ### Why? From the pilot. ### No. It's a LOT of money. It could be $27 [million]. I can't -- It's somewhere in there. Sorry. For Phase 1. ### Yes. On 05-07-25, Dave Yuan said (at 0:47:25, on page 91) that Council had approved spending $20 million from fiber reserves on Phase 1 of FTTP. ### Council also approved spending $13 million from the fiber reserves AND $13 million from the Electric Department on the new dark fiber network. Why isn't UAC demanding to look into whether the new dark fiber network makes sense? So, we had a whole wrestling discussion amongst us about whether we're, you know, spending all that money right now or not. And I THOUGHT we all came to the conclusion that there is a PILOT, after which we will have the opportunity to see the data and decide if we want to spend ALL THAT MONEY. And I felt extremely strongly at the time we do NOT want to spend ALL THAT MONEY before we have more information. And so, -- ### On 05-07-25, Commissioner Croft MOVED (1:49:45, page 108) to approve staff's proposed rates, and it passed 6-1, Tucher no. ### AND THAT'S ALL. UAC didn't VOTE any advice to Council about when it should evaluate the success of the pilot. In my summary remarks (page 87), I agreed with Commissioner Gupta (1:58:58, page 111) that the topic of when and how to evaluate the success of the pilot hadn't been properly agendized, even for discussion, let alone action. 1:49:26: Chair Scharff: That's my recollection. That's why I'm talking about the pilot, and you're talking about Phase 1. 1:49:30: Commissioner Croft: And -- 1:49:30: Chair Scharff: I thought maybe I had it wrong. 1:49:32: Commissioner Croft: I would recommend that we go back to having a neighborhood. That we do. Like, let's figure out how much it costs to do a pilot in a neighborhood. So you have an area you're going after. And it needs to be something that you can actually collect data on. It feels like if you're piecemeal going to -- a building MIGHT be OK -- But just randomly choosing places doesn't seem very -- It doesn't seem like it's going to be rigorous data. I would rather see a neighborhood that you can pass fiber through, and go after those residents, and try to get them. I didn't have any problem with the original area. ### Despite the fact that it has a lot of brownfield MDUs that staff says would be too hard to serve? But that's what I would like to see in the plan. And I would like to see a plan as well. And I would like to NOT spend all that money before we have an idea of success. 1:50:23: Commissioner Gupta: If I could respond. I disagree with some of that. I think -- I actually think -- I think staff is giving us the right thing here. They're giving us updates. Council, in late 2022, approved Phase 1, over many of the same points that have been raised over -- There's a lot of competition. It's going to be really expensive to do. This is why Council APPROVED, and voted on a phased approach to doing fiber to the premises. The pilot area -- 1:50:50: Commissioner Tucher: What IS Phase 1? And phase -- pilot? What's the difference? ### One difference is that the pilot is about 1,000 premises and Phase 1 is about 9,000 premises. 1:50:54: Commissioner Gupta: The pilot area was a technical pilot staff created to make sure they could technically do it. And they were testing whether they could couple it with Grid Mod. It was never intended to be like a litmus test on whether or not we should move forward with fiber or not. Right? 1:51:09: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) But tonight's report is that that was a no -- 1:51:12: Director Kurotori: Excuse me. Your microphone -- if -- ** discussion. Thank you. 1:51:16: Commissioner Tucher: Then tonight's conclusion would seem to be no to that question. The staff will NOT piggyback or combo. And so, we've answered no before the pilot's even begun. ### No. Staff discovered that it could not save money by combining the FTTP pilot with Grit Mod. (Which, in retrospect, it should have known before building anything.) But it has not learned whether or not FTTP is feasible. 1:51:30: Commissioner Gupta: I'm not sure I understood what you said. But I think it's the right approach, where, as they do a pilot, they're going to give us data. We're going to discuss it. If there's real red flags in the data, of course we're going to discuss it. You know, asking ** -- 1:51:42: Chair Scharff: I think we're going to discuss it, if there are red flags or not. We're going to discuss the data. But what's concerning me is that, as I recall it -- the way Commissioner Croft recalls it -- I thought at the end of the pilot, we were going to come back. And we weren't going to spend all the money. We were going to look at it. And maybe I got that wrong. Is the point. How much money are you planning on spending before going back to Council? ### And, first, going back to UAC and Finance? 1:52:03: Dave Yuan: So, originally, I think we were authorized up to $20 million for Phase 1. And then, there was another $26 million for the fiber backbone, with some contribution from the electric fund. For -- because they have a dedicated fiber backbone. ### Why did it ever make sense for the electric utility to have its own dedicated 144-strand dark fiber network? But of the $20 million, so far, the pilot, I think we're going to spend -- we project about $5 million. 1:52:19: Chair Scharff: You keep using the term "pilot" and "Phase 1" interchangeably. ### That's not true. If Chair Scharff thinks so, it's because he's not listening carefully. That's what's confusing to me. They're not interchangeable. 1:52:25: Dave Yuan: OK. So, the pilot is a subset of Phase 1. I think. 'Cause -- 1:52:27: Chair Scharff: So how much -- So, you basically are telling me that you were off -- How much do we have in the Fiber Fund? 1:52:33: Dave Yuan: Currently? 1:52:33: Chair Scharff: Yeah. 1:52:33: Dave Yuan: $33 million. 1:52:34: Chair Scharff: And we were -- and you were authorized to spend $20 [million] of the $33 million. 1:52:38: Dave Yuan: Yes. ### Also, Council's 12-19-22 vote authorized staff spend $25.5 million on a brand new dark fiber network, of which $13 million would come from the electric utility. Even though no business plan demonstrated that it was even needed. ### In other words, Council's 12-19-22 vote authorized staff to spend ALL of the Fiber Fund on a combination of FTTP and the new dark fiber network. The size of Phase 1 was determined essentially by how much Fiber Fund money could be spent on FTTP. 1:52:39: Chair Scharf: And that's -- And so, -- Going through Phase 1. Correct? 1:52:43: Dave Yuan: Yes. 1:52:44: Chair Scharff: And so, in your view, Council -- I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying -- And your understanding is that $20 million has been authorized, and you're going to do it through Phase 1. And you're going to get some interim data in the pilot. But the pilot is not where you get the KPIs, and the decision of whether or not we're going to go forward. And you -- is there -- In your mind, is there a notion that we would stop this after the pilot? Or do you feel we're going to the entire Phase 1, before coming back and possibly having a recommendation from the UAC. Which, I suppose we can make at any time to kill this. ### Assuming UAC can get staff to agendize an ACTION item on the topic. Um. But I was waiting for hard data. And I thought we would get it after the pilot. Because you're right. If we do this in the pilot, and there's a 70 percent take rate, I'll be like, let's -- full steam ahead. This looks great. People love it. You know. That kind of stuff. But if you have a 10 percent take rate, I'm going to be like, this makes 1:53:50: Dave Yuan: So, our plan wasn't to spend the full $20 million during this ** time. I think it was to come back with you some door data after the pilot. And then, we will let you know -- I think for the pilot -- **, sorry -- is about $5 million is what we're spending so far. ### How much will have been spent on the pilot after all premises in the pilot area have been passed? Of this, how much will have been spent on drops to customers? How much on marketing? Etc. So, that's where -- so, plus or minus another million, maybe, for these other opportunistic areas. I'm not sure what those numbers are. ### Well, it's not going to be minus. ### How much of staff's time will go to seeking other opportunities rather than making the pilot successful? At least -- kind of -- 1:54:12: Director Kurotori: Let me just insert myself here. 1:54:13: Chair Scharff: Please. 1:54:13: Director Kurotori: I think we are making it a little too complicated. The pilot information is going to come back. We're building it right now. 1:54:18: Chair Scharff: When IS it coming back? 1:54:19: Director Kurotori: In about 3 or 4 months. ### No. See 1:54:28. 1:54:21: Chair Scharff: So, you'll have -- you'll be done with the pilot in 3 or 4 months. 1:54:23: Director Kurotori: We'll have good information on hooking up customers in 3 or 4 months. ### When will the hooking up start? How many customers per day is staff prepared to hook up? 1:54;27: Chair Scharff: OK 1:54:27: Director Kurotori: And we'll bring that back. (Looks to Yuan.) 1:54:28: Dave Yuan: It will probably be more like 6 or 7 months. Because the pilot will -- started around -- March. ### I think this means that the hut will be functional around March. March what? ("March" is only 2 or 3 months away from 01-07-26). ### I suppose this means also that all premises in the pilot will have been passed by "March." 1:54:31: Director Kurotori: Sorry. So, when -- Once the hut is completed. Thank you for that. Once the hut is completed, we're going to take those 3 to 4 months to get out to the customers. So, in totality, that is the correct amount. We have that on the schedule, on the 12-month calendar, to bring that back. ### The 01-07-26 12-monrh rolling calendar says "FTTP Pilot Report Out" is scheduled to be considered by UAC on 07-01-26 and by Finance and Council in August. And you're right. You need to see that information. The pilot matters. Like how we -- how the costs -- the information, the take rate from the customers, ### As I've said all along, for most FTTP networks, the take rate grows gradually over several YEARS, as the early adopters tell their friends, etc. How does it make sense to evaluate the pilot's take rate after only 3-4 months? ### Longmont's initial take rate was over 50 percent (measured neighborhood by neighborhood, as they built out), but that was because they had a pretty unique pricing strategy: $49.95 per month for 1 Gbps FOR LIFE if the customer signed up within 3 months of the network being available to their premises. I haven't heard that staff has even considered such a strategy. I haven't heard UAC advise Council to direct staff to consider it. the feedback that we receive, the viability, longer-term, that's -- you know. And what we're hearing, loud and clear, is, you want to get that information as we work through the pilot. And we're just trying to restate. And maybe that is clouding the issue of what the Council actually wants. But we hear you 100 percent. 1:55 12: Chari Scharff: OK. And when you bring that back to us is 9 months, ### Why 9 months? I'll give you an extra month. [smiles] ### Why? But in any case, 9 months after January is October, not July. When you bring that back to us in 9 months, I want to make sure we agendize it as -- what is the UAC's recommendation to Council. ### The only way to do that is to agendize it as an ACTION ITEM. Is it to CONTINUE? Is it -- Or is it to END this? ### Staff doesn't have to say anything about what it hopes UAC's recommendation should be. Or is it, what is our recommendation? It's somewhere in that. I want us to have a vote on it. ### Good. I want us to basically, you know, make a decision of what we think we should be doing at that point. 1:55:42: Commissioner Gupta: Can I interject here? I disagree with that. I think it's just setting it up for failure. 1:55:46: Chair Scharff: You can disagree. 1:55:47: Commissioner Gupta: I mean, 9 months is not enough time. And the pilot area is not meant to be a litmus test for the financial viability of fiber to the premises. It never was. It would be stretching its purpose. And designing it that way is -- IS -- setting it up for failure. 1:56:02: Chair Scharff: That's fine. You can disagree. 1:56:04: Commissioner Phillips: Could I ask a question, then? When WOULD we have the information that could justify a go/no-go decision? Which I guess is always been my question. Which is -- Not just some set of KPIs. I mean, I love KPIs. I love metrics. But an extrapolation of what we've learned, on a reasonable basis, to the rest of the City. So, maybe the take rate is 35 percent in the pilot. But we see, OK, that AT&T is coming back stronger in the areas we're in. We're either -- more AT&T -- heaver -- less -- but what we would think overall -- when can we get a business plan based on actual data? That you feel comfortable with. You know, we should feel comfortable with making a recommendation to the Council on go or no-go? 1:56:52: Dave Yuan: Around the same 9 months, when we come back with the pilot data. As one expect. ### Now staff is repeating Chair Scharff's error about 9 months. 1:56:55: Chair Scharff: And I want to clarify. It may be not go/no-go. It may be that, as you said, it's ambiguous. 1:57:01: Commissioner Phillips: Sure. 1:57:01: Chair Scharff: You know, it's a 30 percent take rate, but they ### staff? come back and say, you know, we've learned this, and we really think we could get a 45 percent take rate when we expand this in Phase 1. Therefore, that's worth doing. I mean, I could totally see that. So, when I say go/no-go, it's really -- 1:57:20: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah 1:57:20: Chair Scharff: -- [a] go, [b] you know, let's get more information before we make that decision, or [c] not-go. But -- 1:57:26: Commissioner Phillips: I absolutely agree. 1:57:27: Chair Scharff: But if it's a clear -- like 10 percent take rate, I know how I would vote. Where, if it's a 70 percent take rate, I know how I would vote. 1:57:34: Commissioner Phillips: It's also -- It's triage. Right? I mean, when we say, if it's this, we just stop. If it's here, we go. If it's here, we come back in 6 months with more information, that then we make the decision. 1:57:45: 1:57:52: Dave Yuan: So, when we come up with the data, we'll provide the take rate, and also financial projections. 1:57:56: Chair Scharff: And our recommendation. ### I think Chair Scharff is trying to say that staff should come up with STAFF's recommendation, and then UAC can come up with UAC's advice to Council, which might be different. Like, hey, we, as staff, believe in this. We think this is going to work. Or, we have serious concerns. Or we need the following data, by doing X, so we could make a decision. You know. My biggest concern, actually, is -- is that this is not the monopoly that we're used to running in utilities. OK? ### When California legislated that muni electric utilities had to share their wires with other electric providers, the City's electric utility entered a competitive marketplace. But it survived, and even ended up with a surplus. And, you know, I think staff -- and this is not a knock on staff at all -- I think that staff is used to the notion that Council does something, even if Council's direction is something that is hard to implement, or, you know, may not even make logical sense to staff, staff goes forward and makes it happen. ### Historically, staff has not always been as willing to take Council's directives about Grid Mod seriously. And UAC has not been as helpful at providing Council with good advice, which is why Council ended up creating the S/CAP committee. And that's a great thing. In most things. But when you're starting a new business, where we could lose millions of dollars, we probably need to be a little bit more like, hey, this is our recommendation. Obviously, it's up to Council what they do at the end of the day, but, you know, I want to see what you guys really think. Ed. ### I'm guessing that Liaison Lauing asked to speak. 1:59:04: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. I just wanted to add. First of all, happily, this decision was made 2 weeks before I joined Council. So, my fingerprints are not on this. ### If Council's vote had been a month later, would Council Member Lauing have joined Council Tanaka in voting in voting against FTTP? ### Although Council Member Lauing did not participate in Council's 12-19-22 vote, he is still responsible for making the best of Council's 12-19-22 decision, which is potentially different from just calling for a revote. But staff is doing exactly what you just said. It's executing the plan that the Council put in place. So, on the basis of, sort of, making an early recommendation -- whatever early is -- you know, before this 9 month period -- it seems to me it's the standard thing of, is there big new data points that we already have, -- 1:59:35: Chair Scharff: Right. 1:59:35: Liaison Lauing: -- that shifts a decision one way or the other? In which case, you should -- in my judgment -- sound the alarm. And say we found out that -- I'll make things up, you know -- ### It is especially important not to just make things up. AT&T has 75 percent, and they're going to sell it at $10 and -- So -- Otherwise, there's no data on which to make a go/no-go decision. 1:59:52: Chair Scharff: Right. 1:59:52: Liaison Lauing: At some point, you have to have that data to make the call. One disclaimer, though, is that we're going to have a boatload of pain in the budgeting process this year. Boatload. Both operating and capital. So, when we're trying to, you know, potentially do bond measures for Cubberley project, and, obviously, fund Grid Mod, and things like that -- You know, we had to come back last year, after we MADE the budget, and cut $6 million. So, it's going to be tough. And, you know, we never know what's coming out any day from Washington. So, if it's sort of like -- We're sitting on the Finance Committee and saying where can we find some money, that may be another way that we have to come back to this and say, is it worth taking the risk? But there's the same problem. it's a chicken-and-egg. There's no more data to make that decision. And it was also said by somebody that -- you know, you said that all of these risks were already in it in December of '22, when the decision was made. But budgets were different in '22 than they're going to be in '26. ** -- 2:00:56: Chair Scharff: AT&T was not where it is today. 2:00:57: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. 2:00:58: Chair Scharff: I do think that's a big difference. 2:00:01: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. So, we're kind of in a chicken-and-egg thing. Which makes this tough. And you'd like to get more data. But how much are you going to spend for data if the outlook is grim? is kind of, you know, the underlying question. 2:01:13: Vice Chair Mauter: I think the KPIs that we have in the workplan are the right ones. So, let's just please report out on those. OK? I think there's one other KPI that's worth addressing. It's a question of, are there service areas for which we have strong suspicion that AT&T is NOT going to serve? Right? Because if we think that data access is a key part of our community's success, and that EQUITY of that access is a key part of building the kind of Palo Alto that we want to build, then that also should be included in the KPIs. ### Good points. We should want equity even if it isn't the fastest way to break even.. I don't know how to do that appropriately. But some -- Speaking to that, in some way, shape, or form, to me is important. ### A neighborhood west of Highway 280 has formed a cooperative, Adobe Creek Networks, https://adobecreek.net/ to build their own FTTP network, because they thought that the City would not get around to building FTTP to their neighborhood in any reasonable timeframe. CPAU has built out the dark fiber network in their direction, to help them. But the price for service, both capex and opex, is a lot higher for them than for muni FTTP. https://adobecreek.net/services/ They are a little secretive, which is their right. https://adobecreek.net/documents/ I had hoped to channel their enthusiasm in the direction of citywide muni FTTP but was unsuccessful. ### Adobe Creek Networks was inspired by Los Altos Hills Community Fiber, https://lahcommunityfiber.org/ a cooperative that formed to build their own FTTP network to serve people in Los Altos Hills, because they though that the city of Los Altos Hills would not get around to building FTTP to them in any reasonable timeframe. Their website doesn't have any pages less than a year old. ### With FTTP, scale is important. It's hard for tiny coops to thrive. Chair Scharff: OK. I think we're done with this item. 2:02:02: Director Kurotori: Thank you. 2:02:02: Chair Scharff: Thank you very much. 2:02:09: **: (unamplified) **. 2:02:12: Chair Scharff: Yeah, we might. Item 3 -- Fiscal Year 2026 Mid-Year Electric Grid Modernization Update 2:02:17: Chair Scharf: All right. Moving on to Item number 3, which is the 2025 ### 2026 Mid-Year Electric Grid Modernization Update. 2:02:26: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, Terry Crowley, our Chief Operating Officer, will provide the presentation. 2:02:31: COO Crowley: So, good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, commissioners. This is intended to be an informal update on Grid Mod and the direction that the City staff is proposing to go for. Some of this discussion will be formalized through the budgeting process that's upcoming for Fiscal Year 2027. But wanted to provide you kind of an overview look of what staff is thinking at this point in time. Next slide. Thank you. 2:02:56: ###. Slide 2 -- Grid Modernization Background ### I was unable to transcribe this item in the time I had available. Sorry. ------------ 3:38:01: Chair Scharff: All right. That ends that discussion. Thank you, Terry. You did a great job. Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings 3:38:08: Chair Scharff: Ah. I think then we move on to Future Topics. 3:38:18: Director Kurotori: So, if the commission would choose to ** and look at the 12--month rolling calendar, it does highlight that we're going to give updates to the pilots, not only FTTP and Grid Mod, later on, in the -- maybe the July timeframe It does highlight the items going to City Council. I would note that the one thing we will add on here in the April timeframe is the election of the Chair and Vice Chair. So, we'll add that to this calendar as well. It's typically the first meeting in April. That's the first time you could do it. You could decide to push it later. That would be -- well, that would be the first date. So, I just wanted to highlight that for your attention. And then we'll go through and we'll start filling out, frankly, you know, past the July timeframe, some of the other items, as we move forward. And what your workplan looks like as well for the future. So, if there's any other questions, we can certainly talk about it. But I think we're pretty much set. 3:39:14: 3:39:23: **: (unamplified) ** 3:39:25: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) -- how we -- 3:39:27: Commissioner Phillips: No. How we -- 3:39:28: Vice Chair Mauter: -- how we treat -- how we think about debt financing, versus reserves, -- 3:39:34: Commissioner Phillips: And -- 3:39:34: Vice Chair Mauter: -- how we think about reserves across all these different buckets -- 3:39:38: Commissioner Phillips: Why we have the reserves we have. How the levels are set. 3:39:42: Director Kurotori: I'm going to call up Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager. 'Cause the City -- um -- 3:39:49: ACM Nose: Auditor. 3:39:51: Director Kurotori: -- Auditor is doing -- has done a -- is an assessment, that will be going to Council. So, maybe we -- 3:39:56: ACM Nose: Sure. 3:39:56: Director Kurotori: -- Ms. Nose can talk about that. ---------- 3:55:45: Chair Scharff: Thank you. All right. We're adjourned. 3:55:45: Commissioner Tucher: No.. Before we adjourn, yeah, I would like to make a comment. A couple questions. So -- sorry, guys -- but earlier we talked about auto- transcript and minutes. I have a question about the package. Just so we could please just set expectations. With the minutes, it was -- Would there be a way to get minutes out in the first week as opposed to the fourth? ### The Brown Act requires that the public be able to get the same information that commissioners get, at the same time, and in the same way. But, like, the last couple of meetings -- Today, we got the presentations too late to look at. And if that's the expectation going forward, then just say so. But it does change my ability to prepare for the meeting. So, that's one question. When should be expect presentations to come? 3:56:26: Director Kurotori: So, we do like to incorporate those with the packet whenever possible. Some of the changes in the fiber one that was -- came in a little bit later. We were making changes and adjustments. So, that does happen occasionally. But to the maximum extent that we can, we like to include those as part of the packet. 3:56:48: Commissioner Tucher: Again, I don't mean this to be a complaint. I just need to know what to expect going forward. It was both presentations. Grid Mod also. And last month, I believe, it was the same thing. Like, we got the presentations same-day, or same-afternoon even. And there was no time to read them in advance. It's OK with me. I just need to know what to expect. 3:57:13: Director Kurotori: In our two -- we -- you should expect seeing the presentations prior to the meetings. And if we CAN put them earlier, we will do so. 3:57:20: Commissioner Tucher: OK. Public letters. Are -- public letters are not in the e-packet. Or am I wrong? 3:57:27: Rachel Romero: Correct. So, the link that is provided to you is just the agenda. Public comment letters are now being provided in the HTML agenda only. Um. And this is the practice that the Clerks have -- um -- 3:57:43: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 'Cause the way the process works -- in my observation, at least -- is, first we get an email with several attachments. Then, like a day later, we get a link to an e-packet. And then, a day or 3 later, we get more attachments. And I -- It would be much better, from my point of view, if we just had everything in the link. The e-packet link. And if that changes, you know, from day to day, as we get closer to the meeting, then so be it. But it is a bit helter-skelter to get 3 messages in 3 days about the package. 3:58:22: Tsu-tsu-tsu-tsu-tsu-tsu-tsu -- And, last, I want to point out that the biggest component of the package we got didn't get a word of discussion tonight. It's the quarterly report. ### Yes. In the old days, each quarterly report was agendized, just in case UAC wanted to talk about it. It you're going to go to the trouble of producing a quarterly report every quarter, ### Or, as has been the recent practice, three quarterly reports per year. I will make the comment again this quarter, that the document is not what it says it is. It is not, for example, a financial report, AT ALL. it is not a summary. There is no summary of all the utilities. It just gets right into electric, gas, water -- Never do we see, for example, what is the summary revenue. What is the summary capex, year- to-date? Etc. And, you know, I'm not here to say please make the quarterly report better. That's not my message. What I would say, again, is, if we're going to go to the trouble -- If your staff is going to go to what I imagine is a very big effort, it should be better. Or else, it should be end-of-lifed. 3:59:20: Chair Scharff: All right. With that, we're adjourned. 3:59:23: END From:Negisi Aoi To:help@goyangcvb.or.kr; publicrecords@tampagov.net; RosadoMR@elpasotexas.gov; RodriguezJA8@elpasotexas.gov; ChavezMX1@elpasotexas.gov; DelCampoJM@elpasotexas.gov; cgai@jefatura.cdmx.gob.mx; info@visit-mexico.mx; atencionciudadana@sre.gob.mx; Mexico.ACS@gdit-gss.com; Administrative Services; EnjoyOnline; Parks; Fire; HR; Office of the CIO; Library, Pa; OES; plandiv.info@paloalto.gov; Building; Police; PWD; UTL-Customer Service; City Mgr; City Attorney; City Auditor; Clerk, City; Council, City; license@lasvegasnevada.gov; pao@lasvegasnevada.gov; BuildingInfo@lasvegasnevada.gov; ece@lasvegasnevada.gov; emaster@korea.kr; aglyia@korea.kr; turismo@esmadrid.com; objetosperdidosestaciones@adif.es; info@bosa.fgov.be; contact@mediateurfederal.be; mayor@london.gov.uk; rathaus@muenchen.de; tourismus@muenchen.de; presse@paris.fr; dpd.paris@paris.fr; opra@eastrutherfordnj.net; PDuncan@foxboroughma.gov; KLang@foxboroughma.gov; MBuckley@foxboroughma.gov; mayor@baltimorecity.gov; CouncilPresident@baltimorecity.gov; bde@baltimorecity.gov; baltimorecitycollections@baltimorecity.gov; recruitment@baltimorecity.gov; oig@baltimorecity.gov; Action@arlingtontx.gov; CityCouncil@arlingtontx.gov; AnimalServices@arlingtontx.gov; ia@arlingtontx.gov; webfeedback@toronto.ca; privacy@toronto.ca; 311@toronto.ca; propertytax@toronto.ca; utilitybill@toronto.ca; CityPlanning@toronto.ca; humanrights@toronto.ca; CustomerSupport@cityofchicago.org; businesslicense@cityofchicago.org; utilitybill@cityofchicago.org; Clerkfoia@cityofchicago.org; cityfeedback@cityofchicago.org; 311@lacity.org; Finance.CustomerService@lacity.org; Clerk.CPS@lacity.org; mayor.helpdesk@lacity.org; info@lacounty.gov; cdri@alcaldiabogota.gov.co; web@munlima.gob.pe; alcaldia@munlima.gob.pe; defensadelciudadano@munlima.gob.pe; cerrosantalucia@munistgo.cl; dgsocai@buenosaires.gob.ar; gogeps@buenosaires.go; ogm@prefeitura.sp.gov.br; gabinete.ogm@prefeitura.sp.gov.br; smri@prefeitura.sp.gov.br; saraban.bmcs@bangkok.go.th; saraban.doe@bangkok.go.th; dmsbma@msdbangkok.go.th; dbkl@dbkl.gov.my; enquiries@kltourismbureau.com.my; feedback@jbtc.org.sg; info@ccktc.org.sg; feedback@ttc.org.sg; feedback@ahtc.sg; dki@jakarta.go.id; smartcity@jakarta.go.id; ppid@jakarta.go.id; enquiries@melbourne.vic.gov.au; rates@melbourne.vic.gov.au; foi@melbourne.vic.gov.au; council@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au; mediateam@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au; procurement@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au; enquiry@1835500.gov.hk; ceo@ceo.gov.hk; enquiry@immd.gov.hk; taxinfo@ird.gov.hk; admwing@cso.gov.hk; eppmgmtoff@digitalpolicy.gov.hk; xinfo@immigration.gov.ph; immigPH@immigration.gov.ph; pnp.pio@gmail.com; contact@legaspi-law.com Cc:Negisi Aoi Subject:Requests and Cautions Regarding BTS WORLD TOUR "ARIRANG"BTS WORLD TOUR "ARIRANG"에 대한 요망과 주의 환기 Solicitudes y advertencias para la gira mundial de BTS "ARIRANG" Date:Friday, January 30, 2026 8:27:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i (Please be sure to read this email in its entirety, even if it takes about a week tofinish. I have carefully explained the extremely important precautions and advice for yourcity.) Hello, nice to meet you. The "BTS WORLD TOUR 'ARIRANG'" will be held from April 9th of this year to March 14thof next year, with 82 performances in 34 cities and 23 countries and regions. BTS WORLD TOUR 'ARIRANG' https://ibighit.com/en/bts/tour/ BTS is a seven-member South Korean boy band that debuted in 2013 and is one of themost successful artists in Asian history. Taylor Swift will be holding a four-day live concert at Tokyo Dome in January 2024 aspart of her "The Eras Tour," a series of world tours from 2023 to 2024, which was ahuge success. Her total ticket sales for this world tour are said to be the highest ever for anentertainer, earning her $1.3 billion, or approximately 200 billion yen. The estimated economic ripple effect is around $130 billion, or 2 trillion yen. Please convert as follows: 1 yen = 10 won, 153 yen = 1 dollar, approximately 183 yen = 1 euro, approximately 8.89 yen = 1 Mexican peso, approximately 29.55 yen = 1 real, 215 yen = 1 pound, 114 yen = 1 Canadian dollar, 0.0419 yen = 1 Colombian peso, 46 yen = 1 Peruvian nuevo sol, 0.17 yen = 1 Chileanpeso, 9.42 yen = Argentine peso, This message needs your attention The subject has non-English characters. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report 5.39 yen = 1 New Taiwan dollar, 5 yen = 1 Thai baht, 43.53 yen = 1 Malaysian ringgit, 122 yen = 1 Singapore dollar, 1.04 yen = 1 Indonesian rupiah, 110 yen = Australian dollar, 20.06 yen = 1 Hong Kongdollar, 2.76 yen = Philippine peso. However, BTS's economic ripple effect, including box office revenue per concert andtotal sales from related merchandise, streaming live streams, accommodation,transportation infrastructure, restaurants, souvenir shops, etc., will likely surpassTaylor's. For more details, please ask AIs such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Grokto learn questions such as, "What economic ripple effect will the BTS WORLD TOUR,scheduled for 2026-2027, have on host countries and cities around the world?" Then learn, "How much economic ripple effect will it have on your city?" Also, for 2-4 days around the opening of these live concerts, and for about a weekbefore and after, Name your city "The City" and paint it purple, BTS's symbolic color. For more information on this, please see ChatGPT or similar posts such as, "What wasthe excitement and economic ripple effect when BTS held a four-day live concert inLas Vegas, Nevada, USA in April 2022, titled The City?" In May 2024, the K-pop group SEVENTEEN, whose parent company is the same as BTS's,HYBE, held a similar event in Osaka and Yokohama, which was a huge success. Please check with HYBE, the Korean entertainment agency to which BTS belongs, formore details and cooperate with us in holding the event. HYBE Official Website https://hybecorp.com/eng/company/artist I sincerely urge you not to take my suggestions and advice lightly. I will be contacting the then-governments of over 80% of European countries by April-June 2024, and in June of the same year, the governments of all 50 US states, Canada,Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Latin America, and around 90% of Asian countries. I sent emails to these many countries and 50 states pleading, "Please invite a BTSlive concert to your country/province. They will be the messiahs who will create anunprecedented economic ripple effect for your country/province." To the mayors and local government officials of the cities that were able to hostthis historic mega-event, I would like to say the following: "Please personally express your gratitude to your administration and state governmentofficials, including the governor and other administrators. If you are convinced that they contributed to the hosting of this mega-event." Unfortunately, some state government officials insulted me, saying things like,"Please stop sending spam, it's a nuisance," and treated my emails carelessly anddiscarded them. However, these states were not selected to host this BTS live concert. Those state governments will likely not be able to invite them in the future, and allother K-pop groups under HYBE, to which they belong, will never be able to hold live HYBE is the largest and most powerful entertainment company in Asia. This is abrupt and rude, but I appreciate your cooperation. (Sources) [The following is an event from April 2022] "BTS's Las Vegas Concert in April 2022 and the Success of "The City"" by YouTube https://www.youtube.com/results? BTS and Army Sweep Las Vegas With Four-Day "Permission To Dance" ResidencyMay 03, 2022 By KORELIMITED - https://korelimited.com/blogs/korelimited/bts-and-army-sweep-las-vegas-with-four-day-permission-to-dance-residency?srsltid=AfmBOoqBIGPA8KqJhYQGWqHz1LLQ0sjHM-SZT0600jljKQV5zk_kGfkA [All articles from 2026 onward] BTS’ ARIRANG Breaks Pre-Release Records, Crosses 4 Million Sales in a WeekCurated By:• Grace Cyril• News18.comLast Updated: January 23, 2026, 5:16 PM ISTBTS’ comeback album ARIRANG hits 4.06 million pre-orders in one week, surpassing MAPOF THE SOUL: 7 and challenging Taylor Swift’s The Life of A Showgirl record. https://www.news18.com/movies/hollywood/bts-arirang-breaks-pre-release-records-crosses-4-million-sales-in-a-week-ws-l-9852037.html BTS World Tour Triggers Global Tourism Boom82-show tour sparks surges in travel searches, economic projections across 34 cities Published 2026.01.26. 08:54 https://www.chosun.com/english/kpop-culture-en/2026/01/26/PL5F62HQH5DWHI3VB5SCRAQPPI/ BTS Sells Out Of North American And European Leg Of ARIRANG World TourByLaura Sirikul,Contributor.Laura Sirikul is a L.A.-based reporter covering film/TV and music.Published Jan 26, 2026, 04:27pm EST Updated Jan 27, 2026, 10:34am EST https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurasirikul/2026/01/26/bts-sells-out-of-north-american-and-european-leg-of-arirang-world-tour/ Mexico president asks Korean counterpart for more BTS concertsBy ReutersJanuary 27, 20266:19 PM GMT+9Updated 18 hours ago https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/mexico-president-asks-korean-counterpart-more-bts-concerts-2026-01-26/ "BTS World Tour 2026-2027 ARMY" by YouTube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=BTS+World+Tour+2026-2027+ARMY “BTS” by Yahoo Japan News https://news.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=bts&ei=utf-8 "BTS" by X Realtime https://search.yahoo.co.jp/realtime/search?p=BTS&fr=top_ga1_sa&ei=UTF-8 [This is a 2024 event] "SEVENTEEN 'FOLLOW' THE CITY" by YouTube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SEVENTEEN+%E2%80%98FOLLOW%E2%80%99+THE+CITY The British public broadcaster BBC predicted that "BTS's world tour will generatemore than $1 billion in revenue." However, the actual figure is over $2 billion, with an economic ripple effect of Approximately 9.8 trillion yen, approximately 92,140,680 million won, 63,886,880million US dollars, 53,487,970 million euros, 46,387,250 million pounds, 85,452,090 million US dollars, 488,644 million Hong Kong dollars, 1,077,164,800 million rupiah, 251,699,170 million ringgits, 1,985,292,920 million baht, 3,551,521,730 million Philippine pesos, 990,121,210 million Mexican pesos, 257,952,631,570 million Colombian pesos, 61,263,750 million Chilean pesos, Approximately 89,110,990,900 million Argentine pesos , which will beNT$2,880,170,000. BBC What in the WorldAre BTS still the kings of K-pop? https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/w3ct73mw The Guardian K-pop supergroup BTS set to trigger US economic boom with tour: ‘Every stop is goingto see a boost’As the band prepares for tour, economists say pent-up global demand could reshape howconcerts boost city economies https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/22/k-pop-bts-tour-music Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said, "BTS's world tour sold out 150,000 tickets,but that's not enough. I want them to visit Mexico more often." Her comments havesparked controversy in South Korea. Mexican president asks South Korea for more BTS concerts2 days agoKelly Ng https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7y2gy4p24o "Stop using BTS for political purposes. They completed their military service lastyear. They are already suffering from the mental strain of the ongoing legal battleover misconduct by their entertainment agency HYBE and its subsidiary ADOR's formerCEO Min Hee-jin, as well as NewJeans and its parents, as well as allegations of stockprice manipulation by their foster father Bang Si-hyuk before their IPO. Don't putany more unnecessary strain on them," is the growing criticism. Criticism is mounting, with people saying, "Don't cause them any more trouble thanthis." Never make casual comments about them, but show consideration by saying things like,"Thank you for choosing our city to host your live concert. We couldn't be happier ifyou like our town." Please provide security for their live concerts on the same level as foreign VIPs. VIP-level security refers to the 24-hour personal protection of the Prime Ministerand state guests, primarily provided by security officers from the Tokyo MetropolitanPolice Department's Security Division and prefectural police. The level of protection will be extremely strict, including physical protection,intelligence gathering to detect threats in advance, and motorcades using bulletproofvehicles. "But first, learn who BTS are." YouTube and social media are now commonly used by celebrities and athletes. BTS were the first in the world to make full use of YouTube and Twitter (now X) to increase their name recognition and market value. The word "fandom" was also coined by their fans, ARMY. BTS's "V" is ranked 4th in the world in search results. "Idol of idols for a reason"- Fans cheer as BTS' Taehyung dominates 2025 Google searches and lands #4 among the world's most-searched starsBy Adrija ChakrabortyModified Jan 29, 2026 17:43 GMT https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/k-pop/news-idol-idols-reason-fans-cheer-bts-taehyung-dominates-2025-google-searches-lands-4-among-world-s-most-searched-stars "Thank you, Korea. Thank you so much." 3-minute video brings 600,000 people to tearsin El Paso, USA // Local reaction 3 minutes after BTS concert confirmed Dangol IssueChannel Subscribers: 609,000Channel Subscribers: 5,504200,000 Views: 5 days ago 7 ProductsSubscribe to the channel and enjoy benefits./ @dangolissue …261 Comments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wioPVZbTt4 "BTS Fandom ARMY" by YouTube https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=BTS+fandom+ARMY We appreciate your cooperation. BTS World Tour Schedule for 2026-2027. All of the games are scheduled to be held in stadiums dedicated to NFL and NCAA stadiums, and the huge Tokyo Dome stadiums where the Yomiuri Giants play in Japaneseprofessional baseball. If they can attract 60,000 people per show, that would be 4.92 million, and even if they can attract 50,000 people, that would be 4.1million. After March 21st, which has not yet been decided, 15-20 more shows will be added in Japan, the Middle East, South Korea, etc., sothe actual attendance figure would be over 5.1 million to 6.12 million. This figure would be the second highest ever, after Taylor Swift. BTS WORLD TOUR 'ARIRANG’ https://ibighit.com/en/bts/tour/ [2026] Goyang, South Korea, for three days on April 9th, 11th, and 12th. Tokyo, Japan, for two days on April 17th and 18th. Tampa, Florida, USA, for three days on April 25th, 26th, and 28th. El Paso, Texas, for two days on May 2nd and 3rd. Mexico, Mexico, for three days on May 7th, 9th, and 10th. Palo Alto, California, for three days on May 16th, 17th, and 19th. Las Vegas, Nevada, for four days on May 23rd, 24th, 27th, and 28th. Busan, South Korea, for two days on June 12th and 13th. Madrid, Spain, for two days on June 26th and 27th. Brussels, Belgium, for two days on July 1st and 2nd. London, UK, for two days on July 6th and 7th. Munich, Germany, for two days on July 11th and 12th. Paris, France, July 17th and 18th. East Rutherford, New Jersey, August 1st and 2nd. Foxborough, Massachusetts, August 5th and 6th. Baltimore, Maryland, August 10th and 11th. Arlington, Texas, August 15th and 16th. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 22nd and 23rd. Chicago, Illinois, August 27th and 28th. Los Angeles, California, September 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th. Bogotá, Colombia, October 2nd and 3rd. Lima, Peru, October 9th and 10th. Santiago, Chile, October 16th and 17th. Buenos Aires, Argentina, for two days on October 23rd and 24th. São Paulo, Brazil, for three days on October 28th, 30th, and 31st. Kaohsiung, Taiwan, for three days on November 19th, 21st, and 22nd. Bangkok, Thailand, for three days on December 3rd, 5th, and 6th. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for two days on December 12th and 13th. Singapore, Singapore, for four days on December 17th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd. Jakarta, Indonesia, for two days on December 26th and 27th. [2027] Melbourne, Australia, for two days on February 12th and 13th. Sidney, Australia, for two days on February 20th and 21st. Three days in Hong Kong, China on March 4th, 6th, and 7th. Two days in Manila, Philippines on March 13th and 14th. In total, 82 shows are scheduled in 34 cities and 24 countries and regions. AfterMarch 21st, 2027, we will likely add 15-20 shows in 5-7 countries. Thank you for your continued support. This is a very rude request, but I would appreciate your help. Sincerely, Minami View this email in your browser. Join us on Feb. 6 to plan ourpriorities From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA Priorities - join us on 2/6 to discuss and help define our new year of action! Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 11:18:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Help Shape the Future of the League! Join us for our annual Program Planning Meeting on priorities for the coming year on Friday, 2/6/26 - 9:45am-noon WHEN: Friday, February 6, 9:45am-12 noon (program begins at 10am) WHERE: Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto 94303 (in person) RSVP: Register here With democracy under siege, the national League has recommended an education and action program to respond to this threat. As a grassroots organization, we invite you to help determine the action priorities for our local League for 2026-2027, as well as the national LWVUS priorities for 2026-2028. At the meeting, we will discuss and provide member input on these national and local priorities, including how to best address threats to democracy within our own community. To prepare for the discussion, please review the "Background Information on Focus Issues" below. This guide, based on LWVUS' "Impact on Issues", covers the League's public policy positions on each of the recommended national priority issues: Voting Rights, Election Protection, Redistricting, Individual Rights, Immigration, and the Presidency We look forward to seeing you there! Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Naomi Roberts To:Robustelli, Sarah; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; nellis.freeman@gmail.com; O"Kane, Kristen; Prior, Christine; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; City Mgr Cc:rwr221954@gmail.com Subject:The Preservation and Protection of land of the William Frank Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 10:56:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Naomi Roberts 3067 Rafahi Way Hayward,CA. 94541 Cell phone: (510) 648-6263 January 27, 2026 Dear Mayor of Palo Alto, the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council, the Palo Alto Park & Recreation Commission Staff Members, Re: Preservation and Protecting the land of the William Frank Peoples Jr. Memorial Playground After my recent online meeting with Mr. Nellis and Ms. Sarah of the Park and Recreation Department on January 16th, I am requesting that the area currently operating as parkland at Ventura be formally dedicated and named in honor of my brother, William F. Peoples Jr.. The park area has been there for 51 years. From my understanding the area discussed includes the Palo Alto Community Childcare Center, a Bike Safety Park, the Ventura Community Garden, Athletic Grass Field and my brothers' playground area. As I have continued to state and wanted to clarify my request does not include or impact the Palo Alto Community Childcare Center Facility. In April of 1974, the time of death he was a 6th grader at the Ventura Elementary School, now known as the Palo Alto Community Childcare Center. I am not asking for all the area of the community center to be included, our family is requesting to preserve and protect the land of the playground area. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report In the playground area there is a surrounding grass area adjacent to the park and a basketball area where his sign is located. Will we measured the area that was dedicated in June 14, 1974 and in April 16,1995, where the park equipment and structures has been located, where there is no changes with anything? Or do we remeasure a certain portion of the existing park area for the preservation and protection of land? My request is to preserve and protect the land and to recognize my brother through the dedication and naming of the park land area. For our family, the park dedicated in Williams' honor is not simply a parcel of land, it is a living memorial to a young life lost far too soon. I continue to believe my brothers’ memorial playground area will continue to be a place filled with love, joy, happiness and fun for many years to come. I wanted to attend the January 24th City Council Annual Retreat, at Mitchell Park Community Center, but was unable to attend, hopefully I can attend the upcoming event for the Parks and Recreation Annual Retreat on February 13, 2026. Thanks again your thoughtful consideration regarding our family's request. Sincerely, Naomi Roberts From:Eric Krock To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; OES Subject:please adopt a Civil Rights Defense Plan to protect city residents from harm by ICE/CBT agents Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 5:18:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers - In light of widespread criminal acts by ICE/CBT agents in Minneapolis, the ICE presence at the 2/8 Superbowl, and the possibility that ICE/CBT may at some point conduct a surge in the Bay Area, please adopt a Civil Rights Defense Plan to protect the lives, safety, and civil rights of your community members. I have posted a template plan for use by any city and county at https://bit.ly/city-county-civil-rights . I will continuously update the template plan as I identify potential cost-effective improvements. Below are the portions of the plan that are specifically relevant to city leadership. Thank you for your efforts to keep our communities safe! Eric Krock Sunnyvale, CA mobile 408-836-5230 erichasblueeyes@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/krock/ Executive summary Photo and video evidence proves that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBT) agents are now routinely: violating the law; using excessive force; violating the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights of residents of the cities in which they are operating; and even blinding and murdering people who pose no threat. To protect the lives, health, and civil rights of their residents, cities and counties nationwide and their police departments, County Sheriff’s Offices, local district attorneys, and school boards must prepare plans today for how they will use legal means to deter, document, and reverse illegal acts and civil rights violations by ICE and CBT agents such as those that Minneapolis-St. Paul and other places are now This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast experiencing. Cities and counties should educate residents and local businesses about their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights so residents know how to act in ways that protect their rights against violation. Local law enforcement officers must be trained on when and how to deter, interrupt, document, and report illegal acts by ICE/CBT agents and on how to arrest ICE/CBT agents who are violating or have violated the law. District Attorneys must be ready to prosecute ICE/CBT agents who violate the law, preferably under state law, and to aggressively protect their right to prosecute against inevitable federal efforts to move the cases to federal court. School districts must be prepared to offer remote learning to students who no longer feel they can safely go to school. Mayors must be ready to call on governors for deployment of the National Guard and/or State Guard if necessary to provide the manpower necessary to monitor ICE/CBT activity and prevent violations of civil rights. Residents should be ready to monitor ICE/CBT activity to deter and document violations of the law, to deliver food to people who no longer feel they can safely go out, and to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and protest against illegal actions by the government. And private businesses (including medical facilities) and places of worship should post notices on their doors prohibiting ICE/CBT agents from entering their property without a warrant and enforce the prohibition against law enforcement access to nonpublic areas of a business without a warrant. Recommended actions City Council, City Staff, and County Board 1. City Council and County Board should, as the City of San Jose, California has already done, pass an emergency ordinance prohibiting ICE/CBT from using all city- and county-owned property as assembly, logistics, or support areas or for any other purpose. 2. The City and County should post signs barring ICE/CBT agents from all of their workplaces and prohibit entry into nonpublic areas. 3. The City and County should proactively educate their residents about their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the difference between a judicial and administrative warrant, the right not to open their car door or home’s door if they have not been presented with a signed judicial warrant, effective use of the questions “Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?,” the importance of not speaking to law enforcement officers when detained without an attorney present, and so on using every educational channel we have, including statements at City Council meetings, prominent posts on the City web site, outbound emails, and posts on social media. An educated citizenry is best able to participate in protecting its civil rights. 4. The City and County should establish official written policies that the police department and Sheriff’s Office will enforce the legal requirement that law enforcement officers have a signed judicial warrant before they can search a person’s home or car without consent, and local law enforcement should treat violations of these legal requirements as criminal acts and arrest those responsible. 5. The City and County should pass ordinances prohibiting police officers and Sheriff’s deputies (respectively) from moonlighting for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. City Attorney should review Automatic License Plate Reader policies and contracts Given the evidence that ICE is misusing Automatic License Plate Reader data to identify and intimidate legal observers, the City should evaluate how it can reduce the ability of ICE to misuse data from ALPRs in any way. The City Attorney should meet immediately with the vendor the City uses for Automatic License Plate Readers, to assess how contracts, ALPR configurations, and ALPR data retention policies can be revised to provide the maximum possible assurance that federal authorities will not be able to obtain ALPR data without City prior knowledge and consent. Options such as retaining data for a limited time, storing data on servers under City control without contractor or federal access, and encrypting data with encryption keys that only City staff possess should be considered. If acceptable legal and technical measures to protect the civil rights of City residents cannot be put in place, the City should cancel its ALPR contract as the City of Santa Cruz, California has already done. City Attorney and Police Department The hardest, most physically dangerous challenge is that police officers must be ready to intervene as necessary to stop armed, masked federal agents from violating the law just as they would intervene to stop anyone else who is violating the law. Federal agents should not be above the law, but only local and state law enforcement willingness to enforce the laws without special treatment of anyone will make sure that federal agents aren’t above the law in practice. Intervention does not necessarily mean arrest. In the best case, if police officers show up at a scene and inform the federal agents that the federal agents are violating state law and are subject to immediate arrest and prosecution under state law if they do not cease their violations immediately, the federal agents, wanting to avoid state-level prosecution and time in state prison for which federal pardons do not apply, may back down and leave. Police officers should of course make maximum possible use of their de-escalation training to try to prevent a situation in which federal agents are breaking the law from escalating into an arrest or (worse) use of force. However, it is clear that at least some ICE/CBT agents have no regard for the law, insufficient training, poor impulse control, and no reluctance to use unnecessary violence in violation of the law and federal guidelines. Unfortunately, some ICE/CBT agents likely won’t cease breaking the law unless they realize that the result may be arrest by local law enforcement and prosecution under state law. Some may not stop until they are in fact arrested. Historically, local police forces have not normally found themselves in a situation where federal law enforcement agents are violating federal and state laws or the provisions of the federal and/or state constitutions. Therefore, local police forces have generally deferred to federal law enforcement officers on the assumption that the federal law enforcement officers will be acting in good faith in compliance with federal and state law, and that if not, federal law enforcement agency internal disciplinary procedures will be the applicable remedy. All of those assumptions are now invalid. Federal agents are routinely violating the law without consequence, and no federal investigations of violations are being performed. Local police officers may understandably be reluctant to perform an arrest of an armed federal agent who is violating the law, who feels entitled to compliance with their wishes, and who may use force when challenged. The huge imbalance of forces when the federal government deploys five times as many immigration enforcement agents as a city has police officers (as has happened in Minneapolis - St. Paul) poses an additional challenge. Unfortunately, events in Minneapolis indicate that such situations may become commonplace nationwide if the Trump Administration doesn’t change its policies. Therefore, city and county residents can only be assured of continuing to have their federal and state civil rights if police officers and sheriff’s deputies are ready and willing to arrest federal agents who are violating those rights. Being ready and willing requires that the the police department and county sheriff have established a policy specifying when its officers will and will not arrest federal agents who are violating federal or state law and given the officers training on specific policies and procedures on how to demand compliance with the law, how to de-escalate where possible, how to call for backup, and, when unavoidably necessary, how to use legally allowed force to arrest federal agents who do not comply with instructions and who persist in violating the law. In situations where the federal agent’s illegal actions are not threatening to cause permanent disability (e.g. via blinding) or death, seeking an arrest warrant and arresting the federal agent after the fact may be a course of action providing lower situational risk to arresting officers. Therefore, the police department should establish specific policies and procedures regarding use of force against federal agents who are violating the law so that officers are trained and ready to do what is legal, right, and necessary if the situation presents itself with the lowest risk to themselves and federal agents possible. From:Giselle Roohparvar To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking - Permitting, Rotation Programs and Storage Capacity Agreements Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 1:12:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager and City Staff, I am a Palo Alto resident writing to provide input on practical strategies for addressing oversized vehicle parking enforcement challenges. I appreciate the Council's recent emergency ordinance establishing time limits and prohibiting renting of oversized vehicles. However, I understand from the City's community event I attended last night that enforcement has been hampered by logistical constraints around towing and storage capacity. As a result, I looked into this matter in an effort to provide researched input to the City as it works towards a comprehensive solution. Other California cities have successfully addressed similar operational challenges through permit-based systems and creative storage solutions. I respectfully offer the following examples for your consideration. --- **Examples of Ordinances and Enforcement Models in Other Cities** **1. Permit-Based Restrictions Tied to Resident Addresses (Cupertino)** Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 11.28 prohibits overnight parking of oversized vehicles on public streets without a permit. Key operational controls include: - Permits limited to residents, of short duration (72 hours), and capped at 20 permits per resident household per year (Cup. Mun. Code sec. 11.27.050) - Prohibition on vehicles being used for living or sleeping quarters (Cup. Mun. Code sec. 11.28.02(A)) - Prohibition on renting vehicles for living or sleeping quarters (Cup. Mun. Code sec. 11.28.02(B)) - Requirement that vehicles relocate a minimum distance (approximately 1,500 feet) after each 72-hour permit expiration to prevent repeated occupation of the same This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report street segments (Cup. Mun. Code sec. 11.27.050) - Violations treated as infractions, with multiple infractions potentially leading to misdemeanor charges (Cup. Mun. Code secs. 11.28.02(E) and 1.12) --- **2. Short-Term Permits with Annual Caps (Garden Grove)** Garden Grove Municipal Code Chapter 10.56 requires permits for oversized vehicles parked on public streets. Key elements include: - Blanket prohibition on parking oversized vehicles without a permit (Garden Grove Mun. Code Sec. 10.56.110(B), (C)) - Permits limited to residents for loading/unloading purposes only - Short duration (72 hours) with a cap of 12 non-consecutive permits per calendar year per residential address (Garden Grove Mun. Code Sec. 10.56.110(D)) --- **3. Citywide Prohibition Except by Permit (San Rafael)** San Rafael Municipal Code Section 5.40.145 et seq. establishes a citywide prohibition on parking recreational vehicles on public streets, except where a temporary permit has been issued. Key details include: - Blanket prohibition with narrow exceptions for mechanical breakdown or emergency vehicles (San Rafael Mun. Code sec. 5.40.145(B)) - Permits issued to residents for specific purposes: loading/unloading, hosting out-of- town visitors, or community events (San Rafael Mun. Code sec. 5.40.145(D)). RVs with permits must be parked directed in front of or adjacent to the resident's property (or subject to towing). - For residents: permits limited to 1 calendar day, maximum 3 consecutive permits, with no more than 36 permits per calendar year - For out-of-town visitors of residents: permit period cannot exceed 8 days, with maximum 12 permits per calendar year, tied to the residence being visited --- **4. Practical Enforcement Solutions: Storage and Towing Capacity** Several cities have successfully addressed the operational challenge of limited storage capacity through creative solutions: **A. Cross-Jurisdictional Storage Agreements** capacity beyond their borders. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) operates two facilities: - Primary Storage Facility at 450 7th Street (San Francisco) for vehicles stored less than 48 hours - **Secondary Long-Term Storage Facility at 2650 Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City** for vehicles not picked up within 48 hours, abandoned vehicles, and vehicles requiring extended storage. (see article) According to SFMTA contract documents, San Francisco explicitly uses a facility in neighboring Daly City for long-term vehicle storage and auctions. Oversized vehicles are often transported directly to this secondary facility. This arrangement demonstrates how cities can partner with neighboring jurisdictions or utilize facilities outside city limits to overcome local storage constraints. **B. Contracting with Private Storage Facilities** Cities have successfully contracted with private industrial properties or underutilized commercial lots to serve as dedicated oversized-vehicle impound facilities. This approach allows municipalities to: - Secure larger storage spaces capable of accommodating oversized vehicles - Avoid the capital expense of purchasing or developing city-owned facilities - Flexibly scale storage capacity based on need **C. Regional Joint Powers Agreements** Under California's Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.), cities can create joint powers authorities (JPAs) to share services and infrastructure. While typically used for services like transportation, waste management, and public safety, JPAs can also facilitate shared towing and storage capacity. Bay Area examples include: - Sacramento Transportation Authority's Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority, which enforces local ordinances to remove abandoned vehicles through regional cooperation - Multiple regional solid waste authorities that demonstrate how neighboring cities successfully pool resources for common operational challenges Cities could explore similar regional agreements specifically for oversized vehicle impound and storage, allowing multiple municipalities to share: - Storage facility costs and capacity - Towing contractor services - Administrative and enforcement resources **D. Relocation Authority Within City Limits** Some jurisdictions use "soft tow" or relocation authority to move oversized vehicles from one location to another within city limits, disrupting long-term permanent parking without requiring distant storage facilities. This approach can be particularly effective --- **5. Rotating Restrictions and Tow-Away Zones (San Jose)** San Jose Municipal Code Section 11.36.220 supported the creation of their Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement (OLIVE) program, which establishes rotating no-parking and tow-away zones. These zones: - Temporarily prohibit vehicle parking in designated areas - Allow for street maintenance and sanitation access - Discourage long-term vehicle storage through rotation rather than requiring constant towing - Provide data collection to inform long-term policy approaches According to the City of San José website, the program conducts biannual citywide inventories of oversized and presumed lived-in vehicles, identifying up to 50 sites each year for temporary tow-away parking restrictions (approximately one month in duration). This helps facilitate cleanup and street sweeping while encouraging voluntary relocation. --- **Conclusion** In sum, neighboring cities have used the following strategies to implement successful programs in their cities: 1. **Resident-based permit systems** with time limits and annual caps to distinguish temporary legitimate use from long-term street storage 2. **Creative storage solutions** including cross-jurisdictional agreements, private facility contracts, or regional joint powers authorities 3. **Rotating enforcement zones** that encourage voluntary compliance while managing enforcement resource demands 4. **Explicit towing authority** backed by actual operational capacity Thank you for your time, your careful consideration of this issue, and for your continued service to the Palo Alto community. I appreciate the effort and dedication that Council and staff bring to addressing complex and challenging local issues. Regards, Giselle Roohparvar Palo Alto Resident From:Annette Isaacson To:Council, City Subject:Supervisors grapple with response after shooting Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 9:53:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://enewspaper.pressdemocrat.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=4539c228- a93a-42d0-b6b0-4ee5b3bdeaa5&share=true Dear City Council Members, Please prepare in case ICE descends on Palo Alto. We have to be ready. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown From:Joseph Macias To:Council, City Cc:Adam Mahoney (He Him) Subject:Pinterest Cal-Warn Notice Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:10:32 PM Attachments:26.01.27 - Pinterest Warn Ltr to Palo Alto Mayor.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To Whom it May Concern: Please find attached a letter sent on behalf of Adam Mahoney & Pinterest, Inc. Thank you, Joseph Macias | Senior Counsel, Labor & Employment jmacias@pinterest.com | (559) 361-1332 This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast January 27, 2026 To: The Honorable Vicki Veenker Mayor of Palo Alto City Hall, 7th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (City.Council@paloalto.gov) Subject: Cal-Warn Notice for Pinterest, Inc. Dear Ms. Veenker, This letter is to inform you that on March 31, 2026, Pinterest Inc. will be conducting terminations affecting 118 employees based in, or reporting to, our San Francisco office located at 651 Brannan St #310, San Francisco, CA 94107, and our Palo Alto office located at 395 Page Mill Rd., Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Affected employees are receiving at least 60 days’ notice. The action is expected to be permanent. While Pinterest does not concede that the California WARN Act and/or the federal WARN Act applies to all of the affected employees, Pinterest provides this notice out of an abundance of caution. Pinterest does not plan to coordinate rapid response services through the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), NOVAworks, or other entity. However, affected employees in our San Francisco and Palo Alto offices have been informed that they may contact the OEWD at (415) 701-4817, or workforce.development@sfgov.org, or NOVAworks at (408) 730-7232, or https://novaworks.org, respectively, and have been informed of the following rapid response services offered by the OEWD: Local Workforce Development Boards and their partners help laid off workers find new jobs. Visit an America’s Job Center of California location near you. You can get help with your resume, practice interviewing, search for jobs, and more. You can also learn about training programs to help start a new career. Additionally, affected employees have been informed that they may be eligible for benefits through the CalFresh program, which provides benefits to eligible individuals to assist with buying food. Affected employees have also been notified that they may contact the CalFresh Benefits Helpline at 1-877-3663 or visit the CalFresh program’s website (https://www.cdss.ca.gov/food-nutrition/calfresh) for more information. The job titles of the positions to be affected and the number of affected employees in each job classification are as follows: [Continued on Next Page] Business Title Count Administrative Business Partner I 3 Benefits Manager 1 Chief of Staff to the CEO 1 Client Account Manager II, US Enterprise Sales, Fashion 1 Client Account Manager II, US Enterprise Sales, Food 1 Communications Lead, Data and Insights 1 Configuration/Release Engineer II 2 Counsel 1 Data Scientist II 1 Director & Assistant General Counsel, Global Marketing & Creator Content 1 Director, Engineering 1 Director, Machine Learning Engineering 1 Director, Product Design 1 Director, Product Management 1 Director, Production 1 Director, Strategy & Operations, Business Operations 1 Director, Workplace Operations 1 Distinguished Engineer 1 Executive Administrative Business Partner 1 Finance Manager I 1 IT Helpdesk Specialist I 1 IT Systems Administrator II, Physical Security 1 Lead Ads Product Marketing Manager 2 Lead Art Director 1 Lead Client Partner 1 Lead Project & Program Manager 1 Machine Learning Engineer I 1 Machine Learning Engineer II 5 Manager I, Engineering 2 Manager II, AV Services 1 Manager II, Business Development 1 Manager II, Learning 1 Manager II, People Operations 1 People Operations Lead 1 Physical Security Specialist II, Access Administration 1 Procurement Operations Specialist I 1 Product Designer II 1 Regional Security Manager (Americas West) 1 Security Software Engineer II 2 Software Engineer I 2 Software Engineer II 3 Sr. Business Systems Analyst 1 Sr. Client Partner, US Enterprise Sales, Specialty 1 Sr. Consumer Product Marketing Manager 1 Sr. Data Analyst, FinOps 1 Sr. Director & Assistant General Counsel 1 Sr. Director, Accounting, Global Revenue 1 Sr. Director, Product Design 1 Sr. Machine Learning Engineer 6 Sr. Manager, Communications 1 Sr. Performance Solutions Partner, US CPG 1 Sr. Product Designer 1 Sr. Product Manager 2 Sr. Product Operations Manager 1 Sr. Project & Program Manager 2 Sr. Project & Program Manager, Design 1 Sr. Qualitative Product Researcher 1 Sr. Safety Specialist, Content Safety Operations 1 Sr. Security Software Engineer 1 Sr. Software Engineer 11 Sr. Sourcer 1 Sr. Staff Software Engineer 1 These employees do not have any bumping rights, and there are no unions representing the affected employees. If you need any additional information, please contact Adam Mahoney at peoplecare@pinterest.com or (628) 400-4179. Thank you, Adam Mahoney People Care Team Leader at Pinterest, Inc. Sr. Systems Engineer 1 Sr. Technical Program Manager 2 Sr. User Services & Support Specialist 1 Staff Content Designer 2 Staff Machine Learning Engineer 2 Staff Product Designer 1 Staff Product Manager 1 Staff Qualitative Product Researcher 2 Staff Software Engineer 5 Staff Systems Engineer 3 Staff Technical Program Manager 1 Systems Engineer II 1 User Services & Support Specialist II 1 VP, Engineering - Monetization 1 VP, Sales Strategy, Operations & Enablement 1 Workplace Operations Specialist II 1 From:Christine N Witzel To:Council, City Cc:Christopher Jung Subject:530 Barron Avenue: Application 25PLN-00021 Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:19:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I was pleased to hear of the Director's decision to deny the original application (25PLN-00021) for a new home that would require removal of a 5-tree fairy ring of healthy redwoods. My understanding is that the recent decision was made because the applicant did not supply sufficient evidence that a residence with a smaller footprint was unfeasible per the regulations for these kinds of projects. As a longtime Barron Park resident, I value the old redwood and heritage oak trees that make our neighborhood beautiful. The fairy ring is a rare feature in my experience walking around the neighborhood. I see everywhere redwoods suffering from repeated droughts and heritage trees being killed by rampant ivy. I believe the canopy which is vital to the character of Barron Park is at great risk. To destroy a thriving and rare group of redwoods which cannot be replaced threatens both our environment and long term property values. Please support the decision to save these redwood trees. Thank you, Chris Witzel This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Richard Ángel Vega To:Richard Ángel Vega Subject:American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley Announces Erica Yew as New CEO Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:06:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Greetings. Please see the press release below announcing Judge Erica Yew as the new CEO of American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley. ******************** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley Announces Erica Yew as New CEO Nationally recognized judge and community leader cites “ALF’s legacy of innovative collaboration.” SAN JOSE, CA, January 27, 2026 – Judge Erica Yew will become American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley’s Chief Executive Officer on February 1. Yew, a San Jose native, retired after 24 years as a Superior Court judge in January. She brings decades of visionary leadership, judicial excellence, and a deep commitment to strengthening communities throughout Silicon Valley. Yew said, “I am excited and honored to join ALF Silicon Valley’s staff and Senior Fellows in continuing and growing American Leadership Forum’s legacy of innovative collaboration and impactful leadership. My parents immigrated to California for their education, and my father was an early Silicon Valley entrepreneur, starting ETEC and other companies. I grew up recognizing that the Valley is a special place and ALF Silicon Valley plays an outsized role in connecting all the sectors that make it so.” Yew brings a track record of national, state, and local leadership to the role as American This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This person's name has non-English characters. Mark Safe Report the 2300-member California Judges Association in 2023-2024. She chaired the commission that supervises the work of all state judges, the California Commission on Judicial Performance, a watchdog agency that ensures all California judges adhere to high ethical standards. “At a time when non-partisanship, ethics, and the rule of law are so central to Silicon Valley and American Leadership Forum’s future, we simply couldn’t have found a more perfect candidate,” said incoming board chair and interim CEO David Yarnold. Governor Gray Davis first appointed Yew to the Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 2, 2001, the first Asian-American female to sit on the county’s bench. She also chaired the Programs Committee of the National Center for State Courts, where she collaborated with state supreme court and local judges from across the country. She helped establish the creation of the California Judicial Mentor Program, a statewide initiative to create a more inclusive judiciary. Yew’s commitment to the Silicon Valley community runs deep. She is a Senior Fellow of American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley (Class XV) and currently co-facilitates the organization’s AAPI Caucus affinity group. She received ALF Silicon Valley’s highest honor, the John W. Gardner award, in 2014. Other honors include the Santa Clara County Bar Association Pro Bono Attorney of the Year award and a 2023 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Her extensive board service includes ReSurge International, the SCC Law Library Board, and the Good Samaritan Hospital Board, along with leadership roles in numerous bar associations and legal aid initiatives. Judge Yew is also an accomplished educator, having taught on judicial ethics, access to justice, and, most recently, on the impact of generative AI on litigants and the courts. She is an alumna of UC Berkeley and UC College of the Law, San Francisco. “Judge Erica Yew exemplifies extraordinary leadership through vision, impact, and results. She possesses exceptional common sense and sound judgment, guiding every decision with clarity and purpose. A highly skilled and artful communicator, she speaks with precision, confidence, and authenticity, in a way that inspires trust and respect,” said Judge Rise Pichon, an ALF Senior Fellow (Class XVIII) who served with Yew as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Pichon said, “Her ability to accomplish so much is remarkable, as if time itself pauses to accommodate her efforts. Hardworking, confident, and virtually fearless, she leads with strength and determination while remaining humble, compassionate, warm, and approachable.” With this appointment, American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley reaffirms its mission “to join and strengthen diverse leaders to serve the common good.” Through its signature year- long Fellows Program, American Leadership Forum brings together leaders from across sectors to engage in dialogue, support a thriving Silicon Valley community, and forge lasting relationships. This unique approach enhances Fellows’ capacity to address critical public issues collaboratively, thanks to a dynamic, curated network of nearly 850 leaders now 39 years in the making. Yew said, “My job as a judge has required me to listen to all views and be as inclusive as possible with a goal of working toward consensus. I’m excited to jump into the ALF network now to partner with Senior Fellows who have had similar training and a common lexicon. There is no telling what we will accomplish.” For more information about American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley and the ALF Fellows Program, visit alfsv.org. ### Judge Erica Yew’s full bio can be found here: alfsv.org/erica-yew Media Contact: Richard Ángel Vega, Chief Marketing Officer richard@alfsv.org, 408.554.2004 ******************** ​​​​ Richard Ángel Vega he/him/his Chief Marketing Officer American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley 408.554.2004 |richard@alfsv.org #000000 From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Police Subject:Commercial Street RVs/Vans/Detached Trailers Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 7:51:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council, I wanted to bring this photo to your attention. On my way back into town after my bike ride today I rode around some of our most OSV-laden streets and talked with a few more business owners. This photo was taken this afternoon in front of Concept Designs, 981 Commercial Street. Louis Hsiao, President/Owner of Concept Designs told me that this tattered bus has been there about five years and he also told me that in recent weeks that all of these vehicles have moved to within two inches of each other as to prevent them from being towed. If you would like a first hand account I would encourage you to contact Mr. Hsiao (Cell: 650-823-9662). We really need to get a handle on this! Regards Bob Marinaro Palo Alto On Street RV Count Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs 10/21/25 &11/2 &11/10 &11/19 &12/3 12/20 &############## 10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 11/20 12/20 1/29 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53 52 51 49 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15 13 10 11 8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15 15 17 16 9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10 11 10 11 10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13 12 2 0 11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6 2 4 3 12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8 10 5 5 14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11 7 8 7 15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25 20 19 15 16 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 17 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 200 193 188 197 195 180 170 165 18 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 19 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 20 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 21 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4 2 1 3 22 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 23 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 2 24 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 25 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 18 19 19 19 18 11 13 Total:220 211 207 216 214 198 181 178 Delta:-9 -4 9 -2 -16 -17 -3 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 (PA/MV Border)7 Yellow RVs on New Street Green Utility Construction Ventura Area RV Inventory_29Jan26 2/2/2026 1:25 PM