Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-23 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: 2/23/2026 Document dates: 2/17/2026 - 2/23/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:June Chang To:Council, City Subject:Attempted theft_ safety security concern to Echelon Community Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 11:37:18 AM Attachments:Front 4xh5787jbf6bc_20260222_10535.mp4 Front 4xh5787jbf6bc_20260222_10453.mp4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council and Committee, I'm an owner resident of Echelon Community. Echelon Community is on the same street, E Meadow Circle, of approximate 70 RVs occupied the entire E Meadow Circle. Our community is only steps away from them. 2/22/26 Sunday midnight 1am, attempted theft tried to break into my garage, see video footages attached. They are two people theft team, one waited outside waiting. Same night, many other property were intruded. One owner's garage unfortunately got break-in, reported to police, case #26-0706. The safety and security is a serious concern to Echelon community. I'm living in fear. Many others share the same feeling. The parking rules should be enforced and those RVs on E Meadow Drive needs to be cleared. Is the City Committee waiting for a tragedy to happy to take actions? Please take law-biding residents security seriously. Your attention is much appreciated. - Jung Chang 3767 Klamath Ln. Echelon Community This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Noah Fiedel To:Council, City Subject:Strong concerns regarding OSV Permit Proposal Date:Sunday, February 22, 2026 6:45:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, As an engaged voter and 20 year resident of Palo Alto,. I have significant concerns about the proposed OSV Permit program. 1. Enforcement is clearly working! The report states this rather clearly. This enforcement is of existing state laws, with no legal risk, and minimal costs. Continue and ramp-up enforcement! 2. Using the historical OSV population count is fundamentally flawed. We have just recently removed all parking on El Camino, pushing OSVs into neighborhoods. Additionally, will the historic counts be from pre-covid, when they were far lower? 3. Protect Bike Boulevards. Two of our greatest/newest-to-be bike boulevards have been whispered as potential zones for OSVs: Park and Fabian.These cost millions of dollars to construct, provide safe and emission-free transportation, reduce traffic, and are at-risk from OSVs. Can the council guarantee that no bike boulevards will be affected? 4. Equity & Low Income Housing..None of the reports state which streets will be! Many of our "non-residential" zones have housing being constructed, including low-income housing. Our city's most affordable housing areas are also adjacent to commercial zones. Can the council guarantee that half of the proposed permits will be issued in North Palo Alto? 5. Cost. The proposed plan spends only 1/4th going to police enforcement.(under $100k). Keep it simple and just enforce the laws! Thank you, Noah Fiedel This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:SAIDI -- System Average Interruption Duration Index -- electric reliability Date:Sunday, February 22, 2026 5:17:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners and Council members, For the past several years, I have been advocating that CPAU report on the reliability of its electric utility regularly, systematically, and quantitatively, so that Council, UAC, and the public can see CPAU's performance over the years, and compare it to the performance of other electric utilities. Quantitatively, CPAU should report: * System Average Interruption Duration Index -- SAIDI -- The number of minutes per year the average customer is without power. * Customer Average Interruption Index -- CAIDI -- The average number of minutes an outage lasts. * System Average Interruption Frequency Index -- SAIFI -- The average number of times per year the average customer is without power. Note: SAIDI = CAIDI * SAIFI. CPAU used to report its electric reliability data in its Utilities Quarterly Update reports in the 4th quarter of each year. See, for example, the report for FY 2016 (pages 61-64). https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/uac-informational- reports/2016-informational-reports/11-02-16-meeting/informational-item_-utilities-quarterly-report-4th-q-fy- 2016.pdf This particular report also included valuable information about how many outages there were each month, how many involved aerial infrastructure, how many involved undergrounded infrastructure, how many electric customers there were, etc. (It didn't report how many customers were served by aerial and how many were served by undergrounded). The report included a SAIDI for each month, but did so incorrectly. The SAIDI numbers reported are the number of minutes the average customer is without power per month. To get the number of minutes the average customer is without power per year, you have to multiply by 12 months per year. In the Utilities Quarterly Report for the 2nd quarter of 2025 (pages 267-315 here) there's a electric reliability report (pages 273-274) for multiple fiscal years. -- with SAIDIs ranging from 18.93 in FY 2022 to 198.60 in FY 2023. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities- advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2025/04-april/04.02.2025- packet.pdf There's no information about which outages involved aerial infrastructure and which outages involved undergrounded infrastructure. The quarterly SAIDI numbers reported should be multiplied by 4 quarters per year. There's no explanation for why the numbers for Q1 of FY 2024 should have been listed as "n/a". Staff doesn't just lose data like this. Right? Anyhow, the FY 2024 annual SAIDI seemed to assume the Q1 SAIDI was zero. That can't be right. ------ This SAIDI report from Fort Collins, CO -- (old -- 2019) -- shows SAIDIs in the range of 10-28 minutes per year for the average customer (page 4). https://records.fcgov.com/CityCouncil/DocView.aspx?id=3484193&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&cr=1 It also provides some information on what factors caused the outages (page 5). ------ I recently heard that staff was saying that CPAU's SAIDI information during the COVID pandemic was elevated in part because the call center was understaffed. Is that true? Did staff rely -- and does staff still rely -- on the public to become aware of power outages? Years ago, when the City was considering implementing smart meters, one argument in favor was that they could help increase reliability by detecting outages quickly. Now that smart meters are (mostly) in service, is that what actually happened? How long should it now take for the smart meter network to detect an outage? Another argument in favor was that smart meters could decrease the time to diagnose the extent of an outage, which would especially benefit undergrounded infrastructure. Are smart meters living up to that promise? Thanks. Jeff ----------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ----------------- PS: For further information, please see: * My letters of 02-21-20, (pages 10-17 here): https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities- advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2020/03-05-2020- special/public-letters-to-uac.pdf * My TRANSCRIPT of 10-01-25 (pages 4-29 here), the comments about reliability (pages 20-25) 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 From:Dana Dahlstrom To:CeCi Kettendorf Cc:Dave Stellman; Robert Marinaro; Margaret Abe-Koga; 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; 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; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Re: Palo Alto Oversized Vehicle Issue Date:Saturday, February 21, 2026 9:00:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. What would I need to do to cede my time? Feel free to use my name if that's enough. From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:CeCi Kettendorf Cc:Dave Stellman; Robert Marinaro; Margaret Abe-Koga; 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; 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; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Re: Palo Alto Oversized Vehicle Issue Date:Saturday, February 21, 2026 8:11:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Good thought, CeCi. I will cede my time, too. On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 8:09 AM CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> wrote: I will go to the council meeting per this topic on Monday, if anyone wants me to cede time to them so they can speak. The Council often limits time at the podium to 2 minutes, rather than three, if there are lots of speakers. You really need more time to present in depth, so.............. Let me know if anyone wants my time. CeCi Kettendorf On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 6:08 PM Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: I would like to agree with Bob’s point of view. If Palo Alto wants to try to help solve the OSV issue with secure parking areas like Geng Rd, etc., rather than simply banning overnight parking as our neighboring cities have done, that’s fine. But coming up with a “maximum number” of vehicles that will be allowed and jamming them all into the south Palo Alto commercial area is just not fair. A clean well kept motorhome will still take up 2 to 3 valuable parking places that should be used by the customers and employees of our local businesses. The report from the committee making recommendations to the city council states that $500,000 to $1,000,000 in legal fees could be expected if Palo Alto solved this problem by banning overnight parking. I for one would love to see my property and business taxes This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report be spent in this way if that’s what it takes to finally solve this problem. Dave Stellman Transport St On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:03 PM, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Margaret, Hi, this is Bob Marinaro from the old Mountain View Chamber days back in 2010. I’m writing you to solicit your assistance in trying to solve the Palo Alto Oversized (OSV) issue. It has occurred to me, the City, and many others, that this issue is bigger than any one city jurisdiction and needs to be coordinated on both a local and regional level. Many of us in the community have been voicing our concerns however we have seen little progress to date. Unfortunately, the wheels of government turn very slowly in some jurisdictions much to the chagrin of the tax-paying residents and businesses that are negatively affected. I live in southern Palo Alto, near Mountain View, and drive to Costco frequently and do not want to see what has happened on certain designated streets in Mountian View happen in Palo Alto, which is sounding like could be the case as Palo Alto transitions to Phase 2 of their proposed OSV plan. It would seem to me that the county would have much more options when it comes to designating ’Safe Parking Areas’ for the many recent OSV arrivals to Palo Alto after neighboring cites have implemented outright bans on OSVs and overnight parking. Unfortunately, Palo Alto, being Palo Alto, has different priorities and caused this self-inflicted situation. As one of the many concerned residents of this city and of this county I ask for your assistance. Regards, Bob Marinaro Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Subject: OSV UPDATES Date: February 19, 2026 at 12:40:11 PM PST To: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, jspiller@cbnorcal.com, Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>, Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>, Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>, Dana Wong <danawong1@gmail.com>, farhat_101@yahoo.com, Charmaine Furman <Sheri11@earthlink.net>, Elaine Meyer <meyere@gmail.com>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Jeff Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com>, Phyllis Brown <pbrown@scu.edu>, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>, David Schrom <David@ecomagic.org>, Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>, Don Nielson <nielsonz@pacbell.net>, Boris Foelsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Tom Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>, Vipul Vyas <vipul.vyas@gmail.com>, Peter Taskovich <ptaskovich@yahoo.com>, Roger Peterson <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Utsav Gupta <Utsav@utsavgupta.com>, ljwickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Ellen Shay <eswoofwoof@gmail.com>, "Phylis 'The" <pst54@comcast.net>, CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Pat Markevitch <patmarkevitch@gmail.com>, Palo Alto Hills <paloaltohillsna@gmail.com>, Jean Wilcox <wilcox757@sbcglobal.net>, Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>, Scott Fullam <fullam@gmail.com>, Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Peter Allen <pma94301@comcast.net>, Douglas Moran <dmoran@dougmoran.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Todd Burke <tburkeus@yahoo.com>, cathy@cartmelltam.com, Joe A Villareal <joe.a.villareal@gmail.com>, Srini Sankaran <admin@greendell.org>, Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>, "Lee 'The" <bizthe@comcast.net>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, John Hofer <cmaboard@googlegroups.com>, Margaret Heath Brian <briansteen877@gmail.com>, Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>, Lisa Landers <lisa.landers@gmail.com>, Doug Burns <Dougb164@gmail.com>, Penny Ellson <pennyellson12@gmail.com>, Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com> Dear PAN People: Below is an email I'm forwarding from Roger Smith, who is helping to champion code enforcement regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSVs) for Palo Altans living and doing business in the highly impacted areas of North Ventura, East Meadow Circle/Fabian, the Baylands light industrial zone and the Commercial and Industrial Way area in Southeast Palo Alto, etc. Roger is highlighting the fact that The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. Roger's email highlights how to participate. We need to keep the pressure up because... After a spate of towings and ticketing due to residential pressure, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. Bob Marinaro has been following this closely and has been instrumental in keeping pressure on City Hall to abide by their own laws... so I am adding his email to City Council with attachments below Roger's. Thank you for your support of and participation in PAN Becky Sanders ROGER's EMAIL (then scroll down to see Bob's) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:16 PM Subject: CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION ON RVs To: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com> The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. The Staff will give their report, the Council will then ask questions of the Staff, then open up for public comment, then bring it back to the Council for Decision-Making. This may be the last time we will hear from Council for many months. It is important to make our case during the public comments section. Please show up and present to the Council the latest situation in your neighborhood. You can also participate virtually via (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Thank each of you for your participation. We hope they have listened to us. The staff report will be available this Thursday as a public document. As soon as we get the report, we will email it to each of you. Roger ========== From Bob to Council OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, Please find attached my periodic count of Palo Alto’s Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). In keeping with my desire to keep you and others informed about the latest on our streets I am also including several photos of the situation in the Ash Street area that appears to be impacted by one individual with 10 or more vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. It appears as though the 180-ish OSV count is holding steady. Unfortunately, I have added a new street, Acacia Ave, in the Ventura Neighborhood. This new street addition is the result of one individual being forced to move. As the numbers indicate, this is a musical chairs (OSVs) situation where the vehicles in question are not removed they just move to another location. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the detached trailers are still present. Also, of particular note, is that the OSV count is at 180, however I would estimate that there are 50% more ancillary vehicles associated with these OSVs which take up valuable parking spots particularly in the Transport Street Commercial Area. Out of sight, out of mind, is an unfortunate position. Please make a point to visit these streets often and observe and ‘feel’ what residents and businesses experience on a daily basis. Palo Alto has many good qualities, but I’m sorry to say that prioritizing the RV dwellers over the tax-paying residents and businesses is not one of them. We can do better. We need to do better! Respectfully, Bob Marinaro <oversizedvehiclecountbobspttandphotos21526.zip> From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Dave Stellman Cc:Robert Marinaro; Margaret Abe-Koga; 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; 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; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Re: Palo Alto Oversized Vehicle Issue Date:Saturday, February 21, 2026 8:09:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I will go to the council meeting per this topic on Monday, if anyone wants me to cede time to them so they can speak. The Council often limits time at the podium to 2 minutes, rather than three, if there are lots of speakers. You really need more time to present in depth, so.............. Let me know if anyone wants my time. CeCi Kettendorf On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 6:08 PM Dave Stellman <dave@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: I would like to agree with Bob’s point of view. If Palo Alto wants to try to help solve the OSV issue with secure parking areas like Geng Rd, etc., rather than simply banning overnight parking as our neighboring cities have done, that’s fine. But coming up with a “maximum number” of vehicles that will be allowed and jamming them all into the south Palo Alto commercial area is just not fair. A clean well kept motorhome will still take up 2 to 3 valuable parking places that should be used by the customers and employees of our local businesses. The report from the committee making recommendations to the city council states that $500,000 to $1,000,000 in legal fees could be expected if Palo Alto solved this problem by banning overnight parking. I for one would love to see my property and business taxes be spent in this way if that’s what it takes to finally solve this problem. Dave Stellman Transport St On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:03 PM, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Margaret, Hi, this is Bob Marinaro from the old Mountain View Chamber days back in 2010. I’m writing you to solicit your assistance in trying to solve the Palo Alto Oversized (OSV) issue. It has occurred to me, the City, and many others, that this issue is bigger than any one city jurisdiction and needs to be coordinated on both a local and regional level. Many of us in the community have been voicing our concerns however we have seen little progress to date. Unfortunately, the wheels of government turn very slowly in some jurisdictions much to the chagrin of the tax-paying residents and businesses that are negatively affected. I live in southern Palo Alto, near Mountain View, and drive to Costco frequently and do not want to see what has happened on certain designated streets in Mountian View happen in Palo Alto, which is sounding like could be the case as Palo Alto transitions to Phase 2 of their proposed OSV plan. It would seem to me that the county would have much more options when it comes to designating ’Safe Parking Areas’ for the many recent OSV arrivals to Palo Alto after neighboring cites have implemented outright bans on OSVs and overnight parking. Unfortunately, Palo Alto, being Palo Alto, has different priorities and caused this self-inflicted situation. As one of the many concerned residents of this city and of this county I ask for your assistance. Regards, Bob Marinaro Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Subject: OSV UPDATES Date: February 19, 2026 at 12:40:11 PM PST To: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, jspiller@cbnorcal.com, Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>, Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>, Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>, Dana Wong <danawong1@gmail.com>, farhat_101@yahoo.com, Charmaine Furman <Sheri11@earthlink.net>, Elaine Meyer <meyere@gmail.com>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Jeff Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com>, Phyllis Brown <pbrown@scu.edu>, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>, David Schrom <David@ecomagic.org>, Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>, Don Nielson <nielsonz@pacbell.net>, Boris Foelsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Tom Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>, Vipul Vyas <vipul.vyas@gmail.com>, Peter Taskovich <ptaskovich@yahoo.com>, Roger Peterson <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Utsav Gupta <Utsav@utsavgupta.com>, ljwickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Ellen Shay <eswoofwoof@gmail.com>, "Phylis 'The" <pst54@comcast.net>, CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Pat Markevitch <patmarkevitch@gmail.com>, Palo Alto Hills <paloaltohillsna@gmail.com>, Jean Wilcox <wilcox757@sbcglobal.net>, Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>, Scott Fullam <fullam@gmail.com>, Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Peter Allen <pma94301@comcast.net>, Douglas Moran <dmoran@dougmoran.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Todd Burke <tburkeus@yahoo.com>, cathy@cartmelltam.com, Joe A Villareal <joe.a.villareal@gmail.com>, Srini Sankaran <admin@greendell.org>, Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>, "Lee 'The" <bizthe@comcast.net>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, John Hofer <cmaboard@googlegroups.com>, Margaret Heath <Maggi650@gmail.com>, wmjmcfall@yahoo.com, Steen Brian <briansteen877@gmail.com>, Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>, Lisa Landers <lisa.landers@gmail.com>, Doug Burns <Dougb164@gmail.com>, Penny Ellson <pennyellson12@gmail.com>, Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com> Dear PAN People: Below is an email I'm forwarding from Roger Smith, who is helping to champion code enforcement regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSVs) for Palo Altans living and doing business in the highly impacted areas of North Ventura, East Meadow Circle/Fabian, the Baylands light industrial zone and the Commercial and Industrial Way area in Southeast Palo Alto, etc. Roger is highlighting the fact that The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. Roger's email highlights how to participate. We need to keep the pressure up because... After a spate of towings and ticketing due to residential pressure, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. Bob Marinaro has been following this closely and has been instrumental in keeping pressure on City Hall to abide by their own laws... so I am adding his email to City Council with attachments below Roger's. Thank you for your support of and participation in PAN Becky Sanders ROGER's EMAIL (then scroll down to see Bob's) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:16 PM Subject: CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION ON RVs To: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com> The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. The Staff will give their report, the Council will then ask questions of the Staff, then open up for public comment, then bring it back to the Council for Decision-Making. This may be the last time we will hear from Council for many months. It is important to make our case during the public comments section. Please show up and present to the Council the latest situation in your neighborhood. You can also participate virtually via (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Thank each of you for your participation. We hope they have listened to us. The staff report will be available this Thursday as a public document. As soon as we get the report, we will email it to each of you. Roger ========== From Bob to Council OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, Please find attached my periodic count of Palo Alto’s Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). In keeping with my desire to keep you and others informed about the latest on our streets I am also including several photos of the situation in the Ash Street area that appears to be impacted by one individual with 10 or more vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. It appears as though the 180-ish OSV count is holding steady. Unfortunately, I have added a new street, Acacia Ave, in the Ventura Neighborhood. This new street addition is the result of one individual being forced to move. As the numbers indicate, this is a musical chairs (OSVs) situation where the vehicles in question are not removed they just move to another location. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the detached trailers are still present. Also, of particular note, is that the OSV count is at 180, however I would estimate that there are 50% more ancillary vehicles associated with these OSVs which take up valuable parking spots particularly in the Transport Street Commercial Area. Out of sight, out of mind, is an unfortunate position. Please make a point to visit these streets often and observe and ‘feel’ what residents and businesses experience on a daily basis. Palo Alto has many good qualities, but I’m sorry to say that prioritizing the RV dwellers over the tax-paying residents and businesses is not one of them. We can do better. We need to do better! Respectfully, Bob Marinaro <oversizedvehiclecountbobspttandphotos21526.zip> From:Dave Stellman To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Margaret Abe-Koga; 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; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Re: Palo Alto Oversized Vehicle Issue Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 6:08:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I would like to agree with Bob’s point of view. If Palo Alto wants to try to help solve the OSV issue with secure parking areas like Geng Rd, etc., rather than simply banning overnight parking as our neighboring cities have done, that’s fine. But coming up with a “maximum number” of vehicles that will be allowed and jamming them all into the south Palo Alto commercial area is just not fair. A clean well kept motorhome will still take up 2 to 3 valuable parking places that should be used by the customers and employees of our local businesses. The report from the committee making recommendations to the city council states that $500,000 to $1,000,000 in legal fees could be expected if Palo Alto solved this problem by banning overnight parking. I for one would love to see my property and business taxes be spent in this way if that’s what it takes to finally solve this problem. Dave Stellman Transport St On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:03 PM, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: Margaret, Hi, this is Bob Marinaro from the old Mountain View Chamber days back in 2010. I’m writing you to solicit your assistance in trying to solve the Palo Alto Oversized (OSV) issue. It has occurred to me, the City, and many others, that this issue is bigger than any one city jurisdiction and needs to be coordinated on both a local and regional level. Many of us in the community have been voicing our concerns however we have seen little progress to date. Unfortunately, the wheels of government turn very slowly in some jurisdictions much to the chagrin of the tax-paying residents and businesses that are negatively affected. I live in southern Palo Alto, near Mountain View, and drive to Costco frequently and do not want to see what has happened on certain designated streets in Mountian View happen in Palo Alto, which is sounding like could be the case as Palo Alto transitions to Phase 2 of their proposed OSV plan. It would seem to me that the county would have much more options when it comes to designating ’Safe Parking Areas’ for the many recent OSV arrivals to Palo Alto after neighboring cites have implemented outright bans on OSVs and overnight parking. Unfortunately, Palo Alto, being Palo Alto, has different priorities and caused this self-inflicted situation. As one of the many concerned residents of this city and of this county I ask for your assistance. Regards, Bob Marinaro Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Subject: OSV UPDATES Date: February 19, 2026 at 12:40:11 PM PST To: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, jspiller@cbnorcal.com, Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>, Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>, Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>, Dana Wong <danawong1@gmail.com>, farhat_101@yahoo.com, Charmaine Furman <Sheri11@earthlink.net>, Elaine Meyer <meyere@gmail.com>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Jeff Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com>, Phyllis Brown <pbrown@scu.edu>, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>, David Schrom <David@ecomagic.org>, Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>, Don Nielson <nielsonz@pacbell.net>, Boris Foelsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Tom Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>, Vipul Vyas <vipul.vyas@gmail.com>, Peter Taskovich <ptaskovich@yahoo.com>, Roger Peterson <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Utsav Gupta <Utsav@utsavgupta.com>, ljwickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Ellen Shay <eswoofwoof@gmail.com>, "Phylis 'The" <pst54@comcast.net>, CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Pat Markevitch <patmarkevitch@gmail.com>, Palo Alto Hills <paloaltohillsna@gmail.com>, Jean Wilcox <wilcox757@sbcglobal.net>, Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>, Scott Fullam <fullam@gmail.com>, Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Peter Allen <pma94301@comcast.net>, Douglas Moran <dmoran@dougmoran.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Todd Burke <tburkeus@yahoo.com>, cathy@cartmelltam.com, Joe A Villareal <joe.a.villareal@gmail.com>, Srini Sankaran <admin@greendell.org>, Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>, "Lee 'The" <bizthe@comcast.net>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, John Hofer <cmaboard@googlegroups.com>, Margaret Heath <Maggi650@gmail.com>, wmjmcfall@yahoo.com, Steen Brian <briansteen877@gmail.com>, Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>, Lisa Landers <lisa.landers@gmail.com>, Doug Burns <Dougb164@gmail.com>, Penny Ellson <pennyellson12@gmail.com>, Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right- thing.net>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com> Dear PAN People: Below is an email I'm forwarding from Roger Smith, who is helping to champion code enforcement regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSVs) for Palo Altans living and doing business in the highly impacted areas of North Ventura, East Meadow Circle/Fabian, the Baylands light industrial zone and the Commercial and Industrial Way area in Southeast Palo Alto, etc. Roger is highlighting the fact that The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. Roger's email highlights how to participate. We need to keep the pressure up because... After a spate of towings and ticketing due to residential pressure, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. Bob Marinaro has been following this closely and has been instrumental in keeping pressure on City Hall to abide by their own laws... so I am adding his email to City Council with attachments below Roger's. Thank you for your support of and participation in PAN Becky Sanders ROGER's EMAIL (then scroll down to see Bob's) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:16 PM Subject: CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION ON RVs To: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com> The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. The Staff will give their report, the Council will then ask questions of the Staff, then open up for public comment, then bring it back to the Council for Decision-Making. This may be the last time we will hear from Council for many months. It is important to make our case during the public comments section. Please show up and present to the Council the latest situation in your neighborhood. You can also participate virtually via (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Thank each of you for your participation. We hope they have listened to us. The staff report will be available this Thursday as a public document. As soon as we get the report, we will email it to each of you. Roger ========== From Bob to Council OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, Please find attached my periodic count of Palo Alto’s Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). In keeping with my desire to keep you and others informed about the latest on our streets I am also including several photos of the situation in the Ash Street area that appears to be impacted by one individual with 10 or more vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. It appears as though the 180-ish OSV count is holding steady. Unfortunately, I have added a new street, Acacia Ave, in the Ventura Neighborhood. This new street addition is the result of one individual being forced to move. As the numbers indicate, this is a musical chairs (OSVs) situation where the vehicles in question are not removed they just move to another location. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the detached trailers are still present. Also, of particular note, is that the OSV count is at 180, however I would estimate that there are 50% more ancillary vehicles associated with these OSVs which take up valuable parking spots particularly in the Transport Street Commercial Area. Out of sight, out of mind, is an unfortunate position. Please make a point to visit these streets often and observe and ‘feel’ what residents and businesses experience on a daily basis. Palo Alto has many good qualities, but I’m sorry to say that prioritizing the RV dwellers over the tax-paying residents and businesses is not one of them. We can do better. We need to do better! Respectfully, Bob Marinaro <oversizedvehiclecountbobspttandphotos21526.zip> From:Lydia Kou 顧錦珍 To:Robert Marinaro Cc:Council, City; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran Subject:Re: Oversized Vehicle Count (Bob"s PTT) and Photos (2/15/26) Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 4:47:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bob, On Monday, 2/23, City Council will be receiving the OSV Ad Hoc committee’s report at a Study Session. Here’s the link to the agenda https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19144 ~ lk Sent from Lydia’s Mobile On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:14 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, Please find attached my periodic count of Palo Alto’s Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). In keeping with my desire to keep you and others informed about the latest on our streets I am also including several photos of the situation in the Ash Street area that appears to be impacted by one individual with 10 or more vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. It appears as though the 180-ish OSV count is holding steady. Unfortunately, I have added a new street, Acacia Ave, in the Ventura Neighborhood. This new street addition is the result of one individual being forced to move. As the numbers indicate, this is a musical chairs (OSVs) situation where the vehicles in question are not removed they just move to another location. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the detached trailers are still present. Also, of particular note, is that the OSV count is at 180, however I would estimate that there are 50% more ancillary vehicles associated with these OSVs which take up valuable parking spots particularly in the Transport Street Commercial Area. Out of sight, out of mind, is an unfortunate position. Please make a point to visit these streets often and observe and ‘feel’ what residents and businesses experience on a daily basis. Palo Alto has many good qualities, but I’m sorry to say that prioritizing the RV dwellers over the tax-paying residents and businesses is not one of them. We can do better. We need to do better! Respectfully, Bob Marinaro Ash Street - - Most of the vehicles on this section of Ash street appear to be moved to adjacent streets with the exception of this SUV and trailer Ash Street - - Most of the vehicles on this section of Ash Street appear to be moved to adjacent streets with the exception of this SUV and trailer Portage Ave. - - Most of the vehicles on Ash Street have been move to Portage Ave. Portage Ave. Portage Ave. - - It looks like a Denver Boot has been attached to the trailer wheel to prevent it from being towed Acacia Ave. (one block over from Portage Ave.) - - Where more vehicles have been recently moved. Are these new condos being built on the other side of the street? A lovely sight out your window! From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City; Ah Yun, Mahealani Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:02-04-26 UAC meeting -- Item 3 -- Data Centers Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 3:42:39 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 02-04-26 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: Utilities Director's Report * Changing the UAC minutes from summary minutes to action minutes (0:25:54) is a BIG DEAL, and shouldn't be done unilaterally by staff without careful consideration by UAC and Council. PTC has BOTH verbatim minutes and action minutes. Data Centers * At the "highest" level, staff seemed to be saying that the City should be trying to attract electricity-consuming entities (ECEs), for the purpose of lowering residential electric rates, and shouldn't worry much about what else they'd bring. Can UAC help Council rethink that? * Staff seemed to be convinced that attracting ECEs WOULD lower residential electric rates, but didn't present a lot of convincing evidence. Remember when staff said that doing Grid Mod and FTTP simultaneously on a pilot would save money, but it actually cost more money? * Staff seemed to be focused on data centers that provide artificial intelligence (AI) services. Is there a reason for that? Sure, AI is trendy today. But will today's hype become tomorrow's bubble? See this video by Robert Reich. 02-16-26: "Brace Yourself for the AI Bubble" (5:52) https://www.kalw.org/show/short-takes/2026-02-18/brace-yourself-for-the-ai-bubble * Staff was saying that some AI data centers could benefit from low latency, but didn't say much about how the City could offer it. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA ------------------- ================================================================================================= 02-04-26 Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19010 -- staff report (5 pages) -- Item 2 presentation (28 slides) -- Utilities Director's Report presentation (1 page) 02-04-26 Video: https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-242026/ 02:04:26 Video -- from YouTube -- with transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obPvF_P3w2Q Attended by: UAC: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Scharff, Tucher Liaison: Lauing Staff: Fortenberry, Kurotori, Romero Public: Borock ========================================================================== TRANSCRIPT 0:17:28: Rachel Ramero: We'll begin by taking roll. Commissioner Metz. 0:17:31: Commissioner Metz: Present. 0:17:31: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Croft. 0:17:32: Commissioner Croft: Present. 0:17:32: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:17:34: Commissioner Phillips: Present. 0:17:35: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:17:36: Commissioner Gupta: Present. 0:17:38: Rachel Ramero: Chair Scharff. 0:17:39: Chair Scharff: Present. 0:17:39: Rachel Romero: For the record, 5 present. ### But Vice Chair Mauter arrived around 0:20:08 on the video. And Commissioner Tucher arrived around 1:10:00 on the video. So, all 7 commissioners participated in the data center item. 0:17:41: Chair Scharff: All right. Do we have any agenda changes, deletions, or additions? 0:17:45: Director Kurotori: No changes. 0:17:46: Chair Scharff: All right. Do we have any public comment for items not on the agenda? 0:17:51: Rachel Romero: 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. 0:17:59: Minutes Chair Scharff: All right. And that brings us to the minutes. Anyone have any changes to the minutes, or shall we approve -- [laughs] -- You do. All right. 0:18:08: Commissioner Croft Thank you. Um. I -- 0:18:09: ### The audio is cut and the video switches to a background still. 0:18:12: ### The audio and video are back. Commissioner Croft: -- in general, I found these minutes a little bit -- um -- confusing to follow. I'm not sure if there was a different approach in them. But I found a lot of the sections to be kind of not clear to someone who might not have been present. Of course, they could look at the minutes and go back to the video. But -- Just in general, that's a comment. But then, on page -- I'll give you specific comments. On page -- packet page 9, paragraph 2, it was about the fiber pilot. So, in line 2 -- I'll just read the sentence -- "Commissioner Croft thought there had been an agreement that there would be a pilot, after which there would be opportunity to see the data and decide if it would be worth spending the full $20 million." Instead of "worth the money." ### That is, the quote was: "Commissioner Croft thought there had been agreement that there would be a pilot after which there would be opportunity to see the data and decide if it would be worth the money." But Commissioner Croft wanted to change "the money" to "the full $20 million." 0:19:05: And then, the second -- the next sentence -- "Commissioner Croft and Chair Scharff recalled the decision being made not to spend the money" instead of that, "not to spend the full budget without an initial look at the pilot results." So, replace the word "money" with "full budget without an initial look at the pilot results." It just was kind of vague. We're saying "the money," "the money," "the money," when there's really, you know, the concept was, there were two buckets of money. ### Ironically, as recorded in my TRANSCRIPT of the 01-07-26 UAC meeting, at 1:48:34, Commissioner Croft had a "MASSIVE déjà vu" rant about "ALL THAT MONEY." It's in the UAC letters from citizens document for 01-22-26 to 02- 02-26, page 56. ### Sorry, I don't know how to cite a URL. From the 01-07-26 agenda, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19010 click on "Public Letters to UAC - 1.22-2.2". ### Here's the video of the 01-07-26 UAC meeting. https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-172026/ 0:19:39: There was one other comment I had. And let me just find that. It was on packet page 13. And, again, it's at the very top, the second block, where it says, "Commissioner Croft opined that for [the] people putting in large systems, communication will be needed about the high cost." So, "communication will be needed about the fact that rates change over time and potential for high cost." And this comment, just to explain, was regarding people putting in large panels. And if they're if they're expecting, you know, rates to be the same over time, who knows what's going to happen with Grid Mod, with our future power purchase agreements. And that having some visibility that it might be expensive over time would be useful. So, that was why I recommended that change. And that was the purpose of my comment. 0:20:35: Chair Scharff: OK. Do you want to have them try and change that on the minutes? 0:20:39: Commissioner Croft: I do. 0:20:40: Chair Scharff: OK. So, -- you -- shall we -- 0:20:41: Commissioner Croft: I have the exact texts. I just read it. But I can read it again if you would like -- 0:20:45: Chair Scharff: Why don't you just send it to them. 0:20:47: Director Kurotori: We -- You can provide that text. We can take what you said verbally and then modify. If that's the motion for the approval, then we can make those amendments. 0:20:55: Commissioner Croft: OK. OK. 0:20:55: Chair Scharff: Anyone else have any changes to the minutes they'd like to propose? OK. Then let's get a motion to approve the minutes as changed by Commissioner Croft. 0:21:05: Commissioner Croft: MOTION to approve as amended. 0:21:08: Commissioner Gupta: SECOND. 0:21:09: Chair Scharff: All right. Do you want to call the roll? 0:21:13: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 0:21:14: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 0:21:15: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 0:21:16: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 0:21:18: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:21:19: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 0:21:20: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:21:21: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 0:21:23: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 0:21:23: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:21:25: Rachel Ramero: Chair Scharff. 0:21:26: Chair Scharff: Yes. 0:21:28: Rachel Ramero: Motion carries 6-0 [Tucher absent] 0:21:31: Utilities Director Report Chair Scharff: All right. And that brings us to the Utility Director's Report. 0:21:35: Director Kurotori: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I just wanted to talk about some recent Council actions. On January 5th, the City Council elected Vice Mayor Veenker as Mayor and Council Member Stone as Vice Mayor. The City Council also had their their goal-setting on January 24th, ### A.k.a. 2026 Annual Council Retreat. Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18520 Video (6:12;20) https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-1-24-26/ where they went through their priorities. Forming priorities was discussed by City Council on [1] Government efficiency, [2] achieve the near-term priority housing milestones, [3] the Cubberley acquisition and renovation funding, and [4] enhance business vibrancy. So, I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. 0:22:13: Commissioner Metz: And so, those were the four? 0:22:15: Director Kurotori: Those were the four. Those were the four. The other Utility-related items -- actions that went to January -- was approval of the updated 2026 water, gas, and wastewater utility standards, the adoption of the state and federal guidelines that did go to the UAC, on the utility side. And then, the addition of approval of professional service contract with Baron, ### I didn't find a Baron, but I found this: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Utilities-Services-Safety/Engineering-and-Operations/Gas-Leak-Survey contracting for gas leak survey services 0:22:46: Second, on the board and commissions recruitment. So, I did want to mention that there's an active recruitment right now for the 2026 board and commission and committees. There's 10 seats now open. The deadline for applying for those is Wednesday, February 18th. And more information is available on the City website. Typically, those would go for interview with City Council in March. And the UAC can talk about the appointment of the board and Vice Chair. So, right now, the first time we can meet on that is in April. There could be some determination on when those folks are appointed to push. So, I just did want to mention that to the Commission. 0:23:33: Another project is our gas main replacement project. We call it GMR 25. ### Gas Main Replacement Project 25 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Utilities-Services-Safety/Utilities-Projects/Gas-Main-Replacement-Project-25 It's going to replace approximately 5 miles of gas mains and services. In these neighborhoods. I'll list them. The Duveneck, St. Francis, Leland Manor, Midtown, and Palo Verde neighborhoods. This is part of our enhancement and reliability projects for the gas system. We are using some grant money that we received from federal DOT. We -- As you may recall, we received $16.5 million. So, we're using that grant monies for these capital projects. So, we're very pleased about that. So, the work will begin later this month, and will complete in the summer of 2027. 0:24:14: And then, on the legislative advocacy role, staff, Chair Scharff, myself, Deputy Director Lena Perkins, and Riley Gailin [spelling?] went to Capitol Day on January 26th, with Northern California Power Agency and also California Municipal Utilities Association. We have the opportunity to meet with several of the state legislature and areas. We did have a chance to actually talk to Assembly Member Joe Patterson. As you may recall, he has sponsored bill AB 34, which extends our -- the large hydro extension for utilities. ### AB 34: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ca/2025-2026/bills/CAB00033401/ That will help Palo Alto. That will help the city of Gridley and the city of Biggs, so that we do not have to excess renewable procurement. That will maintain affordable rates in Palo Alto. And those other agencies were very pleased that was -- occurred. We also wanted to thank and acknowledge meeting with Assembly Member Berman and Senator Becker's staff. They also co-sponsored the bill, so we're -- this bill is moving very quickly. So, we're looking forward to getting that signed by the Governor as well. 0:25:30: Chair Scharff: It passed in the Assembly the day we were there. 0:25:32: Director Kurotori: It did, while we were in the Assembly. So, thank you very much for that addition. And that completes my report. 0:25:36: Chair Scharff: All right. Thank you for that. 0:25:38: Director Kurotori: Oh, I have one more slide here. If you can bring up -- just to highlight -- ah -- 0:25:45: ###. Slide 1 -- Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) -- Utilities Director Report There are some questions that, you know, we come back with as staff that came from the UAC. What about UAC Summary Minutes? So, the practice is actually migrating to action minutes. ### WHO DECIDED TO DO THAT??? THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. So, what that would be -- and we've talked to the Clerk's office -- would be simply the subject, the vote, what passed, and a summary. Because now, a lot of these items are going on video, which record and link to the City website. ### UAC videos are available on the Midpen Media Center's website https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ but only for a limited time. (This directory goes back to January 2014.) So, I wanted to kind of give you the thought process. We did go back to the Clerk's office and see where things will be migrating. Right now, we do summary minutes, which we have now. And obviously, there -- there are some challenges there, with summary minutes. But I just want to bring that back. Also -- 0:26:35: Commissioner Phillips: What does "migrating" mean? Does it mean we're going to cut over, to actually change minutes? 0:26:40: Director Kurotori: I think we're looking at that. And we'll take the lead from Clerk's office, in how this rolls out to the commissions, and we actually post those minutes. 0:26:51: Commissioner Phillips: So, typically, they would be about -- an age -- at most 2. Because it records a vote. ### I didn't understand this comment. 0:26:57: Director Kurotori: Correct. It basically records a vote. If you look back on the -- in the history of Palo Alto, those summary minutes are typically what they would put on there. And the recommendation action taken by Council. The motion, the vote in totality, and the subject and action. OK? ### Until 06-02-04, UAC's minutes were VERBATIM minutes. 0:27:13: Chair Scharff: And what's going to be the official minutes? The recording, or the action minutes? ### It's a good question. Maybe the City Attorney's office should answer it. ### Ordinance 5423, which Council passed (on Consent) on 12-04-17 and 01-22-18, changed what constituted the official Council minutes. https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=47149&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto It deleted a reference to verbatim transcripts. It said the official minutes would be action minutes. It said that there would also be sense (or summary) minutes, but that these would not be approved by Council and wouldn't be official. It also said that, "...action minutes and video and audio records shall be the official records of Council and committee proceedings." So, this sounds like the video is an official record, but not the official minutes. ### Here's the 12-04-17 staff report: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2017/id-8548-minutes-to-sense.pdf ### Ordinance 5423 doesn't apply to UAC minutes. 0:27:18: Director Kurotori: The official ones are -- I believe would be the action minutes. AND we will still have the linkages to the videos as well. So what would be typically available on file. And that's -- If you look back in the history -- It just so happens, I was looking back to some of the history before -- we have to go back to the '50s to see those action minutes as well. ### Obviously, Director Kurotori is not talking about UAC minutes. Council created UAC in 1990. ### However, it's remarkably difficult to find evidence online of when UAC was created. 04-20-94: Applications for UAC sought. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/morgue/news/1994_Apr_20.community_notebook.html 0:27:36: Commissioner Phillips: Will the action minutes include actions the staff has committed to, even though they may not have been voted on? For example, staff will return with this item -- or not. 0:27:46: Director Kurotori: If it's included in your action -- ah -- then, I believe that would be noted in there. I don't know if the level of detail of the -- if it's an entirety. That's something we can check back on, though. 0:28:01: Chair Scharff: So, a number of the items that come to us do not require a vote. We have a discussion. 0:28:07: Director Kurotori: Correct. 0:28:08: Chair Scharff: How will that be captured for the City Council to go look at? Because action minutes don't typically do that. 0:28:17: Director Kurotori: No. 0:28:18: Chair Scharff: You know, I guess I will look at our Council Liaison here. ### Liaison Lauing should have waited for Chair Scharff to ask his question. Recall that, when asked, the Liaison is available to tell UAC what Council as a whole thinks about something -- if he knows. The Liaison should refrain from spouting personal opinions. 0:28:22: Liaison Lauing: I mean, you -- 0:28:22: Chair Scharff: ** go back -- 0:28:24: Liaison Lauing: I think you can do whatever customization you want, even to action items. I mean, if it's a study session or -- ### Recall that UAC doesn't typically (or ever) do "study sessions." Its discussion items are roughly similar to Council's study sessions. ### Is Lauing saying that when it comes to minutes, UAC can have the kind of minutes it wants, on an item by item basis? How would UAC even express what it wants, let alone on an item by item basis? It doesn't have to be a vote. It could be, you know, an important study session that you want to record some data on. ### Liaison Lauing seems to be missing the point that UAC is (apparently) not being given the opportunity to say what should be in its minutes. 0:28:37: Chair Scharff: Let's -- Someone needs to coordinate with the Clerk's office about it. 'Cause if they just do action minutes, they're probably -- I don't know. We haven't talked to them. Right? But it could just be that they just record the votes. And so, therefore, all the discussion is not recorded. And -- I don't know -- how often do you go back and watch a meeting, as opposed to -- It's easy to read the minutes. Right? It's a real pain in the ass to go back and find the meeting and watch it. 0:29:01: Liaison Lauing: The answer is, if there's -- if it's extraordinarily important, or there's some sort of crisis or mistake. I would say that's when folks would be looking at the full video. 0:29:10: Chair Scharff: So -- Right. But I'm thinking -- Maybe Council members never do that. But I know when I was on Council, I would skim the UAC meeting notes, ### minutes to see -- before -- what they actually discussed. I'd skim it. Right? And that way, I could look and see what the UAC actually thought about it, 'cause most of it's captured in the discussion. 'Cause most of the time, what's the purpose of us discussing, if you guys don't have an easy way to look at that? So, that's -- that's my concern. That's -- 0:29:39: Liaison Lauing: Understood. Yeah. 0:29:41: Chair Scharff: So -- 0:29:41: Commissioner Croft: Can I add one more point? 0:29:43: Chair Scharff: Sure. 0:29:44: Commissioner Croft: I try to put together a calendar of what topics we talked about, by month. And ChatGPT couldn't do it. It basically said, you have to go in to the City website, open the agendas, pull out -- It was -- I had to go do it by hand for the last year. And so, not only are the topics embedded. But, now, the minutes are going to be hard to find. I also think this is problematic. I was going to bring up just simply that the topics that were discussed should be VERY easily accessible. Like, you should be able so say, "What was discussed at the UAC?" Look at a list. And so, you know where to go find it. And I think, with minutes going to just action, it seems even worse than it is right now. So -- 0:30:37: Commissioner Phillips: I think the question becomes, do we then have more votes? Um. You know. So, for example, for our last meeting, which don't see fully reflected in here, one of the things that I believe there was a sense of the group is, we need decision point on, you know, fiber to the home. And, you know, when we didn't take a vote on that -- we discussed it. It would be lost, to my mind. You know, it wouldn't be in the minutes. Except maybe saying fiber to the home was discussed. So, if we do this, I do think we need to think more about voting, so we are providing the Council with our guidance. If that is what is going to be recorded. 0:31:15: Chair Scharff: I agree. So, if we do move to this, I think every item would then have a vote on it. ### It sounds like a logical proposal. But even if every item were an action item, I think Council would need to get more than just action minutes from UAC. So, should Council just direct staff to agendize every item as an action item? How will this get on Council's agenda? Colleagues memo? 0:31:22: Director Kurotori: This is great feedback. ### UAC's job is not to provide great feedback to staff. UAC's job is to advise Council. 0:31:24: Chair Scharff: [laughs] 0:31:24: Director Kurotori: I appreciate it. This -- And I am not joking whatsoever. I think this is great feedback, that we can bring back to the Clerk's office, in terms of, you know, the retention of, you know, having this as part of it. So, we'll take this as another action item back, to see what the intent is. Is there an optional way on -- Maybe the best fit is to do these summary minutes as they are. So, -- ### Even better would be to do both verbatim minutes AND action minutes. (Or verbatim minutes AND summary minutes.) 0:31:50: Chair Scharff: So, I will tell you that Clerks have tried this several times in the past. And it has always failed. At least when I was on City Council. 0:32:00: Liaison Lauing: Well, there also used to be verbatim minutes. 0:32:03: Chair Scharff: Yes, there were. 0:32:04: Liaison Lauing: Which were like this thick. 0:32:05: Chair Scharff: Yes. 0:32:05: Vice Chair Mauter: I mean, frankly, providing verbatim minutes would give people the option of using whatever tool they want to summarize it. Which, I mean, frankly, we have the tools to do that these days. So, -- I understand the balance of like -- you know, we want to keep things cost effective. But I think either sticking with what we have now or moving to a model in which you provide the action minutes but you also provide a full transcript, so that if you want to query it, you can. 0:32:36: Chair Scharff: And there may be the option of -- you know, don't they provide transcripts for most of these -- We use Granicus. Doesn't Granicus provide a transcript? ### Staff should report back. I don't know that Granicus makes transcripts for Palo Alto. ### Some City videos are being stored on YouTube as well as at the Midpen Media Center. YouTube makes transcripts of its videos. (See comment at 0:33:29.) 0:32:44: **: (unamplified) Absolutely. 0:32:44: Chair Scharff: So, you could just have a transcript, as well as just action minutes. And then, people could read the transcript. I mean, that's also a possibility. We have better technology now. Anyway, I'll let you -- 0:32:57: Vice Chair Mauter: It's much less labor-intensive to do that. And like let people go through and process it and query it however they want. 0:33:04: Commissioner Phillips: I like that idea, for what it's worth. If we were going to vote on it, I'd vote for it. 0:33:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Let's vote on it, guys. 0:33:09: [laugher] 0:33:09: Vice Chair Mauter I MOVE that we -- 0:33:10: Director Kurotori: So, this is not a vote right now. ### Right. The topic isn't agendized at all, let alone agendized as an action item. 0:33:12: [laughter] 0:33:13: Director Kurotori: It's a Director's Report. But it will be in the summary minutes. So, no, I do appreciate that dialog, in understanding the importance to the commission, and having this type of information. So, we will bring that back. 0:33:29: Commissioner Gupta: Just to add to the AI point, I do think there are AI tools we can use to quickly summarize the transcript -- from just even the audio, from YouTube. ### Small point: I think our "official" videos can be found at midpenmedia.org. Right? https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ These videos have a way of clicking to the item of interest. ### But it's also possible to find videos of UAC meetings on YouTube. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obPvF_P3w2Q These videos have the option to display a transcript. This transcript doesn't provide the names of the speakers. Is that OK? It guesses at spellings (e.g., "Bigs," not Biggs, "Burman," not Berman, "PaloAlto," not Palo Alto, "Powalt," not Palo Alto, "Katherine," not Kathryn, "Forenberry," not Fortenberry, etc.) Is that OK? I don't think so. So, there should be ways to do it. If the concern is resource, there should be ways to do it in a more resourceful way, using AI tools. And I thought about a year ago, the City started a pilot with UAC and City Council, using an AI summarization tool. 0:33:56: Director Kurotori: You're bringing up some very good points. Because, you know, for just members of the public, when you come here, you sign in with a card. Right? So, that could be tied to your mike in some of those transcripts. ### In the old days, speakers were required to spell their last names for the audio. ### Remote speakers don't have to sign in with a card. Right? ### By the time the audio reaches YouTube or Midpen Media Center, information about what mike a speaker was using has been lost. So, I don't know all the technology that we currently possess here at the City. We'll take this back to the City Clerk's off- and maybe -- Clerk's office, and maybe twist a few arms over at IT, to see if there's some other opportunities there. So -- 0:34:23: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. 0:34:24: Director Kurotori: -- any other comments that I could take back with me? 0:34:28: Chair Scharff: I think we're good. 0:34:29: Director Kurotori: OK. 0:34:30: Chair Scharff: Um. Some members of the public were trying to get in? 0:34:33: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I don't know. I got an email that someone was waiting on Zoom to be admitted. 0:34:41: Rachel Romero: I am not showing any attendees trying to join. Or anybody in a waiting room. 0:34:50: Chair Scharff: So, why don't you email them back, and tell them that, you know, we can take -- if it's public comment not on the agenda, happy to take it later, if you didn't get in. 0:34:58: Director Kurotori: Yeah. Maybe, if the member of the public could try to re-log-in, that would be helpful. And we could them on. 0:35:04: Just the third item there, before I forget, is the update to the fiber to the premises. You know, the pilot and the metrics. It IS on the 12-month schedule. ### A.k.a, 12-month rolling calendar. It's scheduled, I believe, in July. And we're going to adjust that based on kind of the uptake, and how we do that rollout, and getting customers, so you have good metrics. But I just wanted to mention that. That's where we will be discussing kind of our early look and -- on the progress. 0:35:31: And THAT really completes my report. Liaison Lauing: Chair? 0:35:35: Chair Scharff: Yes. 0:35:38: Liaison Lauing: I'd like to add a couple sentences to elaborate on the Director's comments on priorities this year. We shifted rather significantly from the past. And, essentially, the -- we got into a bit of nomenclature definition. Which we have to do. But -- In the past, we've had four sort of broad priorities, and then, below that, are objectives -- that this year were about 70. For work for the staff to accomplish, to meet the goals. Sorry. To meet the priorities. We also have this thing called Palo Alto values. And the idea this year was to take most of last year's priorities -- one of which is very important to this commission, being the whole climate action thing -- and roll that into values, so that we haven't lost any of that, as one of the -- I'll use my own word now -- "goals" the we're really focused on. And what it does is, it frees up the opportunity to have all the objectives. But they don't have to be tied to just the year's priority, which are a little bit more short-term. For example, like Cubberley. That's a very sh- -- well, maybe it's a short-term. But it's a year focus. It's not going to be a 5-year focus. Whereas, climate certainly will be. And so, we sort of elevated that to "values" of the City. So, not to worry. We didn't lose any of that stuff. We just made it more functional and executable. And I think we're going to call the objectives more like the City's workplan, to get done. It's an implementation plan to get done what we want to get done in the year . So -- 0:37:14: Chair Scharff: Can you put a little more meat on the bone on the government efficiency one? I was curious as to what you guys are actually looking at. 0:37:20: Liaison Lauing: That was a -- pretty remarkable, in the sense that it's out there. But a couple people brought it up. And a couple other people said, this is perfect. And this was even beforehand, when we were planning for the Retreat. But generally, it's -- you know, we have budgets. And we obviously want to be efficient with how we spend money. But the idea is to look at, you know, the most efficient way to manage various items within the City -- budget and otherwise. My favorite example is the problem we have with getting a functional 311 system. Um. The last thing you'd want to do is say, oh, well, we'd better just throw more bodies at that, and that will fix it. That won't do ANYTHING. We have to have a strategic look at what's the problem we're trying to fix? Is this for a department? Two departments? The whole place? You know. It has to have a strategic approach to that. Before we ever get to thinking about adding bodies, and how many, and all that. So, sort of a systemic approach is sometimes -- as opposed to knee-jerk. You know, let's solve this problem quickly. So, that's the kind of thinking that we're trying to get in the workplan for staff to execute on some of these things. Just as an example. 0:38:34: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:38:36: Item 2 -- Background and Discussion of Data Centers in Palo Alto Chair Scharff: OK. So, I guess that brings us to our first item, which is the Background and Discussion on Data Centers in Palo Alto. 0:38:49: Director Kurotori: So, I'm going to be joined as a team, as they walk up here. So, we're very pleased to talk to you about data center competitiveness in Palo Alto. I'm going to introduce some of our staff here. Terry Crowley is our Chief Operating Officer. He's in charge of our Grid Mod. He -- His staff does a lot of direct contact with, you know, potential folks that want to talk about connecting to Palo Alto Utilities on the engineering side. Dr. Lena Perkins is our Acting Deputy Director in charge of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, and also is key into our long-range planning and resource procurement. And then Kathryn Fortenberry. She is actually the City Manager's Office Fellow. She's been rotating though departments in the City. And one of her tasks was to do a lot of research and corral us together, in terms of putting together this presentation. So, as part of this program, Kathryn is actually going to give this presentation. So, what I'm going to ask of this -- the commission -- is that -- to give Kathryn about 8-9 minutes to go through those slides. We really want you to potentially hold those questions to that end. All the slides are numbered. And we can do a deep dive on any of your interests. We're really trying to extract and have that discussion with you. We anticipate that data centers is a big topic. Right? It's being not only discussed -- um -- you know, in Palo Alto and throughout the state. It has gone to the Assembly Commission of Energy. They had a hearing on this recently, as part of the California Municipal Utilities Association. Collectively, all the electric utilities are creating a working group, as data centers are expanding, not only in, frankly, the local Bay Area, but also kind of secondary markets. What we call Los Angeles. And -- No joke. So, appreciate that. So, I'm going to pass it over to Kathryn, and she's going to go through the presentation. 0:40:47: Management Fellow [MF] Fortenberry: Thank you, Director Kurotori. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kathryn Fortenberry. I'm the Management Fellow in the Utilities Department. And I am here to present Background and Discussion on Data Centers in Palo Alto. Next slide, please. 0:40:05: ###. Slide 2 -- Outline MF Fortenberry: So, just to highlight some things we're going to talk about this evening, we're going to frame the discussion around your workplan goal. And then, we're going to look at data center background and market context. Then, we'll go ahead and examine the current data centers in Palo Alto, and what future integration can look like. Then we'll examine some best practices for integrating data centers. And we'll wrap up by laying out what input we're seeking from you. Next slide, please. ###. Slide 3 -- UAC Workplan Goal 0:41:37: So, this discussion tonight is part of the commission's workplan item on electric system and supply, specifically as it relates to data center competitiveness in Palo Alto Next slide, please. 0:41:49: ###. Slide 5 -- What is a Data Center? I'm going to move fairly quickly through this next section of slides on background, as it is intended primarily for your reference. At a high level, data centers are high-level physical facilities that house servers and computing infrastructure. Cloud computing services are what you see predominantly in the greater Bay Area. Next slide, please. 0:42:08: ###. Slide 6 -- Relative Sizes of Data Centers Here's some actual photos of a range of data center sizes. These are located in Santa Clara and San Jose. These are a good example of greater Bay Area trends of size and scale of data centers. Next slide, please. 0:42:22: ###. Slide 7 -- Two Main Types of Data Centers There are two broad models of data centers -- self-perform facilities and multi-tenant, or built-to-suit facilities. These edge-case applications are important for Palo Alto's context, because those data centers need to locate next to research facilities and startups. Next slide, please. 0:42:42: ###. Slide 8 -- Data Center Trends: growth appears to be a once in a generation shift. For context nationally, data center electricity demand is growing rapidly, largely driven by AI. Next slide, please. 0:42:52: ###. Slide 9 -- Primary U.S. Data Center Markets Silicon Valley is a major national data center market. You can see where it is situated on the graphic, in relation to other markets around the U.S. And to clarify, Silicon Valley, in the graphic, represents the South Bay Peninsula. And since this graphic was published. another 2 GW of data centers are planned in San Jose alone. So, this data center acceleration we've seen in the industry, and in our region, is continuing. Next slide, please. 0:43:22: ###. Slide 10 -- What are U.S. Data Centers Looking For? * Access to Fiber/Interconnection * Access to Water for Industrial Purposes * Access to Clean, Reliable, Affordable Energy * Climate and Risk of Natural Disaster * Land Availability and Cost * Tax and Regulatory Climate * Ownership/Occupancy Costs * Time to Market * Access to Skilled Construction and Technology Workforce ### For this slide (only), I included the bullet points. The Data Center Coalition ### This Data Center Coalition? https://www.datacentercoalition.org/about Note that it's a lobbying organization created for the benefit of the data center industry. ### Here's Tech Policy Press' take on the Data Center Coalition https://www.techpolicy.press/amidst-boom-data-center-lobby-expands-its-influence-spending-and-tactics/ ### Here's Cal Matters home page for the Data Center Coalition. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/organizations/-17170 ### 09-25-25: "California lawmakers wanted to get tough on data centers. Here’s what survived" https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/09/data-centers-california-electricity-rates/? has compiled this list of core things data centers consistently look for when scouting facility sites. Those include access to fiber, water, reliable electricity, predictable permitting processes, access to skilled labor, and reasonable time to market. Next slide, please. 0:43:45: ###. Slide 11 -- Why are Data Centers interested in Palo Alto? Data centers are interested in Palo Alto because we're low-cost, green, have a good climate, and are in close proximity to researchers the tech work force. Next slide, please. 0:43:59: ###. Slide 12 -- Current and Future Data Centers in Palo Alto & Palo Alto Competitiveness I'll now share some impacts of data centers in Palo Alto thus far, as well as look ahead to our competitiveness for any data centers that may wish to locate in Palo Alto. 0:44:11: ###. Slide 13 -- Current & Forecasted Data Center Impacts in Palo Alto Palo Alto has had data centers since the 1990s. And because data centers have stabilized total electricity sales, without recent data center additions, rates would be roughly 5 percent higher than they are today. We've had about 10 MW of recent load growth, and expect another 5-10 MW in the next 5-10 years. There are lots of developers shopping for capacity. So, we've had highly speculative inquiries for much larger facilities. This you can see demonstrated in the graph as the light-colored bars. Next slide, please. 0:44:47: ###. Slide 14 -- Current & Forecasted Data Center Impacts in Palo Alto (cont.) We have a range of forecasted demands. For this slide, we're looking at the solid gray line in the graph. The core point, looking ahead to 2035, is that about half of the City's projected electric growth is forecasted to come from data centers. We've had 10 MW of data center load growth come online, out of about 14 MW total expected. Next slide, please. 0:45:14: ###. Slide 15 -- Palo Alto Context: Data center growth to-date has been modest. Due to departure of industry and efficiency measures, Palo Alto electricity sales declined from 1998 through 2021. Data centers currently account for about 15 percent of electric sales for the utility. Importantly, even with data center growth, Palo Alto is forecasted -- Palo Alto's growth is forecasted to be modest. For context, Palo Alto averages 110 MW. So, a single 25 MW edge case data center would be an addition roughly equivalent to a 20 percent increase in electric sales. Next slide, please. 0:45:55: ###. Slide 16 -- Santa Clara pursued data centers since the 1990's -- generating revenues for City & Utility Conversely, the City of Santa Clara had similar electricity sales as Palo Alto in the 1970s, and is currently 5 times larger than Palo Alto. And it is projected to be 10 times larger. This is due to their data center growth strategy they've implemented since the year 2000. The orange in the graphic, depicting Palo Alto's sales is the same as the forecasted growth shown on the previous slide. This shows how modest our growth -- projected growth is currently. Next slide, please. 0:46:26: ###. Slide 17 -- Data centers making major economic contributions to Santa Clara This slide highlights revenue contributions of data centers in Santa Clara. Of note, each additional megawatt of data center load contributes roughly $56,000 per year to their General Fund, and makes up 13 percent of their city budget. Next slide, please. 0:46:47: ###. Slide 18 -- Future data centers: Why would Palo Alto want more data centers? This slide lists some positives we've identified with integrating data centers. Some are that -- that data centers support innovation. They contribute to a competitive economy. They drive economic growth and revenues to the City. Next slide, please. 0:47:05: ###. Slide 19 -- Considerations & Best Practices for Integrating Data Centers I'll now discuss considerations and best practices for integrating data centers. 0:47:09: ###. Slide 20 -- Land Use Regulations & Considerations On this slide is a map of our land use breakdowns. Currently, data centers are permitted in light industrial and research/office park zoning districts. Those areas you can see in gray on the map. And, you can see, that's focused on the Stanford Research Park and around the Highway 101 Corridor. Next slide, please. 0:47:31: ###. Slide 21 -- City of Palo Alto Utilities Electric System Here's a schematic of an integration of a 50 MW data center, for your reference. And I wanted to highlight that a large, 50 MW data center would interconnect with the 60 kV system. And the data center would pay for associated costs with the new dedicated substation. Next slide, please. 0:47:51: ###. Slide 22 -- Summary of Palo Alto Competitive Niche And here is a summary, for your reference, of our competitive niche in Palo Alto, which lies with data centers that are 50 MW and below. Next slide, please. 0:48:02: ###. Slide 23 -- Best practices for Utilities integration Some best practices for integration include: building a shared understanding of expectations on interconnection timelines, and developing conditional use permit rules to address things that may arise during the integration process. It's also standard practice to carefully structure contracts, so that facilities requiring electric grid expansion are responsible for the associated fees. There's a real opportunity here for data centers to be grid assets. Because they are large, potentially flexible loads. ### Potentially flexible? I have the impression that most data centers would like to run at full power all the time. Next slide, please. 0:48:38: ###. Slide 24 -- Input Sought from UAC I'll close with the specific input staff is seeking from the commission. Next slide, please. 0:48:44: ###. Slide 25 -- Input sought from UAC (cont.) We'd like the commission's thoughts on the community perspective related to data centers. Including your thoughts on making it a priority to attract new data centers. Staff's recommendation to explore conditional use permit rules for future data centers. And community considerations for data center projects of varying scale. I thank you, commissioners, for your attention this evening. We're happy to take questions. 0:49:16: Director Kurotori: Hearing no questions, I think -- OK. 0:49:18: [laughter] 0:49:19: Chair Scharff: Public comment. 0:49:20: Commissioner Phillips: Public comment. 0:49:22: 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 one in-person comment. 0:49:30: Chair Scharff: OK. 0:49:31: Rachel Romero: Herb. 0:49:42: Herb Borock: Good evening, Chair Scharff and members of the commission. Recently, in December and January, you had items before you -- when -- you know, for improving resiliency of the electric system and of upgrading substation connections to higher, lighter load. And, as I pointed out in one of them, well, they seem to be -- one of them was in Meadow Circle, which would have been a site, possibly, for data centers. And was also upgrading Colorado. And there were also ideas of, you know, things such as time-of-use for residential. And it was framed in the sense that it was doing something for the residential customers. But, in fact, all of those changes were really capital costs that were needed for data centers. In other communities, where there have been data centers installed, there have been concerns about who's paying for the additional electric power. And, in some cases, data centers provide their own power. So you don't have that problem. 0:50:58: Then there's cooling. ** are air-cooled. But now, you know, liquid-cooled. Or water-cooled. And where is that supply coming from? Also, for backup generators, it generally tends -- the industry standard is diesel backup, which is a problem. And data centers themselves create noise. And so, there's a sense of -- ah -- in other communities where people have taken the time and trouble to find out the impacts of placing data centers in town. And determining who should pay for the increased cost of the electric system. It seemed to be that there's essentially an effort so subsidize the data centers. And most of what you've seen in the report before you tonight indicates, well, how much more revenue you're going to be getting -- the City's going to be getting -- from the data center being in Palo Alto. Similar to, you know -- I don't know how many now are in Santa Clara -- 58 or 60 data centers. But, in fact, if you actually allocate the costs properly, the data centers' costs are high. And, for example, the fiber optic network, where the backbone would be serving them, most of that -- those fiber strands are not for the fiber project. ### FTTP project? They're for such things as data centers. So, as this goes forward, the public will become more informed of the subject, when it comes to action items, and you may find that the rosy picture being given now may not be exactly what the community believes. And to the extent that it results in higher residential rates, the only thing people have to vote on, down the road, is something else. Which, as we know, are the Cubberley money. And I don't know if one thing will lead them to -- upset about one thing will lead them to vote no on something else. Thank you. 0:53:30: Chair Scharff: Thank you. Any other public speakers? 0:53:33: Rachel Ramero: No additional hands raised. 0:53:35: Chair Scharff: All right. Um. That brings this to the commission. Any comments? Anyone want to start? 0:53:42: Commissioner Phillips: I'll start with a couple questions. One is that one of the attractions of Palo Alto is that it would be potentially "greener." Is that in truth the case? Because if the electricity is going to come across the same grid, and so, incremental load on the grid, as I understand it, is not any greener it it's situated in Palo Alto as somewhere else. Not withstanding our set of contracts. But just in terms of, assuming they're going to build it somewhere in the vicinity. So, that's one question. 0:54:29: Deputy Director [DD] Perkins: All right. Lena Perkins. I'm happy to address that. I just think that we are committed to 100 percent carbon-free electric portfolio. ### Are we also committed to a 100 percent nuclear-free electric portfolio? Even if a data center wants to provide its own nuclear power source? Which is not a commitment that -- um -- anyone that -- locally has. ### Reading between the lines, I'm reading Santa Clara's electric utility, Silicon Valley Power. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ Alameda has similar. So, us and Alameda, we're roughly the same on that. But I think that there really is -- And what is your impact, in terms of additionality. And additional megawatt here versus an additional megawatt elsewhere, that is going to be served by a carbon-free contract. And, when you actually look, we have actually done hourly accounting since 2018. And because of our dispatchable hydro resources, we actually displace carbon in the dirtiest hours of the grid. And so, whether on an average or a marginal basis, we're carbon-free or carbon-negative. In an average hydro year. 0:55:29: Commissioner Phillips: So, you were saying that if a 10 MW 24/7 data center operation with flat load connects to Palo Alto and buys its energy from us, versus Santa Clara, that there will be less carbon emissions in the world next year? 0:55:50: DD Perkins: Yes. 0:55:51: Commissioner Phillips: OK. 0:55:54: Vice Chair Mauter: Can I ask a follow-up there? How much additional load growth can you allow and still have that statement hold? 0:56:03: DD Perkins: I mean, we're going to be -- So, we're always signing new contracts. Right? And so, we have a commitment to an hourly -- an hourly carbon -- an hourly summed across the year carbon neutral commitment. And so, that is cleaner than, I think, any other utility in California. So, you know, unless the Council reverses that policy, that is what we're going to hold to. The question becomes costs for new contracts. And -- um -- you know, that's why -- We work really hard. And I think we have a track record to show for that. 0:56:49: Commissioner Phillips: So, my next question is, Santa Clara has got an amazing amount of data c- -- amazing amount of data center load. I don't know if it's number of data centers or larger data centers. They also have substantially lower residential rates than we do. To what extent is there a causal link between those two? Can we anything about -- And, Director Kurotori, maybe you have an opinion about this, given your experience at Santa Clara -- to what extent is the fact that their residential rates are lower due to the fact that they have more of this type of load? 0:57:28: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I will parrot a lot of the testimony that Director Nico Procos ### Director of Silicon Valley Power as of 07-07-25. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/Home/Components/News/News/45376/6271 gave at the Assembly hearing. Because they have these data centers -- around 60 data centers, that provide about -- and commercial/industrial -- 85 percent, 90 percent of their load. So, a lot of their infrastructure -- their receiving stations, their substations, their sub-transmission -- is funded by those ratepayers. So, that brings an additional benefit to the city, not only in their rates but also those community benefits associated with it. Like Palo Alto, they have a utilities tax. They also have a very robust practice of bringing and adding fees -- associated development-related fees for data centers. As part of this presentation, we were mirroring some of the latest statements. So, a 50 MW data center there, in their development fees, just specific to providing for their types of what I'll call "grid modernization," or doubling of their capacity, was $25 million. And that is in addition to site-specific requirements to serve their facility as well. So, it pencils, for them. And they -- But they do have different land uses than we do here in Palo Alto. 'Cause of the sheer size. Their land use is different. I've mentioned this before. They have a much larger percentage of commercial/industrial area. A lot of those areas are under the flight path of the airport. So, more than half of the city is commercial/industrial. And large -- they have very large firms. They used to have manufacturing. So, they were kind of ready to take that next wave on, of data center development. And then, you know, positioned well, with local generation that they have on-site. 0:59:23: Commissioner Phillips: No, I understand that they have tremendous advantages in the land use, land options. Just -- it's cheaper there. And there's much more potentially available -- 0:59:33: Director Kurotori: In short, it does provide value for their residential customers. There's no doubt about that. 0:59:38: Commissioner Phillips: OK. Thank you. That's my two questions. I'll probably have a comment or two later. 0:59:42: Chair Scharff: Utsav. 0:59:45: Commisisoner Gupta: Thank you for the presentation. I thought there was a lot of helpful background, and really put together a lot of the considerations that we'll have to consider as a community, as we look at the opportunities AND the we should be looking from the 5 [MW] to 50 MW scale. You know, in Palo Alto, we're -- our load is basically 110 MW total. ### Average. So, adding a 100 MW data center sounds like a system shaping type of project. And I do worry about capital costs for that type of project. I'm generally supportive of adding data centers to Palo Alto, provided that we can ensure that it does not raise rates for residents and existing customers, and is not disruptive to our community. And I'll give some examples of disruptions for our community that I'm concerned about. One that our -- member of our public brought forward is noise. Data centers can be noisy. So, that's something we'll want to be careful about. And the other is -- and this is something where we have an opportunity of having both management of our water and our electric utility -- is water use. And both consumption and water pressure issues, 'cause data centers do suck in a lot of water. I've seen a video where there's a household next to an Amazon -- new Amazon data center, and they cannot get water pressure in their sinks. Just -- And their utility doesn't care. But, luckily, in Palo Alto, you know, we're a municipal utility. We do care. We can make sure those situations don't happen. I agree that there can be a tremendous benefit to rate stabilization and bringing down rates in Palo Alto. Especially 'cause it seems like we have already the capacity. And we're planning a substantial Grid Mod project, where we will have additional capacity on top of that. 1:01:57: The Santa Clara point is pretty interesting. You know, they have better rates than we do. They have better rates than PG&E. But they cannot serve every data center. The last I read is, some of their projects are delayed through 2029, just 'cause they have such a tremendous queue. And you see other Bay Area cities now trying to court these kinds of large facilities. Mayor Matt Mahan is now really trying to bring data centers into San Jose. I think we can do the same. Maybe not the same large-scale 100 MW data centers. But like what was presented -- the 5 [MW] to 25 [MW] to 50 MW data centers could be great opportunities. And it sounds like we have at least speculative interest in that. Which I think is terrific. I agree with the differentiators that staff presented in the benefits that we have here in Palo Alto. And, you know, I think, in terms of next steps -- if you're looking for feedback on that -- I'd love to see a more detailed kind of grid feasibility analysis. Like, where COULD these data centers go? What IS the summary of the current interest? We saw that bar chart with some of the interest. But I'd love to hear how exactly we're recording these data centers, and what our plan is. And also, what is -- what are our plans around making sure we have strict cost responsibility for new projects. Making sure contracts have up-front funding, minimum-consumption guarantees, and long- term agreements. And exit fees, just to protect our interests, as these large projects come on. 1:03:41: And I'll caveat all this with one more statement. I read a recent study showing that the compute necessary to get, you know, a certain amount of AI training done is halving every 8 to 12 months at the current rate. And, you know, new technologies might reduce the necessary amount of compute. So, we might actually see the energy demand not be as extreme as what's forecasted here. ### Yes, but see comment at 1:15:27. But I do think there are really great reasons to court these customers, as it stands. So, thank you again for the presentation. 1:04:17: Chair Scharff: Rachel. 1:04:18: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. Thanks for me as well for bringing this topic. I know we've asked for it for a while. So, I also, in general, support Palo Alto being, you know, a modern city, and enabling some of our tech companies to have closer access to some of these data centers. I also have concerns about a couple things that I wanted to ask about. 1:04:45: One, just to delve a little bit further into the power portfolio. We actually haven't seen that in a while. It was brought here in the 2023 IRP. ### 2023 Electric Integrated Resource Plan (73 pages) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/power-content-labels/2023-cpau-irp-report-final.pdf This document doesn't mention "nuclear," even to disavow it. But we haven't seen a lot of contracts. And we did hear about how competitive the bidding was for new solar-plus-storage. So, one of my concerns is just, if we need to go out and buy higher volumes of power, to get, you know, the green power that we want, and especially since we rely so much on hydro -- And, like, this year it's not raining. And I know we have a lot of storage from prior years, but just thinking about years where the hydro adjuster might come in. Can you talk a little bit about the power portfolio if we are forced to buy higher volumes than like our status quo, how that might affect prices? I don't know if we have any futurists out there. But thinking through that. And then, in addition to the portfolio, just how the hydro rate adjuster would work for these clients, as -- I guess that would come in, in a low-hydro year. But how would that affect our prices, as we, I guess, we get more exposure to market? 1:06:03: DD Perkins: Yeah. Happy to speak about our portfolio. I think one thing is, you know, as the graph showed, we have not been growing. You know, until we had COVID downturn. 2021, we had some COVID rebound. And then we had data center growth on top of that. And so -- But our contracts that we signed, some of them are expiring anyway. So, we are in the market anyway. And so -- And one thing is, it's actually very hard. We're competing with -- beyond the Santa Clara's of the world, apparently we're competing with PG&E, looking to replace ALL of Diablo Canyon right now, because that has to turn off in 2029 and 2030. So, you know, there ARE some economies of scale out there. We have existing relationships. We're extremely high-credit. So we have some competitive advantages. So, I don't know. We can come back to you with further details on how this would impact supply rates. But, you know, in general, we're growing without data centers. Right? They're projected to be about 50 percent of our growth. You know. And in our market, our contracts are expiring anyway. So, we are in the market. And about half of the costs are on the distribution system. Right? Half of the costs that go to ratepayers. And, you know, I think that -- So, well, it is a very competitive market out there. And now we have tariffs. And we have many delays, and a lot of competition. I think the Governor is focused on cutting "green tape." And so, hopefully, we'll see some relief there. Also, I know the legislature is really considering extending Diablo Canyon, which will also take a lot of pressure off the California market, as well as the expanded day-ahead market, where we're looking to purchase -- you know, it should stabilize electricity overall. So, I'll take -- What you're requesting takes more thorough analysis. But I don't think that this would necessarily be a huge game changer. 1:08:11: Commissioner Croft: OK. Do we as a City just have a view on what the future prices of these power purchase agreements will be? Like, are they ticking up as a certain percent that we can talk about? 1:08:23: DD Perkins: Yeah. I mean, currently, we're seeing basically a price premium of about $15 per MWh for a long-term renewable contract, versus what you can sell it for right now. And so, that's kind of this upward price pressure for long- term contracts. And it's from Diablo Canyon. It's from many of the -- Many of the other utilities are behind their RPS goals. So, they have not procured renewables. And so, they're facing penalties and reputational damage. So, there's kind of -- there's a lag right now. And then, the tariffs are huge. Um. Yeah. 1:09:03: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, you know, we are heavily in the market. We actually procure -- We're with Northern California Power Agency. They recently went out with another RFP looking for solar and storage. So, we're always in the market for new renewables and new contracts. As you know, the renewable portfolio standard is going up in the next several years. 52 percent [by the] end of 2027. And 62 percent by 2030. So, yes, we're in the market to do that. We are well positioned with NCPA to do it as a consortium, and, you know, while we provided information on Santa Clara at the behest of the commission, we -- they're our partner on many of these projects. So, we're able to leverage there - - their need as well -- to get some better pricing. So, I think -- We don't want to speculate too much on something that's a very competitive product right now. But, yes, we are definitely in the market. And Palo Alto has a track record of meeting those community expectations, to meet those renewable goals. 1:10:06: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I guess I just -- I just worry about future rates. Because there's so much in the air about data centers just causing demand to go up. Um. OK. So, I have another question about rates. Which is, do our current rate structures fairly compensate us for -- I mean, would they fit within our existing rate structures? Or do we need to develop new rate structures for these types of customers? 1:10:37: DD Perkins: I mean, our current rate structures are based on the COSA for electric. If we had something, you know, in the 25 MW scale, we could think of -- or potentially around there -- we could think of a new rate structure that -- Or additional, like, capacity reservations, to make sure that the load that we're building out for actually shows up. Or, take-or-pay contracts. And so, that's -- You know, when we have that kind of financial exposure, we could think of different constructs. But -- I'll leave it there. 1:11:15: Commissioner Croft: OK. But, I guess, owner -- I didn't go back and look at our rates, but I -- they -- they would accommodate a customer like that in the large -- OK. And then, lastly, I did have -- I just wanted to ask about water. I'm not really sure -- I don't understand how the water is used, what happens to the water after it's used. Can you just talk a little bit about that? Like, what -- Do they have an obligation to have it be sanitized and return it to ground water? Like, what happens to the water? 1:11:47: Director Kurotori: So, there's an interesting relationship with data centers and energy and water. So, you use more water, you use less energy. You use more energy, you need less water. ### I suppose that this means that if you consume more water (e.g., by evaporating it), you need less energy to cool the data center, but if you consume less water (e.g., by recirculating it), you need more energy to cool the data center. So, I see Vice Chair Mauter nodding an approval. So, a lot of data centers that are in the area, they do not wish to use potable water as part of their own customer base, and their own corporate goals. So, we see a lot of recirculating systems, where they use potable, and they recirculate it, so there's not a huge amount of discharge and -- that you would see normally from like a cooling tower. To the extent that recycled water is available, then, yes, data centers would like to use recycled water. So, as you may recall, we have a wastewater treatment plant with many members. We -- it's treated to tertiary levels. Some of the levels that Santa Clara has for its customers, the -- similar levels that we use for geothermal plants that NCPA has. That tertiary water is used for the Lodi Energy Center, that NCPA is also a member of. So, that is that standard. And so, if customers did want to come to Palo Alto, there's locations where recycled water would be available. ### Maybe a map showing these locations would be helpful. Years ago, the City gave up on expanding a "purple pipes" program for distributing recycled water because it didn't seem to work financially. But I suppose that data centers were not considered at that time. 1:13:07: Commissioner Croft: Great. That's -- That's helpful to me. So, I guess my input would be that I would seek out if we were to consider data centers. My preference would be to stay on the smaller side, so that we didn't have like massive projects. I'd rather have more of the smaller. I think in the written report, it sounded like we were more aimed toward smaller. And then in this slide deck, it looks like we're more open to larger. But I'd say, just based on what I read and what I understand to date, I guess my personal preference would be to go for multiple smaller data centers that fit within our existing kind of customer class. I would want to make sure that they use non-potable water. ### That is, Commissioner Croft would want data centers not to use potable water for evaporative cooling. I'm less clear about why it wouldn't be OK to use potable water, as long as it was recirculating. I would not want them to be taking our beautiful Hetch Hetchy water. And I hope they're not, in the Bay Area, or in that service area, using it for that use. ### Not all Bay Area cities have access to Hetch Hetchy water for anything. Anyhow, that's beyond Palo Alto's control. Right? And then, my other inputs are just, I don't know if there's any issues around contamination. I'm certainly concerned about noise. Any kind of contamination. Chemical contamination. And then, also, just concerned about -- this might be a non-topic but -- night-sky light. Just being concerned about not creating a lot of new, industrialized companies in the area. So, having rules about those things would be my preference. 1:14:36: Chair Scharff: Anyone else? Go ahead. 1:14:39: Commissioner Metz: Well, first of all, thank you for the presentation. And I did see Dr. Perkins' presentation from July, which happened to come up in a review on the same topic. I think my main thought is that the issue is not data competitiveness, but -- data center competitiveness, but whether these are benefit -- what is beneficial, and why, for the CPAU, and for the City of Palo Alto. And I sort of had a concern that some of the presentation was kind of promotional, more than analytical. That it talked a lot about revenue. It didn't talk too much about cost. So, I think, as we go forward, we need to address that. 1:15:27: Also, the -- just the comment that Commissioner Gupta made about increased efficiency. That kind of discussion has been going on for about almost 300 years. You know. Jevons' Paradox. ### 2014: "Rebound, Backfire, and the Jevons Paradox" https://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/jevons-paradox.html You know, when steam engines were initially developed to pump water out of coal mines, it was thought that, wow, now we won't need to use coal hardly any more, because it will be so efficient. Well, it kind of boomeranged. It worked the other way around. It doesn't always have to, but often does. So, I don't think we can count on reduced computing power anytime soon. ### In this video interview, NVIDIA's CEO, Jensen Huang, says (37:16) that NVIDIA chips today are 10,000 times more energy efficient than NVIDIA's chips were in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ARBJQn6QkM That's very impressive. Still, the worldwide demand for energy for AI data centers continues to grow. 1:16:07: But I did want to address the stated goal in the packet, which is, "... discuss general guiding principles for the integration of new data centers ..." ### Staff report, page 1. And I just want to suggest 4 kind of "what" principles and 4 "how" principles. The "what" principles -- which --- one which has already been stated -- is, not increase the cost of electricity to existing ratepayers. Um. I think there's a risk -- And we talked a lot about distribution system costs. And substations and so on. But I think if CPAU and all the other California load-serving entities ALL need to deliver more electricity -- due to electrification, due to data centers -- there will be more competition for -- increase the cost of generation and transmission. Which has NOT been addressed in here. And I think it's really important that we do that. So, in addition to whatever happens to our distribution costs. 1:17:03: I think another risk is that if CPAU makes a long-term investment and pays for it out of current revenue, that, you know, instantly raises rates, at least short-term. Alternatively, if we borrow to pay for a long-term investment, and load disappears, we have a stranded asset and a debt. So, I think it's really important to address. And you have talked about that somewhat, in terms of take-or-pay contracts. Though I would say that different sort of rate structures do not address this problem. Having a demand charge does not address a stranded asset problem. So, I think the second thing is not harm existing retail, commercial, or industrial businesses. I think that's an important thing. I do agree with the main point, that we want to, you know, be on the forefront of the frontier of the future, and so on. But not at the expense of everybody else. 1:17:58: I think the third thing is, not impair our ability to deliver electricity, or the reliability and resilience of the electricity supply. And I think increasing our, you know, delivery of electricity -- by numbers like 20, 30, even 50 percent, really -- is what one of these charts shows over the next 10 years, creates some risk of impairing resilience. 1:18:23: And I think, fourth, not impair our ability to deliver renewable electricity, and not increase the cost to do so. I think the risk is, if data centers want to locate here, to capture our carbon neutrality, we'll have to increase renewable energy purchases, which -- to meet our increased kilowatt-hour purchases. Right? Even if our percent RPS -- renewable target that we have stays the same, the number of kilowatt-hours goes up. So we have to find those, and in an era where the federal incentives have been removed, and everybody else is trying to buy the same energy. I think it's sort of obvious that there's a high risk that the cost of that energy goes up. 1:19:07: Also, I think, there's an issue around really what we mean by carbon neutrality. When we say we have, you know, negative, you know, carbon at certain hours, I think most people would think that means we're taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. We're not. So, I think we need to be a little careful about what we say we're doing. 1:19:30: I'd also like to suggest, four "how" principles, I think, number 1, most important, move beyond the CPAU distribution system analysis. I think we need to consider the entire process -- generation, transmission, distribution. And we also need to consider the whole ecosystem, at least within the state of California, where everybody else is perhaps trying to do the same thing. Everybody's going to face this challenge. We need to be thinking about it in a holistic way. 1:19:57: The second "how" is, conduct in-depth analyses. I have seen some academic literature on this, where people are starting to build up models for analyzing this kind of problem. I don't see that here. I think we really need to do it. Also, probably need to do it working -- You folks mentioned NCPA, CEC, Cal ISO -- all those, the obvious organizations -- to get up to speed on the academic literature. Work with those groups. Look at the models that have been used. I'd be happy to point to a few folks I've worked with that are doing it. 1:20:32: I think the third thing -- and you were kind of getting at this, but I'd like to make it more broad. Which is, applying a hedging principle to analyses, rates, and buy-ins. Which means, the duration of a payment has to match the duration of a commitment. We can't be going out -- And I think where this applies is, I would say, anything that's, say, more than 5 percent of our load is a big number. And a loss of a load of that scale would be a huge problem for us. So, you know, you can argue whether it's 5 percent or 7 percent, but it's -- you know, it's definitely not much below that. 1:21:12: And then, the fourth thing is, you know, how to prioritize -- The question was how to prioritize recruitment of data centers. I think the basic idea would be to set a threshold size -- which I'm suggesting 5 percent, maybe it's a little smaller - - um -- and -- in terms of, you know, peak kilowatt-hours, annual kilowatt-hours, peak kilowatts, annual kilowatts, ### I'm not sure why Commissioner Metz chose units of kWh rather than MWh and kW rather than MW. other factors we can agree on. And then, do all of the above -- what I've just described. And I think that would be clear what we want to promote and what we don't want to promote, just by doing the math. ### Is this, in effect, saying that the City shouldn't consider what the data center should DO, just what its electric load would be? 1:21:45: So, anyway, thank you very much for the presentation. 1:21:51: Commissioner Phillips: So, I'm kind of struggling a little bit with what we can go, beyond pointers to staff. I mean -- So, there's a question of data centers good or data centers bad. I mean, I think -- the sense I get is, up to, say, 25 [MW], 50 MW, it's probably good. And by "good," meaning something that could reduce residential rates. Which is top-of-mind for me. I mean, everything else is -- is -- interesting, but it's -- to me, it's all second. And is this a way, where we have discussions that -- at previous meetings -- to potentially ameliorate what is being built into our long-term plans, which are 6 percent electricity rises next year and the year after, and I think 8 percent from then on. I haven't seen many things that have the potential to dampen those rate rises. This is one of the few things that I think COULD. So, other than just kind of giving general pointers, which I personally don't think would be of much use, the question is, do we need to do something -- you know, at the Council level. I mean, some of the recommendations you have here are -- And people have talked about things like noise and dark skies. That's not in our purview. ### Historically, Council did ask UAC to consider how streetlights affected dark skies (because no other governmental entity seemed to have a better handle on it). But I think undarkening skies is not inherent to the functioning of data centers. ### Noise, however, IS generally acknowledged to be inherent to the functioning of data centers. ### Perhaps 20 years ago, PAIX proposed adding a data center near the Colorado Substation, but the neighborhood protested because of the anticipated noise, so it didn't happen. I mean, there are regulations about noise and dark skies that are, you know, being and have been adopted, and are going from the Council, and go through different committees -- commissions. You know, required setbacks, architectural standards, etc. We have nothing to say about that. Again, there's other commissions, that that's in their purview. Do we want something -- a message to Council -- that says, hey, this is an opportunity such that we should get together the zoning restrictions on where they could -- you know, where they could be located? You know, we -- it's not [up to] us to have an opinion on that, because it's based on things that are beyond the purview of this commission. You know, the question is, to me, is this enough of an opportunity to lower residential rates -- or, you know, moderate the raise in residential rates -- that, you know, we should recommend something to Council that says, hey, there should be an active initiative here. Let's -- you know, let's talk to PTC, you know. ### I'm unclear about this potential suggestion. Is it that UAC should talk to PTC? There's not much precedent for that. Is it that Council should ask PTC to weigh in? And let's try to make this a little more streamlined than it probably current[ly] is. I don't know how streamlined it is. I guess, you know, that's part of it. 1:24:32: The second part is -- and I think, you know, Herb Borock brought it up, other people have mentioned -- data centers are getting bad press right now, so there's kind of a generic -- you know, when I look at what comes across, you know, my interest groups on data centers, it's, you know, anecdotes, like the person who, you know, didn't have the water. They're using so much electricity. Or it's this giant, noisy thing. So, there needs to be -- if we DO this -- if we go big on it, or we try to attract in a way that, you know, goes beyond just saying, here's a phone number, call us if you want to build a data center -- you know, I think we need to get in front and address the public perception as well. Because the public perception is, oh, that [1)] we don't want data centers and 2) they increase rates. So, why do we want to subsidize, you know, billionaires? Which is not a popular topic among many people probably in Palo Alto at the moment. 1:25:27: So, I guess my question -- both to staff and to my fellow commission members -- is, you know, beyond just kind of giving, you know, direction, is this something we want to potentially go bigger on? Or not? 1:25:42: Chair Scharff: Well, I think -- a couple things I have to say. I agree with Bob. I think the public perception -- it's interesting how much -- how wrong the press is, at least in our town, given how data centers work. ### Is this in reference to any particular press entity or article? And I think getting that message out is probably useful if we do that. I'm a little unclear as to what stage you would be in. Like, I think we've heard mostly positive, in terms of let's go forth and see if we can get data centers. And I agree with Commissioner Phillips that, you know, MY interest is lowering and stabilizing residential rates, so we don't get the 6-8 percent every year. And, I mean, there's a whole bunch of reasons to do that. We want to electrify. We want people to move away from gas. You know. If electricity becomes really expensive, it's less comfortable to that, shall we say. So, all of that, I think, is green. I totally buy the whole notion of, if data centers come here, we are displacing carbon off the grid, as opposed to go to Santa Clara or somewhere else. So, I think we can feel good about that. Ah. I haven't seen anything that says, you know, that we shouldn't do this. Um. I think everyone agrees, you know, that 25 -- I do think that if somebody came and said to you, we want to put a 50 MW in here, the question is, how much money are you going to pay us? You know. Wh- --How are you going to subsidize the City, basically? What are you putting up? You know. That kind of stuff. And I think I got that out of your presentation, that you're well aware -- and that's what Santa Clara does. I mean, those were some eye-popping numbers. I'm sure with our budget deficit, that I sort of heard about, another $25 million would be a real positive. So, I thought there was a lot of that kind of stuff. 1:27:26: I did have some in-the-weeds questions. When we were in Sacramento, it was fairly clear to me that every legislator said, we are going to extend Diablo Canyon. The question was, WHEN are they going to extend Diablo Canyon. And I heard everything from, well, we probably will do it last-minute, you know. Or, we may do it in the next couple years. And I guess the question -- If it's baked into the market right now, that people are paying higher, because -- Will the market prices suddenly fall, then, when they do it? Like, '28 comes, and people have purchased all this high-priced power, and Diablo Canyon is going to stay on there, so, you know, suddenly, there's all this stuff we can buy. So, I don't know what you thought about that. What you thought the curve will look like. Assuming it gets done later in the year. It's like '28. You know. '27, '29. 1:28:16: DD Perkins: Yeah. And, you know, Director Kurotori was there with us as well. But, Senator -- State Senator Petrie-Norris ### Cottie Petrie-Norris is an Assembly Member, and Chair of the Utilities & Energy Committee. https://www.assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers/73 is interested in running a number of good studies in the legislature this year, which is -- it's an odd place, 'cause the legislature is not full of analysts, necessarily. It's not a regulatory body. But, you know, to identify if Diablo Canyon is the cheapest form of carbon-free, and to see if it's needed for reliability. And so, that's going to take probably a year. And so, then, for them to act on that information. You know, I'd be surprised if it were to happen within 18 months. And you're right that anything we find now is locked in, and we will not -- you know, if there are savings later, and they act in '28 or '29, we will be locked into higher prices. It is priced into the market now. And PG&E has been directed to try to fill that hole in their portfolio. So, they're outpricing us on everything. 1:29:14: Chair Scharff: So, what I'm hearing, though, is, we're interested in going ahead and looking at data centers. So, what is staff's take on that? Is it that you're actively out there looking to bring in data centers? Or, are people approaching us, and you're, like, yeah, let's go forward with a 10 MW, 'cause you've approached us? Is it -- Are we out there actively seeking, or are we -- And then, the second part of my question on that is, if we get someone who's interested in building a data center -- and they, you know, do all the -- pay stuff -- when we secure the load, doesn't it take at least 18 months, or whatever, from now -- or 2 years from now? So, that gets closer to when, hopefully, they reauthorize Diablo Canyon, so the price -- I could see the timing working out really well for us, as the prices drop, we secure the data centers. 1:30:08: DD Perkins: Director Kurotori, do you want to speak to the CUP, ### PUC? as the proactive -- 1:30:14: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, let me just talk a little bit about -- So, one of your questions, you know, on, you know, are we actively seeking out a data center. So, you know, we are an electric utility. Based on the services to the community and the customers. So, yes, we are approached. To the extent that they do want to come to Palo Alto -- There is a timing constraint on their side as well. They have to purchase the property. They have to look at financing and funding. There's a construction side on their end as well. And we're very aware -- Frankly, I'm very aware of what those economics and timing looks like. We also have the benefit of a new second transmission line ### A FOURTH transmission line, coming in on a second transmission CORRIDOR. coming in here. Not only can it provide us reliability but some additional capacity as well, that comes with it, because it's a separate corridor. ### Actually, capacity is more related to the number of transmission lines, not the number of transmission line corridors. Right? I think the value and benefit of that in coming sooner is because it's on an existing PG&E transmission system. So, the line is there. They're going to re-conductor. That is different from other areas, where they're building new 230 kV lines, going through Alameda County and coming down to Santa Clara County, or coming from Metcalf Energy Center and running through San Jose. Those take a longer construction period, by its very nature, 'cause we have an existing line. So, that said, we have a probably -- or, are in a unique space, and able to address customers that are interested in coming here. And, frankly, we have the playbook. So, we understand what that needs. And we understand that they -- And THEY understand that they're going to be willing to pay their fair share -- not MORE than their fair share, but their fair share -- to connect. So, when I was watching the $25 million, 450 MW, that is to ensure that, on the electric utility side, those funds are coming into the utility. That's the costs and calculations in Santa Clara, in terms of the infrastructure. We would make our own cost estimate and system impact study, to make sure that those funds and capital costs to fund those expansion projects are coming in early, not coming in over time. Right? So, that's an additional projection. Other areas, they also require data centers to procure their own renewable credits to maybe green -- to green their -- the services provided. They don't have to do that here. That's the value and benefit that we can bring as well. So, there's a lot of opportunities, you know, here as well. As Commissioner Gupta mentioned, you know, there is a queue in Santa Clara, because of their very expansive growth. And what we've seen in other areas of the country is, there's the primary market. And as, you know, Virginia and Loudoun County reaches a certain capacity, it kind of goes out to the neighboring communities. Silicon Valley, in this Bay Area, is a primary. And then there's secondary markets throughout the country. So, if you look at -- We are in contact with -- you know, City of Burbank who has an electric utility. They're in one of those secondary markets as well, and we have contacts throughout the state. So, just going back to -- We do have that ability to take in whatever customer wants to talk to us. You know. And then, go through the necessary steps. Some customers, we have capacity right now. The smaller ones that we were talking about. 'Cause data centers come in all sizes. They're not dedicated large boxes. They could be a part of a corporate campus, where they need to have low-latency. They need to be close to their data. They are running, you know, maybe some mobility solutions that we often see here in Palo Alto. We're ready to connect those types of customers. 1:34:04: **: (unamplified) Yeah. 1:34:08: Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you again for your presentation and the helpful questions. And I follow commissioners -- they captured many of my initial questions and points that I wanted to make. I do think that, you know, it's worth reiterating the need to build projections about, like, what low-growth would look like. How that sequences with ** of NCPA contracts. Like, we actually have some real visibility into that. And so, do we not exercise I think is something that would be really valuable, in a follow-up agenda item, so that we understand, you know, what is the baseline impact on customer rates going to be, REGARDLESS of whether we see large load growth? How much large load growth do we expect to see natively, because of electrification of vehicles and homes? And then, as we layer kind of on top of that, what are the marginal costs of these contracts likely to be? Right? I think, without that information, it's really hard to have this discussion at all. 1:35:16: I think that it's, you know, also a little bit difficult to have this conversation in the absence of a discussion about water resources. And, frankly, the capacity of our non-potable system to provide cooling water. IF we're looking for data centers to use that non-potable system. I mean, clearly, we're anticipating rate reductions because you're better using your fixed capital infrastructure, and, you know, there's a capacity of commodity cost. Right? That's true on the power side. That's also true on the water side. I'm imagining we have a vastly underused non-potable water system. Although I don't think we've ever seen data on that as a commission. ### UAC's Item 4 for 09-04-19 was "Discussion of Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer." Here are the minutes. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2019/09-04-19-meeting/09-04-2019-uac-final-minutes.pdf ### Here's the staff report (149 pages) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2019/09-04-19-meeting/item-4_recycled-water.pdf ### The 12 -03-23 12-Month Rolling Calendar listed "Recycled Water Purple Pipe" as a "To be Scheduled" item. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2023/12-dec-2023/12-06-2023-packet-v2.pdf Who are the users? To what extent is there -- like, I just -- I know actually nothing about Palo Alto's non-potable use system. So, better data on that, and how we allocate fixed and marginal costs there I think is really important. I think it's also valuable to think about that, of course, in terms of upgrades that are expected at the wastewater utility. You know, that non-potable tertiary treatment is going to need a lot of upgrade pretty soon, just to comply with nitrogen discharge limits. So, it's worth thinking about that as another mechanism, or lever, for rate reductions on the water side. But we need to be really clear about both communicating that as a resource and also doing the equivalent and very requisite analysis on utilization factors and siting. 1:36:57: I think that it's valuable -- in -- there's lots of valuable discussion about flat loads from data centers. You know, it's definitely -- SOME data centers have very flat loads. And other data centers really don't have really flat loads. So, I think it is actually -- I don't have a great understanding of load SHAPES, as a function of load size. And it would be helpful to get that data, so that as you're doing that kind of step zero -- which is, what are your forecasts -- that we have some sense of load shape. I think it's also really useful, you know, to think about -- um -- whether flat is what we want. In fact, I think we might want a non-steady-state load. ### Good point. We just don't want them to consume power between 4 and 9 pm. Right? ### What data centers would want to commit to this? And to the extend that we can prioritize interconnection, if there is a queue, we should ABSOLUTELY be prioritizing internet connection ### interconnection? on a set of flexible load. Or, at least, willingness to share the load during, you know, emergency events. So, building that into -- like, you know, it's hard to build that into a COSA, necessarily, or develop a new rate. because we do need to be fair to all customers. But certainly there are other levers we have, that are not just rate-based levers, to help reduce costs for everybody. And flexible load operation of data centers is ABSOLUTELY one of the mechanisms that PG&E is considering in how they are queuing customers for new interconnections. And I think it would be worth us building that in as well. Obviously, our resource portfolio looks different [from] PG&E's, and so we need to think about that as part of our projection. But, absolutely, this lever of interconnection queue, I think, is an important one. 1:39:03: I guess I want to say one other thing about an interconnection queue. I definitely think that we have an existing set of customers here that need to stay competitive. And staying competitive may -- I mean commercial -- commercial entities, or -- any -- I'm not even going to specify what kind of customers. Right? But we have customers here today that need to stay competitive. And we want to keep Palo Alto businesses and commercial entities competitive. I don't know the extent to which prioritizing interconnections for existing customers is legally allowed. But ensuring that, you know, we are helping existing customers to service low growth, with -- you know, associated with reasonably-sized data centers -- like, that seems incredibly important. Above necessarily servicing like some new entity that's coming in. 1:05:04: As you said, the low latency component is valuable to our businesses. And I just want to make sure that there's some discussion about interconnection queues, should one arise. ### Should one what arise? 1:40:19: Chair Scharff: Anybody else? Chris hasn't spoken. Let's go with Chris. 1:40:23: Commissioner Tucher: Well, I also wasn't here. So, it's kind of shameful -- shameless to do this. I apologize for being late. I told several of you I would be. ### Did anyone consider taking Item 3 (the satisfaction survey) before Item 2 (data centers)? And I want to approach this pretty carefully, having not seen the presentation. But the package that I read -- I come at this, Alan, as you know -- and I put it in email today -- with a concern that I don't understand what kind of company -- what kind of customer -- wants to put what kind of data center in Palo Alto. We're the heart of Silicon Valley. But that doesn't mean people want to put their data center in Palo Alto. We have cheap energy, compared to Redwood City and other PG&E places, for residential. But that doesn't mean we're cheap compared with putting it in Oregon or Texas, where it's -- I don't know -- 5, 6, 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. So, I have been yearning to hear from staff, what do we know from our customers? Do we talk to our customers about this? How many customers do we even have? So -- question, point blank -- how many data center customers with 10 MW or more do we have today? Roughly? 5? 50? 1:41:42: DD Perkins: Yeah. We have one about 10 MW. 1:41:44: Commissioner Tucher: We have one in the 10 MW plus area. The one that's well-publicized, of course, is Tesla. And, so in the package -- in the staff report -- there's references to having, you know, made best practices with, you know, getting customer funding and all of that. But -- um -- I couldn't help but wonder, are we just talking about an N of one? One customer that we have best practices with? Or are there dozens of them? And the answer, I think, is one. So -- I mean, I come at this from a more corporate, for-profit background. But, you know, we have used a load projection chart -- For example, when we did the BESS ### Battery Energy Storage System Trolley -- the 50 MW deal back in the summer, ### See this coverage of the 07-09-25 UAC meeting, item 4. https://citizenportal.ai/articles/6510821/utilities-advisory-commission-backs-palo-altos-share-of-50-mw-trolley-battery-project Who is Citizen Portal anyway? Their About page makes it sound lofty. https://citizenportal.ai/about-us a chart went around. It was really a fundamental important chart in the whole analysis and the briefing material. I think it might have even made the newspaper. But it showed our load projections through 2045. And I have to kind of eyeball this, but roughly in 2023 -- so, 2 years ago -- our load from data centers was effectively zero. And suddenly, over a 2 or 3 year period -- I'm looking at the chart, but I can't really show it to you -- I think you know it -- ### Figure 1 of the 07-06-25 staff report for the Trolley item shows projected load, in units of GWh per year.. (I don't know the URL. Here's the agenda.) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17717 In a 2 or 3 year period, data center load goes from almost zero to about 160 -- I'm eyeballing it -- 160 MW. ### 160 GWh per year. Our overall load is around -- you know, around 1,000 KWh a year. ### 1,000 GWh per year And, it's like it goes to 200 [GWh per year]. How did it get there? What's it comprised of? Can I double-click on that bar and understand how many customers are in there? The funny thing is, though, that from 2025, 2035, 2045, that orange bar stays roughly at 160-180 MW. ### GWh per year. It doesn't grow. So, it's not like this is some dynamic forecast projection that we have. And I just -- I'd love to understand what our marketing -- our customer relations, our customer, you know, data gathering process in this category looks like. Because, again, my question, coming in, is -- I know we have lots of tech companies as customers. But I don't understand why they'd put a big data center here. Now, Alan, you made a couple of allusions -- and earlier I picked up on -- like mobility. So, Tesla, of course, is, you know, automated driving and that sort of data. You said there's some examples where the R&D teams need low latency. They need on-premise ### premises data centers. I don't understand this very well. But my question to you is, how do we understand the specific customer requirements in this category? Light off. 1:44;43: DD Perkins: You know, I think your questions are well-taken. And, as Director Kurotori and COO Crowley mentioned, you know, we've seen a number of inquiries. I will also say that the chart you're referring to, of load growth, that is KNOWN data centers. ### The chart (if it is the one cited above) says it's "New Data Centers." So, well, maybe it's really Known New Data Centers." And we're pretty conservative. And we are working -- um -- yeah -- We're working the CEC. and actually advising them, since a single developer will shop all the utilities across the state. ### Would it be fair to say that developers like this don't care much about the latency between the data center and other things? And so, helping the CEC to scope their statewide projections, to make sure those are not overstated. Um. And, you know, with respect to why data centers -- why a big data center here, I just would say that we are not in the game when it comes to big data centers. The average size of a new data center in the U.S. is 500 MW. So, even Santa Clara is not in that game. And so, these are little, by new data center standards. And they're really -- they're here because they need that low latency. They're right next to end users. They're right next to researchers. ### How will these data centers connect with these end users and researchers to achieve low latency? Quantitatively, what kind of latency are they looking for? Some kinds of municipal FTTP networks are able to specify typical latencies of 2 ms or less. https://business.epb.com/internet/business-broadband-labels/ The latencies of dark fiber connections could be even less. So, they need to be right there. They need to rapidly iterate. And they also may have IP concerns. ### Are data centers concerned about the policies of FTTP service providers like AT&T regarding whether user data can be surveilled? https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying So, they may want to host their own data centers, rather than going to a hyperscaler that's a different company. 1:46:05: Director Kurotori: So, the other way they think about it -- and we use the data center term just as a standard protocol, but it's also lab space. Right? So, they may be -- 1:46:14: Commisisoner Tucher: Lacking in space? 1:46:15: Director Kurotori: Lab space. So, they may be looking with their staff -- is, doing things, trial-and-error, and having a close -- Because we are this research area. It's Stanford Research Park. Right? So, that is true to fact. So, that's the customer classes that we're trying to see. And that's, you know, where Palo Alto has its niche. I mean, Palo Alto has, like, PAIX right next to us. ### These days, it's called Equinix. Literally a block away. Which is, you know, one of the major starts of the internet. And there are a lot of customers that want to be in this space. And our unique position, next to Stanford, in the Bay Area, where a lot of the brain trust is, that's where they see it. You're absolutely right. We're not going to be hosting 500 MW data centers here in Palo Alto. You know, that doesn't fit our community, our land use. You know, those large data centers are actually colocating next to large power facilities, or building their own. Throughout the United States. So, I want to get us back to what, you know, Palo Alto can do to be that -- electric utility can do to, you know, provide that power to their customers and community. I mean, it ties back to the economic vibrancy that Council has made for one of their goals. We are very keen to make sure those are community benefits. ### Good point. Throughout most of the discussion of this item, staff seemed to be saying that all it wants from data centers is lower residential electric rates. But here, Director Kurotori suggests that the City may also want "vibrancy" -- We highlighted some of those, you know, in terms of revenue generation that goes to the General Fund. You know, taking a page from, you know, our neighboring POU. ### Publicly-owned utility. And affordability is top-on-mind. So, you know, while these are very highlighted type of presentations, there's a lot of work that went in the background to say, you know, if these facilities -- if these high-tech corporations weren't here, you know, what would that do directly on to rates? And that's just for their energy use. Right? We're just looking at the energy use. We're not looking at the headcount. Right? And, you know, the brain trust that's here. Generating more value to Silicon Valley in general, but Palo Alto specifically. So, point's very well taken. I think what staff is -- here -- has tried to show the balance. We want to just show this commission what the values and benefits could be. Using a case study of a local -- another local POU. But we are looking also at what the interconnection looks like. You know, PG&E's coming at -- I think it's Rule 30. ### 07-24-25: "CPUC Streamlines Electric Grid Connections for High-Energy Users Like Data Centers and EV Chargers" https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-streamlines-electric-grid-connections-for-high-energy-users-like-data-centers-and-ev-chargers ### Details: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M574/K341/574341982.PDF It's been brought to the CPUC in terms of, you know, their interconnection. What does that mean for us? What do those rate look like? So, we are -- We do have our finger on the pulse. And tracking that. And we can do that internally with staff. But, you know, we're also leveraging kind of our partnerships around. 1:49:10: You know, hard to summarize data centers in general. But, you know, we are well positioned for what Palo Alto does best, in serving the community, as it's currently kind of laid out. We have areas where data centers can come. We highlighted that in the presentation. The commercial/industrial areas. We see that around potentially Highway 101. Potentially in Stanford Research Park. You know, tied to these high-tech corporate headquarters. And engineering headquarters. So -- And trying to show and communicate that -- what we've seen in our numbers, and what we've seen in our rates is, it provides a benefit. Not saying that newer ones -- It is cautionary. You look in -- across the United States, in areas -- in Virginia and others where there are more challenges. You know. So, it's not a -- it's not an easy discussion. And [I] appreciate, you know, the cautionary look by this commission. But also, you know, we're also trying to show that there are balances having, you know, business -- and to continuing supporting business. And we've served larger loads in the past. 1:50:20: Commissioner Tucher: My last question on this tonight would be, do we have a list of 30-50 of our current commercial customers -- even a CRM ### Customer Relationship Management system -- where, on this topic, we're going out and doing market research to ask them -- um -- whether they -- you know, whether they are good prospects for data centers here? Are we -- Have we talked to 30-50 of our customers -- Or 30-50 people who AREN'T in Palo Alto yet but might want to come? I just don't have any sense for whether there's a sales person or a marketing team that's actively doing that, and focused on this question. Is there? 1:51:05: Director Kurotori: Well, there's a couple ways. As we mentioned earlier, that, you know, if -- you know, customers know who we are, as a utility. And they will -- can reach out to our engineering team. We also have key account reps that work with our larger customers, so we have a single point of contact for them. That's not uncommon in the industry as well. Also, if there was a reach out by a corporation or business, we certainly can take that. We also send our staff to business and other events. You know. As you know, Palo Alto also is -- has an Economic Development Manager. ### Alex Andrade. (Google site:paloalto.gov 'alex andrade' " just 1 hit.) His Form 700 says he was hired on 12-15-26 as an Assistant to the City Manager. We communicate with our City Manager's office. So, I mean, we are fielding those requests coming in. So it's not like we're not actively engaged. And, you know, that's part of the conversation here, is, on our data center competitiveness, is there other things that you would like to recommend, as part of the UAC, in terms of, you know, thoughts or suggestions to City Council as an advisory group? ### And if UAC did have any advice for Council, would UAC get a chance to VOTE on it? 1:52:09: Commissioner Tucher: My number-one piece of advise would be to start some kind of initiative like that. Have a person whos job it is over some period of time to go about and canvass the market. Starting with our own -- Well, starting with our one customer -- I'm not sure Tesla is the super-talkative customer. But, anyway, starting with our one customer. And then our 5-10-50 in-Palo Alto prospects, and even go outside Palo Alto to understand customer demand. That would be my number-one recommendation. 1:53:45: **: (unamplified) 1:52:47: Chair Scharff: Pardon? Did you want to speak? 1:52:47: Commissioner Metz: Yes. Um. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. I agree with that comment, that we need to know what the market demand is. I would -- just to level-set -- 25 MW data center may be small, in the hyper space, but for a utility with 100ish MW average load, it's big. It's not incremental load that you just plug in to somewhere and everybody's happy. So, I think there's a technical thing to address. But I think the main thing is, we've seen -- as Director Kurotori talked about -- the promise and the potential benefits, and the revenue, and so on. And we've seen case studies of where this is going forward in a positive way. But I think for us to do our job, in terms of advising the City Council, we need to see more quantitative analysis of the benefits and costs. Like, as Vice Chair Mauter talked about, you know, what's the load going forward, with and without. And especially -- in my mind, especially, what are the costs? Because I can see a lot of reasons why costs would be much higher -- that marginal costs would be much higher than our average cost. And I can't see many reasons why they would be lower. So, I'm concerned that that would have a negative impact on all our customers. Anyway, that would be great to be wrong about. And -- But then, we need to do -- look through the telescope and do the analysis. 1:54:18: DD Perkins: And I just did want to address both Vice Chair Mauter's comment, in that, you know, we HAVE done an analysis on, you know, a number of our larger data centers. We have seen them running very flat, high utilization of their fixed assets. And so, you know, I think what the report and the presentation outlined is that there's a number of protective measures that we can take contractually. Whether it be take-or-pay contracts. Whether it be, you know, they bring their own renewable contract. The developer's fee for any grid expansions. And so, that the risks are largely mitigatable. Whether it's supply side, distribution system, and elsewhere. And that we actually -- because we're kind of 3 years -- 3-4 years into this data center surge, we have those best practices now. 1:55:05: **: Can I -- Oh, sorry 1:55:05: Chair Scharff: No, go ahead. 1:55:07:: Commissioner Metz: With that said, then, I think we should be able to see what the costs are. I mean, particularly starting with the generation side, which has not been addressed here at all. And to me, that -- we talked about, at many meetings, how much the cost of trans -- you know, transformers and copper and everything else has gone up tremendously. So, you know, I don't know how we can have that kind of conversation on the one hand, and on the other hand say that somehow this energy is going to be cheaper going forward. It doesn't make sense. You know, I hope that's true. But I doubt it. And it just doesn't ring true to me. But anyway, the whole point is just doing a detailed analysis to figure out what -- what the -- how the math works. 1:55:53: Director Kurotori: So, [I] understand -- understand the desire on that kind of what-if scenario. I think -- flatly, is -- we'd have to wait for the customers to know where they're going to be. You know. It's very site-specific. You know. We can pull up information on what it costs to build a substation -- dedicated substation. We know the timelines of these. I think what I'm hearing from the group is that the need to know, and to ensure that -- bottom line, that the community is protected, that the data center is coming in and can be competitive here. Or, you know, our -- ** some foundational types of needs. The details on how we go through that -- you know, I don't see the utility going through that large based analysis, you know, until we have an understanding of, you know, outreach to our customers and what they're looking for. Right? Because the landscape does change. Costs do change. 1:57:01: Commissioner Metz: Right. 1:57:01: Director Kurotori: Where they're coming in. When they want to connect. You know. What values they're bringing. Where -- There's a myriad of those pieces. AND, when we get to that point, you know, we are -- we have information that we can share with those customers on how we can get them connected. So, I definitely hear the perspective in ensuring that. And absolutely, you know, eyes wide open into how we work with our customers, especially large loads. But, really, what's -- we need to have that dialog with them first, to have that agreement. For example, that large customer that has been mentioned -- um -- we worked through that process very quickly. It was evaluating benefit for the customer, so they can grow in the period of time they wanted to. We had protections in place for the utility and the City. It's been a net positive. So, it's not like we don't have a track record. We also know what those agreements look like at other agencies. And we can run very similar analyses. So, I think that's where we're at, is that -- you know, when a customer comes, we're ready. 1:58:08: Commissioner Gupta: If I could just add -- 1:58:08: Commissioner Metz: We have a chart on page 14 ### I don't see any charts in the packet document for 02-04-26. that shows a load growth -- a peak load growth from 2025 to 2035. It's about -- I don't know -- 60 [MW] or 70 MW. Maybe as high as 80 [MW] or plus MW. And it seems like we need to know what those megawatt-hours under there cost. Right? ### So, is it MW or MWh or MWh per year? I don't see how we can go forward without knowing that. How can we write a contract with a customer without knowing what we're going to pay for the energy? And I don't see how we can make a recommendation to City Council -- this is a good idea or a bad idea -- without having at least a SWAG at, you know, both the demand side and the supply side, both technically and economically. 1:59:00: DD Perkins: Yeah. I mean, I will just say that these -- We don't have control of whether AI consumes electricity. And the fact that they are going -- these data centers are going in California in OTHER locations is driving up our transmission rates. ### Hypothetically, if the wires a particular data center used to get its power were physically different from the wires Palo Alto uses to get its power, would that still drive up Palo Alto's transmission rates? But we're not getting the revenue. So, there is a cost to NOT getting a pro-rata share of that load. And I will also say that when it comes to energy supply, you're really looking at the delta that you're paying for price certainty. Because when it comes to a month prior, a day prior, an hour prior, you're selling it into the market. So that you're not committed to the full -- If you pay $50 per MWh for a contract, your delta and your exposure might be $5, that you paid as a price premium that you paid for that. So, these aren't -- we are not getting take-or-pay contracts, but we could pass a take-or-pay contract to a data center and say, hey, you have a demand minimum -- or a capacity reservation -- that says you pay for 5 years, whether you show up or not. ### What about after 5 years? And then, their incentives are aligned with our incentives. 2:00:16: Commissioner Metz: Right. And that's fine. I'm just trying trying to understand quantitatively what all those numbers are that you just described. 2:00:21: Director Kurotori: Yeah. I d- -- I mean, we're -- Palo Alto is a significant part of the economic vitality of the Bay Area. But we're not a large user. And when we talk about California transmission as a whole, I don't want us to make this a bigger discussion than maybe is warranted. Because there's a lot of folks here who would love to have that conversation. I'm not sure that's probably the best use -- just looking at our local type of communications. ### At some point in the future, perhaps staff might bring an item to UAC about how Cal ISO's transmission charges work in general. How often does the algorithm change? How often do the instantaneous rates change? ### If staff wanted to consider a hypothetical change the City's electric system, could staff ask a Cal ISO computer how the change would affect rates, for a specified historic time interval? (To provide this service, Cal ISO might need a data center. Not an AI data center.) ### For example, once the City gets its 4th transmission line, how will that affect transmission rates? 2:00:47: Chair Scharff: OK. You don't -- I thought you had something to say. 2:00:51: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes, I do, but -- 2:00:52: Chair Scharff: Just say it. 2:00:54: Vice Chair Mauter: Um. You mentioned that sometimes data centers come in with their own contracts. Their own generation contracts. That's an interesting concept. Like, I wasn't familiar with that. ### Hypothetically, should that kind of electricity count towards the City's power content label? But I think that it would be helpful to understand, you know, the degree to which that's a lever that you can tap. I think the point that Commissioner Metz is making more broadly is, like, we have a lot of low-cost base load. We have hydro. Right? ### Hydro is a source, not a load. ### Palo Alto has more hydro in some years than others. ### How much flexibility does Palo Alto have to consume hydro power when we want it, as opposed to at a predetermined constant rate? For example, can we take the power between 4 pm and 9 pm? And the minute you start to spread that low-cost base load against a much larger load, that low-cost base load -- like, there's lots of it to consume. Right? Where I think we all have a hard time like calibrating is, OK -- so, how much -- how important is that low-cost base load in ensuring low rates, relative to the costs that we're paying in transmission in our local distribution system? Etc. And I just think like without some simple model -- like -- that will accept, here's our low-cost base load, and here's the marginal cost -- Like, it -- We just can't say anything. Right? 2:01:58: And I guess the final point I'd say is, like, can you just -- And it makes a lot of sense to me to charge marginal rates for marginal increases. Right? If you are adding huge new loads to a grid, pay the marginal rate. I think, actually, that IS the fair way of doing it. I think what I've heard from actual data center and hyperscaler folks is like they're more than willing to do that. Although I don't know that we have an existing rate structure that allows that. 2:02:27: DD Perkins: No. And that's well taken. And just context-wise, I do think that costs are about half for the distribution system and half for the supply. So, if you think about spreading the cost of that distribution system -- EXISTING distribution system -- and, then, they're paying for whatever additional, they really are -- they're lowering the cost on the ** -- 2:02:47: Vice Chair Mauter: When you say distribution, you mean transmission plus distribution? 2:02:49: DD Perkins: No. I mean, within City. 2:02:51: Vice Chair Mauter: Within City. 2:02:52: DD Perkins: Right. 2:02:52: Vice Chair Mauter: So, frankly, the generation is -- what -- like a quarter, then. OK? So, we -- like, I think we're not calibrated well there to have this discussion. And that's where a simple model would be super helpful. 2:03:05: Commissioner Phillips: I mean, one -- You must have done this kind of modelling to do the estimate of the 5 percent reduction. The rates are 5 percent lower because of the existence of a data center. Just seeing that calculation, you know, might help calibrate us. Because I think what I'm hearing is, people are not -- I mean, to me, it seems fairly obvious that if we could get at least a certain amount of flat load -- or, as Vice Chair Mauter said -- 2:03:33: Chair Scharff: Flat, dispatchable load. 2:03:34: Commissioner Phillips: Even -- 2:03:35: Vice Chair Mauter: Peak load. Commissioner Phillips: Even then. If we could get non-peak load, that's even better. 2:03:38: Chair Scharff: That's what I mean. 2:03:38: Commissionere Phillips: But if we can get pure flat, that's good. If we could get that, that's even better. And I can't see -- I mean, it's hard for me to see the arguments against it, at least, you know, until we get to some level. So -- But maybe seeing that kind of analysis that you did to say the 5 percent reduction due to the data center would suffice. 2:04:00: Chair Scharff: Utsav, you had a quick -- 2:04:01: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. A quick comment, is -- Yeah, I agree with making sure we have a model, and that we mitigating any concerns as data centers come in. But I also think we should -- this is a competitive landscape. And this can be very beneficial for Palo Alto, as long as we can mitigate those concerns. So, I do want to, at least -- Myself and other commissioners, too, do want to make sure we are making ourselves attractive to bringing data centers to Palo Alto. And, supportive of staff -- I am, at least, supportive of staff efforts to make it attractive for them to come in, whatever that ends up looking like. If that's outreach. If that's making clear guidelines, so they know what to expect at certain tiers. You know. 5 MW might be a different guideline versus 25 MW. But I do think -- I am supportive of efforts to go out and market ourselves, and make sure, you know, as a secondary market, we are bringing in data centers to Palo Alto. 2:04:53: Chair Scharff: So, I just wanted to say, I hope this has been helpful. I think the overwhelming message is, mitigate the risks. Find us some data centers. It seems helpful, you know -- So, I don't know what the next step of the utility is. What you're planning on doing with this. Are you going to go out and find data centers? Are you going to come back to us with like a plan to find data centers? Or are you going to Council? Like, what are you guys going to do? 2:05:20: Director Kurotori: So, I mean, you know, part of the research that we had, and we actually put into the presentation, is ensuring that we have some known expectations and attractiveness to come to Palo Alto. And, you know, some of the lessons learned. And what were heard from the commission here is, making sure it kind of matches the feel of the community. Some of the concerns about noise. Some of the concerns about aesthetics. Some of the concerns -- And we have seen some agencies put though conditional use permits. So, there might be some internal discussions we have with other departments, to assure that there's certainty for data centers -- can come in. And then, there's some normal outreach that we can do through our account reps. Right? That work with our large customers. You know, I think, frankly, discussing this, and knowing that we have a capacity, and, you know, that word will get out. There's also just this landscape. Right? As Commissioner Gupta was mentioning, there's a large interest, not only in Santa Clara and San Jose and the rest of the PG&E service territory. Knowing that we have capacity, knowing that, you know, we're having a second transmission line coming here. ### NO. It's a fourth transmission line. We already have three transmission lines. Anyone who doesn't know this will have an incorrect impression about how much capacity is being added. Knowing that we have that. I think one of the challenges that we have in Palo Alto is that we're relatively small. Right? Into that scheme. The land prices are what they are. And we don't have a lot of large parcels -- vacant parcels. We're very successfully economically. So, really, kind of trying to lean into services that we can provide. 2:06:53: We didn't even mention that we have a dark fiber network. ### This is a serious omission. You can't even think about low latency (which some data centers are said to want) without considering how the data center is connected to other things. ### Also not mentioned is the City's FTTP network -- a work in progress. It would be a way to connect a data center to a lot of other things at reasonable prices. Very similar to others. ### How similar is it to what others? I believe staff should bring to UAC an agendized action item that focuses on the dark fiber network. Right? So, we can connect those customers very quickly to PAIX. ### PAIX was acquired by Equinix in 2010. Those are one of the values and benefits that we can bring. To be very nimble. And knowing that, you know, we're making those investments on our side -- for other reasons -- and they can come in Palo Alto and partner and pay their share to upgrade those systems as well, and give those benefits. 2:07:20 Item 3 -- Residential Electric and Water Utility Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Chair Scharff: OK. With that, I think we're on to the next item. Thank you very much. =========================================================================================================== From:David Adams To:Council, City Subject:OSV Permit Program - CC Meeting 2/23 Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 1:29:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable members of the council, An OSV permit program is all well and good but it doesn't address the current issues for residents and may even make them worse: 1. OSVs will move to the the non permit areas i.e. residential areas. 2. It doesn't address the current patchy enforcement. I understand enforcement has been happening in the commercial areas but I'm not so sure about the residential areas. I can point you to a 6 wheeled OSV that has been parked up illegally on Olive Ave for over 6 months without moving and with registration expired in 2021. 3. There is currently a policy not to tow occupied OSVs wherever they are parked. The owners know this so ignore all attempts to be moved. Thank you for your consideration, David Adams This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Atlas Gerritsen To:Council, City Subject:Student Input on Suicide Prevention Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 1:25:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto City Council, We are reaching out to thank you for your action in response to the recent suicide of a Palo Alto High School student. As friends and fellow students, we are incredibly invested and care very deeply about this, and it’s truly encouraging to see it taken seriously. We wholeheartedly support the proposed item to approve a contract to employ guards at four grade crossings— installing guards at the crossings is exactly what we want, and what we’ve been asking for. Thank you so much for listening to the needs and concerns of your community and its youth— we earnestly hope you continue to do so going forward, in the implementation of these measures. These trained guards are an incredibly important first line of defense to de-escalate these suicides by train, and will always be the most effective first response (who will be faster to save a life than any camera surveillance system). We strongly urge the city council to implement this measure as quickly as possible, as it has been proven time and again that existing security measures fall painfully, heartbreakingly short. We also do not believe that these guards are a temporary necessity. These crossings will always be dangerous, and employing guards for just one year is not enough. We understand that the current contract with Orion is likely just one year for flexibility’s sake, and that it will probably be renewed at a later date. But we feel the need to stress that it must indeed be renewed, whether with Orion or not. Sincerely, Atlas Gerritsen, Alexander Deisseroth, Kaavya Dhand-Kalluri, Michelle Fang, Milo Johnson, Charlotte Liu, and An Nguyen on behalf of the Palo Alto Unified student body. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Robert Marinaro To:Margaret Abe-Koga 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; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Palo Alto Oversized Vehicle Issue Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 1:10:40 PM Attachments:oversizedvehiclecountbobspttandphotos21526.zip CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Margaret, Hi, this is Bob Marinaro from the old Mountain View Chamber days back in 2010. I’m writing you to solicit your assistance in trying to solve the Palo Alto Oversized (OSV) issue. It has occurred to me, the City, and many others, that this issue is bigger than any one city jurisdiction and needs to be coordinated on both a local and regional level. Many of us in the community have been voicing our concerns however we have seen little progress to date. Unfortunately, the wheels of government turn very slowly in some jurisdictions much to the chagrin of the tax-paying residents and businesses that are negatively affected. I live in southern Palo Alto, near Mountain View, and drive to Costco frequently and do not want to see what has happened on certain designated streets in Mountian View happen in Palo Alto, which is sounding like could be the case as Palo Alto transitions to Phase 2 of their proposed OSV plan. It would seem to me that the county would have much more options when it comes to designating ’Safe Parking Areas’ for the many recent OSV arrivals to Palo Alto after neighboring cites have implemented outright bans on OSVs and overnight parking. Unfortunately, Palo Alto, being Palo Alto, has different priorities and caused this self- inflicted situation. As one of the many concerned residents of this city and of this county I ask for your assistance. Regards, Bob Marinaro Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Subject: OSV UPDATES Date: February 19, 2026 at 12:40:11 PM PST To: Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>, jspiller@cbnorcal.com, Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>, Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>, Tom Watzka <twatzka@gmail.com>, Chip Wytmar <chip@wytmar.com>, John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>, Dana Wong <danawong1@gmail.com>, farhat_101@yahoo.com, Charmaine Furman <Sheri11@earthlink.net>, Elaine Meyer <meyere@gmail.com>, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>, Jeff Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com>, Phyllis Brown <pbrown@scu.edu>, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>, David Schrom <David@ecomagic.org>, Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>, Don Nielson <nielsonz@pacbell.net>, Boris Foelsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>, Tom Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>, Vipul Vyas <vipul.vyas@gmail.com>, Peter Taskovich <ptaskovich@yahoo.com>, Roger Peterson <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Utsav Gupta <Utsav@utsavgupta.com>, ljwickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Ellen Shay <eswoofwoof@gmail.com>, "Phylis 'The" <pst54@comcast.net>, CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>, Pat Markevitch <patmarkevitch@gmail.com>, Palo Alto Hills <paloaltohillsna@gmail.com>, Jean Wilcox <wilcox757@sbcglobal.net>, Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>, Scott Fullam <fullam@gmail.com>, Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>, Peter Allen <pma94301@comcast.net>, Douglas Moran <dmoran@dougmoran.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Todd Burke <tburkeus@yahoo.com>, cathy@cartmelltam.com, Joe A Villareal <joe.a.villareal@gmail.com>, Srini Sankaran <admin@greendell.org>, Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>, "Lee 'The" <bizthe@comcast.net>, Doria Summa <doriasumma@gmail.com>, John Hofer <cmaboard@googlegroups.com>, Margaret Heath <Maggi650@gmail.com>, wmjmcfall@yahoo.com, Steen Brian <briansteen877@gmail.com>, Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>, Lisa Landers <lisa.landers@gmail.com>, Doug Burns <Dougb164@gmail.com>, Penny Ellson <pennyellson12@gmail.com>, Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>, Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>, Jo Ann Mandinach <Joann@needtoknow.com>, Chuck Karish <chuck.karish@gmail.com> Dear PAN People: Below is an email I'm forwarding from Roger Smith, who is helping to champion code enforcement regarding Oversized Vehicle (OSVs) for Palo Altans living and doing business in the highly impacted areas of North Ventura, East Meadow Circle/Fabian, the Baylands light industrial zone and the Commercial and Industrial Way area in Southeast Palo Alto, etc. Roger is highlighting the fact that The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. Roger's email highlights how to participate. We need to keep the pressure up because... After a spate of towings and ticketing due to residential pressure, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. Bob Marinaro has been following this closely and has been instrumental in keeping pressure on City Hall to abide by their own laws... so I am adding his email to City Council with attachments below Roger's. Thank you for your support of and participation in PAN Becky Sanders ROGER's EMAIL (then scroll down to see Bob's) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:16 PM Subject: CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION ON RVs To: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterxuvel@gmail.com> The Palo Alto City Council will report on the Ad Hoc Committee's Study on the campers on Feb 23rd at the City Hall from 7:20pm to 8:20pm. The Staff will give their report, the Council will then ask questions of the Staff, then open up for public comment, then bring it back to the Council for Decision-Making. This may be the last time we will hear from Council for many months. It is important to make our case during the public comments section. Please show up and present to the Council the latest situation in your neighborhood. You can also participate virtually via (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Thank each of you for your participation. We hope they have listened to us. The staff report will be available this Thursday as a public document. As soon as we get the report, we will email it to each of you. Roger ========== From Bob to Council OSV Ad Hoc Committe and City Council, Please find attached my periodic count of Palo Alto’s Oversized Vehicles (OSVs). In keeping with my desire to keep you and others informed about the latest on our streets I am also including several photos of the situation in the Ash Street area that appears to be impacted by one individual with 10 or more vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. It appears as though the 180-ish OSV count is holding steady. Unfortunately, I have added a new street, Acacia Ave, in the Ventura Neighborhood. This new street addition is the result of one individual being forced to move. As the numbers indicate, this is a musical chairs (OSVs) situation where the vehicles in question are not removed they just move to another location. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the detached trailers are still present. Also, of particular note, is that the OSV count is at 180, however I would estimate that there are 50% more ancillary vehicles associated with these OSVs which take up valuable parking spots particularly in the Transport Street Commercial Area. Out of sight, out of mind, is an unfortunate position. Please make a point to visit these streets often and observe and ‘feel’ what residents and businesses experience on a daily basis. Palo Alto has many good qualities, but I’m sorry to say that prioritizing the RV dwellers over the tax-paying residents and businesses is not one of them. We can do better. We need to do better! Respectfully, Bob Marinaro Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs ########11/2/2025 ################12/3/2025 ########1/14/2026 1/28/2026 2/13/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/3 & 11/11 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 16 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 9 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53 52 51 49 53 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 11 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15 13 10 11 11 8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15 15 17 16 17 9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10 11 10 11 11 10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13 12 2 0 0 11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6 2 4 3 1 12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8 10 5 5 9 14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11 7 8 7 6 15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25 20 19 15 16 16 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 17 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 200 193 188 197 195 180 170 165 168 18 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 19 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 20 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 21 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4 2 1 3 1 22 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 23 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 2 3 24 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 25 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -3 20 18 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 Total:220 211 208 217 215 199 181 178 180 Delta:-9 -3 9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 Days since first count: ########12 20 29 43 60 85 99 115 Months since first count: ########0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 Yellow OSVs on New Street Green Utility Construction Ventura Area RV Inventory_15Feb26 2/23/2026 12:25 PM From:Robert Marinaro To: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; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa Subject:A Day in the Life of the Transport/Commercial/Industrial Area of Palo Alto Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 1:07:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This is upfront and personal to the businesses in this area... A daycare facility on the right From:Dave Mitchell To:Council, City Cc:Darci Teobaldi; Victor Stephenson Subject:Concern About RV Parking on Elwell Ct Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 12:39:48 PM Attachments:Outlook-oqdvcpm4.png Outlook-cqxgj0f1.png Outlook-jr4qmn4f.png Outlook-iptqn4vd.png Outlook-mozbaavl.png Outlook-qix5qjcq.png image125010.png image558983.png image212781.png image622897.png image958192.png image798704.png image212145.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of Palo Alto City Council, I'm writing to once again highlight concerns on the large number of RVs parking in front of our buildings on Elwell Ct for extended periods of time. Not only has this resulted in limiting the available parking for employees, resulting in our having to rent additional parking from Google, but it severely diminishes the look and feel of our offices, such that the Marketing and Sales teams are reluctant to host future customers on site. We have also had negative feedback from potential employees that have refused job offers at least in part because of the issue. There have been dozens of issues resulting from these RVs, including our employee being bitten by dogs living in the RVs (and subsequently requiring rabies shots), RV inhabitants naked on the street, theft of water from our building, improper disposal of excrement and other waste in our trash and on the street, noise pollution from gas powered generators, and suspicious activity that appears to be drug sales. In each of these instances we have contacted police, unusually through the non- emergency hotline. We have also been present and vocal in the multiple city council meetings on the subject, including the recent community meeting at Mitchell Park. The community service officer has visited the area many times and has frequently put notices on the RVs requiring them to relocate. Notwithstanding those notices I personally know of RVs that have been parked on this street continuously since July of 2024. This includes RVs that are being rented (vanlorded) as well as detached RVs, both of which were included in the Initial Measures To Address approved by the city council on Oct 20th. We have been told by officers that although they would like to tow the most egregious of these offenders, there is no space available to tow them to. This lack of enforcement effectively undermines the law itself and leads to a perception of lawlessness and diminished respect for the legal system. Please assist us to create the Palo Alto we all want by enforcing the laws that are on the books. Many Thanks, Dave Mitchell VP Operations and Manufacturing Engineering +1 (215) 932 0932 ​​​​ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended for only the named recipients and may contain confidential communications. Any use, dissemination or copying of this transmission by anyone other than an addressee is prohibited. If you have received the transmission in error, please notify us immediately and delete or destroy all copies (digital and other) of this message and any attachments. From:Gertrude Reagan To:Council, City Subject:ICE Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 12:39:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear council members— Due to the doubling of agents for ICE in a short amount of time, with bonuses, many of us suspect that Proud Boys and other vigilante groups hastened to enroll. Ask the FBI and investigating reporters to find out if this is true, and create a list. These men must be fired! --Gertrude Reagan, resident since 1963, old enough to remember McCarthyism. 967 Moreno Ave., Palo Alto, 94303 650-856-9593 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #2 - Feb. 23 - OSV Report Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 11:08:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Honorable City Council Members: I am concerned that designating certain streets for RV parking may result in a lack of democratization of the solution to the vexing problem of where to allow RVs to park. I proposed we ask all neighborhoods to take in a handful of the 180 or so vehicles in question. It would be temporary as we work toward "0" vehicles parked in front of all homes and businesses. For example, what if Mark Zuckerberg's compound were designated an RV zone? As he owns so much street frontage now, a dozen or so RVs would only be impacting his household. And they don't have to stay all year long. They could move, say in a month, to a new part of Crescent Park. Those of us living and working in modest neighborhoods shouldn't have to beg for parity vis a vis the well to do neighborhoods, but here I am -- begging you to be democratic. If all neighborhoods share equally in bearing the burden, a better solution will be found more quickly. That I can guarantee. More people will be aware and have direct experience of the situation we've been living with for years. Thank you. Sincerely, Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Elaine Sanders To:McDonough, Melissa Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 10:22:31 AM Attachments:image004.png image005.png Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, Can you please tell me if this sign that was posted in front of our business includes motor homes. Are “trailer coaches” considered motor homes? Also, when will the city begin to enforce this? I don’t believe any OSVs have moved since these signs were put up. Were they given a grace period? Thank you. This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Elaine Sanders Assistant to John Mozart Mozart Development Company 1068 E Meadow Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-213-1127 From: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:56 PM To: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> Subject: Upcoming City Council Discussion on Phased Approach to Address Oversized Vehicle Impacts I am reaching out because you have previously engaged in discussions about housing and homelessness in Palo Alto—whether through direct conversations with me, public forums, or other avenues. As you may be aware, at the Palo Alto City Council meeting on Monday February 23, 2026 there will be a study session discussion on the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Committee’s status report at 7:20 pm in Council Chambers. Ahead of the meeting, if you’re interested, you can read the Council Committee Report, which provides an update on recent efforts and proposes some potential next steps. This is an opportunity to hear updates, share perspectives, and help shape next steps on this complex issue. Public comment is encouraged and can be provided: In person at the meeting (Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton) Virtually via Zoom ( https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 In writing by emailing comments to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org prior to the meeting Your voice is valuable in these discussions. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. I hope you will consider participating in this important conversation. Best regards, Melissa Melissa McDonough, MPP Assistant to the City Manager pronouns: she/her 650.329.2533 (desk) | 650.586.1557 (mobile) Melissa.McDonough@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Julio Sanchez To:Council, City Subject:Garden gate Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 8:01:49 AM Attachments:IMG_6876.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi my name is Julio a customer from Palo Alto , ask me for a quote to install this garden gate , "Is this considered a 5 ft fence, or a 4 ft gate with an arbor feature?" This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Bill McLane 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; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:Re: A Day in the Life of East Meadow Circle Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 6:00:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Morning, I am glad to announce that yesterday, I personally witnessed one trailer being towed, and a second one was about to be towed but unfortunately, they were unable to hook it up since there was a person inside. To PAPD and the two dedicated officers - wonderful start. We are all looking forward to getting this problem resolved. To all who are on the Transport/Commercial/Industrial area - I would like to encourage you all to move your vehicles to the side of the street today where the street cleaning will not be done tomorrow. This will help block places for the campers to move to tonight for an overnight stay elsewhere. Tomorrow morning, when the cleaning is done, you can then promptly rearrange your vehicles in such a manner that campers and RVs cannot fit on the street. This would be a great start to helping deter them from hanging out in our neighborhoods any longer. We need to be together in this effort. I plan to have all of my vehicles out in the street to block as much as possible. Thank you, Bill McLane PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport Street Palo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Download full resolution images Available until Mar 22, 2026 On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 12:29 AM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote: The camera doesn’t lie... Download full resolution images Available until Mar 22, 2026 From:Robert Marinaro To: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; Lydia Kou; 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; 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; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot Subject:A Day in the Life of East Meadow Circle Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 12:42:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The camera doesn’t lie... From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Luetgens, Michael Subject:March 6 Deadline for Superior Court appeal of SFO FEIR: only two Council meetings left for full Council to convene Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 4:40:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers Lauing, Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl; City Manager and City Attorney, We want to reiterate our thanks for your leadership regarding the City's appeal of the deeply flawed SFO FEIR at the February 3 San Francisco Board of Supervisors Hearing. It was especially important that the public process worked so that the City's Aircraft Noise "fast track" policy was appropriately followed, and there was no ambiguity that the City Council convened and voted on the action to appeal. We also appreciated that ahead of the BOS hearing, on January 28 the City shared a Status Update. It is fair to say that your decision to appeal was grounded in strong community support for the City to not accept SFO's status quo. Unfortunately, there has been no further comment from the City since the hearing which itself raised new questions and problems, and there are only two Council meetings left before the deadline to now further appeal the Board of Supervisors decision that gave the airport's expansion a pass. We would like to make sure that the choice now before you about appeal in Superior Court is also based on a full Council vote. It is less than ideal that the public is not having an opportunity to weigh in on the trade-offs for your decision about next steps, and that there has been no Council outreach about what happened at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hearing; however, your convening before March 6 is key - 30 days after the CEQA date when the decision was made to deny Palo Alto's appeal, and now the opportunity to appeal in Superior Court. In the absence of City outreach to residents on the status of this issue, we plan to provide some analysis of the trade offs ahead, given the BOS hearing and decision. Assuming that SFO has not changed course or appropriately engaged to address the many concerns with the airport's expansion, your vote on what to do now becomes one of the most critical decisions in the City's history regarding this issue due to the potential risks to Palo Alto from airspace changes to accommodate SFO's expansion. Thank you again for your attention, and we look forward to appropriate outreach to the community on this vital matter. Sky Posse Palo Alto From:Jon Keeling To:Council, City Subject:Teen Mental Health Forum Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:38:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i PA City Council Members: In case you hadn't already heard... I've been trying to organize a "Teen Mental Health Forum" in the area for about a year now. I have been looking for a school or government official to host and help promote it, since it will require a large gymnasium and significant work to get the word out. Otherwise, I'm offering to do all the work myself to finalize a list of presenters (I've already got several top-level mental health professionals ready to give short presentations) and get thousands of people to get together for constructive discussion. Please see below for the petition that I recently started: https://c.org/nf2CKfP5zz Every teen I've discussed this with said they want this to happen and hopeful that it will happen ASAP to help get their voices heard. As you are probably aware, I have been working on teen mental health issues for many years. The suicide by a Paly student a couple weeks ato and all the resulting discussion in the community and among students makes it clear that something like this forum is not only a good idea but quite necessary. I think it would be great if PAUSD could host and help promote this event. It would make you look good and, more importantly, help our students and parents/community feel supported & heard. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you,Jon Keeling Silicon Valley Shotokan Karate www.svkarate.com This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast View this email in your browser. Coming up! (Check the February VOTER for details) FEBRUARY 2026 2/24: Bringing Common Sense to American Politics (Zoom), noon - details below 2/24: Board Meeting, 7pm MARCH 2026 3/9-13: LWVUS Civic Engagement Learning Week 3/24: Board Meeting, 7pm From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA Reminders for upcoming programs Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 5:25:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 3/28: No Kings 3 (fyi) Program & Event Reminder LWV Cupertino-Sunnyvale Upcoming Civic Engagement Committee Event! (NEW SPEAKER ADDED) Immigration, Congress and Common Sense. Can Everyday Americans Move Action Forward in These Times? The National Institute for Civil Discourse will share an insider look at the work of our CommonSense American (CSA) program, where everyday Americans make a tangible difference by bringing common-sense voices to Congress through a bipartisan focus. CSA members are four-for-four in identifying solutions wise enough to attract support across our divisions and then championing them into law. Is that possible now, around Immigration issues? Join NICD staff, Cheryl Graeve, Director of National Programs, Jack Thomas, Director of Congressional Engagement and Public Policy and California CSA Ambassador, Cynthia Irmer, to find out more! WHEN: February 24, 2026 at 12:00 – Noon (PT) REGISTER: Meeting Registration - Zoom https://arizona.zoom.us/meeting/register/_Tc37uQNRzSb63_nI6-8zg ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Cheryl Graeve serves as the Director of National Programs for NICD, and works with communities and partner organizations to foster civil discourse capacity and help bridge political divides through online and in-person NICD training and programs. She’s worked on a national level for the League of Women Voters, the AFL-CIO on youth programs and as a staff member for a Minnesota Member of Congress. Jack Thomas serves as NICD’s Director of Congressional Engagement and Public Policy, working with Congress on CSA policy issues and with NICD’s State Legislative program training state legislators on civil discourse practices and working across partisan differences. He’s worked with the House of Representatives on the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress and holds a Masters in Public Policy from the College of William and Mary. Dr. Cynthia Irmer retired from full-time work and moved with her husband from the Washington, D.C. area to Southern California after many years working in the public and private sectors as lawyer, teacher, advocate, student, peacebuilder and conflict resolver. She has a passion for acknowledging under-represented voices and for comprehending social complexity. She also serves as the CSA volunteer state ambassador for California. Sponsored by the LWV SCC Civic Engagement Committee 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:Samina Sundas To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Human Relations Commission; Van Der Zwaag, Minka Subject:You are cordially invited to an Interfaith Iftar dinner Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 4:42:46 PM Attachments:2026 Iftar Dinner Flyer.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good afternoon all, You are cordially invited to an Interfaith Iftar dinner Here is the link for the registration. Link for registration: https://tinyurl.com/mtk4tran Please feel free to invite the whole world. We need peace in our world and it is possible when we will know each other. Thanks, Samina This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Please join us to share the joy of Ramadan We would like the pleasure of your company for an Iftar dinner What: Interfaith Iftar dinner Time: 4:30 pm to 7:00 When: Sunday March 1st, 2026 Where: St Mark’s Episcopal Church Address: 600 Colorado Ave, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Complimentary gourmet Pakistani dinner will be served About Ramadan: Ramadan is the 9th month of Islamic calendar. The Holy book, the Quran was sent down from heaven as guidance during this month. The day starts with eating suhoor Suh the meal eaten before the sun rises. We break our fast at sunset, pray sunset prayer and eat dinner called Iftar Iftar. To open fast, we pray and have an Iftar meal with family and friends. Eid-Ul Fitr is celebrated after the month of Ramadan There will be a brief program to share why and how Abrahamic religions fast Limited capacity: Please register as soon as possible Link for registration: https://tinyurl.com/mtk4tran Hosted by: St Mark’s Episcopal Church and AMV Foundation This is an ongoing community and peace building campaign of the American Muslim Voice Foundation. Details at: www.amuslimvoice.org Email: saminasundas@gmail.com Phone: 650-387-1994 From:Haskins, Caroline To:Council, City; De Jesus, Amanda Subject:Re: WIRED inquiry, Palantir Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:37:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Amanda, copying you and removing Meghan after getting an auto-reply from her address! On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 13:32, Haskins, Caroline <caroline_haskins@wired.com> wrote: Hi, this is Caroline Haskins, a reporter with WIRED. Hope you're doing well. I'm reaching out because, as you may have seen, Palantir is leaving Denver after having relocated its corporate headquarters there from Palo Alto in 2020. Both Colorado governor Jared Polis and a media representative for the Denver mayor made public comments yesterday stating that they weren't in touch with the company, and that Palantir's move took them by surprise. Today, I'm working on getting some context about what, if any, communication Palantir had with Palo Alto after departing the city back in 2020. If someone from the mayor's office or the Palo Alto government is able to hop on the phone for a few minutes today, I'd really appreciate their time. Thanks, and I hope to hear back soon. Best, Caroline From:Haskins, Caroline To:Council, City; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:WIRED inquiry, Palantir Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:33:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, this is Caroline Haskins, a reporter with WIRED. Hope you're doing well. I'm reaching out because, as you may have seen, Palantir is leaving Denver after having relocated its corporate headquarters there from Palo Alto in 2020. Both Colorado governor Jared Polis and a media representative for the Denver mayor made public comments yesterday stating that they weren't in touch with the company, and that Palantir's move took them by surprise. Today, I'm working on getting some context about what, if any, communication Palantir had with Palo Alto after departing the city back in 2020. If someone from the mayor's office or the Palo Alto government is able to hop on the phone for a few minutes today, I'd really appreciate their time. Thanks, and I hope to hear back soon. Best, Caroline From:Nam, Sooji E To:Council, City Cc:Meghan.Horrigan‑Taylor@paloalto.gov Subject:CBS NEWS BAY AREA INTERVIEW REQUEST Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:50:29 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, My name is Sooji Nam and I am a reporter for CBS News Bay Area. I was wondering if someone from the city would be available for a zoom interview this week? I am working on a story about community members’ push to close Churchill rail, as one measure to help prevent deaths by suicide. Would someone be able to accommodate, please? My cell is 415-791-3599 if that is easier. Thank you, Sooji Nam Reporter KPIX-TV KBCW-TV SAN FRANCISCO O: (415) 765-8601 C: (415) 791-3599 E: Sooji.nam@CBS.com From:TC Rindfleisch To:CPNA Cc:Council, City; Drew Combs; Stone, Greer; Lisa Gauthier; Mark Dinan; Nai Hsueh; Cecilia Taylor; Kaia Eakin; Reckdahl, Keith; Richard Santos; Ruben Abrica Subject:[CPNA] SFC Flow Forecast for the Coming Weeks: 2/17/26 - 2/27/26 Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:14:31 PM Attachments:ETep9lozkavYM7YP.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. Friends, this is just a quick note with the latest California/Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC) prediction for San Francisquito Creek for the coming storms (done 9:37 AM today, 17th -- see below). As before, the plot shows three estimates of flows at the Stanford USGS gauge, relative to the various flood stages downstream: Black Line: formal NOAA forecast (preferred atmospheric physics and hydrology models) Green Line: mean flow prediction among ~30 different atmospheric physics models run on the data Color Bands: Probability estimates for prediction uncertainties: gray, 0 - 5% chance; blue, 5 - 25% chance; light yellow, 25 - 40% chance; and yellow, 40 - 60% chance. As you can see, there are around 6 storm peaks expected over this period, including the storm hitting today (17th). None of these is expected to approach a Pope-Chaucer bridge problem. The storms due next week though have the greatest uncertainties in terms of possible highest extreme flows with probability <5%. The biggest of these possible maxima, around noon on Tuesday the 24th, might reach ~2700 CFS. To put this in perspective, the gauge threshold for flooding at P-C bridge (capacity ~5,500 CFS) is shown with the red horizontal line labeled 12.5 ft water surface elevation, corresponding to about 5,200 CFS at the USGS gauge. This means that at this time the probability of flooding from SFC appears to be very low. As always, we emphasize that future weather is hard to predict, the more so the further into the future we go. These forecasts may change and we need to stay alert. Regards, Tom R From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Cc:Furman, Sheri Subject:PAN"s Concerns Regarding Flock Safety Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 3:16:57 PM Attachments:PAN_Flock Letter_20260217.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. February 17, 2026 Dear Honorable City Council Members, At the most recent PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) meeting (2/5/26), we discussed the use of Flock cameras within our city limits. As a result of the discussion, a vote was taken and the results are as follows: Virtually everyone supported terminating Flock Safety (the current carrier). The majority felt that the City should not proceed with any replacement at this time. A minority felt the City should look for a replacement if it could guarantee that the data collected would not become available to outside entities such as the federal government. We are concerned that sharing data with far-flung agencies is overreach and not necessary. (See the list at the end of this email of the agencies that PAPD has signed data sharing agreements with as of January 2026. While the police claim there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, PAPD are not yet sharing any real data supporting that Flock is a valuable crime fighting tool. Most of us encourage the City to evaluate the data to determine how effective Flock is in crime solving before considering replacing it with a similar product. Additionally, even though Flock doesn’t work directly with federal agencies, there is nothing to stop Flock from handing over data via federal subpoena. The safety of people in Palo Alto is a priority for PAN, but at the same time the City needs to ensure us that our data is not handed over to an agency that may use it in a way that is not aligned with our values. Sincerely, Sheri Furman & Becky Sanders Co-Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods Paneighborhoods.org As of January 2026, the Police Department has signed data sharing agreements with the following agencies: Menlo Park Police Department, Mountain View Police Department, East Palo Alto Police Department, Los Altos Police Department, Stanford Department of Public Police Department, Gilroy Police Department, Burlingame Police Department, California Department of Corrections, Redwood City Police Department, Milpitas Police Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Campbell Police Department, Town of Los Gatos, San Jose Police Department, San Bruno Police Department, Colma Police Department, Hillsborough Police Department, Foster City Police Department, San Mateo Police Department, Fremont Police Department, Hayward Police Department, San Leandro Police Department, Union City Police Department, Newark Police Department, Pleasant Hill Police Department, Pleasanton Police Department, Dublin Police Department (as serviced by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office), Livermore Police Department, Tracy Police Department, Stockton Police Department, Walnut Creek Police Department, Benicia Police Department, Clayton Police Department, Danville Police Department, Albany Police Department, El Cerrito Police Department, San Pablo Police Department, Oakley Police Department, Marin County Sheriff's Office, Mill Valley Police Department, Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Monterey County District Attorney's Office, Oakland Police Department, Sacramento District Attorney's Office, Turlock Police Department, Vacaville Police Department, Vallejo Police Department, Lincoln Police Department, Salinas Police Department, Watsonville Police Department, Capitola Police Department, Carmel Police Department, Seaside Police Department, Dixon Police Department, West Sacramento Police Department, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, Elk Grove Police Department, Citrus Heights Police Department, Roseville Police Department, Fairfield Police Department, Suisun City Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, Santa Rosa Police Department, Central Marin Police Department, Folsom Police Department, the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Napa County Sheriff's Office, the Solano County Sheriff's Office, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office, the West Valley Mission College District Campus Police, and the California Highway Patrol. Source: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information- Portal/Automated-License-Plate-Recognition-ALPR February 17, 2026 Dear Honorable City Council Members, At the most recent PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) meeting (2/5/26), we discussed the use of Flock cameras within our city limits. As a result of the discussion, a vote was taken and the results are as follows: • Virtually everyone supported terminating Flock Safety (the current carrier). • The majority felt that the City should not proceed with any replacement at this time. • A minority felt the City should look for a replacement if it could guarantee that the data collected would not become available to outside entities such as the federal government. We are concerned that sharing data with far-flung agencies is overreach and not necessary. (See the list at the end of this email of the agencies that PAPD has signed data sharing agreements with as of January 2026.) • While the police claim there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, PAPD are not yet sharing any real data supporting that Flock is a valuable crime fighting tool. Most of us encourage the City to evaluate the data to determine how effective Flock is in crime solving before considering replacing it with a similar product. Additionally, even though Flock doesn’t work directly with federal agencies, there is nothing to stop Flock from handing over data via federal subpoena. The safety of people in Palo Alto is a priority for PAN, but at the same time the City needs to ensure us that our data is not handed over to an agency that may use it in a way that is not aligned with our values. Sincerely, Sheri Furman & Becky Sanders Co-Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods Paneighborhoods.org As of January 2026, the Police Department has signed data sharing agreements with the following agencies: Menlo Park Police Department, Mountain View Police Department, East Palo Alto Police Department, Los Altos Police Department, Stanford Department of Public Safety, Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, Belmont Police Department, Concord Police Department, Gilroy Police Department, Burlingame Police Department, California Department of Corrections, Redwood City Police Department, Milpitas Police Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Campbell Police Department, Town of Los Gatos, San Jose Police Department, San Bruno Police Department, Colma Police Department, Hillsborough Police Department, Foster City Police Department, San Mateo Police Department, Fremont Police Department, Hayward Police Department, San Leandro Police Department, Union City Police Department, Newark Police Department, Pleasant Hill Police Department, Pleasanton Police Department, Dublin Police Department (as serviced by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office), Livermore Police Department, Tracy Police Department, Stockton Police Department, Walnut Creek Police Department, Benicia Police Department, Clayton Police Department, Danville Police Department, Albany Police Department, El Cerrito Police Department, San Pablo Police Department, Oakley Police Department, Marin County Sheriff's Office, Mill Valley Police Department, Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Monterey County District Attorney's Office, Oakland Police Department, Sacramento District Attorney's Office, Turlock Police Department, Vacaville Police Department, Vallejo Police Department, Lincoln Police Department, Salinas Police Department, Watsonville Police Department, Capitola Police Department, Carmel Police Department, Seaside Police Department, Dixon Police Department, West Sacramento Police Department, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, Elk Grove Police Department, Citrus Heights Police Department, Roseville Police Department, Fairfield Police Department, Suisun City Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, Santa Rosa Police Department, Central Marin Police Department, Folsom Police Department, the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Napa County Sheriff's Office, the Solano County Sheriff's Office, the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office, the West Valley Mission College District Campus Police, and the California Highway Patrol. Source: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information- Portal/Automated-License-Plate-Recognition-ALPR From:Social Media Attorney Mark Fiedelholtz To:Council, City Subject:New social media laws expose you to personal liaiblity. Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 1:12:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. COURTS HOLD YOU PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR IGNORING NEW SUPREME COURT SOCIAL MEDIA TRAINING AND POLICY STANDARDS How Courts Define Deliberate Indifference Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Cost-Effective Solution     "Mark, I appreciate your 33- years of digital media law expertise and years as a professional trainer. I hope the "Social Media Attorney Mark Fiedelholtz developed two outstanding social media policies for the City of we never end up in court defending ourselves over an online “incident”, but if we do I’m very happy to have the policies and training you guided us on. Your specialized training and policies fill in the gaps created by the new Supreme Court and lower court social media laws.. All public sector agencies need your help." Attorney Greg Gibson City of Lawton, OK and one for elected officials. His expertise in social media law is unparalleled, and his training provided us with the tools to avoid costly legal mistakes. The City Council responded very positively to his work. Every organization needs this protection and clarity in today’s fast  changing digital world."  Jayne McGee, HR Specialist, City of Sylacauga, AL   Learn More About This Expert Online Course   Learn More About Expert Policy Program National References Eye-Opening Podcast Questions? Call 954-748-7698 www.avoidsocialmediamistakes.com    Our Company | Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Policy   Effective Communications Inc. | 13506 Summerport Village Pkwy, | Windermere, FL 34786 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Play With a Purpose: Animal Enrichment at the JMZ Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:02:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Play With a Purpose: Animal Enrichment at the JMZ February 17, 2026  Dear Friends, Animals thrive with plenty of opportunities to play, just as our children do. The JMZ’s AZA accreditation affirms its commitment to high-quality animal care, including environmental enrichment that supports animals’ physical, mental, and social wellbeing through play. This month, JMZ Zoo Director, Sean Ramsdell, gives us an in-depth look into what environmental enrichment means, why it’s a cornerstone of animal welfare, and how the JMZ continues to thoughtfully evolve its enrichment program to meet the needs of every animal in its care. Your contributions to the Friends play an important role in supporting exceptional animal care, including specialized diets, veterinary care, habitat maintenance, and enrichment activities that keep animals healthy and engaged. If a love for animals brings you to the JMZ, I hope you will consider making a donation so we can continue providing customized care for the animals who call the JMZ home. On your next visit, watch and see how our animals and your children are growing through play. Warmly, Lauren Angelo How the JMZ Creates Enriching Environments For Animals An Interview With JMZ Zoo Director Sean Ramsdell As you observe animals in their habitats at the JMZ, you might spot objects that look a lot like toys. And that’s no coincidence. Just as play helps our children to learn, grow, and regulate their emotions, play is essential to the wellbeing of animals, too. “Environmental enrichment can be any type of activity, device, or accommodation added to an animal’s environment that is designed to enhance their wellbeing by providing physical, social, and mental stimuli,” Sean explains. Meerkats search for Valentine treats and a macaw inspects their Valentine heart. Enrichment, though, is not one-size-fits all. JMZ zookeepers tailor enrichment for each species and for each individual animal. “At the species level, we look at diet and foraging methods, activity patterns, sensory strengths, social structure, and their habitat. Then, we can further customize enrichment for individuals based on a variety of factors including age, personality, health needs, social dynamics, and learning history,” Sean shares. “Our lemurs, for example, receive enrichment designed to help them explore their habitat. They are geriatric and based on recommendations from our veterinary staff, keeping them mobile and active will help them stay strong as they age. We're doing physical therapy with Val, but he can do a lot on his own just by using all of his muscles and joints to search, climb, and traverse the high and low places of his home.” A lemur reaches up high for their food while a raccoon plays in their new hammock. The work doesn’t stop when JMZ zookeepers offer new enrichment items to animals. They observe animals for welfare-centered outcomes. “Welfare refers to an animal’s collective physical, mental, and emotional states over a period of time and is measured on a continuum from good to poor. To know enrichment is working, we have to track what happens when we give it. We can see if there was an increase in species-appropriate behaviors, healthy engagement, and higher activity. We also pay attention to what isn’t working.” Running an effective enrichment program comes with a unique set of challenges. “It takes a lot of research to put together lists of approved enrichment items and to put the items together in a way that makes them enriching enough for the animals. Then, there are the expected challenges, budget and procurement, habitat limitations, safety and suitability,” Sean says. “This is an area where the Friends’ support has historically been meaningful---helping fund materials, improvements, and special projects that can expand our program.” Edward the tortise enjoys a salad made with his individual dietary needs in mind. Looking ahead, Sean and the zookeeping team are focused on strengthening the program even further by expanding the planning and tracking of new enrichment activities, formulating enrichment plans for all species, developing staff skills, and continuing to find new ways to improve the lives of the animals in their care. If you would like to support the exceptional care of the JMZ’s animals, including the environmental enrichment program, we invite you to contribute today. DONATE TODAY   Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice